Who needs a 5400dpi scanner?

[neil_parker]

I'm convinced, I want this scanner now! Anybody have a firm ship date, or know of a source? I've been waiting a long time to upgrade my film scanner, and I am ready!

 

The other real cool thing about the 5400 is the batch mode. It will scan 6 frames on a neg strip, or 4 mounted slides, as a batch.

[steve_allans]

There were people who said that the curve ball was an optical

illusion,till someone filmed it using upright sticks to prove that

indeed the rotational energy of a curveball did indeed make the

curveball, curve. Now, since the film grain is continuous tone

and the extra increments of scanning ie 5400 ppi would indeed

make a difference. That is without question. even if you were to

do a million ppi scan (whoa big hardrive needed) there would

still

be more info (many pixels scanning a grain)now the only point

might be would anyone be able to tell the difference in the

diminishing rate of returns. which brings us to the main point for

most of us. Can we get a better scan from 5400 dpi $900

scanner than a med format scanner at $900? And as for the bet

statement by Scott , when the 5400 comes out someone will do

a test. But in the meantime , I'll bet there are more places to

process 35mm film and i bet that the

AF will beat the pants off med format.and the lens will cost less

and that i can change 20 rolls of film will in action faster than in

your 6X7 and i bet that a 35mm outfit with a few lenses weighs

less than your 6X7. Yes, I have med gear and yes i like the

bigger negs, BUT, that wasn't what this thread was about.

Final point try scanning ave transparency at 4000 ppi and res

down to 1000 and compare to a 1000ppi scan from same

scanner.More color info in res down version. More pixel to get

info from(4 times more).

[erik]

lol I'll consider MF or LF as a better opportunity as soon as it becomes

 

1) as cheap as 35 mm, per photo (film costs only)

2) as easy to use for me and my family. I can hand my F3 to my mom and she's good to go.

3) as portable. I travel. I walk.

4) as cheap as 35mm, equipment-wise.

 

I shudder to think what my equipment would cost in MF, much less LF. Or what it would be like to use.

 

But hey--it WOULD let me save money on a scanner! ;)

[carl smith]

Well I don't have the numbers handy. But its a well published fact what kind of resolution you can pull from film and Scott and I were both involved just a couple weeks ago in a thread where numbers did surface.

[jonathan_bundick]

If you are talking about this thread,

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005IZn

 

It is not wonder you can't remember the figures.

[dalius_gilvydis]

FYI: This scanner has finally hit the shelves! B&H definitely has them in stock, and I'm sure others will soon. I'm curious to how this thing performs in some independent tests.

[ed_hopper]

B&H <b>had</b> it in stock - for a very short while. No longer. Anyone know of anyplace else that has stock???

[dalius_gilvydis]

Get your's today. There's one available here...

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2939349717&category=15223

[sk_arts]

<<Since 4000dpi scanners can already pick up film grain, what advantage is

there to even higher resolutions?>>

 

why stop at film grain? Isn't the ability to go beyond the "maximum" resolution

of a neg/slide without mechanical-looking artifacts (pixilation) one of the

biggest advantages to analog capture?