One of the things that has always struck me about my 4000 ppi scanned images is how
much sharper the dust is than any image detail on the film - even films like Provia
100F. This implies to me that the film itself is the limiting factor for "image
sharpness". While we might all like to see 80
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Chefurka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> One of the things that has always struck me about my 4000 ppi
scanned images is how much sharper the dust is than any image detail
on the film - even films like Provia 100F. This implies to me that
the film itself is the
> One of the things that has always struck me about my 4000 ppi
> scanned images is how much sharper the dust is than any image
> detail on the film - even films like Provia 100F. This implies
> to me that the film itself is the limiting factor for "image
> sharpness". While we might all like t
At 08:49 AM 6/15/2001 -0700, Paul Chefurka wrote:
>One of the things that has always struck me about my 4000 ppi scanned
>images is how much sharper the dust is than any image detail on the film -
>even films like Provia 100F. This implies to me that the film itself is
>the limiting factor for
In a message dated 6/15/01 11:53:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< This implies to me that the film itself is the limiting factor for "image
sharpness". While we might all like to see 8000 ppi scanners for a number of
reasons, we won't actually resolve much more image
n Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
Typically, B&W is far sharper than color negative film, which is typically
sharper than chrome film (because of the double dev
L PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
In a message dated 6/15/01 11:53:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< After all, 4000 ppi gives a resolution of 75 lp/mm or so,
At 12:27 PM 6/15/01 -0400, Austin Franklin wrote:
>If you are going to be making B&W scans from a tri-color CCD scanner, don't
>let the scanner do the B&W unless it does not use the red channel. I'd
>strongly recommend doing the conversion your self from either the blue
>and/or green channel, an
> McNamara quotes 60 lp/mm. I arrived at my initial 75 lp/mm by
> doing a braindead calculation: 4000/25.4/2. My calculation is
> obviously optimistic - I'm assuming that adjacent rows (or
> columns) of pixels each resolve "1 line". I would have expected
> (bit being bits and all that) that an
> The red channel, OTOH, is the one with the best contrast,
> almost always.
I believe the green has the best contrast, and is the sharpest. Even on the
snippet you sent me, I believe green has far better contrast, and is the
sharpest. Blue was muddy, and red is not near as sharp.
> According
t;. Measurable, of course, but any "lines"
are artificial.
Otherwise, I have this all wrong and don't know what anybody's saying on
this topic. Clarifications? Please? Anyone?
Best regards--LRA
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
> OK, did I miss something significant here, or did the subject just get
> changed? I'm *assuming* that "a resolution of 75 lp/mm" refers to
> 75 lines
> per milimeter--in which case the "/" is redundant.
lp == Line Pair, so 75 lp/mm means 75 line pairs per millimeter. That means
150 lines, but
t they're about.
Best regards--LRA
>From: Stan McQueen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:33:11 -0600
>
>At 08:47 PM 6/15/2001 +0
At 08:47 PM 6/15/2001 +, you wrote:
>OK, did I miss something significant here, or did the subject just get
>changed? I'm *assuming* that "a resolution of 75 lp/mm" refers to 75 lines
>per milimeter--in which case the "/" is redundant. But of course, film has
>no lines per anything, it just
Austin Franklin wrote:
"4000SPI (samples/inch) divided by 25.4 mm/inch = 157.48 samples/mm, which
means it can always resolve a detail that is (157.48 samples/mm divided by 2
for sampling frequency divided by 2 for line pairs) = 39 lp/mm is the
minimum resolution that a 4000SPI scanner can resolv
Thank you, Austin. Now *that*, I understand. :-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
>Date: Fri, 15 Ju
Best regards--LRA
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:20:19 +0100
>
>Austin Franklin wrote:
>
>"4000SPI (samples/inch) divided
> There are two factors that decrease the resolution of the red channel.
> Smear and bloom.
>
And chromatic aberrations. Especially if the scanner does not properly
block the IR light.
At 04:28 PM 6/15/01 -0400, Austin wrote:
>
>> The red channel, OTOH, is the one with the best contrast,
>> almost always.
>
>I believe the green has the best contrast, and is the sharpest. Even on the
>snippet you sent me, I believe green has far better contrast, and is the
>sharpest. Blue was m
> >> The red channel, OTOH, is the one with the best contrast,
> >> almost always.
> >
> >I believe the green has the best contrast, and is the sharpest.
> Even on the
> >snippet you sent me, I believe green has far better contrast, and is the
> >sharpest. Blue was muddy, and red is not near as
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> "4000SPI (samples/inch) divided by 25.4 mm/inch = 157.48 samples/mm, which
> means it can always resolve a detail that is (157.48 samples/mm
> divided by 2
> for sampling frequency divided by 2 for line pairs) = 39 lp/mm is the
> MINIMUM resolution that a 4000SPI scan
>
> > There are two factors that decrease the resolution of the red channel.
> > Smear and bloom.
> >
>
> And chromatic aberrations. Especially if the scanner does not properly
> block the IR light.
True, but I don't know just how much it really effects scanners, since the
distances involved are
> OK, I *know* what happens when a very good camera lens does this
> test--the
> end of the scale turns to mush. Can anyone say what happens when
> a CCD does
> this? My guess would be "noise," but I frankly don't know and I've never
> seen it done. Any comments? I'm reaching.
I guess you are tal
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:27:35 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> If you are going to be making B&W scans from a tri-color CCD scanner,
> don't
> let the scanner do the B&W unless it does not use the red channel.
...unless you want to mitigate the effect of grain aliasing. Scann
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:52:51 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This is odd. If it were me, I'd toss the blue channel,
> which is more often than not the one with the most noise
> and the least usable information.
>
> The red channel, OTOH, is the one with the best contrast,
> almost
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:54:57 -0700 Paul Chefurka
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> So the question is: what factors would conspire to lower the
> resolution fractionally like that? The suspects I come up with are:
>
> - CCD bloom
inescapable, though the technology attempts to minimise it
> - An
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:27:40 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Whatever the theoretical merits of McNamara's observations, it appears
> to me that they clearly are in agreement with the conclusions by Paul
> and Raphael. BTW, the 2900 ppi Nikon CoolscanIV resolved 53.3 lp/mm
> vs 60 lp/mm f
> > If you are going to be making B&W scans from a tri-color CCD scanner,
> > don't
> > let the scanner do the B&W unless it does not use the red channel.
>
> ...unless you want to mitigate the effect of grain aliasing. Scanning
> to RGB and then reducing to greyscale usually gives less appar
> I'm impressed by this too ('magazine prints sense about scanner shock'),
> and empirically I'd agree that as far as detail is concerned, ~4,000 is
> certainly a point of diminishing returns.
4000 certainly isn't bad, but I scan at 5080, and find that most films
160ASA and under don't resolve
Paul Chefurka wrote:
>
> After all, 4000 ppi gives a resolution of 75 lp/mm or so, and it takes pretty
>remarkable
technique to actually get that kind of resolution onto film. Or is my crude
first-approximation
assessment incorrect, and we actually can't resolve detail in the scan at m
At 03:15 PM 6/16/01 +0100, you wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:52:51 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>> This is odd. If it were me, I'd toss the blue channel,
>> which is more often than not the one with the most noise
>> and the least usable information.
>>
>> The red channel, OTOH,
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 02:19:31 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I think there are two issues here. One is that a 4000 dpi scanner
> doesn't capture 4000 dpi, and I've yet to get a straight answer on what
> they actually capture.
You won't get one - it simply isn't calculable
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:41:32 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 4000 certainly isn't bad, but I scan at 5080, and find that most films
> 160ASA and under don't resolve to grain at 5080. It REALLY depends on
> what
> film, exposure and development.
>
> If 4000 were the limit,
Tony wrote:
>My personal quality stance is that without special care, most 35mm images
>neither deserve nor well sustain enlargement beyond 15x10 by any route
>unless unusually large viewing distances are involved, and I most often
>print at A4. I like 'sharp' but don't much like grain in most im
> This is a very small snippet of a scan taken with my Minolta Scan
> Dual
Which, according to Minolta, has an optical resolution of 2,438...
> The maximum resolved pattern is group 5,
> element 5 which has a resolution of 50.8 lpm = 1,290 line pairs per inch.
That comes out to 2545 DPI I
> > OK, I *know* what happens when a very good camera lens does this
> > test--the
> > end of the scale turns to mush. Can anyone say what happens when
> > a CCD does
> > this? My guess would be "noise," but I frankly don't know and I've never
> > seen it done. Any comments? I'm reaching.
>
It lo
> > I think there are two issues here. One is that a 4000 dpi scanner
> > doesn't capture 4000 dpi, and I've yet to get a straight answer on what
> > they actually capture.
>
> You won't get one - it simply isn't calculable and varies empirically
> according to subject contrasts, luminance an
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 4,000ppi doesn't leave me with any grief for whatever it misses -
but nor
> did 2,700. However I value more the smoother tonality of 4000ppi
than the
> minor increase in sharpness of fine detail.
I get considerably smoother tonality with the Agfa T-2500 than
, 2001 10:54 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
| Tony wrote:
|
| >My personal quality stance is that without special care, most 35mm images
| >neither deserve nor well sustain enlargement beyond 15x10 by any route
| >unless unusually large viewing dist
ugno 2001 01.23
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
At 03:15 PM 6/16/01 +0100, you wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:52:51 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>> This is odd. If it were me, I'd toss the blue channel,
>&g
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Alessandro Pardi wrote:
> Mmh... I think we're talking about different things: the red channel has
> often the best contrast in *color* images, given the high percentage of blue
> (skies, water) and green (grass) in nature, but that's not inherent to the
> scanning process.
> I was thinking color images. Gotta remember
> that Austin (more often than not) is scanning
> BW negatives.
Yes, you are right, I am talking B&W. I really should have said that, but
we were talking about converting RGB scans to B&W, so I assumed the source
WAS a B&W negative...
> There is a
At 06:00 PM 6/18/01 -0400, Austin wrote:
>Huh? How do they get even illumination, muchless correct wavelength light,
>from LEDs as the light source? That wouldn't be my first choice I don't
>believe, for a light source, or for filtering the light!
I don't know, and I'm not sure I care. It w
> This technique is not original to Nikon; it's used in
> sheet-fed paper scanners (eg. Visioneer PaperPort.)
I actually used that technique in a scanner I worked on more than 20 years
ago! I don't believe I'd call sheet-fed paper scanners high quality film
scanners though ;-)
Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway
down the page at this site:
http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon image were viewed
through a veil of haze, while the Leafscan is clear.
Is this the effect of greate
> Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway
> down the page at this site:
>
> http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
>
> To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon image were viewed
> through a veil of haze, while the Leafscan is clear.
>
> Is this the e
From: Dan Honemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about
halfway
> down the page at this site:
>
> http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
>
> To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon image were
viewed
> through a veil of haze, while
> The
> Nikon scan has a lot more shadow detail.
And you can tell that from a 72DPI web photo?
I can't imagine that anyone can accurately judge tonality and scan quality
from 72PPI JPEG web image displayed on a who knows what monitor!
Actual pixel clips are certainly usable for some criteria.
At 10:29 PM 6/18/01 -0400, Dan Honemann wrote:
>Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway
>down the page at this site:
>
>http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
>
>To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon image were viewed
>through a veil of haze, whi
> >Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway
> >down the page at this site:
> >
> >http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
>
> One of us is hallucinating, or one of us is blind. I sure
> don't see the "astonishing" difference you're talking about,
> even when these
I'd suggest that
you're right. :-)
Slowing down a basketball game that much, however, was not an option. ;-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: filmscan
From: Dan Honemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about
halfway
> > >down the page at this site:
> > >
> > >http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
> >
> > One of us is hallucinating, or one of us is blind. I sure
> > don't see the "astonishi
> > > The
> > > Nikon scan has a lot more shadow detail.
> >
> > And you can tell that from a 72DPI web photo?
>
> Yes. Isn't it obvious?
Well, no. You can tell that the web image has more shadow detail,
certainly, but NOT the scan!
> My best guess would be that the lack of shadow detail in the
If I were playing basketball, it would be an option ;-)
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
| M
> > The
> > Nikon scan has a lot more shadow detail.
>
> And you can tell that from a 72DPI web photo?
Yes. Isn't it obvious?
> I can't imagine that anyone can accurately judge tonality and scan quality
> from 72PPI JPEG web image displayed on a who knows what monitor!
I don't think anyone is t
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lynn Allen wrote:
> Atlthough this isn't what Tony's writing about, I'm going to "kidnap" his
> thoughts on this to revisit what I said a few days ago, re flatbed scans vs.
> filmscans, vis a vis resolution and detail. A year ago I had the priveledge
> and oportunity to
rafeb wrote:
> This technique is not original to Nikon; it's used in
> sheet-fed paper scanners (eg. Visioneer PaperPort.)
> Where I work they're refered to as CIS scanners
> (Contact Image Sensor.)
>
I don't believe this is the same thing.
As I understand it, a CIS is a different senso
Rafe wrote:
>
>> There is a difference here between the Nikon
>> scanners (at least the latest generation) and
>> most others -- specifically, the Nikons
>> use a 3-line *monochrome* CCD sensor, and
>> tri-color (RGB) LEDs
>
Austin Franklin wrote:
> Huh? How do they get even illuminati
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:54:10 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I get considerably smoother tonality with the Agfa T-2500 than the
> Nikon LS-30, but since I obviously can't attribute this to resolution
> I was thinking the light source type is responsible.
It probably does play a pa
At 07:33 AM 6/19/01 -0700, Moreno Polloni wrote:
>My best guess would be that the lack of shadow detail in the Leafscan was
>due to an out-of-level scanner. I hear that's a common problem (table sag)
>with 85 pound scanners.
LOL! Good one, Moreno.
FWIW, the 8000 ED makes my old SprintScan look
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Dan Honemann wrote:
> > >Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway
> > >down the page at this site:
> > >
> > >http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
> >
> > One of us is hallucinating, or one of us is blind. I sure
> > don't see the "aston
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:54:32 - Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> A year ago I had the priveledge
> and oportunity to flatbed-scan a series of pictures (prints) made 130
> years ago with cherry-wood cameras and very slow anastigmat lenses on
> (probably) glass wet-plates, printed on
At 09:11 AM 6/19/01 -0400, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
>> > One of us is hallucinating, or one of us is blind. I sure
>> > don't see the "astonishing" difference you're talking about,
>> > even when these two images are inspected under high magnification
>> > in Photoshop.
>
>You won't see anything
> Yes, Austin, that is how the Nikons work. They have 4 sets of LEDs, R,
> G, B and IR. It is, in part, why 1) Nikons tend to exaggerate the dust
> and dirt, and 2) why they have some problems with DOF on the edges due
> to the low LUX intensity of the LEDs, leading to the need for a very
> wide
At 01:19 AM 6/19/01 -0700, Art wrote:
>
>
>rafeb wrote:
>
>
>> This technique is not original to Nikon; it's used in
>> sheet-fed paper scanners (eg. Visioneer PaperPort.)
>> Where I work they're refered to as CIS scanners
>> (Contact Image Sensor.)
>>
>
>I don't believe this is the same thin
> Just for clarification. You are speaking of the Minolta Dimage Dual,
> which is rated at 2450 or so DPI, not the Dual II, which is rated at
> 2820... is that correct?
>
> Art
>
> Shough, Dean wrote:
>
>
> >
> > This is a very small snippet of a scan taken with my Minolta Scan Dual
> from
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 07:02:45 -0700 Shough, Dean ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> That is what MTFs (Modulation Transfer Function) are for. The MTF for
> optical systems can be either computed (see Canon's EF Lens Work) or
> measured.
Yes I know this, it is what I was referring to without calling
Rafe B wrote:
> The differences are 100% attributable to scanner settings, and
> entirely "fixable," with either scanner, at scan-time.
>
> The Nikon image can be made to look like the Leaf image (in
> Photoshop, after the scan) but not vice-versa, since shadow
> detail has been lost in the L
> I have to agree with Dan that the Leaf 45 scan is quite visibly different
> than the Nikon (I'm using a HItachi 19" shadow-mask monitor, BTW), and on
> first look does seem superior to Nikon's. The question is whether such
> differences are meaningful at these resolutions, and whether one scan c
> I've been thinking about the Nikon 4000ED too, so it was
> interesting for me
> to see the comparison.
I have to agree with Rafe that it really wasn't a very good comparison.
Don't base your decision on a couple of JPEG 72PPI web images!
At 06:35 PM 6/19/01 -0400, Dan Honemann wrote:
>I take it you're the proud owner of an LS 4000?
No, even better. 8000.
rafe b.
At 11:41 PM 6/19/01 +0100, Richard wrote:
>Open the Leafscan image in PS and see if you can get approximately close to
>the Nikon scan. I couldn't
Boy, I must be missing something here.
You're on the wrong track. You can't fix the Leaf
image; it's already had its shadow tones compressed
into
Rafe,
You got yours? Mine is still backordered... bummer.
Lawrence
http://www.lwsphoto.com
>
>
> No, even better. 8000.
>
>
> rafe b.
>
>
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 07:33:35 -0700 Moreno Polloni ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I don't think anyone is trying to make super critical judgements here.
> To me
> the scans need to be better matched before attempting to draw any
> conclusions about scanner quality.
Even that is little help, since
At 09:43 PM 6/19/01 -0400, Lawrence wrote:
>Rafe,
>
>You got yours? Mine is still backordered... bummer.
>
>Lawrence
>
>http://www.lwsphoto.com
>>
>>
>> No, even better. 8000.
>>
>>
>> rafe b.
Yeah, I've got it. What do you suppose I've been
raving about for these last couple of weeks ?
> > That is what MTFs (Modulation Transfer Function) are for. The MTF for
> > optical systems can be either computed (see Canon's EF Lens Work) or
> > measured.
>
> Yes I know this, it is what I was referring to without calling it MTF -
> and my point was that Nyquist renders MTF incalculable
I just found out mine has shipped and will be here tomorrow
Lawrence
>
>
> Yeah, I've got it. What do you suppose I've been
> raving about for these last couple of weeks ?? :-)
>
> I must have gotten lucky -- for once.
>
> rafe b.
>
> At 11:41 PM 6/19/01 +0100, Richard wrote:
>
>> Open the Leafscan image in PS and see if you can get approximately close to
>> the Nikon scan. I couldn't
>
> Boy, I must be missing something here.
>
> You're on the wrong track. You can't fix the Leaf
> image; it's already had its shadow tones
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 07:33:35 -0700 Moreno Polloni ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>
> > I don't think anyone is trying to make super critical judgements
here.
> > To me
> > the scans need to be better matched before attempting to draw any
> > conclusions about
At 02:09 PM 6/20/01 -0400, you wrote:
>I just found out mine has shipped and will be here tomorrow
Well, feel free to comment or exchange notes.
Still learning the ropes over here.
rafe b.
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 07:55:14 -0700 Shough, Dean ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean about the Nyquist limit making the
> MTF
> incalculable or why you emphasize systems.
To counter the discussion hereabouts which is regarding the Nyquist limit
of the CCD as actual
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 04:58:54 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Yeah, I've got it. What do you suppose I've been
> raving about for these last couple of weeks ?? :-)
It hasn't gone unnoticed - you seem to be the only person in the world
who actually has one :) Just how long does this
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 04:58:54 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I've got it. What do you suppose I've been
> > raving about for these last couple of weeks ?? :-)
>
> It hasn't gone unnoticed - you seem to be the only person in the w
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:25:14 -0400 (EDT) Raphael Bustin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 645 negatives take about five minutes, more or
> less, with ICE turned off. This is a rough
> guess, I haven't actually timed it. Certainly
> no more time than it took my Epson 1640SU to do
> the same job
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:32:13 -0700 Shough, Dean ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> The slide was made on a thick polyester base film. Must be standard -
> Sinepatterns seems to use the same base.
> printed at a resolution of 2 microns per pixel
Just as a matter of interest, how the hell do you do
> > printed at a resolution of 2 microns per pixel
>
> Just as a matter of interest, how the hell do you do this!?
>
I believe they use some sort of scanning laser device. "They" being some
other part of my company - I don't even know who or where as someone else
took care of the details after
Lynn wrote:
> The old, slower lenses show their "stuff," and the smaller format
> tends to drop some of the detail. This leads me to think that the
> lensatics and medium of the target picture is *still* more
> important than whatever scanner you use, if the scanner is
> competent in the first pla
Dan wrote:
> To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon
> image were viewed through a veil of haze, while the
> Leafscan is clear.
Must be something wrong with my monitor at work. The differences look very
subtle to me. Someone else made a good point though - how long did the
leafsca
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Arthur Entlich wrote:
> In general, some of the older fixed focus lenses proved to have better
> glass, and if they are well multicoated they can be great.
>
> One of my best lenses is a Nikkor 135 2.8 tele. It is a Q series, which
> was a quality multicoated glass.
>
L PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks
>scanner)
>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:46:44 +0100
>
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
> > In general, some of the older fixed focus lenses p
> The pure fact of the matter is that zoom lenses are not equal to
> telephoto lenses. Never have been, never will be.
There are always exceptions. The Leica 70-180/2.8R is actually as good as,
or better than, most single focal length lenses throughout its range. But
then you pay for that quali
still, "Getting
the Shot."
Best regards--LRA
>From: "Dan Honemann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks
>scanner)
>Date: Fri, 2
> Someone else made a good point though - how long did the
> leafscan take to produce the scan compare to the Nikon? How long
> from holding
> the piece of film to having the TIFF file on the computer?
The scan time for most any scanner is reasonably deterministic. It is the
(exposure time * th
> I am sure the Nikon is substantially faster than the Leaf, since the Leaf
> is
> a three pass scanner, and the Nikon is one pass, but since the Leaf can do
> B&W in one pass, and has a ND filter for scanning B&W, I believe it easily
> holds its own with any other scanner for B&W work.
>
Why wou
> > I am sure the Nikon is substantially faster than the Leaf,
> since the Leaf
> > is
> > a three pass scanner, and the Nikon is one pass, but since the
> Leaf can do
> > B&W in one pass, and has a ND filter for scanning B&W, I
> believe it easily
> > holds its own with any other scanner for B&W
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> I have a couple of old and AFAIK not particularly great K-mount
> lenses which I can use on my MZ5. The clarity of photos taken
> with the f1.9 50mm lens in particular seem *vastly* better than
> photos taken with the Sigma 28-80 AF zoom. Even when the
> autofocus is
96 matches
Mail list logo
