First of all, I wouldn't consider the test to be valid bearing teh huge gap in lens qualities. You'apparently putting Hasselblad's lens (i.e. Zeiss ine, even though zoom) against this "all-in-one" kind 28-300 Tamron turist's orineted zoom. I think to provide correct base under your estimation, you have to line-up your lenses achieving at least comparable optical qualities, particulalry if considering high-resolution scanning afterwards. If yuo work with Kodak - the appropriate one would be probably Nikon high-quality prime or professional zoom.
Just my opinion. Alex --- Norm Carver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
