As Piers says, it all depends - on several things:
The full scanned image is 2548x3820 pixels. On my screen, which is set
at 96dpi, that is the equivalent of about 27x40 inches. On many screens
set at 72dpi, it would be 35x53 (a numerical palindrome!). On a printer
at 300dpi, it would be 8.5x12.7. At 240dpi, which looks photographic on
my Epson 1270, that would be ~11x16.
HOWEVER, my scanner is 2720dpi. With a 4000dpi scanner, all those
numbers would be multiplied by 1.47. Since you can already see grain in
the sky at 2720dpi, it is possible that a 4000dpi scan might be grainer
than you want printed to 16x23 at 240dpi, but I don't have a 4000dpi
scanner to test. But this is 400 iso film, and slower film would be less
grainy. And of course, a couple of listees already have Minolta 5400dpi
scanners............
Moose
Boris Grigorov wrote:
I am pretty sure that am going to continue to shoot print film, despite the opinion of the majority of you who replied on and off list.
One last question though...
Looking at the size of Moose's magnified image, can you tell me if when
printed, it would be as big as it looks on the screen?
There
http://www.geocities.com/dreammoose/TechMisc/
< 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 >
|