RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:47:44 -0500 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I don't quite know what you mean. The physical sensor IS 4000 sensors per inch. The lenses used SHOULD be capable of resolving to beyond that... Actually there's a good reason for using a lens which resolves less than the CCD ppi, and that is aliasing. Slight defocus is beneficial here, which is why some digicams like the Nikon D1 incorporate a filter to degrade the performance of those pricy Nikon optics. I have often wondered if the tendency of Nikon scanners to produce more aliasing than competitors isn't entirely down to the semi-collimated LED lightsource but because the lens is a bit too good. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 17:53:50 - Jawed Ashraf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Dare I say it, but the mistake here might be the belief that a 4000dpi scanner is actually capable of 4000dpi scans (or samples per inch, if we want to reduce confusion). Anyone got any hard evidence of the *actual* resolving power of these scanners? Objectively measured? No. AIUI it's pretty hard (ie expensive) to achieve, as conventional test target images don't work properly with digital systems. In any case, I am more interested in real-life use :) Empirically, yes - I have scanned several ISO100 originals on both 2,700ppi and 4,000 ppi scanners. There is a difference, which is somewhat analogous to that between fast and fine-grain film but without the grain! At the same time it's obvious but subtle. The 4000ppi scans show better tonal smoothness and inner detail, though only look marginally sharper. Printed on the same Epson 1200, both are perfectly acceptable, especially in terms of sharpness, but the 4000 scan looks somehow smoother and clearer, whilst the 2700 appears almost slightly smeared or veiled. But you'd only really notice this in a side-by-side comparison. After carrying out this test, I concluded I wouldn't be bothering to rescan all the stuff I had done at 2700, apart from a few originals which had produced massive grain aliasing problems. 4000ppi is very much less sensitive to that. I suspect the Nikon mentioned was having a bad focus day. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)
A professional photographer who lives on selling his bw inkjet prints (Piezo) and has a long scanning experience with the Polaroid 120 and others, told me some days ago that he was able to do, from his new Epson 2450, absolutely stunning prints from a 6x7 neg up to 17x22 (inch) and still good quality at 22x27. He also said that he had made prints out of 2450 scans that equal those of a 5y old 25.000$ Linotype scanner up to 12x15. He also sent me a fraction of a 2.400dpi scan of this 6x7 neg - I printed it out at 360dpi on my 1160 - and I was so impressed that I bought the box the next day - this was a 350$ investment and liberated me of the torture which expensive MF scanner to buy while having to expect all those grain enhancement and other problems. I will tell about my experiences soon. Concerning 35mm - I have been able to print very good/ sharp looking prints at 11x14 with a 2.900dpi Nikon scan. Someone scanned one of the negs with his Nikon 4000 - I printed it out and to my surprise the 4000 had blurred zones in another part of the photo than my LS40 scan (the well known film flatness DOF problem I guess), but overall quality of the print was *not* better, no more visible detail. So fine A3+ (guess B+ in the US) is possible from 35m when using tripod, slow film (less than 100) and careful post processing in photo editing software. regards, Bernhard - Original Message - From: SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 11:21 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality Vuthy Chrun wrote: I would like to hear your experience and opinion on the difference (if there is any) between scanning a 35mm negative or slide with a 4000 DPI scanner and printing the image on a 1200 DPI colour printer versus scanning a 6x6 negative or slide on, let's say, an Epson 2450 and then printing the image on the same 1200 DPI colour printer. What size are you hoping to output? Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)
Concerning 35mm - I have been able to print very good/ sharp looking prints at 11x14 with a 2.900dpi Nikon scan. Someone scanned one of the negs with his Nikon 4000 - ...but overall quality of the print was *not* better, no more visible detail. Bernhard, Might that have been because there was no more detail on the image to be had? Have you seen a chemical print of the same image that showed more detail? Regards, Austin
Re: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)
Austin, The image shows a grave at the cemetery with lots of fallen leafs and trees, an almost incredible amount of finest detail, shot with an efke 25 bw neg film and a Konica Hexar with very sharp lens at f8 - I was surprised myself, but I conclude that a) the guy doesn´t know how to use his scanner (would be strange) b) the Nikon doesn´t give consistently sharp results or c) the extra 1100dpi is not as essential as some may make us believe. I think its a mixture of b) and c) Greetings bernhard - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:08 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450) Concerning 35mm - I have been able to print very good/ sharp looking prints at 11x14 with a 2.900dpi Nikon scan. Someone scanned one of the negs with his Nikon 4000 - ...but overall quality of the print was *not* better, no more visible detail. Bernhard, Might that have been because there was no more detail on the image to be had? Have you seen a chemical print of the same image that showed more detail?
Re: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality(Epson 2450)
Bernhard, I would go with c. I scanned a Velvia slide with my Minolta Multi and had a friend scan the same slide with his 4000 dpi Polaroid, and even up to Super A3 size, there was virtually no difference, other than the Minolta scan looked a little sharper, but I attribute that to slightly more contrast in the scan. While I have no doubt a 4000 dpi scan gets more detail, if the printer -- Epson 1270 in my case -- isn't capable of showing that detail, it goes for naught. Mikel On 12/6/01 8:31, Bernie Ess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: c) the extra 1100dpi is not as essential as some may make us believe. Greetings bernhard
RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)
Hi Bernhard, I believe I've heard that some Nikons can have focusing problems. Just as an FYI, you CAN get an equally as detailed scan out of a 2700DPI scanner as with a 4000DPI scanner, depending on where things line up. Digital acquisition devices capture UP TO (be careful how you read this, it's tricky) between a little more than 1/2 the resolution of the device...up to the resolution of the device. If you need me to 'spalin that one more, I can...I know it's not necessarily easy to understand. Basically, if the detail lines up perfectly with the grid of the sensor, you'll get it at the resolution of the scanner, but if it falls off grid, contrast will be lowered... Basically, it's a Nyquist issue... Regards, Austin Austin, The image shows a grave at the cemetery with lots of fallen leafs and trees, an almost incredible amount of finest detail, shot with an efke 25 bw neg film and a Konica Hexar with very sharp lens at f8 - I was surprised myself, but I conclude that a) the guy doesn´t know how to use his scanner (would be strange) b) the Nikon doesn´t give consistently sharp results or c) the extra 1100dpi is not as essential as some may make us believe. I think its a mixture of b) and c) Greetings bernhard - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:08 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450) Concerning 35mm - I have been able to print very good/ sharp looking prints at 11x14 with a 2.900dpi Nikon scan. Someone scanned one of the negs with his Nikon 4000 - ...but overall quality of the print was *not* better, no more visible detail. Bernhard, Might that have been because there was no more detail on the image to be had? Have you seen a chemical print of the same image that showed more detail?
RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)
Dare I say it, but the mistake here might be the belief that a 4000dpi scanner is actually capable of 4000dpi scans (or samples per inch, if we want to reduce confusion). Anyone got any hard evidence of the *actual* resolving power of these scanners? Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: 07 December 2001 17:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450) Hi Bernhard, I believe I've heard that some Nikons can have focusing problems. Just as an FYI, you CAN get an equally as detailed scan out of a 2700DPI scanner as with a 4000DPI scanner, depending on where things line up. Digital acquisition devices capture UP TO (be careful how you read this, it's tricky) between a little more than 1/2 the resolution of the device...up to the resolution of the device. If you need me to 'spalin that one more, I can...I know it's not necessarily easy to understand. Basically, if the detail lines up perfectly with the grid of the sensor, you'll get it at the resolution of the scanner, but if it falls off grid, contrast will be lowered... Basically, it's a Nyquist issue... Regards, Austin Austin, The image shows a grave at the cemetery with lots of fallen leafs and trees, an almost incredible amount of finest detail, shot with an efke 25 bw neg film and a Konica Hexar with very sharp lens at f8 - I was surprised myself, but I conclude that a) the guy doesn´t know how to use his scanner (would be strange) b) the Nikon doesn´t give consistently sharp results or c) the extra 1100dpi is not as essential as some may make us believe. I think its a mixture of b) and c) Greetings bernhard - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:08 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450) Concerning 35mm - I have been able to print very good/ sharp looking prints at 11x14 with a 2.900dpi Nikon scan. Someone scanned one of the negs with his Nikon 4000 - ...but overall quality of the print was *not* better, no more visible detail. Bernhard, Might that have been because there was no more detail on the image to be had? Have you seen a chemical print of the same image that showed more detail?
RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)
Dare I say it, but the mistake here might be the belief that a 4000dpi scanner is actually capable of 4000dpi scans (or samples per inch, if we want to reduce confusion). Anyone got any hard evidence of the *actual* resolving power of these scanners? Jawed Hi Jawed, I don't quite know what you mean. The physical sensor IS 4000 sensors per inch. The lenses used SHOULD be capable of resolving to beyond thatso yes, the physical scanner IS capable of resolving to 1/4000th of an inch...but...as Nyquist pointed out, and I reiterated in the previous post, that will only GUARANTEE resolving to slightly under 1/2000th of an inch...at a minimum, and of course, you MAY resolve some things to 1/4000th... Regards, Austin
