On Jul 1, 2007, at 6:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes because you are mixing apples and oranges in your comparison.
The D200
and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture; it does
not need
to be converted into a digital file after the capture by a second
external
process.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 11:47 PM, R. Jackson wrote:
On Jul 1, 2007, at 6:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
... At 4800 dpi a 35mm scan is 6255x4079.
That's over 25 megapixels. I can't really tell the difference between
a 4800 dpi scan and a 6400 dpi scan, so I never go higher than 4800
Thanks, Rob. I might follow along, partly because I also have a lot
of prints - old family photos mostly - to scan.
--
Sam
On Jul 4, 2007, at 6:44 AM, R. Jackson wrote:
I'm using an Epson V700. It's been a pretty nice machine so far. I've
scanned about 500 negatives and slides over the past
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most of the DSLRs mentioned
may be less than 25 megapixels but they shoot in Camera RAW
formats, which
can be adjusted in a number of ways if needed before converting the
Camera
Raw format to an interpreted value standard image format,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Secondly, some artifacts produced in the scanning process by prosummer
scanners operated by layoperators may not be readily remedied or correctable
at all in some cases.
And I'm sure THEY don't want to do any corrections, even if possible.
Mike K.
I have not used VueScan in years and am unfamiliar with its current raw
output. When I used it the raw scan was 16 bit non-linear scan without any
software processing applied at all output as a TIFF file. This is not
exactly the same as Camera RAW which via camera raw conversion programs
allows
You may be right. The commercial drum scanners are much more flexible and
complex allowing for very subtle adjustments and corrections via much more
complicated software that often requires a trained, accomplished, and
experienced scan master to make full use of - sort of like a pressman on an
I sent this message out on July 2nd, but I don't think it got posted, at
least I never received a copy... so I'm trying again.
If it did get posted, I apologize for the redundancy.
Art
Original Message
Subject:Re: [filmscanners] film and scanning vs digital photography
I'll say again something I have stated many times in the past. Humans
are analogue, not digital. We work on a cellular level and most of our
cells aren't lined up in perfect grids, far from it. We, both
evolutionarily and through learning, ignore random patterns in our
vision (and other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To put it simply, when you capture an image with a DSLR camera, you are in
effect directly scanning the image transmitted by your lens into digital
electronic form; you do not need to go through a second process in order to
convert the analog capture on film into an
On Jul 4, 2007, at 3:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have not used VueScan in years and am unfamiliar with its current
raw
output. When I used it the raw scan was 16 bit non-linear scan
without any
software processing applied at all output as a TIFF file.
Correct. You can also save the
I don't have a DSLR, but wouldn't a raw camera image need to be, shall
we say, dematrixed. The output of a film scanner is RGB at every pixel
location, where the DSLR is one color per pixel, with additional post
processing required to get RGB at every location.
R. Jackson wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007,
On Jul 4, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote:
At some point, the digital image components will be beyond any
human's ability to perceive as discrete components, (other than
with massive enlargement) and then the issue will be moot, and for
some it is so close to that now, that is already
When many people scan film, though, they subject the image to
automated processing that may well result in the kind of irreversible
image degradation you were talking about earlier. By storing a file
directly from the CCD output of the scanner and dealing with all
processing post-capture you
This isn't quite accurate. Digital Sensors actually use analogue
sensors. They then translate the information via an A/D converter, to
a digital entity which is then either saved as is or further processed as
a JPEG.
Technically we are in agreement; I oversimplified in order to avoid
On Jul 4, 2007, at 6:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
most of the automatic
processing that is done by the scanning software has to do with
things that
one can already do in Photoshop such as levels and curves settings,
saturation settings, brightness and contrast settings, etc. and not
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Film grain itself is not actual information. it is the random structure
used to create the image on it's smallest level. Grain occurs in three
random manners. Firstly, each color layer is laid down with the silver
halide grains in a completely chaotic
I do not know for sure; but I do not believe that this is correct. I think
that both DSLR Camera RAW image data values like raw scanner image data
values are just that - raw uninterpreted data values for the various
elements. I do not know if the raw color space that digital cameras and
scanners
I suspect the generations effect is why it takes less resolution in a
DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at
16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally
exceeds 30MPixels.
I saw a website that compared drum to a dedicated film scanner, with the
From: gary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suspect the generations effect is why it takes less resolution in a
DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at
16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally
exceeds 30MPixels.
I saw a website that compared drum to a
20 matches
Mail list logo
