----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>I don't understand what this is supposed to show us. You say the Nikon
> scanner can do a better job than the 5D II with 80/4 but the 4000ED
> image you show us is quite small and labeled 300dpi.
>
Sorry, it was a typo, the Nikon scan was done at 3000dpi. Since I was making
around 10,000 scan, 4000dpi 16bit tiff will occupy too much space so I did
most of my scanning at 3000dpi.
> The 5D II images are much larger but seem to me to be mostly grain. If
> the grain is resolved don't we have everything there is to get from the
> image?
>
You can look at the roofs details, some finer roofs is clearly visible on
the Nikon scan but marginal on the 1:1 5D II copy, while the magnified (~2x
with macro adapter) copy shown more details. I'm sure with better slides and
better lens (the Sigma wasn't the best) it will require higher resolution
copy/scanning system to review all the details.
C.H.Ling
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 5/18/2013 1:53 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>> I think the E-M5 may not be able to resolve a good 35mm frame. While I
>> was
>> working with the 80/4 and 5D II setup, I found it is not even able to get
>> all from an old 35mm Kodak CP100. The result is ok for most application
>> but
>> not the best one can get, a sharp 4000dpi scanner like N*kon 4000ED seem
>> did
>> better.
>>
>> Here is a crop from a 1984 Beijing shot taken with Sigma 35-70/2.8-4 on
>> OM-10, handheld.
>>
>> 4000ED at 300dpi
>>
>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/1984-09B-35.jpg
>>
>> 5D II, 80/4 at 1:1, F11
>>
>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_0088.jpg
>>
>> 5D II, 80/4 and f=170mm macro adapter
>>
>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_0089.jpg
>>
>> C.H.Ling
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|