Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/25

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Ilford chapter 11?
From: Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie)
Date: Wed Aug 25 12:06:31 2004
References: <31369640.1093454961807.JavaMail.root@rowlf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> <79A70148-F6C3-11D8-92EB-0003938C439E@btinternet.com> <412CD9BD.9070203@comcast.net>

Hi Robert ,
a B&W 6x6 scan is about 70 Mb and a colour around 250 Mb, unless 
scanned at 16 bit, then they are >500Mb......
Ralf is certainly not driving at Spa but will drive at a test at Monza 
just before the Grand Prix and will return there if all goes well.
cheers
Frank


On 25 Aug, 2004, at 19:26, Robert Clark wrote:

> Frank:
> On average, what is a typical size for a scanned MF image in color?  
> And B/W?  I was at a friend's house last Friday and saw some 
> absolutely wonderful MF images from a Hasselblad.  Since I now have 
> the N70, I'm not using the M6 at all...but the image quality of a MF 
> looks pretty appealing.
>
> BTW...how's Ralf?  Will he be back this year?
>
> Robert Clark
> Lancaster, PA
>
> Frank Dernie wrote:
>
>> I think my EOS10D is actually lighter than my R8, thought some of the 
>> lenses are lighter some are heavier. I do find the prints from the 
>> 10D, printed formerly on an Epson, now a Canon, printer comparable to 
>> prints from scanned negatives from my R8, maybe a touch worst than 
>> scanned slides and a touch better than scanned print film. I don't 
>> like the ergonomics of the Canon nearly as much as the R8 and the R8 
>> viewfinder is in another class. OTOH not having to wait for the end 
>> of the film is a great benefit for amateurs such as myself so I only 
>> use film for MF, here the prints from scanned negatives are much 
>> better than the EOS 10D or 35mm Leica scans.
>> cheers
>> Frank
>>
>> On 25 Aug, 2004, at 18:29, Douglas Herr wrote:
>>
>>> FRANK DERNIE <frank.dernie@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder whether 120 or 35mm film will be the more
>>>> popular in the future. I would expect 35mm to be less
>>>> interesting because it is so easily comparable in size
>>>> weight and  quality to digital.
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting question - but until the size and weight of digital 
>>> cameras giving output comparable to a high-end 35mm film camera 
>>> shrinks considerably I don't see the size or weight as comparable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Doug Herr
>>> Birdman of Sacramento
>>> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


Replies: Reply from rclark01 at comcast.net (Robert Clark) ([Leica] Ilford chapter 11?)
Reply from robertmeier at usjet.net (robertmeier@usjet.net) ([Leica] Ilford chapter 11?)
In reply to: Message from telyt at earthlink.net (Douglas Herr) ([Leica] Ilford chapter 11?)
Message from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] Ilford chapter 11?)
Message from rclark01 at comcast.net (Robert Clark) ([Leica] Ilford chapter 11?)