Scanning film negatives

[excalibur2]

No, you can't convince me, any more than I expect to convince you, in no small part because I stuck with the dedicated film scanner route, and an academic argument about V750 is of no interest to me or, no doubt, virtuo.

That said, the V750 has an optical resolution of 6400dpi in film mode. I presume by "true" resolution you mean the effective resolution of a resultant scan, the degree to which it would be able to match the results from a drum scanner?

The problem with that is that you then have a multitude of variables in the mix. They'd include how the film was mounted, how well it was mounted, what software was used, what settings were used, any issues with the film itself (like curl) which in the absence of wet-mounting will vary, height adjustment of holders if not wet-mounted and even manufacturing variances from scsnner to scanner.

The V750 is a match for a drum scanner for the purposes to which most people will put it. If you're a professional preparing a cover spread for Vogue or a 10ft wide print for a corporate HQ boardroom, you're probably not going to be using a V750, but then, I doubt you're using 35mm film anyway. More likely a Hasselblad with digital back or, yeah, medium format film and a drum scanner.

It's the same argument as a BMW M3 being no more functional than a VW Polo if you're using it to queue non-stop through traffic to get to the supermarket, despite the M3's power, performance, handling and comfort advantages. In fact, for that, I'll pick the Polo every time.

You can convince me if you can show a few reliable websites for what I say about film and scanning\scanners is wrong....and I will admit my mistake in the next post.

[peterb]

You can convince me if you can show a few reliable websites for what I say about film and scanning\scanners is wrong....and I will admit my mistake in the next post.

I'm not sure that convincing is relevant. You have two differing points of view. Saracen's is based on pragmatism and what will work for a specific set of circumstances, having due regard to real world effects that may degrade images, and a more subjective view.

Yours is based on absolute measurement, taking only into account the absolute quoted specs of various items of equipment, perhaps a more objective view.

Both are valid, yours more so if you have a limitless budget and no defined requirement for the final result.

Saracen's is more realistic in the real world, taking into account process imperfections, and a defined purpose for the finally scanned image.

[excalibur2]

I'm not sure that convincing is relevant. You have two differing points of view. Saracen's is based on pragmatism and what will work for a specific set of circumstances, having due regard to real world effects that may degrade images, and a more subjective view.

Yours is based on absolute measurement, taking only into account the absolute quoted specs of various items of equipment, perhaps a more objective view.

Both are valid, yours more so if you have a limitless budget and no defined requirement for the final result.

Saracen's is more realistic in the real world, taking into account process imperfections, and a defined purpose for the finally scanned image.

Well yes and I would guess the original poster uses a digi camera....and as he says just wants to scan some old negs. BUT there are still some film users around that take using film seriously and want to get the best out of film, and I'm just one of them as I don't have digi camera (well I do have a very old digi compact, given to me, for quick shots of gear for posting ).

[ik9000]

interesting thread - Scanning my negs is something I need to get round to. No wisdom to add, but signing on so I can find it later.