🚀 go-pugleaf

Colin D wrote:

> 
> Rob wrote:
> 
>>Colin D wrote:
>>
>>>Colin D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Noons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds yummy...
>>>>>
>>>>>Comments?
>>>>
>>>>I recently bought a Canon 9950F scanner, similar specs but 9600 x 4800
>>>>optical res, with dual lamps, one either side of the ccd sensor to
>>>>eliminate shadows from textured copy. Also film, 30 frames of 35mm, 8
>>>>frames of 6x4.5, or 6 frames of 6x6 or 4 of 6x9, and 1 frame of 5x4
>>>>
>>>>Scan speed 11.1 msec per line.  here is a review:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Canon_9950F/page_1.htm
>>>>
>>>>It appears, by this reviewer's testing, the Canon is a whisker ahead of
>>>>the Epson.  Me though, I'm rapt.
>>>>
>>>>Colin D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Addendum:  The 120 film holder will also hold a pano frame of 6 x 17 mm
>>>in one shot.
>>>
>>>Colin D.
>>
>>Do you think that its a 4800dpi optical and the 9500dpi is the tricked
>>up bit.(double stepped)
> 
> 
> The specs say 4800 x 9600 optical, so unless they're stretching the
> truth, it's not double-stepped or interpolated.  I tend to believe them,
> though.  I can't see Canon laying themselves open to charges of false
> representation.
> 
> Colin D.

When the Epson ???? was released they quoted something like 800x1600 
resolution the resolution in which the 1600 was double stepped to appear 
like a 1600 scanner. But still the true resolution was still 800 dpi. 
(There must be an explanation somewhere on the web how they come to 
these figures.)

I always only accept the smaller number as being the true optical 
resolution.  Still 4800dpi is more than enough resolution for 35mm film.

I very rarely use 4800 (normally 2400/3200) for medium format film 
anyway as I can't see any difference in the final output.