[filmscanners] Re: Re:Digital PIC

["Preben S. Kristensen" <krille@tin.it>]

Anthony, again, with all due respect, I think we all know that one can get
high pixel numbers from scanning large pieces of  film...

Please see my post to Austin timed 01/04/2002 13.36

And, Anthony, please pay particular attention to both my original statement
and the "dead horse" and "whip" part....:-)

Unfortunately, I'm travelling for work the next few weeks so I shall not be
able to follow this thread.

Have fun,

Preben


----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>


Preben writes:

> The newest LF digital backs are 12000 x
> 15990 pixels producing a file of 1.1GB in
> 48bit.

For 4x5 inches, I get a maximum scanned resolution on film of around 24000 x
30000; for 8x10 inches, I get 48000 x 60000.  The backs you describe pale in
comparison.  And are they actually covering a full frame?

> It is the Better Light Super 8K-2 digital
> back. Its smaller sibling, the Super 6K-2
> produces 9000 x 12000 pixels.

But I can get that from film, and I can do it on medium-format--no need to
go LF.

> Furthermore, they go from ISO 200-3200 in
> 1/10th of f-stop increments.

So does film.  It's called push or pull processing, and it produces similar
results (with similar disadvantages).

> Phase One has the PowerPhase FX which gives
> you 10500 x 12.600 pixels, albeit only
> in 24bit - a file of 380mb.

In MF or LF?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body