C.H.Ling wrote:
> ....
> 35mm negatives is the first step, they are mostly family shots so most
> important for us. Their condition is also worse than the slides (mostly my
> personal stuffs) due to poor processing of some one hour labs.
>
>> I finally found a like new Canon 9950F scanner for a reasonable price. I
>> bought it specifically for this task. It will allow me to scan five strips
>> of negs at a time, 12 slides at once and the 6x6 and 6x9 negs from the old
>> family album. The prospect of feeding all those strips into the film scanner
>> one at a time, and slides four at a time was really daunting.
> I'm now retired and have time for this daunting stuffs :-)
I've been retired for eight years now. I still don't like slow,
repetitive tasks. And I don't see how I ever found time for work. :-)
> Actually, I have scanned part of them some years ago with an older scanner
> (LS2000) and non calibrated CRT (a CRT monitor can be very bad if non
> calibrated), now I have to redo them all again with better equipment.
>
Ouch! I've been luckier. The stuff I scanned with the FS2720 at 2700dpi
still exists as the original TIFF output files, before post processing.
So unless I want higher resolution for a frame here or there some day,
which has happened a very few times, I don't have to rescan.
>> The full 4800 dpi output is, in the end, just slightly - very slightly,
>> pixel peeping - lower in quality on contemporary film. but I don't think
>> it's a difference I'll ever see in a display or print. Most of the archive
>> is older film, and a quick test shows that the scanner resolves more than
>> the film, and more than the camera/lenses that made some of the images.
>> ...
> Mostly yes, but many of my 35mm stuffs still cleaner and sharper if scanned
> by 4000ED rather than the Epson 4850 even it claimed to have 4800dpi.
The 4000 ED and FS4000 are different designs, nominally the same
resolution, and I think pretty much the same in practical results.
However, I don't think Epson reached the true resolution and IQ level of
the Canon 9950F with their 4850, or even the 4990. Only with the
V700/750 did they reach the full potential of flatbed 4800dpi, just
edging out the 9950F
> I don't mind to spend more time to get better results.
>
Neither do I, if I can really see a difference.
That's why I scanned some frames with both FS4000 and 9950F, did the
best I could with scanning and processing, then compared them. The
difference in detail resolution is really tiny. I can only see it pixel
peeping at 100%, flipping from one to the other as layers. I just don't
think I would ever see it in even a really large print.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|