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: Nikon Coolscan

>I used GF years ago, in an very early version, and I found it very slow

It still is comparatively speaking.

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 11:07 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon Coolscan

David J. Littleboy wrote:

> "Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>Well, thank you for deciding what is moot for someone else.
> He didn't. He said "if it's pointless, the details of which version are
> moot". Makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is why no
> one's answering the question, which is "why do you want GF with a

The original poster wasn't asking for a review of the usefulness or lack
thereof of GF in scanning.  He was asking which version was supposed to
come with his scanner, period. So, the answer to that question was:
"Version XX", not a commentary as to if he should care because it came
bundled with a Coolscan and may have little use, or not.

If I buy a camera and I thought it was supposed to come with a chocolate
Easter bunny, and I ask someone, "was I supposed to get a chocolate
Easter bunny with my camera?"  The response, "Why do you need a
chocolate Easter bunny, it won't do anything to help you take better
pictures" is not answering his question.

> I don't understand the point of GF in a scanner, although that may be
> because I'm scanning MF. It looks to me that scanned images are not as
> (higher noise, lower sharpness) as digital camera images on a
> pixel-per-pixel basis. A 645 scan has 6000 x 8000 pixels or so, but my
> estimate is that it's only about twice (1.414 times linearly) as good as a
> 2000 x 3000 pixel D60 image. (4000 dpi scans of Provia look OK at 300dpi,
> but no better than 200 dpi prints of D60 images.)

I used GF years ago, in an very early version, and I found it very slow,
and I didn't like the propriety file type as a storage method.  As I
understand it, GF is a file compression and expansion and resampling
system which the company claims has certain advantages over other
methods of down and upsampling.

> Which is to say, in some sense, scanner images are already upsampled. So
> doesn't make sense _to me_ to use GF on scanner images.

I want to make sure I understand this:

Are you saying that a 4000 ppi scan of a Provia 35mm frame (making a
nearly 6000 x 4000 pixel scan) is equivalent to a digital camera image
that is 3000 x 2000 pixel using the Bayer matrix, meaning it is really a
much lower resolution which is interpolated?  Are you therefore
suggesting that a 4000 ppi scan of a 35mm frame of Provia has captured
all the film has to offer, and in fact, really surpassed the film's
ability way back at an interpolated 3000 x 2000 pixel bayer matrix
capture, and therefore the 6000 x 4000 pixel scanned image is just an
upsampling of much lower "real" resolution information within the film
frame? Or that 4000 ppi scanners are just not capable of capturing film
information at better than the equivalent of a 3000 x 2000 pixel bayer

What do you believe is the maximum resolution of the information on the
Provia 35mm film frame?  Do you think the limiting factor in scanning
film is the scanner's ability to capture more res, or that the film
doesn't offer anymore to be captured due to either the film or the res
of the 35mm camera lenses, or film flatness or hand movement or other
mechanics or optics that reduce final image resolution? (I assume the
Nikon digital image is also capture through similar lenses and has
similar problems with handheld exposures.)

Do you think that there is therefore no point in improving resolution
on, not only film scanners, or that scanner technology is simply not
able to currently capture anything approaching the resolution specs
being claimed?  Or do you believe digital cameras sporting 3000 x 2000
bayer matrixes, if the intent is to simply emulate 35mm film frames,
have already met or surpassed film?

If this is the case, do digital cameras which can capture above the 2000
  x 3000 bayer matrix (equivalent to 35mm in dimensions) image size
actually surpass 35mm film frames in resolution?

> But I haven't tried it, so maybe it does. Does someone want to explain
> what's wrong with my logic???

Before I can answer this I need to first understand what you are
suggesting regarding film resolution.

>  or they
> like collecting CD-ROMS, or they want to test it out and make THEIR OWN
> determination as to what value it has?
> <<<<<<<<<<<<
> Again, a priori, using GF on scanner images sure looks to me to make no
> sense whatsoever. It's a serious waste of time to test something that
> no sense. However, if someone is actually finding it useful, (or even
> to be finding it useful), then it makes sense to test it. I'd certainly
> learn something if someone would answer the question...

Whether eating a chocolate Easter bunny is a waste of time, or empty
calories, or will make you fat, or give you clogged arteries or make
your hands shake from the caffeine or melt and mess up your camera isn't
the issue.  It wasn't what was being asked by the original poster, and
it may not be a question that can be categorically answered, either.

Even assuming the person never wanted to put the GF disk into his CD-ROM
his question was simply which version was supposed to come with the scanner.



Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.