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: Pixels and Prints



Hi David,

> How can a scanner have superior spectral response to a Bayer camera?

Unless all the sensors seen the same thing, they aren't seeing the same
thing.  In a Bayer pattern sensor, each sensing element is seeing different
light, unless there is a filter over the sensing elements that provides that
function.  Also, they aren't really the same.  The scanner sensor is,
obviously, spectrally responding to the film.

Film also has a higher image density capturing ability, which current CCDs
do not, and as such.  You also can't use Zone system compensation with an
original CCD, but you can with film, and therefore have a far larger B&W
image density range than you would with a CCD.

> Number of places isn't relevant.  A minimum number of components doesn't
> insure the least amount of distortion.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> But the errors a system introduces tends to be the product of the
> errors of
> each element in the system.

Agreed, but if 6 "elements" are in a system, and each only produces a .001%
error, and in another system there is only one "element" which produces .1%
error, then, as I said, the number really is irrelevant.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > The other issue is color resolution. Since 4000dpi and higher
> > scanned images
> > are so much softer than digital images, they have, if anything,
> > lower color resolution per pixel.
>
> Why do you claim they are "softer"?   What, specifically, is "softer"?
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Because transitions at sharp edges in the image take more pixels.

That simply means that the image is more accurately reproduced.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Anyway, this really has nothing to do with color resolution...and I must
> admit, I'm surprised, knowing that you know as much as you do,
> that you say
> this.  Softer or not, that is a detail issue, not a color
> resolution issue.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> We seem to be agreeing here<g>: spectral response and spatial response are
> different.

That's good, I hadn't seen you clarify which you were talking about, and
wanted to make sure we were both talking about the same thing.

> > ...If 35mm
> > film only had, as you said I believe, 2700PPI of image data, then all
the
> > people who have high end Imacon/Leaf/Drum scanners have simply
> > wasted their
> > money...yet all of us can clearly get better images out of scanning
using
> > these higher SPI scanners...
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Isn't most of that cleaning up the grain?

AS I mentioned, that really depends on the film/exposure/development.  In
some cases, yes, of course...TMax 3200 would really make a mess ;-)

> The Minolta 5400
> samples of actual
> images show no real advantage over even 2700 dpi scans, but grain aliasing
> is a lot less obnoxious.

I would certainly believe that with certain films, and I also can't speak at
all about the Minolta 5400 as I am unfamiliar with the design of that
scanner, so I can't say if it's good or bad...

> > What scanner/film/development/camera etc. do you use to base your
> > statements
> > on 35mm film on?
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Nikon 8000; Provia 100F, Velvia 100F, Reala; Fuji GS645S, Rolleiflex,
> Mamiya 645.

Good scanner, good film...but I don't see any 35mm cameras there, and after
all, we were talking about 35mm, weren't we? ;-)

I also have a GS645 (not S) and love it, but it's way too sharp and really
needs to be stopped down...not for sharpness, but for what it does to the
out of focus areas...  I also use a number of Rolleiflexs...2.8F both
Xenotar and Planar (no, I haven't done any tests with the lenses yet ;-) and
a 6008...all superb cameras.  You should be able to get some simply stunning
images from the Rolleis and your scanner.  BTW, MF lenses are not going to
give you as sharp an image per pixel as 35mm will, simply because of lense
design considerations due to the area coverage.  If you want to to see what
35mm is capable of, get some Contax and a Zeiss lense, most of which are
very sharp, and have pleasing OOF area renderings...

Regards,

Austin

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