Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It depends completely on how big and how many dpi you scan at. A 6x7cm slide scanned to a size of 24x30 inches at 300 dpi produces a 181 megabyte file. > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information