Digital BW, The Print

> Did you test both file sizes 4000 and 2400 PPI on really big
> prints say 4 feet wide and notice no difference ?
I was downsampling to 3200ppi typically & oocasiaonlly to 2400 ppi 
from 4000ppi.  With prints I cannot, but there is tiny differnce at 
100%+ enlaregment w/ 2400 downsampling...   

> If they are equal, do you get enough information from your
> scanner at 4000 PPI ?
Your right, I can't see a differnce past 3600 ppi but none the less 
scan at 4000 ppi & downsample. 

Concerning upsampling, good question, I ahve not tried this 
upsampling test. I'll take a look at that.

Actually, I'm doing just that. I'm selling my 5D and will be 
ordering a 5D mkii soon even though I don't like the video feature. 
Yes, I plan on comparing the mamiya & microtek combination. I 
suspect the Canon mkii will of course be much cleaner file wise, but 
just a tiny bit better in resolution.  We'll see! I'm keeping my 
Mamiya because I just enjoy shooting it -- even if very 
occasionally.  

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<edinkla@...> wrote:
>
> steveabrink wrote:
> > I'm shooting a Mamiya 7ii w/ 6x7cm film and scan w/ a Microtek 
120 MF 
> > scanner w/ Silverfast. The problem is when I scan at 4000 ppi 
optical 
> > at 16 bit my resulting files are 500+ MB, and that is w/o 
adjustment 
> > layers in the post processing stage which can be 1 gb+!  The 
quality 
> > BTW is usually better than my 5D Canon... I've tested 
downsampling to 
> > 3200 and even 2400 ppi and I really can't see a difference which 
brings 
> > it down nearly half the file size.  I'm not even sure I can see 
a 
> > differnce when downsampling from 16 bit to 8 bit if I don't do 
much 
> > post processing. I'm just wondering what other folks do to keep 
there 
> > files sizes reasonable and still attain the highest quality...? 
> 
> Did you test both file sizes 4000 and 2400 PPI on really big
> prints say 4 feet wide and notice no difference ?
> If they are equal, do you get enough information from your
> scanner at 4000 PPI ?
> If I recall it correctly the scanner shares the same Kodak
> trilinear sensor that the Nikon 8000 has and the Nikon is
> tested on resolution and delivers between 3600 and 3800 PPI
> true resolution.
> Another test, upsample the 2400 PPI one to 4000 again and
> check detail of the original 4000 PPI scan to detail of the
> converted 4000 PPI scan.
> The scanner optics filthy meanwhile ?
> 
> In other words, there should be 4000 PPI  information
> available in Mamiya 7 II film frames and the files will be
> huge.
> 
> If the quality is usually better than the 5D Canon you could 
> consider upgrading to the 5D Mark II which should bridge 
> that last IQ difference you see and could make the Mamiya + 
> Microtek + old 5D obsolete and deliver smaller files at the 
> same time. The Mamiya + lenses + Microtek + old  5D must 
> bring you close to the purchasing price of the new 5D. Maybe 
> not the answer you were expecting ..........
> 
> 
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst
> 
> 
> |  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
> |     www.pigment-print.com    |
> |             ( unvollendet )            |
>