C.Rosenthal wrote:
Nate, that first is unbelievable. The X-pan is #1 on the list, once I graduate in a couple of weeks.
You'll love it. Get the 1, it's not worth the premium for the 2.
Nate those images are just truly awe-inspiring. The content is sad, but the image is still beautiful to me. If you don't mind my asking, what film were you using?
AbramG wrote:
Nate those images are just truly awe-inspiring. The content is sad, but the image is still beautiful to me. If you don't mind my asking, what film were you using?
Not at all, Legacy Pro 400, which is rebranded Neopan and Velvia 50.
TWoK wrote:
You'll love it. Get the 1, it's not worth the premium for the 2.
Oh, don't worry. I am far too poor to pay a premium for features I don't need. I cannot wait. Have you had prints made from it? I was giving that some thought last night when I couldn't sleep.
Exactly. I figure it would have to be done in two parts with a typical enlarger. I will figure it out, eventually. If I have to come up with something on my own, I will. That format is entirely too appealing not too.
Typical enlargers can do 6x9. Should be able to do an xpan neg with the right carrier. Or a glass carrier. Or a self masked 6x9 carrier. Or even black mat board cut to size.
By typical I mean a Beseler 23C. They are all over the place and pretty indestructible.
@debuggerus tried vuescan and it was rough. tried the minolta ds4 software and it was miles ahead. I'm trying to see if someone has a write up on the best tweaks with ds4.
debuggerus wrote:
Very nice, Marten. They look so sharp.... I just want to run out and buy a pentax 67. Sigh...
Do it!!!
carstenw wrote:
They couldn't possibly be sharp! He is scanning on a V700, AFAIK
That's right. I get ~30 megapixels at 2400 DPI, which seems to be the "true" highest resolution of the scanner. But only if the film is reasonably flat, which it often isn't. You could probably double the resolution with a dedicated film scanner.
More Ektar and Pentax 67II, all with the 90/2.8...
