r._matthew_robinson

In case you hadn't already noticed, there are two studs to hold these caps on the inside of the rubber flap covering the external power and video output sockets on the left side of the camera. Popping them on these studs keeps them handy and safe without having to remove them every time you want to use the remote release etc..

Many thanks to everyone who replied, the benefit of your experience is a great help.

 

If I've understood correctly - it seems that although in ideal circumstances 8x10" is capable of superior results, this may prove difficult to achieve consistently in practice.

 

The consensus seems to be that the flat-bed photo scanner is likely to prove the weakest link in the reproduction chain, regardless of format. Renting time on an Imacon scanner is possible here in Zurich - and scanning 4x5" transparencies on a top flight film scanner seems to offer the best compromise without going down the drum scanning route. Partly as a consequence of the 'virtual drum' marketing voodoo I have always been a little sceptical about miraculous claims made for Imacon scanners - but I don't doubt that they can deliver significantly superior results when compared to a flat-bed scanner. The best Imacon scanners have a claimed resolution of 2050 dpi when scanning 4x5" transparencies, which doesn't seem exhorbitant. This gives a non-interpolated image of roughly 27x34" at 300 dpi - assuming the kit performs as advertised, this should be close to optimal for my needs.

 

Regards,

M.

Is there anybody able to give me advice regarding the relative quality

of large inkjet prints made from scanned 4x5" and 8x10" colour

transparencies?

 

My goal is to produce large colour landscape images with the greatest

possible level of fine detail, such that the quality of the images

will stand up to very close inspection without demonstrating any

perceptible artifacts or lack of sharpness. My thinking so far is to

scan large format transparencies using an Epson or Canon large format

photo scanner and to print them on a Epson 7800 printer. I realise

that better scanning results might be obtained by using a drum-scanner

- but there are cost, conveniance and consistency of workmanship

issues about doing this here in Switzerland.

 

Given only moderate cropping, and printing at say 24x35" on the 7800,

can I expect to see - on very close inspection - any perceptible

differences in quality between images generated from scanned 4x5" and

8x10" transparencies? Is there anybody who has had any experience they

can share about producing images using a similar approach?

 

Thanks,

M.