Hi! My suggestion would be:
- Scan at highest resolution on the Multi Pro (3200 PPI for 120 format) - Decide on a given print size, like 70x50 cm and a given resolution like 300 DPI. - Crop the pictures to corresponding format in Photoshop (or whatever you use) - Scale the image to your format aim (can be done using the crop tool in photoshop) - Save the image as TIFF or JPEG with high quality. The Tamron zoom is probably a joke, I would suggest that you get a real lens. Superzooms like the Tamron are known to have lousy performance. Best regards Erik Kaffehr Thursday 15 July 2004 04.48 skrev Norm Carver: > I am in the midst of doing a basic comparison between my Hasselblad and the > new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame). I don't need a super accurate test, > just reasonably fair. My work is half color, half b&w with the end product > in books and large exhibition prints 20 to 40". > > I invite suggestions and/or critiques of my approach as outlined here: > > I gave up the dark room several years ago after too many decades. So I must > compare scanned film against digital RAW. Also, though it may invite scorn > from some purists, I am comparing the actual tools I work with most of the > time, not the ultimate options in lenses. These are: > Hblad 203fe with 60-120 zoom > Kodak SLRpro with Tamron 28-300. > > I take the test images from the same position and adjust the Tamron zoom > factor to match the approximate vertical coverage of Hblad zoom. To avoid > any focus hocus pocus I am measuring distances. I care mainly about the > clarity issue --ie details and sharpness and less about color accuracy as > this is more easily adjusted. > > The digital raw is 16 bit, 4500x3000 @ 300 rez which equals about 10" ht > image. > > The 220 films, (CN400) and Ektachrome VS 120 are scanned on a Minolta > MultiPro (a Nikon 8000 is also available). But here is where I need some > advice. I believe I should scan to end up with the same 300 rez but to what > file size? > Here are two I have tried and the thinking behind each: > > 1. Scan the 2.10 x 2.10 area at maximum of 4800 dpi which gives an image > size of 34" sq and a file size of 604 mb which is simply too unwieldy. > > 2. Scan at the nearest even dpi to approximately double the image size > since the 220 film is a little over 2x the ht of the Kodak orig of 1" which > means 3200 dpi and image size 22.7, file size 268. > > I stand ready for any further ideas. At the end, if any one is interested, > I shall try to post the results on my web site, normancarver.com > > Thanks for any help, Norm Carver > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as > appropriate) in the message title or body -- Erik Kaffehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] alt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mariebergsv�gen 53 +46 155 219338 (home) S-611 66 Nyk�ping +46 155 263515 (office) Sweden -- Message sent using 100% recycled electrons -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
