Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Steve writes: > Ok, so if as you suggest 2700 dpi is approaching > the resolution of film, are you of the opinion > that a 30" x 40" print from such a scan would have > as much detail as a conventional 'wet' print from > the same negative? Yes. In most enlargements of this size from 35mm negatives or slides, irrespective of the enlargement method, detail is visibly lacking upon close examination. Only tripod shots with top-quality (e.g., Leica) lenses and very fine-grained film will tolerate this degree of enlargement without showing a lack of resolution on close examination. > If so why do people bother to have drum scans made > and why do Nikon bother to produce a 4000 dpi scanner? Several reasons for drum scans: (1) better dynamic range (often more important than resolution); (2) a perception that there is information being missed in scans of lower resolution, even when there isn't; (3) film that is very carefully exposed (high-res film, a tripod, a very good lens) _can_ exceed 53 lp/mm by a handsome margin--but most photographs, particularly handheld photographs, are significantly below this threshold. As for Nikon producing a 4000 dpi scanner, I suppose they produce it because they can, and because they know people will buy it. And it may be useful in scanning extremely clean, carefully exposed negatives and slides. It's not going to make a difference for handheld shots and grainy films, though.