Interesting site which I saw a while back. There must be more to this than
ppi though. I have used, and evaluated the scans from, a number of medium
format scanners, from the Flextight Photo at 3200ppi to the Minolta Multi
Pro at 4800ppi (35mm). I have used the Sprintscan 120 for quite a while.
Under very detailed viewing, I cannot see anywhere that the 4000ppi scanners
have produced more detail or more sharpness than the 3200ppi Photo. The
density ranges are all similar (other than the Mnolta who must be using some
weird calculator to get to 4.8 dMax). Does anyone have any comment on
whether the optics, ligh source and light path have any effect on all this,
given that the Photo is direct to the Rodenstock lens when scanning. The
Multi Pro produced very grainy 35mm scans, the Polaroid very smooth grain
but none of them seem to produce more detail.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "JimD" <rasterdogs@attbi.com>
To: <simon@sclamb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 4:41 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait
> The information on this site:
>
> causes me to wonder about this.
> -JimD
>
> At 10:32 AM 5/8/02 -0400, Kapetanakis, Constantine wrote:
> >At 4000 dpi you are at the edge of film resolution. You get absolutely
> >nothing more by scanning at 8000 dpi for example. If you want to print a
> >large image just do the resampling in photoshop instead of burdening your
> >scanner. Anything higher than 4000 dpi is just marketing hype.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
