[filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait

["Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>]

Certainly the scanner hardware has a significant effect on the overall
quality of the scan, but an optical resolution of x dpi is pretty much just
x dpi, with only minor variation (if any) from one scanner to another.  Of
course, "interpolated" resolution is just a gimmick (like "digital zoom")
and doesn't count.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com>
To: <anthony@atkielski.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:25
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