filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk <> wrote:
> for Wed 11 Dec, 2002
>
>
> on 12/10/2002 4:00 PM, filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk at
> filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
>
>> You say, "Since I've been using my ls-8000 and shooting 6x9 I have
>> become a little dissatisfied with my 35 images;" but it is unclear
>> if this dissatisfaction stems from the particular scanner you are
>> using for the 6x9 versus the scanner you used to scan the 35mm or is
>> contingent on the size of the film format or on the outcome of the
>> printing process itself.
>
> I scan both formats on the same scanner, at the same resolution. Thus
> it is contingent on the size of the film format.
>
Thanks. At least now, we know we are on the same page. I am not sure what
to say; I scan 35mm and 6x7 negatives and transparencies on a Minolta Scan
Multi (at 2880 ppi for the 6x7 and 1180 ppi for the 6x7) and do not usually
notice any significant differences except occassionally with some images. I
also have scanned 4x5 at 1200 ppi on a fladbed scanner with transparency
adapter ( a Umax PowerLook III) and have not noticesd significant
differences between it and the 35mm or the 6x7 except once again with
certain images. I must say that the flatbed does not have quite the tonal
depth as the film scanner despite the fact that I was scanning 4x5s with it.
Nevertheless, the prints made from the files of each have come out looking
almost exactly the same in terms of quality when I print them.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
