While I agree with what is being said on the whole, I do think your 300dpi
figure as the minimal acceptible dpi to be sent to the printer ( especially
Epson inkjets)is debatable at best. Over the years there has been much
discussion of this and it seems that the consensus of opinion suggests it
can range from 240 to 360 dpi for the epson inkjets given the dithering amd
error diffusion techniques that these printers employ in printing the files.
>Other digicam vs. film sites have put
>the data limit of 35mm film at between 16 an 24 Mpixels whereas 2700dpi
only
>pulls out 10Mpixels of data..
Who counts these Mpixels? Do people actually count them or is this based on
mathematical conjecture, extrapolation, and theory? :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Karl
Schulmeisters
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 9:34 AM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: umax film scanners
2700dpi over 1.5sq.in. means you have 2700x4050 resolution to work with. An
8x10 enlargement puts you at 337x405dpi which is ok, and a 13x19
enlargement puts that at 207x213dots. Even with minimal cropping that puts
you under 200 dpi going into the printer. You can't print what's not there.
Even using GF to do edge smoothing you end up with much blander colors (the
info just isn't there). And since the minimal acceptable resolution going
into any photo printer needs to be around 300dpi, you are essentially 33%
below the minimal resolution for decent imaging.
4000dpi is not just '20% better'. In point of fact it is more like 50%
better resolution. 4000x6000 resolution scales to 307x315dpi - just barely
enough to get a decent print. Which makes sense, since 13x19 is pushing the
limits of grain when you print optically - indicating that's close to the
information boundary for 35mm film. Other digicam vs. film sites have put
the data limit of 35mm film at between 16 an 24 Mpixels whereas 2700dpi only
pulls out 10Mpixels of data..
The worst part is that sampling at about 1/2-2/3 grain resolution is likely
to give you the worst grain artifacting possible because of how the
'sampling grid' interacts with the 'grain grid' - especially on tabular
grained films like TMAX.
----- Original Message -----
From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <laurie@advancenet.net>
To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 7:30 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: umax film scanners
Ok, I will concede that that is possible, although that has not been my
experience. I found I had to employ Genuine Fractals to increase the dpi
from the raw around 2880 dpi that my Minolta Multi Scan scanned 35mm at to
print better than merely acceptible prints at 8x10 to 13x19 with cropping.
I doubt if the current batch of flatbed scanners with their alledged optical
resoultion of 1600 dpi and better will even do as good a job as the old film
scanners at 2700 and 2880 dpi despite the hype even if what you say about
your experiences with the film scanner is true.
-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Bruce
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 9:08 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: umax film scanners
on 7/6/2003 4:00 PM, filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk at
filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
> you need at least 4000
> dpi to do a reasonable job of scanning 35mm so as to reproduce it at even
> snapshot enlargemetns without any cropping.
I've got some nice 13x19 in prints from my old 2700dpi nikon, even with some
cropping. 4000dpi is better, but only about 20% better.
-Bruce
Visit my website at:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
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
