Re: filmscanners: High End Scanner Prices

[RogerMillerPhoto@aol.com]

4000 times 2.25 divided by 72 is 125 inches, or 3175 milimeters.  (I can do 
math, too!)  You could create some really impressive web content for the guy 
who gets around to inventing a really big monitor.

Anyway, a 3200 ppi scanner should be fine for many medium format shooters.  
They could always pay to have a high resolution scan made if they don't need 
too many of them and they are never in a hurry.  However, my philosphy is that, 
"Too many pixels are never enough and I need 'em right now."

I'm surprised that no one mentioned that fact that medium format shooters 
usually crop much more severely than 35 mm shooters, so you might want twice as 
much resolution in your scanner as everyone here has matematically calculated.  
Then, of course, you should factor in 6x7, the "ideal" format.

For many medium format scanner users, 3200 ppi won't require a compromise, but 
they need to do their own math and make that decision.  For the rest of us, we 
have to pay a little more for 4000 ppi.

In a message dated Wed, 17 Oct 2001  4:31:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Victor 
Landweber <victor@landweber.com> writes:

> To the list:
> 
> Do the math for a 2¼" × 2¼" image scanned with the Minolta MF scanner at 
> 360 dpi:
> 
> (3600 dpi × 2¼) ÷ 360 = 20" × 20".
> 
> At 240 dpi, you get:
> 
> (3600 dpi × 2¼) ÷ 240 = 30" × 30"
> 
> With either the Nikon or Polaroid medium-format scanners you get at 360 dpi:
> 
> (4000 dpi × 2¼) ÷ 360 = 25" × 25"
> 
> and at 240 dpi, you get:
> 
> (4000 dpi × 2¼) ÷ 240 = 37.5" × 37.5"
> 
> I would like to see a comprehensive critical user review of the Minolta 
> 3600/4800 dpi MF scanner. Anyone willing?
> 
> -- Victor Landweber
> 
> 
> >In any case I will wait for more user reviews and discussions about the
> >Monolta, then I will decide, but I think of it as a 3200dpi scanner for MF
> >and 4800 only for 35mm - 3200 is fine for 6x6 or 6x7, it gives a 50" x 50"
> >file at 360dpi - that is already huge, don´t need 4800 - the files would be
> >hard to handle.
> >For 35mm the higher resolution is more interesting, as 35mm is a small neg
> >size for big prints.