at the risk of me being pedantic, it would probably help you tremendously to spend a little time gaining some understanding of what those numbers mean. More knowledge is rarely a bad thing, and there are people on here that are willing to help you gain that knowledge if you ask questions.
Very useful. Just like zooms in cameras. There's optical and digital zoom. With scanners, there's the optical resolution and resolution that is interpolated. In interpolation is not necessarily bad, but it comes down to how well the software could do it. I've seen some amazing interpolation with AI technology. Here's a deep dive.
While the scantips site is a really good resource - one that I would recommend you study - it is important to realize that some of the specific references in it can be dated.
For example, "The entire photo scanned at 300 dpi would be excessively large for our monitors. 6x4 inches scanned at 300 dpi would produce an 1800x1200 pixel image."
That was probably written when 1024 x 768 was an expensive, high resolution monitor.
It is considerably more complex and nuanced than that.So maximum resolution of the V330 is 1500dpi, even though they advertise 4800. Does this mean that the 4800 number is 'interpolated', or as understand it, has pixels added by the scanning software to increase the size?
And if the resolution of the V330 is 1500dpi, that means that the best detail the scanner and 35mm negative can provide is going to result in about a 4x6 image correct? Even though I CAN scan it to be 3300x4200 (11x14), there wont be any more detail than the 4x6 image because A.) the 35mm negative doesn't contain it, and B.) the scanner/software has to make up for the lacking information? Anything larger that 11x14 is where things start to get blurry because of the added/averaged pixels/dots that the scanner has to "fill in the gaps with"?
And you would be correct.I think I've identified one source of my confusion.
A 12mpx file is about 4000x3000 PPI/DPI.
I was thinking that 4000 PPI essentially meant that there were 4000 pixels in each inch of an image. So for say an 8x10 images, I'd end up with 40,000 pixels on the short side.
S
And if the resolution of the V330 is 1500dpi, that means that the best detail the scanner and 35mm negative can provide is going to result in about a 4x6 image correct? Even though I CAN scan it to be 3300x4200 (11x14), there wont be any more detail than the 4x6 image because A.) the 35mm negative doesn't contain it, and B.) the scanner/software has to make up for the lacking information?
If you download the full size scans and look at them at 100% or even greater you'll see the difference...
So maximum resolution of the V330 is 1500dpi, even though they advertise 4800. Does this mean that the 4800 number is 'interpolated', or as understand it, has pixels added by the scanning software to increase the size?
And if the resolution of the V330 is 1500dpi, that means that the best detail the scanner and 35mm negative can provide is going to result in about a 4x6 image correct? Even though I CAN scan it to be 3300x4200 (11x14), there wont be any more detail than the 4x6 image because A.) the 35mm negative doesn't contain it, and B.) the scanner/software has to make up for the lacking information? Anything larger that 11x14 is where things start to get blurry because of the added/averaged pixels/dots that the scanner has to "fill in the gaps with"?
And if I'm figuring correctly, at 1500ppi, the sweet spot for dpi is 375. 4x6=1500x2250
What Adrian said, plus one really important fact.There is a lens in front of that sensor. The lens does not resolve 4800 dpi worth of detail. It resolves about 1500 dpi of detail.
What Adrian said, plus one really important fact.
Included in that "lens" (or rather optical system) is a relatively thick hunk of glass - the platen glass.
That glass does not help!
What Adrian said, plus one really important fact.
Included in that "lens" (or rather optical system) is a relatively thick hunk of glass - the platen glass.
That glass does not help!
I wonder why someone hasn't invented a negative holder that allows you to remove the glass from the scanner.
Well, they are true, just not particularly useful.I also wonder why laws allow companies like Epson to advertise inaccurate specifications, if they really aren't true.
The average person, including myself, doesn't have to compare two images side by side. If you're standing in a gallery looking at photography, the curator doesn't put the first print next to the final print for the viewer to compare.
If my goal is to take 35mm negatives, scan them, and print them on transparency for platinum printing, is it necessary to pay hundreds of dollars for a scanner with 7200dpi?
I wonder why someone hasn't invented a negative holder that allows you to remove the glass from the scanner.
I also wonder why laws allow companies like Epson to advertise inaccurate specifications, if they really aren't true.
Well, they are true, just not particularly useful.
Sort of like cars that have a speedometer designed to show a maximum speed of 160 mph/250 kph!
Or clothing ads that show the clothes worn by runway models.
The resolution numbers in those specifications are accurate in terms of the electronic capabilities of the sensors and the capabilities of the stepper motors.
I wonder why someone hasn't invented a negative holder that allows you to remove the glass from the scanner.
I also wonder why laws allow companies like Epson to advertise inaccurate specifications, if they really aren't true.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?