 |
 | 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 / Darkroom / October 2003Question about Fuji minilab prints
For years, I've been getting my 35mm color prints processed at "the drugstore". The chain I currently use, like most others, uses Fuji equipment. They just upgraded their lab equipment, and the results I've been getting are even better than before. But I wonder just how these processors work. Today, one of the guys who runs the lab told me that the printer is "digital". Is this true? Am I getting "wet" prints made through projection through the negative, or is the machine basically just a big film scanner? Obviously, there's a big piece of info missing here, which is the type of processor they're using. Sorry, don't know: I do know it's some sort of Frontier. I'll try to find out the exact model, if that's helpful.  SignatureCALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown. > For years, I've been getting my 35mm color prints processed at "the > drugstore". The chain I currently use, like most others, uses Fuji equipment. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > processor they're using. Sorry, don't know: I do know it's some sort of > Frontier. I'll try to find out the exact model, if that's helpful. The simple answer: Imagine an inkjet printer that, instead of spraying colored ink on the paper, shoots out colored light onto photo paper, which is then wet processed like in the olden days. (so the guy is actually right: the "printer" is digital) And yes, the film is scanned. The Fuji Frontier is not unique, similar "hybrid" processors are also made by Noritsu, Agfa, and others. Ken On 9/28/2003 9:26 PM Ken Hart spake thus: >> For years, I've been getting my 35mm color prints processed at "the >> drugstore". The chain I currently use, like most others, uses Fuji equipment. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The Fuji Frontier is not unique, similar "hybrid" processors are also made > by Noritsu, Agfa, and others. Actually, he said it uses a laser. So let me get this straight: it's essentially a big color laser printer, using color negative paper. The scanner digitizes the negative image, which gets projected onto paper using the lasers. Is this correct? Do you know what resolution the film is scanned at, and what resolution the prints are made at? It's funny; I had suspected something like this was going on, since when I look at the prints closely with a magnifier, sometimes I can see what are apparently digital artifacts. They're very hard to see, though, and the prints look very convincingly "analog". SignatureCALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown. > Actually, he said it uses a laser. So let me get this straight: it's > essentially a big color laser printer, using color negative paper. The scanner > digitizes the negative image, which gets projected onto paper using the > lasers. Is this correct? Yes, thats right. But you know, that ther is a big amount of manipulation & adjustment on the digital data needed? > Do you know what resolution the film is scanned at, and what resolution the > prints are made at? Fuji Frontier 390: Scanning with max. 5000 Pixels (looks like the short negative side) --> max. 5000*7500 Pixel for 24*35 mm negative. On an other site I read :4535x3035 Pixels for 135. Printing resolutions ranging from ~ 70-400 dpi - I do not know which printer work with witch resolution. > It's funny; I had suspected something like this was going on, since when I > look at the prints closely with a magnifier, sometimes I can see what are > apparently digital artifacts. They're very hard to see, though, and the prints > look very convincingly "analog". I have a print (20*30cm) from the early digital printing days, showing the lines of the scanning / printing - without magnifier! Markus SignatureKeinaths Photohomepage Photo-Equipment: DIY, Repair and Modification www.keinaths-fotohomepage.gmxhome.de - Small English Version http://home.arcor.de/keinath - Full German Version On 9/29/2003 3:16 AM Markus Keinath spake thus: >> Actually, he said it uses a laser. So let me get this straight: it's >> essentially a big color laser printer, using color negative paper. The scanner [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, thats right. But you know, that ther is a big amount of manipulation & > adjustment on the digital data needed? Well, obviously: my description was an intentional oversimplification. I imagine the operator's interface is similar in some ways to, say, Adobe Photoshop, in that it has controls for adjusting the color, contrast, etc., of the image before printing. >> Do you know what resolution the film is scanned at, and what resolution the >> prints are made at? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > max. 5000*7500 Pixel for 24*35 mm negative. > On an other site I read :4535x3035 Pixels for 135. If 5000 pixels on the 36mm edge, resolution = ~3500 dpi; if 4535 pixels on this edge, resolution = ~3200 dpi. > Printing resolutions ranging from ~ 70-400 dpi - I do not know which > printer work with witch resolution. It's obviously a *lot* more than 70 dpi, and I suspect more than 600; where did you get these figures? a WAG? >> It's funny; I had suspected something like this was going on, since when I >> look at the prints closely with a magnifier, sometimes I can see what are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I have a print (20*30cm) from the early digital printing days, showing the > lines of the scanning / printing - without magnifier! The artifacts I see nowadays are nowhere near that obvious. There are occasionally very subtle patterns, usually occuring in areas of regular patterns in the print or sometimes in areas of high detail, which look like tesselations or something similar. Hard to describe. SignatureCALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown. > On 9/29/2003 3:16 AM Markus Keinath spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Photoshop, in that it has controls for adjusting the color, contrast, etc., of > the image before printing. snip Keep in mind that the Fuji Frontier is used in WalMart photo centers, where the "operator" last week was stocking shelves in sporting goods, and next week will be working the gardening center! While it can have extensive software controls for adjusting the look of the finished photo, the operator may not have access to those features (which could be a good thing!) The Fuji Frontier, and similar "hybrid" minilabs are used in stores where the operator has very little training/skill and other stores where the operator is a skilled artist (please excuse the use of that word here!). The systems and software can be extensively tailored to the needs and abilities of the store. Ken On 9/29/2003 1:03 PM Ken Hart spake thus: >> On 9/29/2003 3:16 AM Markus Keinath spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > The systems and software can be extensively tailored to the needs and > abilities of the store. This is all true. I'd just like to add as a data point that my "drugstore" (Longs Drugs) not only has brand-new Fuji equipment but also very qualified people in-store to operate it. The results are stunning. It's possible this is the exception rather than the rule. I can't say the same for their one-day service, which is sent to a central lab (theirs) for processing: the people in the store tell me that those jobs all get printed on the standard settings, with little or no effort on the part of the operator to adjust them. SignatureCALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown. I wrote: >> Printing resolutions ranging from ~ 70-400 dpi - I do not know which >> printer work with witch resolution. And David Nebenzahl answered: > It's obviously a *lot* more than 70 dpi, and I suspect more than 600; where > did you get these figures? a WAG? Oh Sorry, my brains was faster than my fingers: 270-400 dpi. What´s a WAG? Im from Germany, my english is bad, so I don`t understand. Markus SignatureKeinaths Photohomepage Photo-Equipment: DIY, Repair and Modification www.keinaths-fotohomepage.gmxhome.de - Small English Version http://home.arcor.de/keinath - Full German Version On 10/1/2003 5:34 PM Markus Keinath spake thus: > I wrote: >>> Printing resolutions ranging from ~ 70-400 dpi - I do not know which [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Oh Sorry, my brains was faster than my fingers: 270-400 dpi. What´s a WAG? > Im from Germany, my english is bad, so I don`t understand. Means "wild-a.s guess". Read my other recent posting for the *actual* (not speculative) resolution figures for these machines. SignatureCALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown. > On 10/1/2003 5:34 PM Markus Keinath spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Read my other recent posting for the *actual* (not speculative) resolution > figures for these machines. Not only WAG, see below: Fuji´s older LASER Printer LP-1000P has 300 dpi. Noritsu (www.noritsu.com) has a system called MLVA that prints with 400 dpi. And, news for me, HRCRT with 500 dpi. Claimed from noritsu as "with the highest resolution in the industry". Noritsus LASER has 320 dpi. AGFA´s d-lab.2 has 400 dpi. (http://www.agfa.com.au/news/news_2002-12-01_01.html) 270 dpi - were did I get that resolution? All the resolutions I mentioned earlier (expect the 500 dpi) I get from my studies (Institute of Media and Phototechnology / Univerity of Applied Sciences). I think the 270 dpi are mentioned in the course of Photofinishing 1996 Prof. Dr. Magloire. Or the AGFA Digiprint (~1990..) used that resolution. Markus SignatureKeinaths Photohomepage Photo-Equipment: DIY, Repair and Modification www.keinaths-fotohomepage.gmxhome.de - Small English Version http://home.arcor.de/keinath - Full German Version On 10/2/2003 4:06 AM Markus Keinath spake thus: >> On 10/1/2003 5:34 PM Markus Keinath spake thus: > > Fuji´s older LASER Printer LP-1000P has 300 dpi. As does the current LP-2000 used in the Frontier 370 and other processors. SignatureCALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown. A Frontier 350 operator explained me that he always makes the final print at 300 DPI. I can assure you his prints look absolutely fabulous... The negative is scanned with a resolution calculated in function of the print size; if you make a 5" x 7" print you need an enlargement of 5 x hence the scan is made at 1500 DPI. For smaller prints the initial scan has a lower res. Jan Tieghem > I wrote: > >> Printing resolutions ranging from ~ 70-400 dpi - I do not know which [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > www.keinaths-fotohomepage.gmxhome.de - Small English Version > http://home.arcor.de/keinath - Full German Version On 10/5/2003 9:11 AM Jan T spake thus: > A Frontier 350 operator explained me that he always makes the final print at > 300 DPI. I can assure you his prints look absolutely fabulous... > The negative is scanned with a resolution calculated in function of the > print size; if you make a 5" x 7" print you need an enlargement of 5 x hence > the scan is made at 1500 DPI. For smaller prints the initial scan has a > lower res. I don't know where you get this information: if from an operator, it's possible they were misinformed. The printer (3-color laser) *always* prints at 300 dpi; the operator has no control over this aspect of Frontier operation. Don't know if they have control over the scan resolution, but as stated above, the scanning CCD has 5,000 pixels, so scans are made at something significantly higher than 1500 dpi. >> I wrote: >> >> Printing resolutions ranging from ~ 70-400 dpi - I do not know which [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> Oh Sorry, my brains was faster than my fingers: 270-400 dpi. What´s a WAG? >> Im from Germany, my english is bad, so I don`t understand. SignatureCALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown. On 9/28/2003 6:49 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus: > For years, I've been getting my 35mm color prints processed at "the > drugstore". The chain I currently use, like most others, uses Fuji equipment. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > processor they're using. Sorry, don't know: I do know it's some sort of > Frontier. I'll try to find out the exact model, if that's helpful. After a gruelling 45 minutes of playing phone run-around, I got a call back from a Fuji tech who very nicely answered my questions. The minilab processor where I have my film done is a Frontier 370, a very common machine. * The scanner resolution (of the SP-2000 unit) is 5000 dpi, using a 3-color CCD. * The printer resolution is 300 dpi, using 3 colored lasers (blue, green and red). I was suprised by the relatively low printe resolution, considering the high quality of the prints and the absence of any visible scan lines (except for the occasional digital artifacts I mentioned earlier). SignatureCALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown. > * The scanner resolution (of the SP-2000 unit) is 5000 dpi, using a 3-color CCD. Enough to do justice to any negative. Equivalent to 100 lines/mm. > * The printer resolution is 300 dpi, using 3 colored lasers (blue, green and red). > > I was suprised by the relatively low printe resolution, considering the high > quality of the prints and the absence of any visible scan lines (except for > the occasional digital artifacts I mentioned earlier). Entirely ample for a continuous-tone image. 300 dpi = 6 lines per mm. When inkjet printers claim, say, 1440 dpi, that's the positioning accuracy; it doesn't mean you could actually print two lines 1/720 inch apart and distinguish them! > After a gruelling 45 minutes of playing phone run-around, I got a call back > from a Fuji tech who very nicely answered my questions. The minilab processor > where I have my film done is a Frontier 370, a very common machine. > > * The scanner resolution (of the SP-2000 unit) is 5000 dpi, using a 3-color CCD. The scanner CCD has 5000 Pixel for each color. With an negativ 24*36 mm the resolution is ~ 5290 ppi (pixel per inch). With a negative of 56 mm usable width, the resolution should be ~2270 ppi. With APS (uha) the resolution is theoreticly ~7600ppi. Markus SignatureKeinaths Photohomepage Photo-Equipment: DIY, Repair and Modification www.keinaths-fotohomepage.gmxhome.de - Small English Version http://home.arcor.de/keinath - Full German Version On 10/2/2003 3:10 AM Markus Keinath spake thus: >> After a gruelling 45 minutes of playing phone run-around, I got a call back >> from a Fuji tech who very nicely answered my questions. The minilab processor [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > With a negative of 56 mm usable width, the resolution should be ~2270 ppi. > With APS (uha) the resolution is theoreticly ~7600ppi. I don't think this is correct: the tech I spoke to said that the CCD had a resolution of 5000 pixels per inch, *not* 5000 absolute pixels, so the resolution figure holds no matter what size negative is being scanned. Unless he was wrong about this, which I doubt. SignatureCALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown. > I wote >> The scanner CCD has 5000 Pixel for each color. With an negativ 24*36 mm the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Unless he was wrong about this, which I doubt. He is wrong - or Fuji´s specs are: (both in german language, found no english one) www.fujifilm.at/Daten/ProdSpecsPDF/ Minilab/Frontier390Specs-D.pdf http://www.fujifilm.ch/downloads/de/fujifilm_foto/minilabs/F390_LB015G.pdf (page 4 in the middle "5000 Pixel Highspeed CCD Scanner") Markus SignatureKeinaths Photohomepage Photo-Equipment: DIY, Repair and Modification www.keinaths-fotohomepage.gmxhome.de - Small English Version http://home.arcor.de/keinath - Full German Version On 10/2/2003 11:20 AM Markus Keinath spake thus: >> I wote >>> The scanner CCD has 5000 Pixel for each color. With an negativ 24*36 mm the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > http://www.fujifilm.ch/downloads/de/fujifilm_foto/minilabs/F390_LB015G.pdf > (page 4 in the middle "5000 Pixel Highspeed CCD Scanner") So it really does have 5000 pixels; I sit corrected. But that still leaves the question of what the resolution is; I looked at the second document you gave, and saw that there seems to be an option for 120/220 with these machines; does this mean that the CCD is large enough to cover this format (in which case it would have to be at least 6cm long), or does the option include a different CCD? Clearly, further research is needed. I say we appoint a r.p.d committee to look into this. SignatureCALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown. David Nebenzahl schrieb: > But that still leaves the question of what the resolution is; I looked at the > second document you gave, and saw that there seems to be an option for 120/220 > with these machines; does this mean that the CCD is large enough to cover this > format (in which case it would have to be at least 6cm long), or does the > option include a different CCD? Normal scanners do always have an optics between Film and CCD. For 120/220 and APS are special negative masks (and lightboxes), but no optics. So I tend to think there is a zoom optics inside. Like in analog printers. Or a lens with two changable focal lengths? > Clearly, further research is needed. I say we appoint a r.p.d committee to > look into this. r.p.d ? Where do you find al your abbreviations? Markus SignatureKeinaths Photohomepage Photo-Equipment: DIY, Repair and Modification www.keinaths-fotohomepage.gmxhome.de - Small English Version http://home.arcor.de/keinath - Full German Version On 10/2/2003 11:41 PM Markus Keinath spake thus: > David Nebenzahl schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > optics. So I tend to think there is a zoom optics inside. Like in analog > printers. Or a lens with two changable focal lengths? OK, but how big (long) do you think that CCD is: that's the crucial information I'm after here. >> Clearly, further research is needed. I say we appoint a r.p.d committee to >> look into this. > > r.p.d ? Where do you find al your abbreviations? That's this newsgroup, rec.photo.darkroom. SignatureCALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown. > OK, but how big (long) do you think that CCD is: that's the crucial > information I'm after here. Typical scanning CCD technology uses a n array of sensors that can be quite wide, but could be as small as a couple millimeters deep - a long, thin array of sensors that passes over the object to scan. On 10/3/2003 7:23 AM J Stafford spake thus: >> OK, but how big (long) do you think that CCD is: that's the crucial >> information I'm after here. > > Typical scanning CCD technology uses a n array of sensors that can be > quite wide, but could be as small as a couple millimeters deep - a long, > thin array of sensors that passes over the object to scan. Yes, I know that; judging from their specs, the CCD array is 1 pixel* wide x 5,000 pixels long (across the scanning direction). My nagging question is how *long* (in inches, mm, fractions of nautical miles, whatever) is this 5,000 pixel array? I'm still interested in finding what the scanning resolution (in pixels per _____) is of the SP-2000. * "1 pixel" meaning 1 logical R/G/B pixel, so physically 3 pixels, one for each color. SignatureCALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown. On 10/3/2003 12:52 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus: > On 10/3/2003 7:23 AM J Stafford spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > * "1 pixel" meaning 1 logical R/G/B pixel, so physically 3 pixels, one for > each color. I hasten to correct my own post: I don't know for sure if the CCD is only 1 (logical, 3 physical) pixels wide: it may not be. But it doesn't matter, since we know what the other dimension (the 5,000 pixel one) is. By the way, keep in mind that this scanner is apparently capable of handling 6cm film, so it may be (read: probably is) wider than 36mnm. Which makes a big difference in the resolution of the device. SignatureCALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown. > By the way, keep in mind that this scanner is apparently capable of handling > 6cm film, so it may be (read: probably is) wider than 36mnm. Which makes a big > difference in the resolution of the device. Length of imaging sensor has not to be (dont know if that the right english expression) the same length of the object! Your cameras film is not as large as the photographed object. Today some flatbed scanners has an CMOS as long as the scannes area width, but there also scanners with 35 mm long CCD! Scanners = some kind of camera. How depends the resolution of a scan (through an optics!) from the witdh of the CCD? If the CCD (with 5000 Pixels) is, only for example, 24 mm long. The optics is zoomed so that the 24 mm from the film (the smaller side from 24*36) fits the 24 mm of the CCD properly - 1:1. The scanning resolution is then: 5000 Pixel / 24mm * 25,4 mm/inch = 5291 ppi (pixel/inch). If the CCD (with 5000 Pixel) is, for the second example, 48 mm long. The scanner optics is zoomed that the 24 mm from the film (the smaller side) fits properly (!) on the 48 mm of the CCD!! - 1:2 or 2:1 Which scanning resolution do we have? Ok, 5000 Pixel / 24 mm (from the scannned Area on the film!) * 25,4 mm / inch = 5291 ppi. Only if you intrested in the sensors original resolution, the length of the sensor is important. With the resolution of the sensor you can calculate how big the sensors are, and from this information you maybe can tell someting about noise. But for the scanned resolution I see no need for this information. OK, I assume, that the optics is zoomed if you change your film format. If that not, then the 5000 Pixels are used for ~ 56 mm film. the resolution is then 2267 ppi. In this case (optics wihout any fitting of the scanned area) this resolution is for 120, 135 and APS the same. I dont think Fuji Frontier is working that way. Hope it helps Markus SignatureKeinaths Photohomepage Photo-Equipment: DIY, Repair and Modification www.keinaths-fotohomepage.gmxhome.de - Small English Version http://home.arcor.de/keinath - Full German Version > [...] > > How depends the resolution of a scan (through an optics!) from the witdh of > the CCD? > [...] May I add one small point: note how scanners (and scanning backs) give (or should give) _two_ different resolution figures - one for the X and one for the Y dimension. Photographers might find that a rather daunting change - resolution is higher in one dimension? How wierd! But true. SharpsView schrieb: > May I add one small point: note how scanners (and scanning backs) give (or > should give) _two_ different resolution figures - one for the X and one > for the Y dimension. Photographers might find that a rather daunting > change - resolution is higher in one dimension? How wierd! But true. Lets say x is the direction of the movement - normal fladbed scanners ~ 30 cm, y is the direction of the CCD / CMOS ~ 22 cm. Resolution x depends from the smallest steps of the scan slegde and the dimensions of the CCD. Resolution y depends from the dimension of the pixels on the CCD and the optics. By the way: Normal photographic optics have also two different resolutions (or more precise: MTF) - tangential and sagittal. For example look at a MTF of a ZEISS lens (www.zeiss.com). Markus SignatureKeinaths Photohomepage Photo-Equipment: DIY, Repair and Modification www.keinaths-fotohomepage.gmxhome.de - Small English Version http://home.arcor.de/keinath - Full German Version |
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.