Qkano <wildimages@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >stuff that contributed nothing to the image. It was suggested that a 4000 > >ppi scanner offered no benefit above a 1200 ppi scanner for high quality > >35mm film.. > > Bull...! > > > http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm And, in general, Roger's article on film vs. digital at <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html> is worth looking at. The other point is that simple resolution questions can be fairly easily settled by photographing a resolution test chart. This can provide a useful check on theoretical calculations :-). -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
