Rob Harrison wrote:
>I'm sure someone's mentioned this already (like probably Moose in his
>original post) but well, actually of course, we're talking about
>"direct-to-digital" (first generation) 300D vs "film-to-digital" (second
>generation) 35mm.
>
Certainly true, although I don't know how to do the comparison in the
other direction except with large wet prints vs. large digital prints
and I'm not paying for big custom prints for such an exercise.
It's also a meaningful personal system comparison in that I "print" the
results of either medium either on line or on a digital printer.
>It's really a comparison between the 300D and the 2710, eh?
>
Well, no, this is with the FS4000.
>Scanning introduces noise and artifacts, just like copying an audio
>tape. Better scanner, better output. I had no idea about this until I got
>80mB or so drum scans for a couple film images I needed to blow up to 24 x
>36 inches for a window display.
>
The TIFF scans from the FS4000 are around 120mb.
>The drum scans were incredible. Made me
>realize (even at 2.8 mB) what crappy scans I was getting from scan to CD
>during development.
>
>
Yup, useful for reference only.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|