film scanner resolution needed for ISO 200

Monte Castleman wrote:

I currently scan Fuji Super HG or Agfa (whatever the Walgreens stuff is)
ISO 200 negatives on a 2400 dpi scanner. Would there be any benefit to
using a higher dpi scanner? What about if I were to use something
like Fuji Reala 100? I normally use a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens, so the
image isn't degraded by a cheap kit zoom.

Put another way, what's the approximate dpi for reasonably priced ISO
100 and 200 negative films.

4000 dpi would cover it very well. A nikon 4000/5000, Minolta
DSE 5400, Scan Dual IV (3200 dp), etc.

Consider whether ICE would be a benefit to you as well before you
buy.

OTOH, as the other poster says, what is the end use of the scans,
if it is for printing, then the print resoultion drives the scan
resolution.

eg: a 300 dpi print for a 8.5 x 11 requires 3300 dots from 36mm
of frame ... about 2300 dpi. If that is sufficient, then you're
there.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

The major issue here is not resolution, but grain aliasing. You can
do a google search on the subject and find a lot of hits. If I
remember correctly, when the scanning resolution is about the same as
the grain size, the grain is emphasized. I had that problem while
scanning at 2400 dpi. For that reason my digital pictures at 6
megapixels from my drebel are much better than scanned nagatives, even
though the result is a 8 megapixel image.

Monte Castleman wrote in message ink.net...
I currently scan Fuji Super HG or Agfa (whatever the Walgreens stuff is)
ISO 200 negatives on a 2400 dpi scanner. Would there be any benefit to
using a higher dpi scanner? What about if I were to use something
like Fuji Reala 100? I normally use a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens, so the
image isn't degraded by a cheap kit zoom.

Put another way, what's the approximate dpi for reasonably priced ISO
100 and 200 negative films.