I do. I have owned four different film scanners, including two at 4000dpi,
the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 and the Nikon LS-4000 (my current scanner). I
also have, on loan from Polaroid, a Sprinscan 4000+ (not sure if they even
have it in production yet).
I've also used a variety of flatbeds. Right now, my wife has an HP 6350C,
which is a pretty decent scanner.
The difference is HUGE.
The 4000dpi filmescanners, in 16-bit mode, generate a 120MB Tiff file, at
approximately 5500x3500 pixels. The flatbed might generate files that big,
but the results are limited by the print -- to a much lower quality.
More discussion is beyond this list, but to reinforce and summarize.
The film scanner is better. Much better.
Tom
> Do you who have the experience notice a HUGE difference between
> scanned prints and scanned negatives? Or is the difference
> "neglectable"?
>
> Henrik Dahl
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|