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]

[filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait



Hi Simon,

I think I've been misunderstood.  I think the point you were trying to
make was that you hit a wall in the scanner resolution since both an
8000 element and a 10,000 element sensor provided basically the same image.

There are two potential issue here.  The first is the one I alluded to.
  It is possible that the reason you are not seeing any difference
between those two scans may not be because you have hit the resolution
wall of film with a 8000 element sensor. It could be that you hit the
resolution wall of what your equipment, or the manner in which the image
was captured, rather than the film.  I guess everything I have read
leaves me unbelieving that low speed quality films, especially slide
films, res out at 4000 dpi.

Now it could also be that current CCD technology and electronics, or
lighting and lenses within scanners, or whatever has hit the wall at
4000 dpi, or it could be that although the Flexlight has a 8000 element
sensor and the Polaroid has a 10,000 element sensor, that the Polaroid
is not making use of all those elements for image capture.  In other
words the effective elements may be smaller, perhaps due to design of
the zoom system.

In terms of the method you used to test the two scanners, yes, limiting
variables make sense, but it also doesn't prove that the limitation in
resolution hasn't been introduced by the film sample you are using.  If
it were to be drum scanned, and you got no additional resolution, I
would tend to think that the problem was the image quality on the film
rather than that drum scans are equivalent to CCD scans, in most
circumstances.

Art

Simon Lamb wrote:

> I don't understand what you mean by 'limitation'.  The same image scanned on
> two scanners of different specifications look identical.  USM was off in
> both cases and there was no other image manipulation being done.  Given that
> the image is the same one then any limitation of the kit, such as film
> flatness would apply to both scanners, although the Flextight is probably
> keeping the film flatter than the SS120 when scanning it.
>
> There are not many lenses that have the resolving power of the Leica 90 AA
> and Zeiss 180 Sonnar.
>
> Tell mw what is a more valid test than using the exact same image in both
> scanners and I will give it a try.
>
> Simon
>
> on 9/5/02 11:10 pm, Arthur Entlich at artistic-1@shaw.ca wrote:
>
>
>>It is possible that the limitation is your "kit" (I think that's how
>>they say it in the UK)... lens, camera, film flatness, etc.
>>
>>I have been told that the Flexlight adds USM to scans in default mode,
>>and needs to have it removed to see the true scan result.
>>
>>Art
>>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.