I'm sure someone's mentioned this already (like probably Moose in his
original post) but well, actually of course, we're talking about
"direct-to-digital" (first generation) 300D vs "film-to-digital" (second
generation) 35mm. It's really a comparison between the 300D and the 2710,
eh? Scanning introduces noise and artifacts, just like copying an audio
tape. Better scanner, better output. I had no idea about this until I got
80mB or so drum scans for a couple film images I needed to blow up to 24 x
36 inches for a window display. The drum scans were incredible. Made me
realize (even at 2.8 mB) what crappy scans I was getting from scan to CD
during development.
Rob in Seattle
On 5/9/05 9:54 AM, Chuck wrote:
> I think both image sets show that the
>> film image has slightly higher resolution but the 300D wins with the
>> more pleasing image due to its almost total lack of noise.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|