Discussion in 'Photographic Discussions' started by Iron Flatline, Jun 15, 2008.
One man's take on the difference between film and digital:
The 7200 dpi scan comparison
I agree but it's still not a fair comparison w/o a drum scan or at least a FlexTight scan.
The Plustek claims to scan at 7200dpi, but I have very serious doubts that the true optical resolution breaks 3000. Besides, given that the native resolution of film is somewhere in the 3000-5000dpi range (depending on the film and assuming a slower speed negative or slide film), why would you scan at 7200 dpi anyway?
well my thought on this , is why compare at all? For me, its all about convenience. Sure, you can get more color and all that from film, but its not instant. You cant go straight from the camera to editing (and control every aspect of the editing process) in the time it takes to get film developed. i dont think that digital is BETTER than film, just more convenient
OY! Another dreaded DVF thread!
it doesnt need to become an arguement. Like I said, I just think we need to stop comparing. Its like canon vs nikon. Is there really a winner?
I scan at high resolutions to maintain the character of the film graininess - oversampling, if you want to look at it that way. I've noticed that a lot of film looks less grainy when scanned at 6000 to 8000 ppi than it does at 4000 ppi because there is less apparent grain aliasing. Pushed EPJ, for instance, looks much less grainy when scanned at 8000 ppi than at 4000 ppi. Kodachrome looks pretty amazing at 8000 ppi.
If you are going to print large I believe that it is better to start with an optimistic scan resolution (provided that it is a genuine resolution and not a manufacturer's inflated claim) rather than scan at a low resolution and upsample to the ppi the printer performs well at.
Separate names with a comma.