Originally Posted by
Saracen
I don't agree, and for several reasons. Firstly, that 21MP is a contentious figure. Other estimates put it lower, some significantly so. Second, theoretical maximums are one thing, but real-world results are another. To hit those maximums, you need a high end film, on a tripod-mounted camera, with a lens at least good enough that the film is the limit not the lens. You also need an image composed in such a way as to not trigger any diffraction issues with the lens.
Then, the "resolution" of 35mm film varies hugely depending on the film. To get maximum film resolution, one of the limiting factors is film grain, and my tests were done mainly with ISO 50 Fuji Velvia, which for a transparency film has one of the finest, and therefore least , limiting, film grains available.
Personally, the killer argument is the purpose to which the output of the scan is going to be used. That is, the medium, the size and the level of scrutiny it's going to get.
For instance, the 'quality' expected of an enprint in someone's holiday snaps is going to be less demanding than the average wedding album print, which is going to be less demanding than a fine art print for an international level competition. I'd set a maximum of about 10x8 for a fine art standard print, and a good film scanner, properly used, can get that from 35mm.
But for large prints that are sharp to a close eye inspection, my standard would require at least medium format film and a drum scanner.
Notice that cut-off. In terms of producing fine art prints, up to 10x8, something like my LS5000 cuts it. Above that, it doesn't, but then, nor does the amount of detail a 35mm piece of film holds. For large prints, at fine art quality, 35mm film just isn't big enough, IMHO, but due to the resolution limit of the film, not the scanner.
As for flatbeds, comparisons I've seen show the V750 I mentioned gets very close to as good a detail from 35mm film as a Lintotype drum scanner. The 750 gives 6400dpi scanning resolution, a 4.0 dmax, 48-bit image files throughout, and you can, and for optimum results, probably should wet-mount the film on the scanner flatbed.
Do that, and as I said, you have "pretty much" reached the point where the film is the limit, not the scanner. Note, "pretty much".
What I was trying to impart, without spelling it out, was that even if you optimise the enture chain, that is, tripod-mount, high-end lens, no lighting aberrations, etc, AND are going for fine-art prints, then a good scanner will give you results good enough for fine art printing, up to about 10x8, and the differences at that point between such scanners and a drum scan are very hard to see, and not likely to make any difference to the use you put the final output too. And that, after all, is the point, the final output.
