![]() Y'know, I understand what you're saying (writing, actually), but it's hard to overcome the limitations imposed by a fixed imager size. Effectively, relative to the film frame, you were able to make about a 4000 PPI copy, which is already going to out resolve almost all of the currently available films. On the other hand, your example of scanning a 35mm frame with your K-01 is a good example. And, the comparison looks even less good for DSLR scanning as the film frame size gets bigger. A $200 flat bed can come close to that kind of output. When we do that, the effective resolution of the copied frame becomes 2,079 PPI (4912 / 2.36). So, let's go back to the 4912 pixel width of the D800 and recalculate resolution for a 60mm frame, which is what you are copying. But the big difference between a camera and a scanner is that the former has fixed dimensions. But if you need high dynamic range b&w a bracketed digital scan is hard to beatĭaiku_San: First, you gotta figure out your numerator from your denominator. this even if you have a good stable and registered table with rails. High resolution stitching of many scenes is easier said than done. I have done 1:1 macro "scans" of 35mm film using my 16mp APS-C Pentax K-01 (2 vertical shots stitched) and the final image is around 20mp. So if you're using a D800 and a 1:1 macro, your final image will be more like 125 megapixels. ![]() Regardless of overlap of frames, you should still end with a finished stitched image with that 5200dpi. Using a 1:1 macro and stitching multiple shots means you're effectively "scanning" at that 5198 dpi. To me it just seems like a lot of work to only eek out a tiny bit over what a $200 scanner can do. A two shot stitch can only use about 80% of the pixel depth in the long dimension, so you end up compressing your 6圆 negative into a 4812x4812 pixel area. 4000 ppi with perfect lens, alignment & focus on 24mp camera).Įven then, it still works out to about 23 MPx with respect to the negative, or about 2000 DPI. Stitching 1:1 macro shots I guess (theoretical c. How is it possible for a 24 or 32 MPx DSLR to give a 78 MPx scan? It seems like a high resolution camera like the D800 (36 MPx) will give only 24 MPx for a 6圆 scan, which equals about 2000 PPI. For the t3i, you would need at least the Canon EF 100 F2.8 Macro, or a Micro Nikkor Ai 105 f/4 (+ adaptor), both of which will cost you about as much as the V600.Īlternatively, a decent dedicated 35mm film scanner can be had for about the same price, and can deliver better results than either a flatbed scanner or low-end DSLR. In my experience, it's the lens that is more expensive. If you get adequate results from it, then there is no need to look further. If you already have the camera and macro lens, why not try it. The thing about using a DSLR is you need a 1:1 macro lens, some way to hold the film and camera in proper positions, and an even light source. I doubt the camera will give better results for medium format film, however. Is the v600 the least expensive scanner with good results? So Trash-star, i assume canon t3i as a dslr will be inferior to a epsson v600 ?įor 35mm film, you can probably get equally good scans with either. ![]() However, if you factor in time and convenience, a dedicated film scanner will roundly outperform a DSLR. For 35mm, most DSLRs can deliver scan quality exceeding that of a flatbed scanner. Not an expert but I read that many large prints really need only 150 dpi.įor medium format, a flatbed scanner will win unless you have a very good DSLR. That being said, I still use a V500 to scan all my medium format film, and if you don't need to print huge, the V600 will be a lot simpler to use. That equals (with 6圆) a 78 megapixel file and a print size of 30"x30" 300 ppi. The V600 allows you to scan at higher resolution than 2400, but you won't actually get any more detail out of the film at those higher resolutions.Ī good quality DSLR scan is probably close to 4000 dpi. For a 6圆 negative, this works out to a 26 megapixel file, and a print size of 17"x17" ppi. The very best you can realistically get from the V600 is around 2400 dpi. ![]() I don't think the V600 will come remotely close to the quality of a well done DSLR scan, but depending on volume the V600 will be a lot simpler. I tried several other scanners before getting the Epson and have been really happy with the Epson. Additionally, I used Adobe Lightroom for adjustments on older negatives. Clear (with digital ICE) and high resolution. I have scanned over 12000 negatives and they are great. I am scanning 35 years of family negatives. I was wondering if people can comment on that. I noticed this scanner is about $200 and a few people have said it provides better scans than dslr scanning.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |