To my understanding, a low-speed, fine-grain film like Velvia 50 is easily capable of over 3000dpi, which is double the dpi mentioned in the article you have linked. and I would consider 1500dpi to be fairly low these days.) I'm a digital photographer, however I have researched film quite a bit as I have a strong interest in large format. If you are scanning very grainy film, you might not need to scan at an extremely high resolution, however scanning at too low of a resolution will likely even interfere with grain detail (which does have an aesthetic appeal to many, and that aesthetic might be diminished at too low of a resolution. Regarding resolution, I guess it might depend on the nature of the film.
DNG has more merit in the digital RAW workflow, as it supports storing native camera RAW data and metadata, which really wouldn't be of much use for a film scan (which is always going to result in RGB pixels anyway.) I am not sure if DNG is an option for directly scanning film, and even if it was, I am not sure what the benefit of using DNG over TIFF for a film scan is. TIFF also supports the storage of metadata, like JPEG. It is guaranteed to be lossless, supports a wide variety of color depths including high color depths, has very broad support across many applications on multiple platforms, and even supports layers and other advanced objects that can be created with applications like Photoshop. When scanning in an original or master image, it's really best to maintain as much image detail and color depth as you can, and TIFF is an ideal format for this. JPEG 2000, like JPEG, is still a lossy compressed format when you really try to save space (the lossless version can compress a bit, but not nearly as much as the lossy form, and some forms of the "lossless" wavelet compression still can't fully reproduce the exact original image.) I would say TIFF is probably the best format.
0 kommentar(er)
