Simon,
I don't mean to be rude, but I don't believe you are speaking from
experience. Your comment that a 4000dpi film scan was not giving film a fair
advantage and your suggested approach suggests to me that you're new to this
topic. 4000dpi is one heck of a scan. The Minolta will do 5400dpi, but I
would suspect the difference is small
If you comparing (in your head) to a flatbed scanner, than, well, that's
just wrong.
The amount of information in a film scan is clearly significantly greater.
The quality of the information in the DSLR is better. Quality may be the
wrong word, but you get my drift.
A lot of people here with years of experience in both media, including
myself, and I fear you're heading down the wrong path.
Tom
>
> If this is the case, then it's a huge pity, and clearly DSLRs are going to
> come out ahead every time. Reducing the huge amount of data on a 35mm
> frame down to 6MP is absolute sacrilege.
>
> Maybe I need to switch to transparencies and get myself a projector so I
> can see my photos on a wall at 4' x 3'. It seems that this is the only way
> I could only appreciate the detail that films offers!
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon Worby
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|