Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Adam Maas
<mykroft@...> wrote:
...
> It's pretty straightforward if you remember that it only holds true if 
> both images are the same resolution. The scan, being a second
generation 
> image will have generational losses which means that the digital image 
> will have more usable information at the same resolution as the film
scan.

It's just not that straightforward, sorry. First of all, some of the
info in that capture is interpolated, there is not real, actual
information at every pixel. There is with your 2nd generation scan,
even though it is defining little more than grain at a certain point. 
A 4000dpi drum scan from a 35mm neg will look grainier and have less
"quality" (huh?) to most people's eyes at say 9x13 than an equivalent
dpi capture, which will require at least a MK2, correct?
Few lenses and film will resolve to 4000 dpi anyway.
Going up in size things will eventually cross over, and at a 30x40 the
film scan will be more subjectively pleasing because SOMETHING is
sharp, even though it is grain. USM is a look, and easily spotted, and
to me lacks "quality".
And by the way, I do not love grain, I have never shot 35mm except
when very young.
So what sort of capture system will be required to match the "quality"
of a 4000, or even 2000, dpi scan of on of my 5x7 negs? Hmm? How much
will it cost?
People constantly seem to need concrete statements and love definitive
pronouncements about this stuff. The longer you do it the more you
find yourself constantly saying "it depends" and put the proud soapbox
in the back to be used later during the codger years.
Mine's ready and waiting,
Tyler