mauro_franic

And as pointed out, the Noritsu introduces weird noise patterns (although it doesn't seem to be your problem).

See comparison of the Coolscan and the Noritsu with the Mamiya 7II and Portra 400. Also A7RII.

The resolution advantage of TMAX over Acros is irrelevant. In 35mm format they both resolve approximately the same as my 42MP Sony A7RII. Trix resolves much less but I like it the most.

The wavelength response is very different. If you look at the 100% crops above, TMAX outpaces Acros on the lamp in the far back. Acros outpaces Tmax on the grass.

To your question about Ilford:

Acros' grain structure is shaped like TMAX. I extensively tested both side by side. Tmax has slightly smaller grain and has slightly more detail. Acros is sharper (so often scans of soft contrast scenes may show more detail than Tmax) and has more interesting tonality.

It has been a lifetime since I posted but this showed up and I have just the example in one of my film tests. Your example looks to me as it was pushed at least 2 stops. Yes, it is overly grainy and the midtones are gone.

This is a 50% crop of a 35mm frame. Tmax for comparison. I shoot Trix more than Tmax because the tonality is unmatchable.

<p>Like I said, Canon will catch up because a 30-40MP camera is less limiting than a 20MP camera for landscapes printed large.</p>

<p>Those who argue to the contrary or have no need for it, can skip the next Canon model when it comes out.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This back and forth is pointless. Bottom line, today Nikon has a camera for landscape photographers who print/sell/display their work larger than 16x20 that Canon cannot match. Although my 35mm SLR range is Canon, I shoot film almost 100% (not just for the resolution but for the many subjective qualities I much prefer), still I feel I may have gotten a 30-40MP camera as a backup to match my lenses had it become available.</p>

<p>Canon will produce such camera because there is a large market for it. They are just late this time.</p>

<p>People who think a 15MP bayer-and-AA camera is adequate for 24x36 fine art display, God bless them- (and keep them from looking at such print side by side from a film camera or, a Nikon D800). And pray it doesn't happen at a gallery by arranging mistake.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>" it will out resolve the Nikon lenses by a substantial margin"</em></p>

<p>LOL. The cool-aid still flows.</p>

<p>Many/most of my lenses (Canon, Mamiya and Minolta) outresolve Kodak Techpan. The film captures 75MP in 35mm and 350MP in medium format.</p>

<p>I think a 35MP digital camera will be just fine... And greatly improve people's toolset.</p>

<p>Bottom line though, the D800 will be a fantastic improvement in technology for landscape photographers (who actually print and sell prints).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>To the OP's question, many/most 35mm lenses can exceed 36MP detail.</p>

<p>"As one who just hung a roll of Tmax 400 to dry I have to say I personally cannot get any 35mm film including Tmax 100 to match the detail I get from my my old Canon 5d."</p>

<p>That is not a limitation of the film or the lens. (not even close)</p>

<p>Tmax 100 35mm will have higher resolution than the D800-36MP in high contrast areas. I believe even a scan of the film using a Coolscan will exceed it. I will test it and post the results in due time.</p>

<p>Yes 400 is sharper than 160.</p>

<p>Both are great films but Portra 400 is a marvel of technology for a fast color negative.</p>

<p>Yep. You can't beat Velvia 50.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I agree with Andy's plan although I would add a scanner offering with seamless integration to Kodak's films (a la Apple as well). I would probably outsource the scanner's production to concentrate on film and even try to obtain the Coolscan's IP to manufacture it under Nikon's license (adding 4x5 support and expanding the resolution to 6,000 dpi for medium format).</p>

<p>I just developed a batch from this fall with TMAX and I can tell you it will never be dead. Fall's colors look best in black and white....<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Only-TMAX/15377450_PJTRpm#!i=1662584212&k=CvBgw7B&lb=1&s=X2</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I doubt Kodak film is going away any time soon. </p>

<p>Just for kicks I order $1,000 of TMAX 100 120 which was all the inventory Amazon had though.</p>

<p>You don't need the masks plus doing batch scan may even work with the crappy computer is already there since you will not be rendering the scans on the screen at all.</p>

<p>I assume you have the 35mm plastic holder (12 frames at once). If not, buy one on ebay used for $20 or a new one for $50.</p>

<p>No need to complicate yourself. This is easy peachy.</p>

<p>I saw Les' answer after I posted my reply. Same good advice.</p>

<p>Congrats on having a good scanner at your disposal for free. Enjoy.</p>

<p>Harry, there is no complexity at all or learning curve in scanning B&W film with a Coolscan 9000. Turn all settings off and leave only auto exposure and auto focus enabled under preferences. You put the film in and press scan.</p>

<p>It sounds like your problem is the computer, not the scanner. If you have a good laptop with a 1394 port, I would use that and then you will also have the files with you ready to go home.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I recommend you get a 7Ne r 7N. Inexpensive, solidly featured and great form factor.</p>

<p>They support ETTL II. Not sure why other people state that film cameras don't.</p>