06-06-2010, 02:03 PM
Dear all,
thank you for your help!
I didn't think about the low light intensity coming from the enlarger. In fact this would never be enough for a proper scan. Although this way supposed to deliver the highest resolution possible.
I also had the idea to use a macro lens, but the highest magnification is 1:1 and therefore the quality of the film slide would be lost.
So scanners seem to be the first choice?! My Canoscan 4200F only scans 35mm films and calibrating it properly is not an easy task.
The Canon models you propose are rather cheap compared to these professional scanners (there is a Nikon beast for many hundreds of euros and the Epson professional line).
Do you know the difference?
I wonder if these scanners can reach the resolution and dynamic range that manufactures promise.
My Canoscan 4200F supposed to reach 16bits per colour channel. What it really does is 8bits. The software then multiplies the values by 256 and that's what they call 16bit!
thank you for your help!
I didn't think about the low light intensity coming from the enlarger. In fact this would never be enough for a proper scan. Although this way supposed to deliver the highest resolution possible.
I also had the idea to use a macro lens, but the highest magnification is 1:1 and therefore the quality of the film slide would be lost.
So scanners seem to be the first choice?! My Canoscan 4200F only scans 35mm films and calibrating it properly is not an easy task.
The Canon models you propose are rather cheap compared to these professional scanners (there is a Nikon beast for many hundreds of euros and the Epson professional line).
Do you know the difference?
I wonder if these scanners can reach the resolution and dynamic range that manufactures promise.
My Canoscan 4200F supposed to reach 16bits per colour channel. What it really does is 8bits. The software then multiplies the values by 256 and that's what they call 16bit!