Simon Worby wrote:
>As I haven't got any 12 x 8 film prints I could scan in, I went for 9 x 6.
>
Oh dear, I misread your first post on this subject:
"Compare to a 1/2" by 1/2" scanned portion from a film camera off 9x6 film."
I took "9x6 film" to mean a 6x9cm image on 120 or 220 film. I see now you meant
to say "9x6 print", so ignore my comments about medium format film.
>Of course, since film doesn't have dpi equivalents, all I can do for
>comparison is to scan in a 9 x 6 film print as best I can, and "enlarge" a
>section of it.
>
If you mean a 6x9 inch print from 35mm film, you may be putting film at
a disadvantage, depending on the type and quality of the print. I did a
comparison of a 4x6 print and a puny :-) 2700dpi scan of the film and
there is really no comparison in sharpness and contrast
<http://www.geocities.com/dreammoose/TechMisc/>. Even a 50% bigger print
isn't going to help enough.
>It's unfair to DSLR because I have to blow up what is already a lossy image
>(JPEG), but it's equally unfair to film because to blow it up to show it
>sensibly on screen, I have to "digitalise" something that isn't digital.
>
Well, you don't have to. I'll be happy to send you a full size DSLR
image or a JPEG of the overall shot and a full pixel section.
>So overall, I think it's probably a reaonably fair comparison.
>
Not yet.......... That enlarged crop of Chris' pic that you posted is
nowhere near what a DSLR will produce.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|