Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners:minolta and med format (PPI BS)



Hi!

The Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO does 4800 PPI on 135 film, and 3200 on 
120. Scanning at 4800 PPI may give som additional resolution in one 
direction, depending on the physical size of the pixel. The other direction 
is entirely interpolated. I'd be surprised if there was any practical (that 
is visible) advantage of using 4800 PPI compared with 3200 PPI. As far as I 
understand the Dimage Scan Multi Pro is optically very sharp, and gives 
results which may be sharper (at 3200 PPI) than Nikon LS 8000 (at 4000 PPI).

Also I presume that very few MF film/camera/lens combinations have very high 
MTF at 4800 PPI (which is about 95 line pairs per mm.) Check for instance:

http://www.hasselblad.se/products/lenses/lens_cf/cf250sa/index.html
http://www.hasselblad.se/products/lenses/lens_cf/cf80/index.html
http://www.hasselblad.se/products/lenses/lens_fe/fe50/index.html

These curves go to 40 lpmm (which corresponds to 2032 PPI)

3200 PPI corresponds to 63 LPmm

Also consider 4800 PPI for a 6x7 color negative would result in a file size 
of 787 MByte (with 48 bit TIFF). 

Regards

Erik

Ps. By the way: I'm using a Dimage Scan Multi at 1128 PPI with 6x7, and don't 
stitch. I'm considering to buy the Dimage Scan Multi Pro, if I can afford it.



tisdagen den 18 december 2001 18.18 skrev du:
> >For the Scan Multi Pro, this is misleading at best.
>
> Ok, I am willing to concede and accept this since I was extrapolating from
> the information that I have on the two earlier models and what I have heard
> or read on mailing lists and catalog blurbs for the Multi Pro.  However, it
> is not inaccurate or impossible for the two earlier models using the new
> Scan Multi software upgrade and the Universal Film Holder which was
> designed purposefully for the purpose of scanning medium format frames in
> three sections by relocating and repositioning the frame in the holder so
> as to achieve maximum optical resolution scans of 2280 DPI across the whole
> negative when stitched.  Otherwise the medium format frame could only be
> scanned down the center portion at that maximum optical resolution and then
> only when using the newer upgraded Scan Multi software.
>
> >on the subject of interpolation
>
> I agree with Ed on this; it certainly is interpolation.  I think it may be
> debatable whether or not the scanner is actually extracting more
> information *from the film* at 4800 dpi than at 3200 dpi or if it is as Ed
> appears to be saying - the increase in dpi represents a function of the
> mechanics of the stepper motor and not the amount of information being
> extracted by the sensors.
>
>       From the mouth of Minolta (i.e., their web site):
>       4,800 dpi scanning
>       The new Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO film scanner is equipped with 
>4,800
> dpi optical resolution for 35mm. With a pixel count of more than
> 33-million, an A3-size output can retain a resolution of more than 400 dpi.
> *Medium format film also can have a 4,800 dpi interpolated resolution for
> up to 6 x 9cm high-resolution*, clear and crisp images with more than 169
> million pixels and a 600 dpi. (emphasis indicated by * is mine).
>
>       And in another page of the web site for the Multi Pro:
>
> Optical Resolution
>  35mm film: 4,800 x 4800 dpi
> 120/220 film: : 4,800 (by interpolation) x 4,800 dpi
>
> Maximum Input Resolution
>  35mm film: 4,800 x 4,800 dpi
> 120/220 film: 4,800 (by interpolation) x 4,800 dpi
>
> >I have the Scan Multi Pro at home.  Simply, no stitching is needed to scan
> >at 3200 dpi or 4800 dpi for medium format film up to 6x9.
>
> The information on the Minolta site suggests differently in that it
> suggests that to obtain an optical resoplution on medium format up to 6x9cm
> you need to use the optional Multi Format Set accessory which Minolta
> describes as:
>
> Question: What size film can be used in the multi-format attachment HS-P1?
> Answer:  The acceptable width in the attachment is 102mm at maximum. The
> height (the length in film loading direction) is not mechanically
> restricted, but the film beyond 167mm from the edge cannot be scanned. The
> actual size of the scan area at maximum is 56.5x83.8mm (6x9).
>
> I assume that this Multi Format Set along with the Universal Holder permits
> one to reposition medium format film frames so as to be able to scan the
> sections at the optical maximum of 4800 dpi resolution without
> interpolation across the entire frame after stitching.  I say "assume"
> because this was the case with the earlier models using just the upgraded
> software and the then optional Universal holder alone and because I dould
> not find any detailed information on the Minolta site regarding the Multi
> Format SET optional accessory or how it works.
>
> My tentative conclusion is that you may think you are scanning the entire
> medium format frame at an optical 4800 dpi when in reality it is an
> interpolated 4800 dpi.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Wilson, Paul
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 8:32 AM
> To: 'filmscanners@halftone.co.uk'
> Subject: RE: filmscanners:minolta and med format
>
>
> For the Scan Multi Pro, this is misleading at best.
>
> First of all, based on the way the film holders work, it's physically
> impossible to scan a piece of medium format film in the way you're
> describing.  That is, unless you cut up the film in 24mm wide sections and
> use the 35mm holder.
>
> Also, on the subject of interpolation, it's debatable whether or not the
> Scan Multi Pro is doing interpolation (as people usually think of it) to
> reach 4800 dpi with medium-format film.  Why is it debatable?  Because it
> actually extracts more information from the film at 4800 dpi than it does
> at 3200 dpi.  I've never heard of interpolation that extracts more useful
> information from the film.
>
> I have the Scan Multi Pro at home.  Simply, no stitching is needed to scan
> at 3200 dpi or 4800 dpi for medium format film up to 6x9.
>
> Paul Wilson
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LAURIE SOLOMON [mailto:LAURIE@advancenet.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 1:52 AM
> > To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > Subject: RE: filmscanners:minolta and med format
> >
> >
> > I think some clarification is needed hear.  The Minolta
> > medium format film
> > scanners which includes both the Scan Multi, Scan Multi II,
> > and Scan Multi
> > Pro do not require one to scan in sections and do post scan
> > stitching for
> > formats up to 6x9cm at the maximum optical resolutions for
> > those formats
> > (e.g., 1120 DPI for the two Scan Multi models and 3200 DPI
> > Scan Multi Pro).
> > However, in the case of the two earlier Scan Multi models and
> > possibly the
> > Scan Multi Pro model, to achieve the maximum optical
> > resolution of 2280
> > optical DPI in the case of the two earlier models and 4800
> > optical in the
> > case of the Multi Pro model, one does need to scan the medium
> > format film
> > (even up to 6x9cm formats) in sections and engage in post
> > scan stitching.
> > One can scan the film in those scanners in one pass without scanning
> > sections and stitch at the 2280 dpi and 4800 dpi levels of
> > resolution but
> > those resolutions are interpolated resolutions and not optical.
> >
> > As far as I know, the software trickery behind the scenes
> > that you refer to
> > is the process of interpolation where the software upsamples
> > the scan via
> > mathematical formulas and is not a means for achieving an
> > optical scan at
> > that resolution from medium format film.  As an operator, I
> > am afraid that
> > you do have to do something out of the ordinary to achieve
> > the 4800 dpi
> > optical resolution from the medium format film 6x9cm and under.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Wilson, Paul
> > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 10:26 PM
> > To: 'filmscanners@halftone.co.uk'
> > Subject: RE: filmscanners:minolta and med format
> >
> >
> > No, that's not what I said.
> >
> > Simply stated, the Minolta Scan Multi Pro (and the various
> > versions of the
> > Scan Multi) do not require you to stitch pieces of an image
> > together in
> > Photoshop when scanning medium format film.  This is true up
> > to 6x9cm film.
> > If you can a bigger format such as 6x12 or 6x17, then you'll
> > have to stitch
> > 2 scans together to get the whole image.
> >
> > Now for a different subject.  The Scan Multi Pro has an
> > optical resolution
> > for medium format film of 3200 dpi.  It will do some fancy
> > trickery behind
> > the scenes that will get you 4800 dpi for medium format film.
> >  You as the
> > operator do not need to do anything out of ordinary to
> > achieve 4800 dpi.
> >
> > Paul Wilson
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andy D'Angelo [mailto:dangelophoto@talon.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 9:07 PM
> > > To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > > Subject: RE: filmscanners:minolta and med format
> > >
> > > >My initial question was in regard to "adivse" on film scanner
> > > >capable of handling medium format...That question got no reply so I
> > > >began trying to sort out the sales mumbo jumbo and specs and
> > > >$$$$...which led to the realization that some Minolta scanners do
> > > >not actually scan an entire 120/220 area in one pass,,,that I must
> > > >"stitch" the image together in Photoshop...At least that is what I
> > > >think you are telling me( the Minolta info DOES NOT SAY THIS as
> > > >such...they state interpolation  in regards to their max DPI ....It
> > > >does seem pretty underhanded that a Mfg would not specify this
> > > >clearly...never the less..I do not want to get invilved with this
> > > >"Stitching" process...and now I wonder if any other Mfg's imploy
> > > >similiar techniques...Totally confused.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > >It's the Scan Multi Pro that does medium format.
> > > >
> > > >Are you talking about scanning an image that's bigger than
> > >
> > > what the scanner
> > >
> > > >can handle (say 6x17) and then stitching in Photoshop?  Or,
> > >
> > > are you talking
> > >
> > > >about the way the scanner gets to 4800 dpi for medium format?
> > > >
> > > >Scanning a 6x17 would pretty much be the same as either the
> > >
> > > Polaroid or
> > >
> > > >Nikon except that you'd have to reposition the film in the
> > >
> > > holder.  For 4800
> > >
> > > >dpi for mf, supposedly the Minolta doesn't actually
> > >
> > > interpolate but scans
> > >
> > > >pieces and then stitches.  I don't know the particulars of
> > >
> > > this but it does
> > >
> > > >seem to actually get more usable detail from MF
> > >
> > > transparencies at 4800 vs.
> > >
> > > >3200.
> > > >
> > > >Paul Wilson
> > > >
> > > >>  -----Original Message-----
> > > >>  From: Andy D'Angelo [mailto:dangelophoto@talon.net]
> > > >>  Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 7:50 AM
> > > >>  To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > > >>  Subject: Re: filmscanners:minolta and med format
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>  Greetings,
> > > >>    does anyone have any experience or advise re. using
> >
> > the Minolta
> >
> > > >>  medium format scanner(dimage Scan II) and their
> >
> > stiching software.
> >
> > > >>  ??I understand these med format scanners scan 35mm
> >
> > portions of the
> >
> > > >>  120 and "stitch" the scans together,Does/will this work
> >
> > as well as
> >
> > > >  > scanning the entire image?
> > > >  > Andy
> > > >  > --
> > >
> > > --

-- 
Erik Kaffehr                erik.kaffehr@swipnet.se alt. ekr@ksu.se
Mariebergsvgen 53          +46 155 219338 (home)
S-611 66 Nykping           +46 155 263515 (office)
Sweden                      -- Message sent using 100% recycled electrons --




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.