Re: filmscanners: BWP seeks scanner

[Raphael Bustin <rafeb@channel1.com>]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote:

> You don't directly mention the size of the prints you wish to produce,
> although you allude with the 870 printer something like 8 x 12" or
> smaller.  Unlike silver images, which simply have larger grain making up
> the components of the image, without any true resolution loss, in the
> digital realm, since even 4000 dpi scanners do not capture all that is
> on a 35mm frame, you end up with softness and loss of detail if you go
> too large.


While I know that this topic has been debated 
many times, on many forums, I've come to the 
conclusion that perhaps that very high estimate 
of film resolution may be optimistic.

I've never seen a drum scan of any of my slides 
or negatives, but I've seen scans from a large 
variety of CCD scanners, including the SprintScan 
4000 and now my 8000 ED -- both rated at 4000 dpi.

In a nutshell -- I don't really see a significant 
increase in sharpness going from 2700 dpi to 4000 
dpi.  And this is with slow (ISO 100) negative 
films like Reala, Supra, etc, using decent optics 
and with the camera on a tripod.

What I do see from these hi-res scanners is lower 
noise, and better tonality.  With the 8000, I'm 
enjoying the extra dynamic range. But I'm not really 
seeing a major increase in sharpness or apparent 
resolution.

Maybe one needs to go with fancy German lenses to 
see that.  Or maybe it's the case that the scanner's 
internal optical system is the limiting factor.

Whatever the reason -- my point is that this claim 
of "greater than 4000 dpi" for the effective 
resolution of film is rather optimistic.  I'm curious 
what it would take to actually observe and realize 
such a high resolution.



rafe b.