On May 5, 2006, at 12:17 AM, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
2400x3600 doesn't sound too bad (almost 9Mpix, so you beat the
*ist's ;-), the 1 hour scans I was referring to are 800x600...
Maybe it's wise to evaluate the quality of the scans beforehand?
Definitely. That scan resolution is somewhat low. Do you get
[EMAIL PROTECTED] TIFFs from the process? How good is the scan quality?
My experience is that film requires scans double to triple the number
of pixels as digital capture to achieve comparable print quality.
2400x3600 scans from 35mm negative is only a 2550 ppi scan. A 35mm
full frame negative scanned at 2550 ppi will make an 8x12 inch image
at 300 ppi output ... presuming that the rendering work post scanning
is done carefully, and that there's minimal grain aliasing issues.
(A Minolta Scan Dual II 35mm film scanner from 2000 is 2820ppi.
Current state of the art in consumer film scanners is 4000 to 5400 ppi.)
Godfrey
