Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/09/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]George, I did look at the specs on the BetterLight back and it didn't appear as flexible as the Sinarback. I'd used a Leica S1 and the BetterLight appeared like a step backward from the Leica in usability. In macro-scan mode (16k x 16k x 48bit) the Sinarback would exceed the resolution of the BetterLight, but would be limited by Mac OS architecture at 1GB program max. The Creo-Scitex can also cheerfully build a file that can never be opened by any Mac program, however, in this I case I used the 8x10 camera well under its capability (didn't fill the image area) and then scanned the transparency well under the scanner's maximum resolution. The 24-bit color TIFF was 465mb, the raw scanner output (48bit) would have been 900+mb. I'm not sure where things would have broken had the scanner been set at 1.5x or 2x the 2000dpi resolution which I used. Besides that, 8x10 transparencies are neat and the Pioneer Museum likes their picture. In spite of many year's usage of electronic imaging stuff, I still prefer film for lots of applications. John Nebel PS storing these images is "interesting" On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, George Lottermoser wrote: > John Nebelnebel@csdco.com (John Nebel)9/2/024:58 PM > > >Also interesting that one of the best electronic backs is still no match > >for film. > > I'd have great interest in your comparing your 8x10 chrome flatbed > scan to digital file created by the highest res BetterLight scanning > back. > > George > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html