 |
 | 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 / Film and Labs / October 2004Scanners
Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200? Smitty -- > Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200? > Smitty > > -- plenty of magazine journalists have used the 'worlds highest resolution 35mm film scanner'. http://tinyurl.com/6k76b Chris Street I just bought one but I can't get the software to launch. I was hopping someone here owned of these things. Smitty >> Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200? >> Smitty [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Chris Street >>Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200? >>Smitty [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > plenty of magazine journalists have used the 'worlds highest > resolution 35mm film scanner'. http://tinyurl.com/6k76b Hmm, please quote sources showing all these pj's using a scanner that has seemingly sub-par dmax and much too much resolution for any magazine. For even large format magazines a scan res of 3000 dpi is more than sufficient. Better to have dmax than a lot of pixels. Cheers, Alan.  Signature-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- >>Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200? >>Smitty [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > plenty of magazine journalists have used the 'worlds highest > resolution 35mm film scanner'. http://tinyurl.com/6k76b ...these days you will find very few pj's using film. Signature-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- > Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200? > Smitty I looked at the 'spec' (so to speak) at http://www.plustek.com/products/film.htm 1- dynamic range is ambiguous (says 48 bits/pixel, implying full 16 bit per color, but does not state the dmax). 2- does not have ICE so looks pretty good, but ICE is an essential, IMO. Cheers, Alan Signature-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- >> Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200? >> Smitty [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >so looks pretty good, but ICE is an essential, IMO. States the dmax as 3.3, although I have heard those figures are always arbitrary. Specs here.... http://www.plustek.com/products/film_spec.htm RP© >>>Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200? >>>Smitty [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > States the dmax as 3.3, although I have heard those figures are always > arbitrary. Yes, Nikon and Minolta usually quote dmax w/o considering noise. eg: Often a 16 bit/color dmax is quoted as log 2^16 which does not account for system noise. CW says lower 1.5 bits are system noise so the theoretical dmax should be log 2^(16-1.5) = 4.36 ...which is a bit more than a slide has... So, if the claimed dmax of the opticfilm 7200 is 3.3, it suggests that each color channel is only 12 bits and that the rest of the "color depth" is padded, and at that, they may not be accounting for noise (unless they have 14 bits per channel, but then the Dmax would be 3.7, not 3.3). Cheers, Alan Signature-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- >>>>Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200? >>>>Smitty [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >and at that, they may not be accounting for noise (unless they have 14 bits per >channel, but then the Dmax would be 3.7, not 3.3). Just a few years ago different calculations must have been used to calculate dmax. IIRC, 4.0 was the limit and only achieved by drum scanners. RP© > Just a few years ago different calculations must have been used to > calculate dmax. IIRC, 4.0 was the limit and only achieved by drum > scanners. I know what you're referring to, but I have no idea how that number was derived. It could correspond to the maximum density of slide film, in which case the ability of a scanner to go deeper is useless ...eg: once you're at 15 bits, even accounting for noise, you are not going to get more info off of the film than what the film can give... 10^4 = 10,000 corresponds to 13..14 bits without the noise, 15 bits would do it and cover the noise ... 16 bits is what is available available in A/D converters... Cheers, Alan Signature-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- The Plustek OpticFilm 7200 comes with SilverFast SE which includes Dust & Scratch removal software. However from what I've read I don't think this software is as effective as Kodaks' ICE at removing dust & scratches. Chris Street, DataMind www.datamind.co.uk > > Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200? > > Smitty [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Cheers, > Alan |
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
|
©2008 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.