Re: Roll #1 Kodak Portra 400 - Minolta X570
moimoi wrote:
sybersitizen wrote:
A general suggestion is to scan at the actual hardware resolution of the scanner. Then, downsample the resulting file to whatever resolution you want to permanently keep. Scans will take longer, but sometimes it offers an improvement over scanning directly at the lower resolution. You'd have to try it and see if it's worthwhile for you.
Indeed, I will try this on the second roll. I tries on some frames from the first roll, but see no significant improvement. However, the grain of Portra 400 might be too large to resolve such details!
Experimentation is the key. I don't know if you've seen this review of the Plustek 8200i from a pretty good authority on the subject, but here are his comments about resolution (his native language is German, I believe):
On side of the hardware like already mentioned nothing has changed since the direct predecessor model: The sensor of the OpticFilm 8200i offers a maximum resolution of 7200 ppi.
...
The effective attainable resolution like expected hasn't changed: It still is at about 3250 dpi. Because of this we aren't go into detail at this place but refer to our test review for the Plustek OpticFilm 7600i. Only this shall be said: With this effective resolution the OpticFilm just delivers some more than 50% of the nominal resolution mentioned by the producer. Despite of this 3250 dpi is an acceptable value: With this prints up to a size of DIN A4 (21 x 29,7 cm) can be realized at good quality .
Naturally the high nominal resolution has the same disadvantage like the predecessor. One has to scan with 7200 dpi, to get the effective 3250 dpi. This leads to very long scan-durations and to swollen picture files, which afterwards again have to be edited/ compressed.