Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was:
Epson3200 - Test results)


> exactly my point! I'd be interested in how you can say that
'the detail is
> there' if the scan appears very soft. I can give the appearance
of
> sharpness - as i do - by USM tricks - but the details (I'm
thinking here of
> thin branches, trees etc - the usual difficult suspects) are
missing. When
> people say the 1680/3200 are sharp, what they are really saying
is 'sharp
> enough for them' - but as to some form of 'absolute' sharpness
(I feel
> Austin about to dive in;-0 ) they are very second rate IMO
compared to film
> scanners.
>
> Julian

Julian,

I've written this before on the Nikon 8000 list.

Depending on the the size of your printer it isn't that strange
to accompany a Nikon 8000 with an Epson 3200. The Epson 9000's
that I have will print up to 44" wide. 240 ppi delivers a good
print, 360 ppi is generally considered the maximum value to get
quality, beyond that there isn't much to gain. The goal is then
to get at least 10560 and a max of 15840 ppi across the film
format width.

MF film at 56 mm wide will deliver 8800 ppi at the 4000 ppi of
the Nikon. LF film at 94 mm wide will deliver 11700 at the 3200
ppi of the Epson. True the ppi of the Epson is inflated but so is
the ppi of the Nikon. Depending on the resolution tests its true
resolution could drop to 2800 ppi. At 2800 ppi the Nikon with MF
film delivers 6173 ppi, at 1800 ppi the Epson with 4x5 film 6590
ppi.

If the max print output is fixed the two scanners will give
similar usable data for their respective maximum film formats. If
the intention is to get more data from a 4x5 and MF then there is
no
other choice than getting (a) more expensive scanner(s).

Ernst