Filmscanners mailing list archive (email@example.com)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: Sharpening scanned images for printing
After reading your reply, I see no point in continuing this discussion.
partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> > So, I still maintain, that in *this* discussion, the sharpness of
> > the original has no bearing on the need to
> > sharpen scans for printing.
> For YOUR purposes, if you want to shoot a Holga and scan grain, that's
> fine...but most people 1) don't do that and 2) don't do that...so how is
> that relevant?
> > whereas sharpening a scan for offset (or whatever kind of
> > reproduction) is a technique used to properly
> > express what is actually on the original film and to overcome an
> > inherent flaw of scanning technology.
> You must be referring to color. I only talk about B&W, and there is no
> "inherent flaw" in scanning B&W, if you do not scan B&W in RGB. The
> "inherent flaw" you speak of is simply bloom and smear, which isn't really a
> "flaw" but a characteristic of how CCDs respond to different wavelengths of
> > >
> > > > And aren't higher bit level scans sharper than lower bit
> > > > ones?....
> > >
> > > No. In fact, they would be softer, since there are more tonal levels.
> > > Sharpness is really nothing but contrast, as in difference in
> > tonal values.
> > Then why do (real) hi bit scans require less sharpening than low
> > bit scans?
> I don't know (nor do I believe at this point in time, at least for B&W) that
> they do. Perhaps you can explain why you believe they do. For B&W, it is
> entirely counterintuitive that they would. Clearly, a pure monotone image
> has the highest level of sharpness one can have, and adding more tones, just
> makes things less sharp. Perhaps you can email two images to me that show
> that high bit images require less sharpening, or post them on the web?
> I don't believe many people can tell the difference between an image printed
> using 8 bits (providing the data occupies all 8 bit values) and one printed
> using a higher bit output...so how on earth can you tell that one does or
> doesn't require more or less sharpening?
> What I have said is that people who sharpen might want to look at the rest
> of the process to find the source of why they sharpen...if the image is
> fuzzy on the film, it'll be fuzzy on the scan. Not the grain, but the
> image. Most people don't sharpen grain, they sharpen the image.