Dreammoose wrote:
> Brian, I know you love the Fuji Frontier, with which I have no
> experience. But have you checked out my experiment yesterday? Even if
> the Frontier is a lot better than Kodak Royal process/print, it may be
> way short of film scanning. Maybe some of your dissatisfaction is not
> 35mm per se, but the method of reproduction? A film scanner may be
> cheaper and improve things more than a 35-80/2.8, which is not an order
> of magnitude better than other Zuikos. CH's web pics are all from film
> scanners. Tim's may be also. He doesn't say, but I'll bet they are. Do
> you have the same problem with slides?
Actually, its Agfa Prestige digital on their Crystal Archive paper. Suppose
it's
more or less equivalent. They scan at 400 dpi. They still have their analogue
machine.
I'm getting to the point where I don't know what to think. I just had some
enlargements made for my son to hang on his room wall in College (Otago
University).
Prints made on their analogue machine are actually sharper. With the digital
output I can see (if I look closely) the separate ?pixels, and it is not as
fine a
print. Close, but different. And not as sharp.
Slides. I confess to not doing as many as I should / want to. Part of the
problem is that I do not have a slide scanner, and I need to be able to
produce digital images to put in files I am making. A couple of years ago I
had the use of a Microtek slide scanner which I thought was the next best
thing since sliced bread, but now that I'm a little wiser, I find that many of
the
150 images I scanned are not all that crash-hot after all. For some, far from
it. I can in many cases get a sharper image from print. (But not always -
some few of the slide scans are brilliant) But certainly I can get a
reasonable image from print for screen with a file of 100 - 200 kb. But not as
sharp and small as those from digital cameras though, nor as sharp and
small as those Tim showed us.
Also, I would like to get a better lens for my projector. I've had advice from
several people, and I just don't know what / who to believe, especially when
the person advising also is offering a lens to sell ... And the archives of
best
lenses don't seem to include one that fits my machine. Even that's difficult to
find out. And I don't have the spare cash to buy and try - (suck and see) and
sell probably at a loss if the darned thing doesn't work. Most of the very good
lenses that might fit my machine go for about USD100.
Some time ago, Moose suggested I try a microscope to evaluate my lens
test slide. I haven't had the cheek to ask a friend from away back if I can
invade his lab for this purpose, though he might well say yes.
But in Norman Koren's page he mentions Edmund Scientific pocket
microscopes of 20x and 50x. On the face of it they look attractive, and the
landed cost in New Zealand for the 50x would be about $NZ 60. 270f the
cost of a different projector lens.
http://www.edmundoptics.com/IOD/DisplayProduct.cfm?productid=1746
Do any of you have experience of these little beasts?
Different lens? 35-80? You are probably right. But an enlarger, scanner etc
can do no better than the image it has to start off with.
And in addition to the matter of lens resolving power, is the matter of film
flatness. Most film does not sit flat in the camera, thus making it much more
difficult for the lens to do its job. Robert Monaghan has a huge page devoted
to this issue. Aerial survey cameras all use vacuum backs to overcome this
problem, and Sinarbron uses some kind of sticky septum to keep the film
where it should be ...
10 am. I'd better go and do some chores. Or something.
Brian
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|