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



What?  If you must answer at least do so in a way that is understandable.
The cameras and film used were:

Hasselblad 503CW with 180mm f/4 CF T* Sonnar (one of the best Zeiss lenses
ever made) / Delta 100, Provia 100F & Portra 160NC

Leica M6 with 90mm f/2 APO ASPH (one of the best Leica M lenses ever made) /
Delta 100, Provia 100F & Portra 160NC

I doubt I need to look to my cameras!

Simon

----- Original Message -----
From: "dickbo" <dickbo@btopenworld.com>
To: <simon@sclamb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:31 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait


> Look to your camera then.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com>
> To: <dickbo@btopenworld.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 9:25 AM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait
>
>
> I still ask the question, does the quality of the scanner hardware also
have
> any significant effect, such as light path, lens, CCD, electronic
> suppression etc.  This question I raise as a result of comparing Flextight
> Photo scans with SS120 and Multi Pro, where I cannot see any difference in
> detail even under extreme enlargement in Photoshop and careful
examination.
>
> Simon
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>
> To: <simon@sclamb.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 8:42 AM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait
>
>
> > Laurie writes:
> >
> > > I believe that this is truer for medium format
> > > and large format film s than it is for 35mm
> > > format films, where the additional true optical
> > > ppi is important if one wishes to enlarge the
> > > frame to 16 x20 and larger sizes ...
> >
> > This is true only if the emulsion used can hold details visible only at
> > higher resolutions.
> >
> > In other words, if you are scanning T-Max P3200, you won't get any more
at
> > 4000 dpi than you do at 2700 dpi, and so if 35mm doesn't provide enough
> > detail, you have no choice but to go to a larger format.
> >
> > If you are scanning Velvia or Kodachrome, you can occasionally obtain
more
> > detail than is fully resolved by a 2700-dpi scanner, especially on a
> tripod.
> > In this case you gain a little by scanning at higher resolution, and
your
> > comment above is applicable.  If you are scanning Technical Pan, there
is
> a
> > _lot_ of detail that is not visible at 2700-dpi (assuming you used a
> > tripod), and you can go to nearly ten times that resolution figure and
> still
> > extract additional information.
> >
> > For handheld work, it is frequent that detail is no better than 2700 dpi
> > will resolve, simply because of camera movement.  And even if Velvia
will
> > resolve 120 c/mm in ideal conditions on a tripod, that requires very
high
> > contrast AND a very, very good lens.  A figure of 80 c/mm is more
likely,
> > with an excellent lens, and that requires 4064 dpi.
> >
> > So you might get a bit more with 4000 dpi than with 2700 dpi for some
> > photos.  And going further to 4800 dpi might gain you something under
> > absolutely ideal conditions.  But beyond that, you are just resolving
dye
> > clouds with most emulsions, shooting situations, and lenses.
> >
> > Put more simply, if you aren't getting enough detail at 2700-3200 dpi
from
> > your 35mm slides, you probably need to go to medium format to get more.
> And
> > if MF isn't good enough, you'll need large format.  The emulsions are
all
> > the same and their resolution is fixed, and good scanners can already
pick
> > up essentially everything they provide in the case of commonly-used
> emulsion
> > s, so the only variable you can change to get better images is the area
of
> > film being scanned.
> >
> > > Only if you are attempting to print uncropped
> > > 35mm frames at less than 11x14 sizes.
> >
> > It's independent of that.  The limit is imposed by the emulsion, the
> > shooting conditions, and the lens on the camera.  It is arguable that
2700
> > dpi scanners miss a little bit on the best images, but at 4000 dpi or
> > beyond, this becomes pretty much untenable.  And beyond 4800 dpi, you're
> > almost always resolving nothing more than additional grain, even with
the
> > sharpest color emulsions.
> >
> > In the future, we can hope that films will become sharper (as they have
> > throughout their history), and that lenses will become better (also
quite
> > likely, even though progress is slow).  Scanners are already ahead of
the
> > other elements in the chain, although they'll probably continue to get
> > better, too.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> > Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
title
> or body
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
> or body
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.