 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / July 20077250 dpi Scanner Introduced by Pacific Image Electronics
I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical resolution, ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides. http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php > I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical resolution, > ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides. > > http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php Nice! Thanks for that. I need a dedicated 35mm scanner rather than wasting my 9000 on that film format... >I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical resolution, >ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides. > > http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php Yee Gads!! - That's 51.8 megabytes! I don't believe I have even one slide out of thousands that could justify a scan of that resolution....Even the ones that were taken from a tripod on a quiet day. >>I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical resolution, >>ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >out of thousands that could justify a scan of that resolution....Even the >ones that were taken from a tripod on a quiet day. I think that the file size is actually about 395MB! Here is how I got this number. The Nikon 5000 scanner produces 120 MB files and its resolution is "only" 4000 dpi. Scale that up to get 395 MB. Now there are some serious limitations on this scanner. Like no ability to batch feed slides. Nikon has the SF-210 slide feeder which will do 50 slides at a time. Second, and probably more important, the Dmax for this scanner is quoted as 3.6. The Nikon scanner has a 4.8 Dmax. That is a big difference and is important for pulling out shadow detail. Of course, the Nikon scanner is about one thousand dollars, US, plus more for the batch feeder. I didn't see a price for the Pacific Image Electronics scanner. Father Kodak > >Yee Gads!! - That's 51.8 megabytes! I don't believe I have even one slide > >out of thousands that could justify a scan of that resolution....Even the > >ones that were taken from a tripod on a quiet day. tghere are very good reasons for wanting to scan at a much higher resolution than the slide's max. They have to do with grain aliasing. Plenty of materials on that to read. Also a very good scanning resource in the yahoo groups, used by scanning pros, talks about it from time to time. > I think that the file size is actually about 395MB! Here is how I > got this number. The Nikon 5000 scanner produces 120 MB files and its > resolution is "only" 4000 dpi. Scale that up to get 395 MB. Yup, that would b e the case indeed. Of course, more than likely one would apply post-processing to all that and only keep a final archive image in compressed tiff, 8bit colour, around 20MB or so. > Now there are some serious limitations on this scanner. Like no > ability to batch feed slides. Nikon has the SF-210 slide feeder which > will do 50 slides at a time. I don't think at its price point anyone is makin g it pass as a serious contender for Nikon scanners? > Second, and probably more important, the Dmax for this scanner is > quoted as 3.6. The Nikon scanner has a 4.8 Dmax. That is a big > difference and is important for pulling out shadow detail. Quite true. This thing is a serious contender to Epson flatbed scanners, not Coolscans. > Of course, the Nikon scanner is about one thousand dollars, US, plus > more for the batch feeder. I didn't see a price for the Pacific Image > Electronics scanner. It's US$595 RRP, so street prices will be considerably less than that. Even at that price, I'd take it instead of an Epson. >>> I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical resolution, >>> ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > got this number. The Nikon 5000 scanner produces 120 MB files and its > resolution is "only" 4000 dpi. Scale that up to get 395 MB. A 4x5 transparency scanned at 4000 ppi gives a 625MB TIFF file. >>>I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical >>>resolution, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Father Kodak Yes. In general, 35 mm film scanner technology far exceeds my needs. - I suppose I could use a good feeder, but then, the quality of the scans wouldn't be as good, since I don't have a "clean room" to work in, and I have to brush off and blow off each slide before scanning in order to reduce my Photoshop clean-up time. But using up a third of a gigabyte or more per slide boggles my imagination.....I sometimes wonder, "Where will it ever end?" Will the universe end when we have completely digitized it? ....:^) Can a machine ever have enough storage to digitize itself? I think I will write a letter to the mathematics department of Duke University.......... > Yes. In general, 35 mm film scanner technology far exceeds my needs. - I > suppose I could use a good feeder, but then, the quality of the scans [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Can a machine ever have enough storage to digitize itself? I think I will > write a letter to the mathematics department of Duke University.......... I deal with a lot of image larger then that, but then I tend to keep them as jpeg images not 16 bit/color tiffs. A 35mm slide scanned at 7200 ppi will produce an image that is just under 70MB, if the image is fairly clean this can be stored in less then 10MB, as can be seen here. http://www.sewcon.com/largephotos/Ship_at_7200ppi.jpg Note if you don't have a lot of ram on your computer you might have to download the image and view it in a program like Photoshop, which should have not problem with it. Note that image only takes up 9MB of hard disk space, not bad at all. Having said that I see very little added detail in 4000ppi scans compared to 2000 ppi scans, going to 7200ppi seems like a waste of time to me. Scott >> Yes. In general, 35 mm film scanner technology far exceeds my needs. - I >> suppose I could use a good feeder, but then, the quality of the scans [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Scott Yes....I have the capability of scanning to 5400 dpi, but I have found that I gain nothing by doing this over what I can get with around 2500 dpi. If I am trying to read something in the background, for example, like a license plate on a car, scanning at the higher resolution doesn't seem to help. - The information just isn't there, and there is nothing I can do about it. > Yes....I have the capability of scanning to 5400 dpi, but I have found that > I gain nothing by doing this over what I can get with around 2500 dpi. If I > am trying to read something in the background, for example, like a license > plate on a car, scanning at the higher resolution doesn't seem to help. - > The information just isn't there, and there is nothing I can do about it My results (with the same model scanner) are similar. You just can't get more detail by scanning 35mm film at higher resolutions. You'll need D-Mac's Super-Secret resizing algorithm for that. "Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message > Of course, the Nikon scanner is about one thousand dollars, US, plus > more for the batch feeder. I didn't see a price for the Pacific Image > Electronics scanner. > > Father Kodak Amazon has it now for $550, if memory serves me correctly. As for the dpi, the user can select virtually any dpi he wants--he is not limited to only the maximum value. I have the 3650 dpi scanner from Pacific Image Electronics, having bought it on Amazon for about $350, and am quite happy, given the price paid. It takes 6 minutes to scan a neg at 3650 dpi, with ICE3 turned on. But I'm just an amateur, and a low-volume shooter, so that really does not pose a big problem for me. I think that the lower-priced scanners are where this market is headed. Paying $550 and getting 7250 dpi represents excellent price-to-performance, and it may contribute to slowing down the wholesale abandonment of film by amateurs. It certainly can't hurt. > I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical resolution, > ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides. > > http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php Just a word or two of caution here. Pacific Imaging have created some rather natty little scanners, but I would question their reputation for producing a product that: - has resolution that matches its claims in reality (that sort of res would require *very* good optics and a very secure method to hold the film flat) - has a decent dynamic range - what is the point of a sharp scan if it can't dig into the shadows? If you're only scanning print film, maybe it will be ok, but if you are a chronic underexposer of slide film like me... be afraid! - is a long lasting product (I've heard more complaints about PIE scanners breaking down than for the name brands, but I'll happily admit the plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'information'). Also, such scans are probably going to take a little while, so... think carefully about the 'no feeder'... It does say it batch scans roll film - doesn't show what that means, but slides are one at a time. >> I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical >> resolution, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > think carefully about the 'no feeder'... It does say it batch scans > roll film - doesn't show what that means, but slides are one at a time. It will scan an entire roll of negs--up to 40 frames--without manual intervention. That's how I do my scans--I have the film developed and I take it home UNCUT, and feed it into the scanner. That way, I can walk out and come back in a couple of hours, and everything is done. It also takes cut strips, such as one is likely to get back from conventional film processing. It does slides, one at a time. Slow. PIE does make a couple of models that allow the user to put the slides in a rotary tray, and the scanner automatically scans each one, in turn. They go for around $1200.00. > I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical resolution, > ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides. > > http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php Well 7200 ppi not 7250 ppi, still a crazy high number that would lead one to believe it is more hype then anything else. I have a flatbed scanner that goes to 12800 ppi, but its optical resolution is much closer to 1200ppi, kind of makes the 12800 ppi setting worthless. Scott > >http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Scott well, they say it's "optical resolution 7200X7200", that's a bit different from just claiming 7200 ppi rez... Quite frankly, just because flatbed scanners don't have this is no confirmation whatsoever these folks won't be able to get there in a film scanner? After all, drum scanners go considerably higher than that. >>> http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php >> Well 7200 ppi not 7250 ppi, still a crazy high number that would lead [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > After all, drum scanners go considerably higher > than that. Drum scanners only have to image one pixel at a time, much easier. And a drum scanner holds the film very flat, something you need for very high resolution, the higher the resolution the smaller a DOF you are going to get. And the few 6000 ppi scans I have seen from a drum scanner look like total crap at the pixel level. Scott >>>> http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php >>> Well 7200 ppi not 7250 ppi, still a crazy high number that would lead [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Scott It's just like the old "Hi-Fi" music systems of the 60's and 70's.....They were only as good as their weakest link.....Usually the speakers. The same thing is true of scanning film....If the detail isn't on the film to begin with, then you can't "Scan a silk purse out of a sow's ear." I don't see why anyone would want to scan a 35 mm slide at greater than 4000 dpi resolution.....I have never seen a slide that could benefit from detail more than about half that....... > It's just like the old "Hi-Fi" music systems of the 60's and 70's.....They > were only as good as their weakest link.....Usually the speakers. The same [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > resolution.....I have never seen a slide that could benefit from detail more > than about half that....... I have. And there are plenty of reasons why one would want to scan at higher rez than 4000. >> It's just like the old "Hi-Fi" music systems of the 60's and >> 70's.....They [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > why one would want to scan at higher rez > than 4000. Errrr.....Would it be asking too much for you to tell me one of those reasons? > >> It's just like the old "Hi-Fi" music systems of the 60's and > >> 70's.....They [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Errrr.....Would it be asking too much for you to tell me one of those > reasons? Do a search for "grain aliasing". It's not a correct term, IME. But it describes a problem that can be solved by higher scan rez. >> >> It's just like the old "Hi-Fi" music systems of the 60's and >> >> 70's.....They [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > But it describes a problem that can be solved by higher scan > rez. P.L.Andrews has a good article on it here: http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm However, at the end, he mentions the "GEM" settings on some scanners, which gets rid of (or at least helps) the problem......I have "GEM" on my KM 5400, and I normally use it for my scans, which are usually at 2500 dpi or lower. > >> Errrr.....Would it be asking too much for you to tell me one of those > >> reasons? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > gets rid of (or at least helps) the problem......I have "GEM" on my KM 5400, > and I normally use it for my scans, which are usually at 2500 dpi or lower. Exactly. I don't necessarily agree that the cause of the "grain aliasing" is the lack of extra rez. Although it can be solved that way as noted in some of the articles. IME it's caused by the nature of the light sources in most ccd scanners. Enlargers worked around this problem with diffused light boxes. It happens mostly with older films where the emulsion side is "rough": you can see this when the reflexion of light from it shows a "milky" appearance. With most modern films - by this I mean films that came on the market after the "scan to CD" concept - you will notice that the emulsion side is a lot more smooth, to the point where it becomes difficult to determine which side is which. The latest Astia and some of the new consumer Superia films are perfect examples: the emulsion side is as smooth as the other. With those, I've noticed the "grain aliasing" to be almost non-existent. GEM on the other hand works a treat to solve the problem. I use it at the "1" setting in my 9000ED and it just about gets rid of all "grain alias" on older films, with few exceptions. All I'm left with is "true grain", which is dirt easy to fix with things like Neat Image or Noise Ninja. The end result is a virtually "grainless" image from a film scan. > P.L.Andrews has a good article on it here: > http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm > However, at the end, he mentions the "GEM" settings on some scanners, which > gets rid of (or at least helps) the problem......I have "GEM" on my KM 5400, > and I normally use it for my scans, which are usually at 2500 dpi or lower. I looked at his article and whereas he might be seeing gain aliasing he might also simply be seeing the roughness of the negative surface. A fast optical system, like an enlarger, will be less prone to seeing surface ripples then a slower (high f/number) system. Wet mounting the film also helps to reduce the effects of the surface roughness. For a scanner to show any aliasing it needs to have a fair bit more optical resolution then the scanner resolution, which is not true for most film scanners. A better test would be to scan using the same film scanner at say 2700 ppi and 5400 ppi, down sample the 5400 ppi scan and compare it to the 2700 ppi scan. What the images from the PIE scanner is going to look like only time will tell. But the fact that it can scan at a resolution of 7200ppi tells us very little about what the quality of the scan will be. Scott >> P.L.Andrews has a good article on it here: >> http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Scott I have done this several times with my KM-5400. (Scanned the same negative or slide twice. Once at 5400 and once at 2700) I don't see any difference, but then I am usually scanning slides taken with a hand-held 35 mm camera.Perhaps there is some photographer in the great beyond whose exacting equipment and vast abilities can produce a film strip that can and does benefit from 5400 dpi scans.....I just know that it isn't me. I am also inspecting the results of these scans on my, (probably 300 dpi) computer screen. If I were printing them with an expensive enough printer at 16 x 24 blow-up size, then I might see a difference. > I have done this several times with my KM-5400. (Scanned the same negative > or slide twice. Once at 5400 and once at 2700) I don't see any difference, > but then I am usually scanning slides taken with a hand-held 35 mm > camera. I've seen a small difference on some frames but not enough to make it worth dealing with files four times as large. I suspect that the optics of the scanner aren't capable of maintaining much detail at 5400 ppi. 7200 ppi makes me even more suspicious. That requires optics that can resolve down to five times the wavelength of red light: not out of the question for expensive equipment but far out of the range of consumer products.  SignatureMatthew Winn [If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"] > 7200 ppi makes me even more suspicious. That requires optics that can > resolve down to five times the wavelength of red light: not out of the > question for expensive equipment but far out of the range of consumer > products. I've got a funny suspicion this is a rebadged old Kodak scanner model , with 1:2 interpolation to make it go to 7200. Check this out: http://www.creativepro.com/story/review/14922.html This was a 3600dpi scanner. Double the rez and you got 7200 spot-on. And the cases couldn't be more equal. Me theenks PIE has bought the right to make this thing from Kodak - or its contract with them to make it has expired - and naturally they want to put their own spin in the product. Still darn good value for the price if it is interpolated and the presence of GEM, ICE and ROC is also welcome, but definitely no match for the coolscan 5000ED in the optics. >> 7200 ppi makes me even more suspicious. That requires optics that can >> resolve down to five times the wavelength of red light: not out of the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > welcome, but definitely no match for the coolscan > 5000ED in the optics. The marketing brochure claims that it has 7200 dpi optical resolution, not interpolated. > Drum scanners only have to image one pixel at a time, much easier. and in what shape or format does that prove that a scanner can't do higher than a flatbed? > And a drum scanner holds the film very flat, something you need > for very high resolution, the higher the resolution the smaller a > DOF you are going to get. so what? does that prove a film scanner can't scan at higher rez than a flatbed? > And the few 6000 ppi scans I have seen from a drum scanner look like > total crap at the pixel level. Well, that is your experience with drum scanners. It proves not that a film scanner can't have better rez than a flatbed. I made my statement very clear: there is no technical reason why a film scanner can't have a rez of 7200, higher therefore than most flatbeds. Drum scanners regularly scan at much higher rez. Why, or if it is worth it, is irrelevant: you may think it is not needed, I may think it is very welcome. That proves absolutely nothing as to it being possible in PIE's case. Their statement is "optical 7200X7200" . Sounds very clear to me. "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > Their statement is "optical 7200X7200" . > Sounds very clear to me. To me, the question is, what is the error ratio.....Is every one of those 7200 x 7200 pixels scanned with absolute accuracy, and if you scanned the same film frame twice, would both scans be identical? I think not. So would a drum scanner yield greater accuracy when it makes a scan of the same resolution. and if so, then why, and if not, then why not? > "Noons" <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 7200 x 7200 pixels scanned with absolute accuracy, and if you scanned the > same film frame twice, would both scans be identical? of course not. this is not a silicon mask scanner with submicron registration! > I think not. So would a drum scanner yield greater accuracy when it > makes a scan of the same resolution. and if so, then why, and if not, then > why not? I'd say a drum scanner would show much higher ability to punch through shade - also known as D=max, but that tends to be a swear work here! :-) It'd also show a lot less grain aliasing, or what is commnoly called by that name. And more than likely the focus would be spot-on with a high quality macro lens, with an adjustable aperture. Scott, check this out (watchwrap): http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Kodak-Professional-RFS-3600-Slide-Film-Negative-Scanner_W 0QQitemZ200130245958QQihZ010QQcategoryZ3751QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem ain't that almost a twin of this scanner? Now, who copied who? PIE or Kodak? Given that this Kodak is older, perhaps PIE made them for the big K before? >> >http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > After all, drum scanners go considerably higher > than that. I would point out that, at $550, this could represent quite a lot of bang for the buck. Admittedly, it may not be up to the performance of an $1800 Nikon scanner, but it probably eclipses anything that was available as little as 3 years ago. For a guy like me, who already has a full complement of film bodies and lenses, this represents an economical opportunity to keep on using film, rather than having to dump all that gear and start all over again. It may not be appropriate for the professional, or for the very advanced amateur, but those guys already know what they require, and they know what price they'll have to pay. I'm just grateful that this higher-end performance id finally filtering down to the small-time users, who would not ordinarily be expected to shell out big bucks for film scanners--especially when DSLRs have been dropping in price, to the point that one can get performance at a price that makes a film scanner an impractical expense. > I would point out that, at $550, this could represent quite a lot of bang > for the buck. Admittedly, it may not be up to the performance of an $1800 > Nikon scanner, but it probably eclipses anything that was available as > little as 3 years ago. Bingo! > For a guy like me, who already has a full complement of film bodies and > lenses, this represents an economical opportunity to keep on using film, > rather than having to dump all that gear and start all over again. But wait for the series of proof that "film does not need high rez" that will follow this... All from folks who haven't used film or scanned one in years! > It may > not be appropriate for the professional, or for the very advanced amateur, > but those guys already know what they require, and they know what price > they'll have to pay. Exactly. > I'm just grateful that this higher-end performance id > finally filtering down to the small-time users, who would not ordinarily be > expected to shell out big bucks for film scanners--especially when DSLRs > have been dropping in price, to the point that one can get performance at a > price that makes a film scanner an impractical expense. Bingo again. And don't forget that the dslrs that have dropped in price to that level are NOT the full frame, 16Mpixel pro devices that are invariably brought in to explain how dslrs are better quality than film. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.