RE: filmscanners: Minolta Multi Pro

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> >  > Why would one buy a  multi format scanner to get the same
> >>  size file regardless of format. I don't understand.
> >
> >Why should the format of the film define the enlargement size?
> With a film
> >scanner that provides resolution proportional to the film
> format, providing
> >the film is "decent" enough (especially for 35mm), you can make the same
> >size "enlargement".
> >
> >I guess I could ask the question why would anyone buy a multi
> format scanner
> >to get a different size file regardless of format?  I don't
> understand ;-)
>
> Really.  That goes against the usual wisdom that you can make a
> larger print of the same quality from a larger negative.

Yes, but that only comes into play above a certain point.  If I only want to
make, at the largest, 24" prints (irrespective of the film format), what are
the number of pixels I'll need in order to get high quality 24" prints?

At 5080, a 35mm negative gives me 5080 pixels/inch or 211 PPI for a 24" wide
print.  For a 6cm wide negative, that gives me 2540 pixels/inch or around
250 PPI for 24"...  That's a pretty decent sized print.  If I had a larger
printer than I do, then I certainly would be wanting a higher resolution
scanner than that...but I actually can only print a max of 17" wide at this
point, so having more resolution doesn't give me any better prints...since I
get 300 PPI for 35mm, and 353 PPI for MF...that makes some very nice prints.

I typically print 12" wide prints, so you can see that 5080 for 35mm or 2540
for MF gives me plenty of data to send to the printer...and with Delta 100
or any of the high end high resolution 35mm films (and Leica or Contax/Zeiss
glass), 5080 works very well, and I can get some very nice prints.

Unless you crop a lot...I almost never crop at all, I print full frame.