3 ms·
I recently made a 60"x48" print from a 4x5 negative scanned with a Epson V700 scanner. You're simply not going to get that kind of resolution with a DSLR. I don
by wl 7y ago
I recently made a 60"x48" print from a 4x5 negative scanned with a Epson V700 scanner. You're simply not going to get that kind of resolution with a DSLR. I don't doubt you get good results with your setup, but your statement that "the results are better than any flatbed scanner" is nonsense.
- i_am_proteus 7y agoI will counter that my statement is non-nonsense: I stitch multiple "full frame" shots for formats larger than 35mm.
- gsich 7y agoFor film negatives this scanner will get about 2300 dpi according to [0]. A DSLR with 24 megapixel will get the ~4000 dpi form a 35mm negative in a fraction of the time. A 4x5" negative takes 33 minutes to scan with 2400 dpi. In this time I can make several photos and stitch them together do some spot removal and will get a better quality. [0] https://www.filmscanner.info/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html https://www.filmscanner.info/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html
- bayesian_horse 7y agoThe DSLR+adapter solution does sound more convincing to me, with the right lens, right sensor and settings. Correcting distortions should be a tractable. One problem with many flatbed scanners (not all of them and not the film scanners) is that they illuminate the film/object from the same side as the sensor, so the light has to travel and bounce more, creating more chances of stray light.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]