Digital BW, The Print

I am looking to move into digital printing of my images. The Canon 
FS400 is the most that I really want to spend. The other two scanners 
I am looking at is the Coolscan IV and the Elite II. I am looking to 
use a 1270 to print via the MIS inks. 

Most are recommending that people go with 4000dpi scanners, based on 
readings here. That seems to be based on using 300dpi when printing. 
But else where people say that the optimum dpi for the Epsons is 
240dpi. Given that 2900 scanner resolution should be more than 
enough. Is it? 


Also mentioned in going with 4000dpi scanners is the grain in BW 
scanning. Would not the GEM in the Nikon and Minolta scanners out 
weight the 4000 dpi? 


I am thinking about using the C41 BW films since FARE and ICE works 
with it. I assume that the limitations that some mention with the 
chromogenics can be overcome with levels and curves. Am I right in 
this? 


Thanks for the help... 


Chip

> Most are recommending that people go with 4000dpi scanners, based on
> readings here. That seems to be based on using 300dpi when printing.
> But else where people say that the optimum dpi for the Epsons is
> 240dpi. Given that 2900 scanner resolution should be more than
> enough. Is it?

It's apples and oranges - scanner and printer dpi are different things, and
somewhat misnamed. There's others on here - probably Austin - who can set
you straight on it more coherently than I can...

tim

I am looking to move into digital printing of my images. The Canon 
FS400 is the most that I really want to spend. The other two scanners 
I am looking at is the Coolscan IV and the Elite II. I am looking to 
use a 1270 to print via the MIS inks. 

Most are recommending that people go with 4000dpi scanners, based on 
readings here. That seems to be based on using 300dpi when printing. 
But else where people say that the optimum dpi for the Epsons is 
240dpi. Given that 2900 scanner resolution should be more than 
enough. Is it? 


Also mentioned in going with 4000dpi scanners is the grain in BW 
scanning. Would not the GEM in the Nikon and Minolta scanners out 
weight the 4000 dpi? 


I am thinking about using the C41 BW films since FARE and ICE works 
with it. I assume that the limitations that some mention with the 
chromogenics can be overcome with levels and curves. Am I right in 
this? 


Thanks for the help... 


Chip

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Atherton" <tim@k...> 
wrote:
> > Most are recommending that people go with 4000dpi scanners, based 
on
> > readings here. That seems to be based on using 300dpi when 
printing.
> > But else where people say that the optimum dpi for the Epsons is
> > 240dpi. Given that 2900 scanner resolution should be more than
> > enough. Is it?
> 
> It's apples and oranges - scanner and printer dpi are different 
things, and
> somewhat misnamed. There's others on here - probably Austin - who 
can set
> you straight on it more coherently than I can...
> 
> tim

Thanks Tim,

I understand the difference between the scanner and printer dpi's; my 
question is a bit more on the printer side as it relates to the 
scanner. Most say to set the printer to 300dpi for image sizing. But 
from what I have read the Epsons realy don't do better with 300 
verses 240. If that is the case then the 2900 dpi scanners will give 
you up to 13x19. The only thing that 4000 dpi will give you is the 
ability to crop then. I guess I was wanting tio know what dpi the 
image should really be set at with the Epson printers.

Chip

I can tell a difference with my 1270 if I print at 240dpi vs. 360 dpi.  
It is not that much of a difference, but it is noticable.

I think the 4000 dpi would be useful for cropping into images.  
You can still print a small portion of your negative at reasonable 
dpi at 13x19.

If you have a medium format camera, I have found that I get 
much better results shooting 120 film and scanning on a $400 
Epson 2450 than I do with 35mm film on a $1500 Nikon 4000.  If 
you already have the camera, it may be a better way to go. 

Good Luck,
Justin

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "photo_bear_nova" 
<jlenkiewicz@c...> wrote:
> I am looking to move into digital printing of my images. The 
Canon 
> FS400 is the most that I really want to spend. The other two 
scanners 
> I am looking at is the Coolscan IV and the Elite II. I am looking 
to 
> use a 1270 to print via the MIS inks. 
> 
> Most are recommending that people go with 4000dpi 
scanners, based on 
> readings here. That seems to be based on using 300dpi when 
printing. 
> But else where people say that the optimum dpi for the Epsons 
is 
> 240dpi. Given that 2900 scanner resolution should be more 
than 
> enough. Is it? 
> 
> 
> Also mentioned in going with 4000dpi scanners is the grain in 
BW 
> scanning. Would not the GEM in the Nikon and Minolta 
scanners out 
> weight the 4000 dpi? 
> 
> 
> I am thinking about using the C41 BW films since FARE and 
ICE works 
> with it. I assume that the limitations that some mention with the 
> chromogenics can be overcome with levels and curves. Am I 
right in 

> this? 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help... 
> 
> 
> Chip

>
> I understand the difference between the scanner and printer dpi's; my
> question is a bit more on the printer side as it relates to the
> scanner. Most say to set the printer to 300dpi for image sizing. But
> from what I have read the Epsons realy don't do better with 300
> verses 240. If that is the case then the 2900 dpi scanners will give
> you up to 13x19. The only thing that 4000 dpi will give you is the
> ability to crop then. I guess I was wanting tio know what dpi the
> image should really be set at with the Epson printers.
>
> Chip

I prefer 360dpi....

Some say they can see no difference between 240 and 300 - others do
(depending on the image and the size of the print, I'm in the latter camp).

Some say the same about 300 to 360 or higher.

As a case in point, I accidentally printed a test print from an 8x10
transparency scan at the 1200dpi it was scanned at, rather than at my usual
360dpi. I could see a definite difference to the one printed at 360. (but
that could perhaps have more to with artefacts from downsampling...?)

Personally, up to a certain point, I would say get the biggest initial file
you can. I think I'm right in saying that 2700/2900 scanner dpi won't come
that close to getting all the information out of a 35mm original. 4000dpi
comes a lot closer - so your initial scan will have more information
available in it (put in simple terms, from my experience, you get more
detail!)



tim

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.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "photo_bear_nova" <jlenkiewicz@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:54 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Scanners for BW - some questions


> I am looking to move into digital printing of my images. The Canon
> FS400 is the most that I really want to spend. The other two scanners
> I am looking at is the Coolscan IV and the Elite II. I am looking to
> use a 1270 to print via the MIS inks.
>
> Most are recommending that people go with 4000dpi scanners, based on
> readings here. That seems to be based on using 300dpi when printing.
> But else where people say that the optimum dpi for the Epsons is
> 240dpi. Given that 2900 scanner resolution should be more than
> enough. Is it?
>
>
> Also mentioned in going with 4000dpi scanners is the grain in BW
> scanning. Would not the GEM in the Nikon and Minolta scanners out
> weight the 4000 dpi?
>
>
> I am thinking about using the C41 BW films since FARE and ICE works
> with it. I assume that the limitations that some mention with the
> chromogenics can be overcome with levels and curves. Am I right in
> this?
>
>
> Thanks for the help...
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I've used an HP Photosmart film scanner, a Polaroid SS4000 and
a Canon D60 digital camera. I love my D60 but miss the big
files from the SS4000.

As far as I'm concerned you can't have too much money,
too much ram, or too many pixels.

More seriously, I'd go with the 4000 dpi scanner. It will give you
much greater flexibility for cropping and choosing print sizes.
Less objectively I believe there to be a qualitative difference
when making selections, burning and dodging, and doing other 
'manipulations'  when there are more pixels.

More pixels are better, though they eat disk space and ram.
Capture your fair now before they get used up.
JimD

At 03:41 PM 9/17/2002 +0000, photo_bear_nova wrote:

>I am looking to move into digital printing of my images. The Canon
>FS400 is the most that I really want to spend. The other two scanners
>I am looking at is the Coolscan IV and the Elite II. I am looking to
>use a 1270 to print via the MIS inks.
>
>Most are recommending that people go with 4000dpi scanners, based on
>readings here. That seems to be based on using 300dpi when printing.
>But else where people say that the optimum dpi for the Epsons is
>240dpi. Given that 2900 scanner resolution should be more than
>enough. Is it?
>
>
>Also mentioned in going with 4000dpi scanners is the grain in BW
>scanning. Would not the GEM in the Nikon and Minolta scanners out
>weight the 4000 dpi?
>
>
>I am thinking about using the C41 BW films since FARE and ICE works
>with it. I assume that the limitations that some mention with the
>chromogenics can be overcome with levels and curves. Am I right in
>this?
>
>
>Thanks for the help...
>
>
>Chip
>
>
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and 
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
>"flames."
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various 
>resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

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.
> 
>

Jerry,

> 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.

Are you talking about B&W negatives?  If so, I don't believe increased
density range of the scanner makes a bit of difference, as the shadows in
the scene are the highlights on the negative.

Austin

Martin,

What about a Nikon Coolscan IV 2900dpi + Genuine Fractals combo?
This is what I plan for A3, A3+ output.

Regards,
Loris.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanners for BW - some questions


> ...
> 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.
> ...
> 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.

Loris,

I have no experience with that scanner but perhaps someone else does.

It is selling in New York at B&H for $800 and at that price I would be
tempted to spend another $400 and get the 4000 ppi Polaroid Sprintscan 4000
Plus which would put you just over 360 ppi output to the printer on A3. If
you really want a deal, B&H has the Microtek Artixscan 4000t for $599.95.
This is the same as the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 and I believe it only
differs from the Sprintscan 4000 Plus in bit depth. The 4000t is 12-bit and
the 4000 Plus is 14-bit. I think I would take the 4000t over the Coolscan IV
which is also a 12-bit scanner.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "Loris Medici" <loris.medici@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanners for BW - some questions


>
> Martin,
>
> What about a Nikon Coolscan IV 2900dpi + Genuine Fractals combo?
> This is what I plan for A3, A3+ output.
>
> Regards,
> Loris.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanners for BW - some questions
>
>
> > ...
> > 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.
> > ...
> > 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.
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

GF is a great tool but it is only another form of  interpolation. I use a
Polaroid SS4000 for my old 35mm negs and have gone 'down' to a 1680Pro
flatbed for MF - I miss those pixels! The Polaroid or the artixscan are
really good value now.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Loris Medici" <loris.medici@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanners for BW - some questions


>
> Martin,
>
> What about a Nikon Coolscan IV 2900dpi + Genuine Fractals combo?
> This is what I plan for A3, A3+ output.
>
> Regards,
> Loris.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanners for BW - some questions
>
>
> > ...
> > 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.
> > ...
> > 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.
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Yep, I know that. But the GF's interpolations are far superior than PS'
bicubic interpolations according to the tests I made with the trial version.
So, I'm trying to justify between [spending $2100 for Coolscan 4000] and
[$1050 (for Coolscan IV) + $150 (GF download) = $1200 a good compromise?].
Please note that the scanner prices are customs tax/duty included, shipment
excluded import prices to my location (Istanbul, Turkey), pricing is
dramatically different for me. BTW, with Coolscan IV, I will need only 1.33x
GF magnification for 35mm full frame prints - and this makes me think that I
may not loose too much quality with this combo. Am I right?

Regards,
Loris.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanners for BW - some questions


> GF is a great tool but it is only another form of  interpolation. I use a
> Polaroid SS4000 for my old 35mm negs and have gone 'down' to a 1680Pro
> flatbed for MF - I miss those pixels! The Polaroid or the artixscan are
> really good value now.
>
> Julian

Ahh, I didn't understand the location problems - If you want to send me a
test neg I'd be happy to scan it on my ss4000 at full optical res and at a
lower res for you to compare. I'm not too sure what that would prove as I
believe (Austin??) that the scanner scans at 4000 and then downsizes to a
lower resolution. BTW I'm in Spain.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Loris Medici" <loris.medici@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanners for BW - some questions


>
> Yep, I know that. But the GF's interpolations are far superior than PS'
> bicubic interpolations according to the tests I made with the trial
version.
> So, I'm trying to justify between [spending $2100 for Coolscan 4000] and
> [$1050 (for Coolscan IV) + $150 (GF download) = $1200 a good compromise?].
> Please note that the scanner prices are customs tax/duty included,
shipment
> excluded import prices to my location (Istanbul, Turkey), pricing is
> dramatically different for me. BTW, with Coolscan IV, I will need only
1.33x
> GF magnification for 35mm full frame prints - and this makes me think that
I
> may not loose too much quality with this combo. Am I right?
>
> Regards,
> Loris.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanners for BW - some questions
>
>
> > GF is a great tool but it is only another form of  interpolation. I use
a
> > Polaroid SS4000 for my old 35mm negs and have gone 'down' to a 1680Pro
> > flatbed for MF - I miss those pixels! The Polaroid or the artixscan are
> > really good value now.
> >
> > Julian
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I narrowed my choices to Nikon and Minolta scanners only. The rest are not
well-represented in Turkey (no distributor or no/weak tech.
support/service). Anyway you gave me a good idea, I can find someone to scan
a couple of my negatives @ 4000dpi. So I can evaluate my statement for
myself. Thanks.

Regards,
Loris.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanners for BW - some questions


> Ahh, I didn't understand the location problems - If you want to send me a
> test neg I'd be happy to scan it on my ss4000 at full optical res and at a
> lower res for you to compare. I'm not too sure what that would prove as I
> believe (Austin??) that the scanner scans at 4000 and then downsizes to a
> lower resolution. BTW I'm in Spain.
>
> Julian

Loris,

Also Try Fred Miranda's stairstep action. It is just a hair better than
genuine fractals, and only about $8.50 Download price. There's a LOT of
great actions on his site, at http://www.fredmiranda.com

Jerry




Loris Medici wrote:

> 
> Martin,
> 
> What about a Nikon Coolscan IV 2900dpi + Genuine Fractals combo?
> This is what I plan for A3, A3+ output.
> 
> Regards,
> Loris.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanners for BW - some questions
> 
> > ...
> > 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.
> > ...
> > 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.
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

If you don\ufffdt mind sending your negatives to Brazil,I can scan them in a
Nikon 4000ED.Email me in private if you want...
Andr\ufffd

>
> Message: 1
>    Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:37:03 +0300
>    From: "Loris Medici" <loris.medici@...>
> Subject: Re: Scanners for BW - some questions
>
>
> I narrowed my choices to Nikon and Minolta scanners only. The rest are not
> well-represented in Turkey (no distributor or no/weak tech.
> support/service). Anyway you gave me a good idea, I can find someone to
scan

> a couple of my negatives @ 4000dpi. So I can evaluate my statement for
> myself. Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Loris.

Thanks much,

I have a friend that has a 8000ED, I will try with that scanner.

Regards,
Loris.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Andr\ufffd Vallejo" <avs@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:01 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Scanners for BW - some questions


> If you don\ufffdt mind sending your negatives to Brazil,I can scan them in a
> Nikon 4000ED.Email me in private if you want...
> Andr\ufffd