 |
 | 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 / Large Format / February 2006New Epson Film scanner?
Dual lens, 3200/6400 dpi, Pro model supports wet-mounting. Prices on par with 4990 and 4990 Pro. <http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php> rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > Dual lens, 3200/6400 dpi, Pro model supports wet-mounting. > Prices on par with 4990 and 4990 Pro. > > <http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php> Why would a scanner need different lenses depending upon format size? >> Dual lens, 3200/6400 dpi, Pro model supports wet-mounting. >> Prices on par with 4990 and 4990 Pro. >> >> <http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php> > > Why would a scanner need different lenses depending upon format size? It's a standard trick: they use the same number of pixels to cover all formats. Both the Minolta MF scanners did something like that, having much higher resolution for 35mm than MF. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> Why would a scanner need different lenses depending upon format size? > > It's a standard trick: they use the same number of pixels to cover all > formats. Both the Minolta MF scanners did something like that, having much > higher resolution for 35mm than MF. Ah, the old CoC thing, eh? I hate it. I see no rationale at all. > Ah, the old CoC thing, eh? > I hate it. I see no rationale at all. Ignorant post, but you've probably never used a film scanner anyway. What Epson's doing here isn't new, but something that formerly was found only on high-end CCD scanners. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >> Ah, the old CoC thing, eh? >> I hate it. I see no rationale at all. > Ignorant post, but you've probably never used > a film scanner anyway. Oh, but I use scanners every day. Now, instead of spitting out bullshit such as "it isn't new", tell me why us LF and MF users should not use the same lens that 35mm does. Why should a larger format get a diminished scan of the same real-estate. When I scan a 6x12 (for example) why should I settle for a larger, diminished scan than I would with 35mm. Back at you, a.shole. Fess up. An entity mysteriously identified only as "Two" spake thus: >>> Ah, the old CoC thing, eh? I hate it. I see no rationale at all. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Back at you, a.shole. Fess up. Now, now, John, no reason to get all snarky. Calm down and take a shot of booze. By the way, whatzwith all the phony IDs? You getting a blizzard of spam there up north?  SignatureEvery American is full of Cheney's buckshot. - Sign on the Grand-Lake Theater, Oakland, CA, Feb. 14, 2006 >>> Ah, the old CoC thing, eh? >>> I hate it. I see no rationale at all. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >lens that 35mm does. Why should a larger format get a diminished scan of the >same real-estate. When you enlarge 35 mm, do you use the same enlarging lens as you would for a 6x12 transparency? With lens A, you scan a width X at N dpi. With lens B, you scan a width X/2 at 2*N dpi. What's so difficult to comprehend about that? A CCD sensor has a finite number of pixels along a finite length. Wrap your little brain around that fact, and get back to us. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > When you enlarge 35 mm, do you use the same > enlarging lens as you would for a 6x12 transparency? Hey, think up here. The process is called SCANNING. A tiny lens (or row of lenses) is passed across a transparent medium. The lens is a given distance from the film regardless of the size of the film. It doesn't matter how big the film is - the lens is concerned with only the immediate area at any moment. >Hey, think up here. The process is called SCANNING. A tiny lens (or row of >lenses) is passed across a transparent medium. The lens is a given distance >from the film regardless of the size of the film. It doesn't matter how big >the film is - the lens is concerned with only the immediate area at any >moment. If you're complaining that the new Epsons aren't drum scanners, why don't you f.cking say so, and design us a drum scanner for $750. In any CCD scanner, the lens needs to image the width of the subject (transparent or reflective) onto the length of the CCD array. Or you can play the Scitex game, where multiple swaths of the original are stitched together in software. This is how Scitex maintains high resolution across large media widths. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >> Dual lens, 3200/6400 dpi, Pro model supports wet-mounting. >> Prices on par with 4990 and 4990 Pro. >> >> <http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php> > >Why would a scanner need different lenses depending upon format size? For the same reason that optical enlargers do. But Dave L. gives a more proper explanation. The physical detector has a length of around 1.5 to 3 inches. In the low-res configuration, Epson might use (for example) a 50 mm lens to image the full width of the scan bed onto the 3" detector. In the high-res configuration, they would use a 100 mm lens to image half width onto the same 3" detector. This is not a new trick; it's been used in several "pro" grade CCD scanners in the past, eg. Microtek 2500 and Umax Powerlook 3000. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > For the same reason that optical enlargers do. Have you lost your mind? There is no correspondence whatsoever. We want to scan every possible detail. Changing the lens in order to take in less detail is counter-productive. Why should we shoot MF only to have it diminished to 35mm detail? Another way to look at it - consider a drum scan where they operator says, "Ah hell, it's a big negative. Let's just skip 80% of the detail" >> For the same reason that optical enlargers do. > > Have you lost your mind? There is no correspondence whatsoever. We want to > scan every possible detail. Changing the lens in order to take in less > detail is counter-productive. Why should we shoot MF only to have it > diminished to 35mm detail? Because with a given scanner, you get a fixed number of pixels in the horisontal direction. So you want to match those pixels to the size of the image you are scanning. And that means they should get allocated to 24mm for 35mm and 56mm for 120 (although maybe a 645 setting also would be nice). But since lenses are expensive, you're lucky to get two in a consumer scanner. There's also the point that resolution tends to go down as the image circle gets wider (which is why cheap dcam zoom lenses can provide decent contrast at 110 lp/mm or so, something not even Leitz and Zeiss can dream about). David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > Because with a given scanner, you get a fixed number of pixels in the > horisontal direction. Bullshit, Littleboy. It's a scanner. It doesn't mean squat the the format size is. Use the same step-motor and lens rez for all formats. A scanner is not a camera. Get it? >> Because with a given scanner, you get a fixed number of pixels in the >> horisontal direction. > > Bullshit, Littleboy. It's a scanner. It doesn't mean squat the the format > size is. Use the same step-motor and lens rez for all formats. A scanner > is not a camera. Get it? Off your meds again, John? I suggest that you try thinking and logic for a change instead of letting your stupidity run rampant. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > Off your meds again, John? I suggest that you try thinking and logic for a > change instead of letting your stupidity run rampant. Littleboy, if you take your scanner apart, are you going to find a big lens that takes in the whole frame at once? I think not. >> Off your meds again, John? I suggest that you try thinking and logic for a >> change instead of letting your stupidity run rampant. > >Littleboy, if you take your scanner apart, are you going to find a big lens >that takes in the whole frame at once? I think not. What he'll find is a single lens and a single sensor. A cheap scanner like the Epson will have a small lens. A fine scanner like the Nikon has a large one. In each case, a single lens and a single sensor. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >> Off your meds again, John? I suggest that you try thinking and logic for a >> change instead of letting your stupidity run rampant. > >Littleboy, if you take your scanner apart, are you going to find a big lens >that takes in the whole frame at once? I think not. You will find a lens whose image circle has a diameter that's large enough to cover the length of the CCD array. Furthermore, its focal length is chosen so that a specific width of the subject media is projected onto the CCD array. Why are you incapable of accepting that the imaging array has finite physical length? Or are you saying, in the most roundabout way imaginable, that the Epson still isn't a drum scanner? rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >> Off your meds again, John? I suggest that you try thinking and logic for >> a change instead of letting your stupidity run rampant. > > Littleboy, if you take your scanner apart, are you going to find a big > lens that takes in the whole frame at once? I think not. I'm going to find a big lens that takes in 56mm x <something very small> and projects that onto something that's some arbitrary size x <something also very small>. When this particular scanner scans 35mm, it only uses a 24/56th of that arbitrary sized something. Sone other scanners use the whole of that arbitrary sized something for both 35mm and 120. This is a sensible thing to do, since it takes maximum advantage of that arbitrary sized something whatever film size you are scanning. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > There's also the point that resolution tends to go down as the image > circle gets wider My 3" LF lens gets 80 lp/mm wide open at F/4.5. My 135mm gets even better. I want it all. >> For the same reason that optical enlargers do. > >Have you lost your mind? There is no correspondence whatsoever. Do you know any 50 mm lenses with a 350 mm image circle? You want to image a 6x12" transparency with the same lens that you'd use for 35 mm? Try again? >We want to scan every possible detail. Changing the >lens in order to take in less detail is counter-productive. We're not taking in less detail, just less width. This new Epson is still a CCD scanner. It's not a drum scanner, and it's not a Scitex. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >>Have you lost your mind? There is no correspondence whatsoever. > This new Epson is still a CCD scanner. It's not > a drum scanner, and it's not a Scitex. Does it not "scan" the negative/transparency by moving a lens across it? Two schrieb: >>> Have you lost your mind? There is no correspondence whatsoever. > >> This new Epson is still a CCD scanner. It's not >> a drum scanner, and it's not a Scitex. > > Does it not "scan" the negative/transparency by moving a lens across it? Yes it does. Maybe these two graphics can bring a bit of light into the myth of how a flatbed scanner works: http://www.tasi.ac.uk/images/blowup.gif http://www.epson.cz/fileadmin/content/images/scanner_2_cz_high.jpg It might surprise people that there is no "circular" lens. Marian Marian Steinbach schrieb: > It might surprise people that there is no "circular" lens. > > ... And, in order to correct myself: Obviously, some scanner do have circular lenses. See http://www.canon.com/technology/scan/index.html (page bottom) for illustrations of a Canon scanner system. Marian >Maybe these two graphics can bring a bit of light into the myth of how a >flatbed scanner works: What "myth" ? Scanners use entirely conventional optics. Of course there is a circular lens. Where did you get the idea that there isn't? Here are the innards of an LS-9000 film scanner, if you're still confused. <http://www.marginalsoftware.com/LS8000Notes/cleaning_the_optics_of_the_ls.htm> The last JPG on that page shows the main lens. It is a Nikon ED lens, I'm guessing about 75mm f/3.5 or so. The only scanners that break this rule are CIS scanners (eg. Canon Lide series, or on fax machines.) rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >>>Have you lost your mind? There is no correspondence whatsoever. > >> This new Epson is still a CCD scanner. It's not >> a drum scanner, and it's not a Scitex. > >Does it not "scan" the negative/transparency by moving a lens across it? You seem incapable of recognizing the role of the sensor. Until you do so, nothing else matters. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > You seem incapable of recognizing > the role of the sensor. Until you > do so, nothing else matters. The bottom line is this - does the larger lens for MF (or LF) give less information than the smaller lens - per square millimeter, for example? >> You seem incapable of recognizing >> the role of the sensor. Until you >> do so, nothing else matters. > > The bottom line is this - does the larger lens for MF (or LF) give less > information than the smaller lens - per square millimeter, for example? Square millimeters aren't relevant here. Samples per inch are. It's not an issue of lens quality. Epson's just come up with a cheap way of giving us more resolution -- as long as the width of our original is 6.375" or less. With luck, you just might get to scan your 6x12" trannies at the higher res. The spec'd scan length is 11.7". [CCD has 4800*8.5=40800 sensels. At 6400 spi, that's a width of 6.375".] If I read the MacWorld article correctly, 35mm, MF and 4x5 will scan at 6400 spi optical, and anything larger will scan at 4800. Do you have a better way? Let's hear it, then. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >> You seem incapable of recognizing >> the role of the sensor. Until you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > less information than the smaller lens - per square millimeter, for > example? It doesn't *need* to be physically larger, just a different magnification/focal length, but the larger the lens, the harder to correct residual aberrations. Bart > It doesn't *need* to be physically larger, just a different > magnification/focal length, but the larger the lens, the harder to correct > residual aberrations. This being (still) a consumer/prosumer flatbed/film scanner, both lenses will be tiny. I'm guessing both will be in the neighborhood of 25 mm, f/8 or so. I'm looking at the imaging lens from a Konica/Minolta MFP. The front element is ~ 5 mm diameter. The rear exit pupil is about 3 mm dia. Distance from rear element to CCD surface is about 20 mm. One of the main problems with flatbed/film scanners is the heavily folded optical path. The subject image is bounced several times before arriving at the imaging lens. On the KM assembly I'm looking at, there are four mirrors and five bounces. On the LS-8000/9000 there is exactly one mirror -- and a much larger imaging lens, approx. 75mm f/3.5 or so. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >>>Have you lost your mind? There is no correspondence whatsoever. > >>This new Epson is still a CCD scanner. It's not >>a drum scanner, and it's not a Scitex. > > Does it not "scan" the negative/transparency by moving a lens across it? Light source moves. The rest is smoke and mirrors. >>>Have you lost your mind? There is no correspondence whatsoever. > >> This new Epson is still a CCD scanner. It's not >> a drum scanner, and it's not a Scitex. > > Does it not "scan" the negative/transparency by moving a lens across it? Yeah, you got that part right, so I'm not sure where you fell off the logical deep end. Nearly all CCD scanners fall into one of two categories: 1. Lens fixed relative to CCD. The lens/CCD assembly moves along a *single linear axis* relative to the film. Most flatbed and flatbed/film scanners work this way. 2. Lens fixed relative to CCD. The film is moved along a *single linear axis* relative to the lens/CCD assembly. Most dedicated film scanners work this way. Since there is only a *single linear axis* involved, the lens must image the full width of the original onto the CCD. Scitex high-end flatbed/film scanners add a 2nd mechanical axis, and scan the image as N vertical strips. Ie., Scitex uses *multiple linear axes*. For the life of me, I can't understand how you can be so confused about any of this. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > Dual lens, 3200/6400 dpi, Pro model supports wet-mounting. > Prices on par with 4990 and 4990 Pro. Uh, that's 4800/6400, and prices are way over the 4990/4990Pro... > <http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php> But it looks interesting. Of course, 6x7 at 6400 dpi is 244 MP, and that'll be seriously painful to deal with. The questions will be: (a) can it scan MF with the higher resolution lens, (b) can it use the higher resolution lens at 3200 dpi, and thus be an improvement over the 4990. My guess would be that the high-res lens only covers 35mm. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> Dual lens, 3200/6400 dpi, Pro model supports wet-mounting. >> Prices on par with 4990 and 4990 Pro. > >Uh, that's 4800/6400, and prices are way over the 4990/4990Pro... Article says $549 and $749. I paid $400 at Amazon two months ago for the 4990 (non-"Pro.") >> <http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >My guess would be that the high-res lens only covers 35mm. I hope you're wrong about that, though the Epson "specs" don't say, one way or another. My Microtek 2500 was also "dual-axis" but a very old design. It covered the full width of the scan bed at 1250 dpi, or half the width at 2500 dpi. The 4x5 film holder was arranged to use the "high-res" half of the scan bed. Ironically, the Microtek at 2500 was sharper than the Epson at 4800 dpi. But it had other issues, so here I am with the Epson... rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > Dual lens, 3200/6400 dpi, Pro model supports wet-mounting. > Prices on par with 4990 and 4990 Pro. > > <http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php> FWIW, someone on photo.net claims that Epson claims that these are "true 4800 dpi" scanners and that they've tested them with serious charts. I suspect that whatever scanner I use, 645 isn't going to be enough better than the 5D to be worth the bother, but a clean 2400 dpi scan (i.e. a 4000 dpi Nikon 8000 scan downsampled to 2400 dpi) from 6x7 will edge out the 5D at 13x19. So there's at least hope for this thing for my purposes... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >I suspect that whatever scanner I use, 645 isn't going to be enough better >than the 5D to be worth the bother, but a clean 2400 dpi scan (i.e. a 4000 >dpi Nikon 8000 scan downsampled to 2400 dpi) from 6x7 will edge out the 5D >at 13x19. > >So there's at least hope for this thing for my purposes... We each have our own purposes. In your case the new Epson could maybe replace an ailing Nikon LS-8000. Me, I'm looking to scan LF with better resolution than the 4990 can muster. It's gratifying that any major manufacturer still sees potential in a film-centric product. Unfortunately, Epson's niche in these markets has been "great value for middling quality." Who knows where these new scanners will fit in. Maybe some day some outfit will produce a modern, cost-reduced version of a drum scanner or Scitex. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > Dual lens, 3200/6400 dpi, Pro model supports wet-mounting. > Prices on par with 4990 and 4990 Pro. Just after I went out and bought a 4990. Thanks, Epson! > <http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php> > > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com >> Dual lens, 3200/6400 dpi, Pro model supports wet-mounting. >> Prices on par with 4990 and 4990 Pro. > > Just after I went out and bought a 4990. Thanks, Epson! You should live in Japan. They're on their third version of the R800 already (PX-G900, PX-G920, and PX-G930), and the second version of the R1800 (PX-G5000, and PX-G5100) already! David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >Just after I went out and bought a 4990. Thanks, Epson! My poor boy. But this sort of thing happens all the time. When I was looking for a scanner for my LF film, the 4990 wasn't quite available yet, and I spent $1000 (quite a bargain) on a Microtek 2500. The Microtek was sharp but otherwise flawed, and it basically put all my LF work in limbo. So after nearly a year of casting about for alternatives, I finally gave up and bought a 4990 -- about three months ago, fully aware of its limitations with regard to real resolution. The Microtek was an five year old design that had been branded originally by Agfa and sold at retail in the $3k-5k range. When I was done with mine, I sold it for a pittance on eBay. I'd have been better off dumping it in the trash. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > >Just after I went out and bought a 4990. Thanks, Epson! > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > eBay. I'd have been better off dumping it > in the trash. Thanks. I feel better now. >Thanks. I feel better now. You should. I figure I've spent over $6000 on various film and flatbed scanners since 1998. The good news is that nearly half of the total is on the one scanner that still works and still beats all the others in nearly all respects. When that one dies, I'm in deep caca. Film scanners have followed the same price- performance curves as digicams and all other digital-imaging gear. Consider: in 2001, I spent $1350 for a 2700 dpi, 35mm film scanner (Polaroid SprintScan Plus.) Nowadys the Minolta 5400 gives twice the resolution at well under half the price. Just be glad you didn't buy a LeafScan 45 or a drum scanner in the 1990s. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
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.