How do the Nikons and Polaroids compare?
Are you using VueScan?
Tom
On Thursday, December 06, 2001 at 22:31, Tom Scales
<olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote re "Re: [OM] Scanning quality" saying:
> 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
------- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur -----------------
,__@ Tom A. Trottier +1 613 860-6633
fax:231-6115
_-\_<, 758 Albert St.,Ottawa Ont. Canada K1R
7V8
(*)/'(*) ICQ:57647974 Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx N45.412
W75.714
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Laws are the spider's webs which, if anything small falls
into them
they ensnare it, but large things break through and
escape.
--Solon, statesman (c.638-c558 BCE)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin
< 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 >
|