Rafe wrote:
>I'm not entirely sure what I mean. <g>
>Let's see. "Sharpness," I think, correlates to
>visible, distinguishable detail which is not
>noise.
<clip>
>I'm not considering flatbed scans here because there's
>another whole generation of optics involved, over which
>I have no control.
OK, at least we're on the same page. :-) I used the flatbed example because
it was there that I had a wide variety of cameras and optics to work from,
although translating from prints is not the same thing as scaning from film.
Point being--as some others have made--the camera's optics are probably more
important than the scanner's, regarding sharpness. The film is also a
factor--I've seen hideous scanned results from Agfa film from the same
camera that produced good results with Kodacolor, but others love it! And
that's not to say all Kodacolor is the same--I've also seen nearly
unresolvable contrast problems with Kodak Gold, from a Kodak camera with
flash in a dark environment. We're probably not dealing with Rocket Science,
here, but the "fuels" are definitely different. So are the "rocket
platforms," and in the end so is the "launch pad." :-)
Enough with the stupid metaphors! Best regards--LRA
----------------
Original msg:
>Lynn Allen wrote:
> >Rafe wrote:
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >Rafe, when you say "Sharpness," are you refering to screen-image
>sharpness
> >or hard-copy (print) sharpness? The only reason I mention it is that
>there
> >seems to be subtle differences in what a photographer calls sharpness and
> >how the word is used in the digital imaging world.
>
>I'm not entirely sure what I mean. <g>
>Let's see. "Sharpness," I think, correlates to
>visible, distinguishable detail which is not
>noise.
>
>
> >FWIW, I've seen incredible differences in image sharpness (i.e.
> >screen-image) with 1200dpi flatbed scans--depending on processing,
> >print-paper and format size, but *mostly* from the very obvious
>differences
> >in camera lenses--Canons and Minoltas unquestionably outperform Kodaks!
>;-)
>
>I'm not considering flatbed scans here because there's
>another whole generation of optics involved, over which
>I have no control.
>
><snip>
>
> >I think you were probably saying this same thing thing in a different
>way,
> >but wanted to be sure we're "all on the same page" before I go on...and
>on,
> >since the original topic was about "Grain." I've seen what a "decent"
> >2700ppi Acer Scanwit can/will do to/with an under-exposed frame on
>"pushed"
> >Kodacolor: the grain is remarkable, to say the least. Not particularly
> >lovable, but remarkable. :-)
>
>
>I was struck by the difference in grain between a Wal-Mart
>grade 200 ISO film (Kodak Gold Max 200) and a semi-pro film
>like Reala or Supra, at 100 ISO. And this was apparent even
>with a cheap, long-obsolete 1950 dpi scanner (Microtek 35t+).
>
>Switching to Reala/RG 100/Supra has had at least as
>significant effect on the quality of my images as did the
>upgrade in film scanner from the Microtek to the SprintScan Plus.
>
>The two film scanners I've owned since then both offered higher
>resolution (first 2700, now 4000 dpi) but I know that the
>sharpness of my prints did not increase in proportion to those
>numbers.
>
>Like I say, there could be any number of limiting factors,
>either in my photo equipment or technique.
>
>
>rafe b.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
