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: best film scanner for b&w negs

We are in agreement!  :- )

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

Bill Fernandez wrote:

> Hi Harvey--
> "25mm" was a typo, sorry. I meant "35mm".
> I scanned a 35mm Kodak Q60 Ektachrome calibration target at 1200dpi
> on a flatbed scanner.  Then I scanned a 4x5 inch Kodak Q60 Ektachrome
> calibration target on the same flatbed scanner, again at 1200dpi.
> The grey steps are supposed to be the same density on each target
> (Except for manufacturing tolerances).
> If in Photoshop you select a rectangular area covering, say, 90% of
> one of the grey steps and open the Histogram window it will display
> (among other things) a standard deviation number which represents how
> widely the pixels within the selection vary in tone from one another.
> This is a good way to see at what density levels the scanner starts
> getting noisy: just move the selection from one grey patch to the
> next and record the standard deviation of each step.  At some point
> the standard deviation will start to rise, implying that those steps
> are noisier than the previous ones because there's more variation in
> the value of the pixels.
> Now when I did this on both of the above targets (remembering in each
> case to select the same percentage of each grey patch) I found that
> the standard deviations on the 35mm target's grey patches rose faster
> and higher than on the 4x5 inch target's.
> Initially I was perturbed until I realized that this was like taking
> a picture of the exact same scene on both 35mm and 4x5 film and
> making, say, 20 x 30 inch prints from both slides.  The grain of the
> 35mm slide gets blown up five times as much as that of the 4x5 inch
> slide.  I'm assuming that having big blobs of grain (35mm target)
> rather than a fine pattern thereof (4x5 target) has skewed the
> distribution of tones reflected in the standard deviation numbers:
> that to the histogram the grey patches look less uniformly grey on
> the scan of the 35mm target than the 4x5 target.
> --Bill
> At 11:27 PM -0400 23-10-01, SKID Photography wrote:
> >Bill,
> >Maybe then I'm not understanding you.  If what you are saying is
> >true, then the 25mm sample is not the same
> >density as the larger format, because of the grain (or more
> >properly, the space between the grain).
> >
> >Harvey Ferdschneider
> >partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >
> >Bill Fernandez wrote:-
> >
> >>  So according to your summary of the discussion on the ColorSync list
> >>  they decided that the artifacts being discussed were caused by
> >>  scanner noise in dense areas. Certainly a well-known phenomenon.  I
> >>  on the other hand was referring to an instance where I caught myself
> >>  erroneously attributing the effects of film grain to scanner noise.
> >>  As far as I can tell we were talking about two different things.
> >>
> >>  --Bill
> >>
> >>  >At 1:39 PM -0400 23-10-01, SKID Photography wrote:
> >>  >
> >>  >The threads on the colorsync list...
> >>  >The consensus of most was that the grain that was showing up in the
> >>  >dense shadows from the greater
> >>  enlargements (samples) was due to the problem of electronic noise,
> >>  and not, in fact grain...
> >>
> >>  >Bill Fernandez wrote:
> >>  >...I couldn't understand why
> >>  >  > two targets of equal density on the same scanner could be so
> >>  >>  different; until I inspected both scans closely and realized that the
> >>  >>  25mm target was hugely grainy, especially in the dense end of the
> >  > >>  greyscale.  So what at first I thought was scanner noise turned out
> >  > >  > to be film grain
> --
> ======================================================================
> Bill Fernandez  *  User Interface Architect  *  Bill Fernandez Design
> (505) 346-3080  *  bill_sub@billfernandez.com  *  http://billfernandez.com
> ======================================================================


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.