Peter Klein wrote:
>I have a Canon FS-4000, which replaced an earlier Nikon LS-2000 (2700
>dpi). It has made a great difference, particularly in my black-and-white
>pictures. With the LS-2000, there was noticeably more grain aliasing
>unless I took action to blur the image very slightly. With the Canon, the
>grain looks like, well, grain instead of blocky chunks. Two factors affect
>this: the jump from 2700 dpi to 4000, and the light source. The Nikons
>use LEDs, and are notorious for maximizing dust, scratches and grain. The
>Canon uses some sort of mercury/flourescent lamp. It's like the old
>diffuser vs. condenser enlarger debate.
>
I know someone else wrote that more dpi just gives more grain, but don't
remember who or the exact context.
Anyway, I scanned the same slide on the FS4000 as in the examples I
posted from the can*n 5000F and FS2710. There is clearly less obvious
and smaller graininess in the 4000 dpi scan.
I have added to http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Combo.jpg a sample
of the same slide scanned on the FS4000 and downsized to match the 2720
dpi scan. Order of the top row is now raw 2720 dpi scan, raw 4000 dpi
scan downsized and 2720 dpi scan processed in NeatImage. Its very
interesting to me that the higher resolution actually resulted in
apparently smaller and less prominent grain that the lower dpi scan.
I'm not sure if more detail is resolved, but more is visible, at least
partly because it was obscured by the 'grain', and shadow detail is a
bit better.
I seem to recall examples of higher dpi resulting in grain aliasing on
some fine grained film. Here is is clearly striking at lower dpi with a
grainier film, mid 90s AGFA 200RS.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
