From: Don Bryant (dsbryant@mindspring.com)
Date: 04/17/02-01:27:58 PM Z
Gregory,
> Maximum res is 12800 DPI which for the 3.685 x 4.533 image area (do to
clip
> marks on my trans) produces 7.71 Gig file. The upper resolution varies
> however for certain types of flatbed/flat art scans, I believe.
>
As Kerik pointed out the highest optical resolution is 2400, I'm sure you
know that but I don't want to confuse folks that may be sitting on the fence
about purchasing this or another scanner.
>
> Doubtful anyone would use such a high resolution...but its there.
> Typically I scan 4x5 around 800-1600 dpi and print on the Epson 1280 using
a
> [sized] working file at 400 DPI (I set the printer at 1440 or 2880).
>
I've only scanned B&W negatives and I tend to agree that scans made in color
work best. Also I scan at 2400 dpi to achieve the best tonal rendering,
smoothest at this spi it seems.
The included scanning software is pretty good but doesn't ouput to 48 bit
scans (3 color layers of 16 bit). I use Vuescan and that will output to 48
bit but it isn't perfect either. 16 bit channels yield a lot more info but
of course create huge files. My hard drives runneth over!
> Other resolutions are as follows...this list not complete from a 3.685 x
> 4.533 transparency.
>
> 800 dpi= 30.82 MB
> 1600 dpi= 123.29 MB
> 2400 dpi= 277.39 MB
> 12800 dpi= 7.71 MB
>
I think the last figure should be 7.71 GB.
> Interestingly enough the scanner worked with my "Mac" Performa 6400 200
Mega
> hz processor from day one....my printer however was another long and sad
> story best saved for another time and place.
>
I'm making quad tone prints on my Epson 1160 printer using MIS inks. I hope
to purchase the Cone driver next and print using it on transparency material
for enlarged negatives using MIS FS inks.
A well scanned 4x5 negative makes a pretty good looking 13x19 inch print. I
just wish I could get a glossy or semi-glossy paper. Although these tools
are by no means perfect they provide a relatively easy, affordable, and
quick way to proof work. I think that is important to see the results of
your work ASAP to provide continued growth as a photographer, at least for
me that is important. From these proofs I can get an impression about what I
want to do with an image.
Sorry about this diverted discussion into digital image making but I just
thought some readers may find a personal impression of these tools useful
and possibly interesting. I am certainly no expert as some on his list are
but I do see the potential now that these desktop components have become
reasonably priced with acceptable minimum capabilities.
Thanks,
Don
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:30 AM Z CST