scanning film

Can scanning film to photoshop create a photo equal to or better than from a
digital camera?
bill

bill wrote:
Can scanning film to photoshop create a photo equal to or better than from a
digital camera?
bill

What was that sound I just heard, oh yeah it is the sound a of can of
warms being opened.

The short answer is it depends on what film (size and type) and what
digital camera.

Scott

worms

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

bill wrote:
Can scanning film to photoshop create a photo equal to or better than
from a
digital camera?
bill

What was that sound I just heard, oh yeah it is the sound a of can of
warms being opened.

The short answer is it depends on what film (size and type) and what
digital camera.

Scott

bill wrote:
worms


Yup worms is what I meant

Scott

bill wrote:
Can scanning film to photoshop create a photo equal to or better than
from a digital camera?
bill

You might want to take this question to comp.periphs.scanners this is the
darkroom group.

Yes, a 2400dpi scan of a 4x5" film is 125 megapixels. If you scan
8x10" film, you can over 1000 megapixels.

Now do you mean scanning 35mm film? If so, most believe that high-end
dSLRs now produce images better than the best scans from 35mm.

Can scanning film to photoshop create a photo equal to or better than from a
digital camera?
bill

thank you ... this i shall do
bill

"Alan Smithee" wrote in message
news:lYbdf.490391$tl2.326768@pd7tw3no...
bill wrote:
Can scanning film to photoshop create a photo equal to or better than
from a digital camera?
bill

You might want to take this question to comp.periphs.scanners this is the
darkroom group.

"Mike" wrote

Now do you mean scanning 35mm film? If so, most believe that high-end
dSLRs now produce images better than the best scans from 35mm.

A digital camera will [should] always perform better than a
scan of the equivalent film image.

Both the camera and the scanner digitize the image, producing
digitizing artifacts. The scanned film only adds film artifacts,
further degrading the image.

Obviously, if the equipment is miss-matched [EOS-1D Vs 300 dpi ScanJet;
JamCam Vs Heidelberg/Hell] the comparison results can be anything you want.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:16:55 GMT, Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

"Mike" wrote

Now do you mean scanning 35mm film? If so, most believe that high-end
dSLRs now produce images better than the best scans from 35mm.

A digital camera will [should] always perform better than a
scan of the equivalent film image.

So all one needs is to find a digital camera capable of making an image as
good as one from my RB. Hmmm, don't think one exists yet. At least not one
afforable by the average "prosumer".

--

Regards,

John S. Douglas - Photographer & Webmaster
http://www.legacy-photo.com - http://www.puresilver.org

"John" wrote
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:16:55 GMT, Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

A digital camera will [should] always perform better than a
scan of the equivalent film image.
So all one needs is to find a digital camera capable of making an image as
good as one from my RB. Hmmm, don't think one exists yet. At least not one
afforable by the average "prosumer".

I don't think there is a 6x7cm image sensor, yet. Maybe never.
You have to keep it apples to apples -- if I took away the RB
and replaced with a BarbieCam then finding a digital camera
that outperformed film wouldn't be very hard.

If it's a theoretical posit then $$ don't enter into it. If $$
count then an Isolette/Nettar [MF format folders] with a
Solagon/Tessar would beat all for pixels/dollar == and most
likely they still would even if equipped with a pedestrian
Apotar/Novar triplet.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm