[filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

Fair enough.  I still tend to believe there is more than 4000 dpi in
medium to low speed films.  Or at least that there is more than the 4000
dpi captured by prosumer scanners, which might not be a true 4000 dpi.
Otherwise we wouldn't need drum scans anymore.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think 4000 dpi scanners are great and have
made it possible for professional scanning for the average guy.  But I
suspect fine grain films can supply more than the 4000 dpi is capturing.

Art

doogle@doogle.com wrote:

>>>>is
>>>>indistinguishable from the original, projected side by side at
>>>>approx 6 feet wide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Understood, and I'd say you're probably %100 right, but that's projection,
>>>which really doesn't allow for the most critical viewing.  Now, not that
>>>that doesn't work perfectly for some applications, that's not in question.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yes, that can be the "rub"... If you are using Kodak projection lenses,
>>you might as well be shooting through "Vaseline" coated lenses.
>>
>>I was amazed what I discovered in projection settings once I sprang for
>>some Navitar Gold lenses.  I have never quite understood this, quite
>>honestly.  We pay a minor fortune on top quality 35mm lenses for our
>>cameras and then project the slide results with lenses from the "dark
>>ages" (excuse the pun)...
>>
>
> Note that I also compared with loupe on light table.
>
> Mac


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