[OM] Re: Oh, Digital, Wherefore Art Thou?

[Walt Wayman]

One more thing -- something I just now thought of and tried.

Pull up the 1/225th part of the original on ye old monitor.

If you've lost the link, or never saw it to begin with, this is where you can 
find it:

http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photos.html-.html

Now step back 10 feet or so and look at it.  I may be a bigger fool than some 
of you are certain that I am, but I'm not too sure but what an 8-foot-wide 
print of this 44-year-old negative wouldn't look all that bad when viewed from 
the distance such a large print would normally be looked at from.

Yeah, I know you ain't supposed to use a preposition to end a sentence up with.

Walt

--
"Anything more than 500 yards from 
the car just isn't photogenic." -- 
Edward Weston


-------------- Original message from Winsor Crosby : -------------- 

> 
> I think that is more than adequate dpi. In one of Reichmann's articles 
> comparing film and digital he complained about criticisms that he used 
> an Imacon film scanner. With much grousing he bought a professional 
> drum scan and there was not much difference. Another time he compared a 
> Polaroid 4000dpi against a 5600dpi Imacon and I did not see a huge 
> difference in his examples. He apparently liked the Imacon enough to 
> get one with lower resolution. Apparently you are getting just about 
> everything possible out of a current 35mm color frame with about 4000 
> dpi. You are covered for future developments though. 
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/ 
> imacon_comparison.shtml 
> 
> 
> 
> Winsor 
> Long Beach, California 
> USA 
> On Jul 29, 2004, at 10:18 AM, Walt Wayman wrote: 
> 
> > The highest resolution scan I am capable of making is 5400 d.p.i. 
==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================