Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In the never ending saga of Kingdom of Shannon, yea, verily, from the Book of Nyquist, Chapter IV, verse 65,535: >> difference between the 2700, 4000 and 6000 dpi scans I was just looking at an excellent site which shows some more of this stuff. http://www.cix.co.uk/~tsphoto/tech/filmscan/menu.htm Here are some more samples, of a little corner of a standard Kodak E6 test slide, which just happens to have a real-world subject on it. Try these for size. The site author recommends saving the files and looking at them in a image editing program so the browser doesn't munge things by resizing on screen. The test slide, for reference. Note the size of the face on the slide, which includes all the gray areas: http://www.cix.co.uk/~tsphoto/tech/filmscan/howtek/howtkq60.jpg Now, look at just the face. Drum scan, 4000 ppi, sampled down to 25% for reasonable download: http://www.cix.co.uk/~tsphoto/tech/filmscan/howtek/htekface.jpg Polariod Sprintscan 4000, 4000 ppi: http://www.cix.co.uk/~tsphoto/tech/filmscan/pol4000/4000fac2.jpg Nikon LS-2000, 2700 ppi: http://www.cix.co.uk/~tsphoto/tech/filmscan/ls2000/ls2000fa.jpg HP PhotoSmart S20, 2400 ppi: http://www.cix.co.uk/~tsphoto/tech/filmscan/hp_s20/s20face.jpg To my eyes, the drum scan is a quantum leap better than the Polariod 4000 ppi, which is slightly better than the Nikon LS-2000 at 2700 ppi, which is a bit better then the HP S20 at 2400 ppi. - --Peter