Digital BW, The Print

Martin, there is no doubt that the 4000 DPI scans are sharper than the
2720 scans. More sharpness, more grain, more dust, etc, but FARE seems
to work pretty well. I have a friend who has the canon 4000, and it is
sharper than my 2720 FS scanner.
Not as much sharper as I would like, but it is sharper. Maybe the
increased density range helps, it reaches into the shadows better than
mine, but again, not as much as one would expect from the
specifications.  My D60 produces images that are sharper than either the
polaroid 4000 or Canon 4000, assuming velvia is the film scanned. 

Jerry

Martin Wesley wrote:
> 
> Chip,
> 
> Just some things to keep in mind. Some people have made some good arguments
> that at a scan resolution of 2400 - 2500ppi all of the info on the films,
> including individual grain is being captured and that resolution beyond that
> is not adding much to the scan. This seems to be true from what I have done
> with my own work. Others say that since B&W film grain is in the 10 to 3
> micron range that you need true optical resolutions of 3000 to 7200. The
> color type B&W film you are planning to use has grain in the 19 to 8 micron
> range and would need a resolution of 1300 to 3200. So 2900 would be a good
> resolution for you.
> 
> The misleading thing is that the rated resolutions of the various scanners
> is not really their optical resolution but is simply their sampling rate per
> inch. Actual resolution is better viewed as a measured value determining by
> scanning resolution targets to find the number of lines/mm that the scanner
> can resolve, multiplying by 2 and then converting to inches. Check out
> http://www.scannerforum.com/ for more info on this.
> 
> For instance the Nikon 8000 sampling at 4000ppi has been measured to have an
> optical resolution of 2895dpi with a measured Dmax of 2.8. Which is very
> good for film scanning. I would expect that the other 4000ppi film scanners
> would produce similar results.
> 
> The problem is that a scanner with a sampling resolution of 2900 may or may
> not be giving you something close to 2900. Phil Lippencott, who did the
> testing, is mostly interested in high end drum scanners and did little
> testing of the affordable units. More of us should be checking our scanners
> with the 1951 USAF Resolution Test Pattern  and the Kodak Q59 ST-34 Scanner
> Calibration Target to see what they are really capable.
> 
> If you can, go for one of the 4000ppi units. I had good luck with a Polaroid
> ss4000 and I believe the newer 4000plus is about $1050.
> 
> As for printing I would try to send at least 360 ppi of data to the printer.
> 
>