Roger Hicks
Veteran
Thanks for a god post, Brian.
I've recently been doing quite a lot of comparison scanning, comparing high-res with upsampling, and an awful lot depends on the quality of the original image: big grain, or the tiniest amount of camera shake, usually means that an upsampled 2700 dpi scan is all but indistinguishable from a 5400 dpi original (I use the latest Konica-Minolta, recently acquired after my 8-year-old Coolscan died, hence the scan comparisons). Even an upsampled 1800 may look the same for some hand-held night shots.
But with (for example) optimally exposed Ilford Delta 100 or Pan F developed in Perceptol, where I can get 125 lp/mm from the 75/2 Summicron, I can see more in a 5400 than in a 2700.
Of course, on a monitor, resolution is abysmal anyway...
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- and the Photo School is now up and running)
I've recently been doing quite a lot of comparison scanning, comparing high-res with upsampling, and an awful lot depends on the quality of the original image: big grain, or the tiniest amount of camera shake, usually means that an upsampled 2700 dpi scan is all but indistinguishable from a 5400 dpi original (I use the latest Konica-Minolta, recently acquired after my 8-year-old Coolscan died, hence the scan comparisons). Even an upsampled 1800 may look the same for some hand-held night shots.
But with (for example) optimally exposed Ilford Delta 100 or Pan F developed in Perceptol, where I can get 125 lp/mm from the 75/2 Summicron, I can see more in a 5400 than in a 2700.
Of course, on a monitor, resolution is abysmal anyway...
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- and the Photo School is now up and running)