From: "Winsor Crosby" <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >Do you who have the experience notice a HUGE difference between
> >> >scanned prints and scanned negatives? Or is the difference
> >> >"neglectable"?
> >
> >If you want 'huge,' you have to step up to a drum scanner. ;-)
>
> Actually, that does not seem to be true anymore, at least for some
> drum scanners. Here are a couple of review sites for the Nikon 8000
> and the Polaroid SS120 in which the differences with an Imacon
> Flextight appear to be negligible and some of the scans of the less
> expensive scanners appear to be superior in sharpness to the drum
> scanner. You can view the on line scans or, if you want, download the
> complete image file to view it in Photoshop.
>
> http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.lyons/ss120/ss120_1.htm
>
> http://luminous-landscape.com/nikon-8000.htm
It's true that the best film scanners (especially the incredibly high end
Scitex units), properly used, will produce results comparable to low end
drum scanners. However, when comparing technologies, it's clearly unfair to
compare the high end of one technology to the low end of another. To wit,
the best drum scanners, with their ability to see deeply into shadow areas,
thoroughly blows away any film scanner.
Regards,
John
< 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 >
|