First of all, I wouldn't consider the test to be valid bearing teh huge
gap in lens qualities.
You'apparently putting Hasselblad's lens (i.e. Zeiss ine, even though
zoom) against this "all-in-one" kind 28-300 Tamron turist's orineted
zoom. I think to provide correct base under your estimation, you have
to line-up your lenses achieving at least comparable optical qualities,
particulalry if considering high-resolution scanning afterwards.
If yuo work with Kodak - the appropriate one would be probably Nikon
high-quality prime or professional zoom.
Just my opinion.
Alex
--- Norm Carver <nfcarver@iserv.net> wrote:
> 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
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
