Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: BWP seeks scanner
I won't argue that CCD scanners do not typically capture the resolution
I am referring to. In discussions with Phil Lippencott several years
ago, he indicated to me that a properly captured 35mm Kodachrome slide
(I'm not recalling if it was a 25 or 64 ISO film) could produce a
close to 150 meg file without adding noise to make the file that large.
I assume this was at 48 bit depth. He was using a drum scanner, and
he told me that was about the number the thing plateaued out at.
I am relatively convinced good films with good lenses can record over
4000 dpi (as captured by a CCD scanner). Part of this might well be
that a 4000 dpi CCD scanner doesn't come close to capturing 4000 dpi,
which I suspect is the case. Since I know that the rated 2400 dpi HP
S-20 was "clocked in" at under 1000 dpi, I somehow doubt that the 4000
dpi models came close to that number either.
Raphael Bustin wrote:
> 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
>> 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
> 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.