ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait




"Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>
I don't understand what you mean by 'limitation'.
<<<<<<<

He means that if the actual image on the film has lower resolution than the
lowest resolution scanner you are testing, then all the scanners will report
the same thing.

>>>>>>>>
There are not many lenses that have the resolving power of the Leica 90 AA
and Zeiss 180 Sonnar.
<<<<<<<<

But you still haven't reported what the film looks like under a microscope.
Is the image on the film clearly sharper than, and does it clearly have more
information than, the scans?

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.