Great examples C.H. There's been a number of Medium Format scanner
people speculating that scanners won't improve much. Your pictures show
why.
There may still be some use for drum scans. They can probably handle a
higher density range. The Imacon used by luminous landscape has been
criticized for not handling the density range. I believe somewhere on
his web site he had some example pictures which did show a Tango(?) drum
scanner could do better than either his Imacon or the other film scanner
he used. The resolution wasn't as big of a difference as lost contrast.
I think the areas where the contrast was lost were neither extremely
dark nor light. Perhaps tweaking the scanner settings could have yielded
comparable results. He probably tried pretty hard to get the Imacon to
give as good of a scan though.
-jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Yeah! that's why I think 4000dpi already close to the limit of the
best
> general purpose film we used. The slightly different is not worth the
money
> to take it to drum scan. The grain is started to objectionable and I
DON'T
> believe high dpi scanner will make the grain less, the grain is not
only
> showing in my scanner and it also shown in my optical view through my
> Olympus microscope.
>
snip
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Skip Williams" <om@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > snip
> >
> > I'll bet that a drum scanner would do a better job at 6-8000 dpi,
but
> you'd be hard pressed to use the small difference. It would be a
better
> effort to buy a camera that makes a bigger negative than go to all
that
> trouble.
> >
> > snip
> >
> > Skip
> > >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|