Chris Lauritzen
(K=14949) - Comment Date 6/13/2003
|
Eric,
I would say that a proper 35mm scan is better then a consumer digital camera can produce. I also use the Coolscan 4000 and I am quiet happy with the prints I have made (up to 16x20 so far). I will not go digital until the 11mp or higher cameras get cheaper.
|
|
|
|
Jerry Meola
(K=77) - Comment Date 6/14/2003
|
I am a big fan of digital scans (prefferably from negatives), but in general you can enlarge a digital capture larger than a comparable digital scan. The reasons get very technical but there are sufficient test results on other sites to prove the results. They seem to interpolate better.
I do not want to give up either. I use an old minolta scan dual 6mp and it produces prints comparable to about a 5mp camera.
I think you will find a 6mp camera to give you comparable results to the Nikon scan. Additionally it will not have the softening effect of digital ice. There is no dust and much less post image processisng necessary.
The first thing you will see is the great increase in the number of pictures you take. Digital images are free and film is not.
|
|
|
|
Keith Banham
(K=1306) - Comment Date 6/15/2003
|
Eric, I Disagree with the staement that a 35mm scan is superior to a 6mp image. I have been using film for 35mm and medium format and scanning the slides professionally for the last 14 years. I have recently purchased a Canan 10D and I believe the digital to be at least as good if not better than 35mm scans. As you know, adding yet another post process ie. scanning does nothing to enhance a good slide and even when done professionally sometimes gives a result which I consider less than perfect. Digital at the moment gives excellent results. I also use a Mamiya RZ67 Pro but I must admit it doesn't get much use at the moment as much as I love it. If I was needing to enlarge images greater than A3 then I would use it. Other than that ths 6mp is awesome. In actual fact, I have read a number of reviews from medium format people who claim their 6mp digitals are giving them equal quality to their pro-scanned slides. People who have forked out large $$ for medium format rigs are not renowned for minimising the image quality of their gear. A testiment to current digital. Also look a the number of medium format gear that has been for sale on ebay. Many with low or no offers. The other factor is the time. Even scanning a number of your own slides on a decent film scanner is a time consuming excercise before you even start to get creative. Your choice my friend. :)
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 6/15/2003
|
And the answer is: it all depends.
What film? What scanner? What do you want to do with the file? etc. etc. etc.
A good scan using a good scanner and good film is superior to the best any digicam can produce.
A crappy scan from poor film made by someone who doesn't know what he's doing is easily bested by the worst digicam.
For display in a size like usefilm uses (or even fullscreen on a 1024x768 screen) a 5MP digicam can produce similar if not better results than most consumer scanners with most films when used by most people.
For making 40x60cm prints or larger a good slide scanned using a highend scanner (like a Nikon LS-8000) will give superior results (and a print using a traditional darkroom will be better still).
|
|
|
|
Brendan Bhagan
(K=531) - Comment Date 6/15/2003
|
I have seen prints from 6mp DSLr's and to me they are soft, no fine detail and lack tonality, I scan on a 4000 dpi polaroid sprint scan and gine grained films like provia or acros for B&W easily out do 6 mp digital for sharpness and print quality, now for web work yes digital captures do seem to look alot better on screen. I know a rather established pro with a 16 mp digital back on his RZ, he still laods up film into it for his keeper shots but I would agree at 11mp digital does beat 35mm and at 22 it beats 645 but then again it depends on the subject and intended final use. But then what do I know I wear glasses
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 6/16/2003
|
You're correct in stating that digital camera output is often soft and lacking in fine detail.
I photograph a lot of aircraft, on a slide you can see things like static discharge antennas which are only a few millimeter thick. When shooting the exact same scene using a digital camera (same focal length, distance, etc.) they're invisible.
|
|
|
|
Keith Banham
(K=1306) - Comment Date 6/17/2003
|
I agree, on the slide the fine detail is there for sure. But it doesn't always transfer across with scanning either.
|
|
|
|
Jamie Ferguson
(K=6284) - Comment Date 6/18/2003
|
The fine detail is only now being realised with the new Canon and Kodak 10+ Megapixel cameras, to equal or better 35mm the file size of images needed to break the 20mb mark (the same size you would get on an average 300DPI 35mm scan). If you've been following CCD/CMOS technology over the last few years I'm sure you've noticed the leaps and bounds that are coming out. The Canon 10D produces some of the sharpest images around and its one of the cheapest D-SLR cameras on the market now. Its all apples and oranges though.
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=14949) - Comment Date 6/18/2003
|
Scanning is something that takes time and practice. A 4000 dpi scanner is about equal to 16 mp digital cameras so it is capable of producing fine results if the user is careful. One thing that I said earlier is remember that the scan is a second generation copy where a digital camera is first generation.
A poor digital camera picture can look better then a fair 35mm scan but a great digital camera shot will not look better then a great scan if the user is descent at scanning. If you?re setting up your system to start scanning don?t always be sold on the software that came with the scanner. Start asking questions on what other people use and look at their shots and compare.
For example here is what I use for scanning...
Hardware.
1. Nikon Coolscan 4000 for 35mm (4000dpi)
2. Microtek 5900 for Medium format (2400dpi)
Software.
1. NikonScan 3
2. Vuescan (latest version as it?s always being updated)
3. Silverfast 6.0 AI
4. Scanwizard
I have found that not one program will do it all and I need to use all of these at some time or another depending on the film brand I shot.
It takes a long time to scan and get it right and yes digital cameras would make that easier but at this time I have invested in this HW and SW so buying a D1X or like is out of the question. When prices drop, and they will, I will be moving up but that is a little ways off yet.
|
|
|
|
Lucas Macedo
(K=12843) - Comment Date 6/24/2003
|
Again, as Jeroen said, it all depends, especially on what you want to do with the picture. I use a Minolta 7Hi 5mp digital camera and also a Minolta Maxxum 700si for film. For prints up to A3 size the 5 mp files are perfect, they start to loose for the scanned film ones after that. You can still get reasonable up to A2 posters with a 5 mp file, if well done. !!
|
|
|
|
Jim McNitt
(K=11246) - Comment Date 7/15/2003
|
Eric:
The answer is that a good film transparency will always have more detail for extreme enlargements. However, a good digital camera that does not require scanning will generally give you better results for posting to UF and making digital inkjet prints as long as your print or image size does not exceed 100 percent of the camera's resolution. For 3.x megapixels, that's about 8x10, for 5.x megapixels it's 11x14 and for 6.x megapixels it's possible to get good quality at close to 16x20. But you CAN'T exceed these limits and expect photographic quality prints. Also, these sizes assume minimal cropping.
|
|
|
|
