On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:41:32 -0400 Austin Franklin
(darkroom@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> 4000 certainly isn't bad, but I scan at 5080, and find that most films
> 160ASA and under don't resolve to grain at 5080. It REALLY depends on
> what
> film, exposure and development.
>
> If 4000 were the limit, then what about 10,000 SPI drum scanners?
I agree! What people take for grain usually isn't, though it may once have
been :)
Someone once sent me samples of a slide scanned at 4000, 8000 and
12000ppi. Unfortunately I seem to have lost them, but there was a clear
difference and increase in acutance between 8000 and 12000ppi - although
this was mostly grain, sharper grain did mean a sharper image in absolute
terms. The difference between 4000 and 8000 was even greater.
If I had to assign arbitrary scores for resolution, then I'd say
2700=~80%, 4000=~90%, 8000=~95%, 12000=~97%
For pragmatic people, not made of money, intending output at a reasonable
maximum size via an inherently sharp process such as Epson inkjet, the
minor losses of 4,000ppi seem a good quality standard, and even 2,700 is
far from dishonourable. Minor cock ups in the camera or film
choice/processing will instantly cause far greater losses than either.
My personal quality stance is that without special care, most 35mm images
neither deserve nor well sustain enlargement beyond 15x10 by any route
unless unusually large viewing distances are involved, and I most often
print at A4. I like 'sharp' but don't much like grain in most images, and
4,000ppi doesn't leave me with any grief for whatever it misses - but nor
did 2,700. However I value more the smoother tonality of 4000ppi than the
minor increase in sharpness of fine detail. I guess I'm trying to say that
what is 'enough' is individual, depends on what you want to do with it,
and how absolutist your dedication to every last lppm.
Regards
Tony Sleep
- Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
info & comparisons
