Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Frank: Too bad for Pizzonia....he was on track for a podium today. With Ralf coming back, that's probably his last one. Fascinating race, though..JPM made some good moves.... I have some decisions to make regarding my imaging system. I need a scanner and greater computing power. My wife has the apple g4 and I use it from time to time but it's nothing like the g5 we have in our graphic arts dept at work. Now that I have the D70, I hardly ever use the M6....and I'm thinking about selling the system for a new computer plus a scanner. I like the M but I just don't use it anymore. All the best, Robert Frank Dernie wrote: > Hi Robert , > a B&W 6x6 scan is about 70 Mb and a colour around 250 Mb, unless > scanned at 16 bit, then they are >500Mb...... > Ralf is certainly not driving at Spa but will drive at a test at Monza > just before the Grand Prix and will return there if all goes well. > cheers > Frank > > > On 25 Aug, 2004, at 19:26, Robert Clark wrote: > >> Frank: >> On average, what is a typical size for a scanned MF image in color? >> And B/W? I was at a friend's house last Friday and saw some >> absolutely wonderful MF images from a Hasselblad. Since I now have >> the N70, I'm not using the M6 at all...but the image quality of a MF >> looks pretty appealing. >> >> BTW...how's Ralf? Will he be back this year? >> >> Robert Clark >> Lancaster, PA >> >> Frank Dernie wrote: >> >>> I think my EOS10D is actually lighter than my R8, thought some of >>> the lenses are lighter some are heavier. I do find the prints from >>> the 10D, printed formerly on an Epson, now a Canon, printer >>> comparable to prints from scanned negatives from my R8, maybe a >>> touch worst than scanned slides and a touch better than scanned >>> print film. I don't like the ergonomics of the Canon nearly as much >>> as the R8 and the R8 viewfinder is in another class. OTOH not having >>> to wait for the end of the film is a great benefit for amateurs such >>> as myself so I only use film for MF, here the prints from scanned >>> negatives are much better than the EOS 10D or 35mm Leica scans. >>> cheers >>> Frank >>> >>> On 25 Aug, 2004, at 18:29, Douglas Herr wrote: >>> >>>> FRANK DERNIE <frank.dernie@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I wonder whether 120 or 35mm film will be the more >>>>> popular in the future. I would expect 35mm to be less >>>>> interesting because it is so easily comparable in size >>>>> weight and quality to digital. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Interesting question - but until the size and weight of digital >>>> cameras giving output comparable to a high-end 35mm film camera >>>> shrinks considerably I don't see the size or weight as comparable. >>>> >>>> >>>> Doug Herr >>>> Birdman of Sacramento >>>> http://www.wildlightphoto.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >