It sounds like a fantastic solution to many problems - too bad it's so
expensive.
Thanks for the info, though!
Maris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phipps" <JPhipps@asf.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 10:40 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a
limiting factor in sharpness?
| Hi Rob! Again, I envy your opportunities for combining excitement and
| photography!
| I have another idea to help with camera shake. I was talking to an aerial
| photographer at a trade show recently and he told me about a gyroscopic
| tripod. Their website is .
|
| He swears by it. Says it will stabilize small, medium and large format
| cameras (three different models). He uses the medium format model with his
| 35 mm camera. He shoots from a Cessna 172 by opening the window at 1000 feet
| and about 80 knots. Uses an 80 to 200 mm zoom lens, usually near 200 mm. He
| claims that suspending the camera by the tripod is much better than using a
| fixed tripod that transmits the vibrations from the airplane to the camera
| through the tripod. It uses a waist mounted battery pack to power it.
|
| I'm thinking about getting one to use at weddings. He says you can swing it
| at about 10 degrees per second and capture a steady image.
|
| Just another idea.
|
| Jack Phipps
| Applied Science Fiction
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Rob Geraghty [mailto:harper@wordweb.com]
| Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 8:40 PM
| To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
| Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a
| limiting factor in sharpness?
|
|
| Roger wrote:
| > It sounds like you want to know how much money you
| > should spend on lenses (and maybe what brand) in
| > order to get decent scans.
|
| Better scans, yes. The scans I get now are "decent" enough for me, but
| they could be better. All these terms are relative. :)
|
| > The best 35mm lens will have trouble making a really
| > good 11x14. The print size limit for 35 mm lenses is
| > therefore somewhere in that range, i.e., at least 8x10
| > but not much over 11x14.
|
| See above about "relative". :) I believe you absolutely as far as a "really
| good" print from the point of view of a Pro photographer. But for instance
| I have a 30"x20" photographic print (as opposed to inkjet) at home which
| everyone raves about. It was printed in 1981 from ordinary Kodak 100ASA
| colour negative film, and taken with a Voigtlander 35mm rangefinder camera
| dating from about 1950. But I take your point.
|
| > It's the lens quality of a poor lens that would show up in a scan.
|
| Or other factors like aperture, camera shake etc.
|
| > You don't need to buy a Lieca lens in order to get
| > quality. Check out www.photodo.com for unbiased
| > lens test data.
|
| I was pleasantly surprised to see that some Pentax lenses rated very well
| on that site. I thought I might have to change cameras to get a better
| lens.
|
| > Rob, plan on spending a moderate amount of money on lenses (you
| > don't need the most expensive, simply stay away from the cheap
| > ones). Check out www.photodo.com before you buy a given lens.
|
| Makes sense.
|
| > Shoot the lens under optimum conditions.
|
| If only that were always possible! My photos taken from ultralights are
| under pretty challenging conditions - no chance of a tripod, vibration and
| wind buffeting, hand held... but at least the bright conditions make a high
| shutter speed possible! :) Again, I take your point.
|
| > Don't spend your money on a lens based on the
| > brand name.
|
| Good advice - there seems to be a lot of variations in lenses.
|
| > Plan on buying a 4000ppi scanner someday.
|
| By the time I can afford it maybe they'll be 6000ppi. ;)
|
| Thanks for the suggestions.
|
| Rob
|
| PS Thanks to others who have responded with their experiences of scanning
| and what impact the lens used has had.
|
|
|
| Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
|
|
|
|
|
