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: BWP seeks scanner



Rafe wrote:

>In a nutshell -- I don't really see a significant
>increase in sharpness going from 2700 dpi to 4000
>dpi.  And this is with slow (ISO 100) negative
>films like Reala, Supra, etc, using decent optics
>and with the camera on a tripod.

Rafe, when you say "Sharpness," are you refering to screen-image sharpness 
or hard-copy (print) sharpness? The only reason I mention it is that there 
seems to be subtle differences in what a photographer calls sharpness and 
how the word is used in the digital imaging world.

FWIW, I've seen incredible differences in image sharpness (i.e. 
screen-image) with 1200dpi flatbed scans--depending on processing, 
print-paper and format size, but *mostly* from the very obvious differences 
in camera lenses--Canons and Minoltas unquestionably outperform Kodaks! ;-)

The percieved differences IMHO are less pronounced in filmscanning, although 
I only have 7 lenses for two main "working" cameras (but a 3.5 Argus C3 lens 
also "enters the picture," here). What I mean to say, is that at 1200ppi and 
beyond, the sharpness of the *original image* seems to have more to do with 
what's translated by a CCD into a Digital Image, given that the scanner has 
adequate optics and machine control to do the job it was bought for--which 
is, of course, why we pay the big bucks. :-)

I think you were probably saying this same thing thing in a different way, 
but wanted to be sure we're "all on the same page" before I go on...and on, 
since the original topic was about "Grain." I've seen what a "decent" 
2700ppi Acer Scanwit can/will do to/with an under-exposed frame on "pushed" 
Kodacolor: the grain is remarkable, to say the least. Not particularly 
lovable, but remarkable. :-)

In the balance, I think that Tony's remarks are the most telling--using a 
low-grain, low contrast film will produce the fewer problems with a digital 
scanner; moreover, what you'll get from a film-scanner is *not* what you'd 
get in a conventional chemical darkroom--the two media are uniquely 
individual. OTOH, the Digital Darkroom offers its own set of "manipulations" 
for creativity and presentation. The hardest part is probably learning What 
it will do, and How to do it.

I'm still 'way back here in the What and the How. I'm just hoping that the 
light at the end of the tunnel isn't a train! ;-)

Best regards--LRA


>From: Raphael Bustin <rafeb@channel1.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: BWP seeks scanner
>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:13:27 -0400 (EDT)
>
>On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
> > You don't directly mention the size of the prints you wish to produce,
> > although you allude with the 870 printer something like 8 x 12" or
> > smaller.  Unlike silver images, which simply have larger grain making up
> > the components of the image, without any true resolution loss, in the
> > digital realm, since even 4000 dpi scanners do not capture all that is
> > on a 35mm frame, you end up with softness and loss of detail if you go
> > too large.
>
>
>While I know that this topic has been debated
>many times, on many forums, I've come to the
>conclusion that perhaps that very high estimate
>of film resolution may be optimistic.
>
>I've never seen a drum scan of any of my slides
>or negatives, but I've seen scans from a large
>variety of CCD scanners, including the SprintScan
>4000 and now my 8000 ED -- both rated at 4000 dpi.
>
>In a nutshell -- I don't really see a significant
>increase in sharpness going from 2700 dpi to 4000
>dpi.  And this is with slow (ISO 100) negative
>films like Reala, Supra, etc, using decent optics
>and with the camera on a tripod.
>
>What I do see from these hi-res scanners is lower
>noise, and better tonality.  With the 8000, I'm
>enjoying the extra dynamic range. But I'm not really
>seeing a major increase in sharpness or apparent
>resolution.
>
>Maybe one needs to go with fancy German lenses to
>see that.  Or maybe it's the case that the scanner's
>internal optical system is the limiting factor.
>
>Whatever the reason -- my point is that this claim
>of "greater than 4000 dpi" for the effective
>resolution of film is rather optimistic.  I'm curious
>what it would take to actually observe and realize
>such a high resolution.
>
>
>
>rafe b.
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.