[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test

["" <erik.kaffehr@swipnet.se>]

Hi!

My suggestion would be:

- Scan at highest resolution on the Multi Pro (3200 PPI for 120 format)
- Decide on a given print size, like 70x50 cm and a given resolution like 300 
DPI.
- Crop the pictures to corresponding format in Photoshop (or whatever you use)
- Scale the image to your format aim (can be done using the crop tool in 
photoshop)
- Save the image as TIFF or JPEG with high quality.

The Tamron zoom is probably a joke, I would suggest that you get a real lens. 
Superzooms like the Tamron are known to have lousy performance. 


Best regards

Erik Kaffehr


Thursday 15 July 2004 04.48 skrev Norm Carver:
> I am in the midst of doing a basic comparison between my Hasselblad and the
> new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame). I don't need a super accurate test,
> just reasonably fair. My work is half color, half b&w with the end product
> in books and large exhibition prints 20 to 40".
>
> I invite suggestions and/or critiques of my approach as outlined here:
>
> I gave up the dark room several years ago after too many decades. So I must
> compare scanned film against digital RAW. Also, though it may invite scorn
> from some purists, I am comparing the actual tools I work with most of the
> time, not the ultimate options in lenses. These are:
> Hblad 203fe with 60-120 zoom
> Kodak SLRpro with Tamron 28-300.
>
> I take the test images from the same position and adjust the Tamron zoom
> factor to match the approximate vertical coverage of Hblad zoom. To avoid
> any focus hocus pocus I am measuring distances. I care mainly about the
> clarity issue --ie details and sharpness and less about color accuracy as
> this is more easily adjusted.
>
> The digital raw is 16 bit, 4500x3000 @ 300 rez which equals about 10" ht
> image.
>
> The 220 films, (CN400) and Ektachrome VS 120 are scanned on a Minolta
> MultiPro (a Nikon 8000 is also available). But here is where I need some
> advice. I believe I should scan to end up with the same 300 rez but to what
> file size?
> Here are two I have tried and the thinking behind each:
>
> 1. Scan the 2.10 x 2.10 area at maximum of 4800 dpi which gives an image
> size of 34" sq and a file size of 604 mb which is simply too unwieldy.
>
> 2. Scan at the nearest even dpi to approximately double the image size
> since the 220 film is a little over 2x the ht of the Kodak orig of 1" which
> means 3200 dpi and image size 22.7, file size 268.
>
> I stand ready for any further ideas. At the end, if any one is interested,
> I shall try to post the results on my web site, normancarver.com
>
> Thanks for any help, Norm Carver
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------- Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with
> 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as
> appropriate) in the message title or body

-- 
Erik Kaffehr                erik.kaffehr@swipnet.se alt. ekr@ksu.se
Mariebergsvägen 53          +46 155 219338 (home)
S-611 66 Nyköping           +46 155 263515 (office)
Sweden                      -- Message sent using 100% recycled electrons --

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