Anxious to see the 35mm scan comparisons. Put them up against a 100 ISO K10D image having received one click of "Auto Sharpen".
Jack --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The other day I posted a Pentax 645 photo made with the 35mm lens, > scanned with a new Epson V700 scanner: > http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/19b.htm > > One person mentioned that running it at 8x sampling would help > improve resolution, another person mentioned that setting the > negative holder to alternative heights showed a big improvement. I > decided to do a set of experimental scans with this negative and > Vuescan trying these two things, in combination, and trying my > original 3200ppi setting against the 6400 ppi setting: > > http://homepage.mac.com/godders/V700rez-detail-snips.jpg > > Conclusion: > It does seem that there is a small gain in resolution with the feet > removed, and again doing the 8x sampling on the 3200 ppi scans, or am > > I kidding myself? > > There is certainly a gain in resolution going to the 6400 ppi scans > albeit at a big price in disk space ... the 16bit grayscale TIFF file > > grows from 73.3 Mbytes to 293.3 Mbytes. > > Comments? > > I'm going to try a 35mm negative in the V700 vs the Nikon LS40 and > Minolta Scan Dual II next ... > > Godfrey > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
