Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Thanks. The illustrations on this page, which is one of my > favorites, prove my > point quite well, as does the text. Note that a 4000 dpi scan of > 35mm film is > virtually indistinguishable from a 2700 dpi scan; You need glasses, or you are just saying this knowing that what you are saying is wrong, or you are just playing games or you really aren't very good at evaluating images. The 4000 SPI images show far more detail than the 2700 scan. It is ESPECIALLY obvious in the grass blade test. http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm#testarea3 In fact, right under those exact images, the following is stated by the author (and I quote): "From the above scans, it shows that 35mm shows increasing detail at least to 6000 dpi in the drum scans..., and similar to the best consumer film scanners available today (4000 dpi). The more common film scanners (2400 to 2800 dpi) do not record all the detail on images such as this one (they probably will record all detail on grainier film, or hand-held snapshots)." It's funny how you claim that these images prove your point, when they clearly don't, AND it IS stated, by the author, basically that your claim is wrong. > Note that all these formats, even 35mm scanned at 2700 dpi, > provide more detail > than the eye can normally see for full-frame images at normal > viewing distances. That is, once again, a flawed conclusion. You are basing this on your initially flawed assertion that 2700 SPI can reliably scan 53 lp/mm, which these tests clearly show is not true. Stick a fork in it.