 |
 | 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 / Medium format / November 2006Resolution versus Tonal scale.
This question relates to choosing between two scanners. One has better optical resolution, the other is able to capture more detail between shadows and highlights. 4,000 dpi versus 6400. 4 versus 4.9 for scale. Given the use of same MF original 6x6 which is a better choice?  Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > This question relates to choosing between two scanners. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Given the use of same MF original 6x6 which is a better choice? Slam dunk for the 4000 ppi scanner. What do 4000 and 6400 ppi mean? If you are planning on printing at the canonical 300 ppi, then they "mean" 13x and 21x. magnifications, respectively. Do you think that film is capable of making more than a 9x enlargement with "photographic quality", assuming some sort of "perfect" printing technology? I certainly don't. Therefore 4000 ppi and 6400 ppi are nuts and insane, respectively. (But the reason you want them is that any optical system has lower contrast at the high end of its frequency response, so to actually capture 2700 ppi, you need to scan at at least 4000 ppi.) If you limit yourself to 9x, you can scan at 4000 ppi, hit the image with a touch of noise reduction (especially if it's a negative film) and downsample to 2700 ppi producing a file that will print nicely at 300 ppi. If you downsample to 2100 ppi (to make a 7x 300 ppi print), you'll have files that are competitive with digital capture on a per-pixel basis. If the 4000 ppi is a Nikon 8000 or 9000, my personal opinion is that I've never seen any scan from film that was enough better than a good Nikon 9000 scan that it made a _significant_ difference. Beyond the 9000, one really is getting into angels-on-heads-of-pins arguments. That is; if 645 scanned with the 9000 isn't "good enough" for your application, there's no way you will get "good enough" from 645 with _any_ printing technology. And 6x7 with the 9000 will be worlds better than 645 with any printing technology. Again, I really don't think film captures more than about "2700 ppi of real information", i.e. getting quality prints at 9x from film is hard, whatever you do, so it's a good target. (I suppose I should organize the above better, but I need to get some work done.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> This question relates to choosing between two scanners. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Slam dunk for the 4000 ppi scanner. Heh. Greg asks this same question on r.p.e-LF but with reference to LF scanning. For MF I agree with you, completely. If the choice is between the Epson 750 and the Nikon LS-9000, it's the Nikon for sure. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > Heh. Greg asks this same question on r.p.e-LF but > with reference to LF scanning. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If the choice is between the Epson 750 and the > Nikon LS-9000, it's the Nikon for sure. For the reason the LS9000 scans 8x10 and 4x5? Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 00:49:35 -0500, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >For the reason the LS9000 scans 8x10 and 4x5? Life is full of tough choices, Greg. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 00:49:35 -0500, "Greg \"_\"" > <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com It would be so much easier with $$$$ ;) Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > It would be so much easier with $$$$ ;) That would apply to most things in life, yes? A few months ago I narrowly lost an eBay auction for a drum scanner. I was determined *not* to engage in a bidding war, but as it turned out, I was outbid by about $25. Since then, nothing even remotely close, but I keep checking. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >I was determined >*not* to engage in a bidding war, but as it >turned out, I was outbid by about $25. In general, you can't tell how much winner was prepared to pay. The other guy just pays one increment over your highest bid. But that doesn't say much. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>I was determined >>*not* to engage in a bidding war, but as it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The other guy just pays one increment over your highest bid. But that > doesn't say much. Yes, I understand that. Given that I also have my sights on a Canon 5D one of these days, I had to really restrain myself with the drum scanner. Eg., this is my limit, and if it goes beyond that... well, I can live without it. An additional concern with the drum scanner is that, while it might be relatively cheap to acquire, it may be next-to-impossible to fix if it goes bad. (Meaning, huge $$$ and mega-hassles if I can't fix it myself.) rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >but I need to get some work >done. November 20, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, ... 'twere ever thus. > > This question relates to choosing between two scanners. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Slam dunk for the 4000 ppi scanner. So the tonal scale in your opinion out weighs the resolution. > What do 4000 and 6400 ppi mean? If you are planning on printing at the > canonical 300 ppi, then they "mean" 13x and 21x. magnifications, > respectively. Not much as I scan most stuff at the size intended at 300-600 ppi. > Do you think that film is capable of making more than a 9x enlargement with > "photographic quality", assuming some sort of "perfect" printing technology? Not really looking for that level of enlargement.....especially from the 35mm film I have. > I certainly don't. Therefore 4000 ppi and 6400 ppi are nuts and insane, > respectively. (But the reason you want them is that any optical system has [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > never seen any scan from film that was enough better than a good Nikon 9000 > scan that it made a _significant_ difference. > Beyond the 9000, one really is getting into angels-on-heads-of-pins > arguments. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan It works for me, thanks! Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> > This question relates to choosing between two scanners. >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So the tonal scale in your opinion out weighs the resolution. It's more a matter of not believing the "6400" resolution claim for two reasons. (1) I don't believe that film captures photographically significant information above 2700 ppi or so (although you may have to scan higher to actually capture that information in a scan), and (2) Epson scanners use an "offset CCD". What they are doing is scanning with a very wide aperture, essentially a pixel size four times larger than that implied by the 6400 ppi claim. This results in extremely low contrast for detail above 1/2 the nominal resolution. (Although it _might_ result in less grain noise with color negative materials. Maybe.) Which means that a 6400 ppi Epson scanner might be a better 3200 ppi scanner than the Nikon 9000 is a 4000 ppi scanner. Maybe. The Nikon scanners do generate rather nasty grain (well, dye cloud) noise with color negative materials. Not as bad as some of the worst grain aliasing examples (consumer film scanned at 2700 ppi could be an amazing mess) but more color speckles than one would expect looking at the film under a microscope. So a comparison of Nikon + NeatImage vs. Epson 6400 with color negative materials could be interesting. Also, if you have the RAM + CPU power, hitting an Epson 6400 scan with NeatImage and then downsampling to 2100 ppi might make a very nice 7x enlargement. Maybe. Historically, the 4800 ppi Epson scanners were not quite as good as the 2700 to 2900 ppi class of dedicated film scanner, so my bet would be that the 6400 ppi Epson won't be quite as good as the 4000 ppi class dedicated film scanners. In terms of detail capture. My problem here, though, is that I just printed some 5D images at 12x18 on matte paper, and they looked very very good (I had done a bunch of small test prints and had had all sorts of problems with various papers and printers, so hadn't actually gotten around to actually printing at that size). So it's unlikely I'll be doing much film work in the near future... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >It's more a matter of not believing the "6400" resolution claim for two >reasons. (1) I don't believe that film captures photographically significant [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >nominal resolution. (Although it _might_ result in less grain noise with >color negative materials. Maybe.) <snip> Excellent post as usual, David. It goes a long way toward explaining what I've observed over the years about the Epson flatbed/film scanners. There are a few other issues that account for the differences we see in the output. I think all are significant, even if they don't show up in the resolution or dynamic range specs: 1. Optics (lens) 2. Optical path, focusing, and mirror bounces 3. Light source #1 and #2 clearly favor the Nikon. #3 might explain why the Nikon is so "crunchy" on C41 scans -- and it also accounts (IMO) for some of the apparent sharpness and contrast (analogous to Callier effect.) FWIW, I have direct comparisons on my "snippets" site between * Epson 4990 vs. LS-8000, and * Epson V700 vs. LS-8000 It would be nice to do a similar comparison between a V750 and an LS-9000. PS: NeatImage is a useful tool in any case. PPS: I'd love to get my hands on a V750, if only to do a few test scans. Sadly, there's probably nothing better for LF without spending several kilobucks. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com scan snippets www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis > * Epson 4990 vs. LS-8000, and > * Epson V700 vs. LS-8000 Hehe. The 8000 wipes the floor with those toys. (Well, only slightly. But still, it looks to me that the definition of the detail is clearly better with the Nikon. I wonder, though, if you'd see a difference were both downsampled to 2400 ppi and printed at 300 ppi. That's a 16x20 from 6x7.) > It would be nice to do a similar comparison between > a V750 and an LS-9000. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > do a few test scans. Sadly, there's probably nothing > better for LF without spending several kilobucks. How is DOF on the V700? I'd be more worried about holding the film flat than resolution, especially for LF. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > How is DOF on the V700? I'd be more worried about holding the film flat than > resolution, especially for LF. Adjustable risers. & are the film holders any good? Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> writes: > > How is DOF on the V700? I'd be more worried about holding the film flat than > > resolution, especially for LF. > Adjustable risers. & are the film holders any good? The MF and LF film holders aren't doing much for holding the film flat. Doug Fisher's MF holders do, but I don't know if there's anything for LF? > PPS: I'd love to get my hands on a V750, if only to > do a few test scans. Sadly, there's probably nothing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > scan snippets > www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis FWIW There's a review on the V750 by David Brooks at the shutterug web site.I have emailed David back and forth about the scanner, he politely answered my questions regarding the scanner. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > FWIW There's a review on the V750 by David Brooks at the shutterug web > site.I have emailed David back and forth about the scanner, he politely > answered my questions regarding the scanner. Well, don't keep us in suspense. Any good scuttlebutt or opinions to share? Are his conclusions different from ours? C'mon man, out with it. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > Well, don't keep us in suspense. Any good scuttlebutt > or opinions to share? Are his conclusions different from > ours? C'mon man, out with it. Dangerous ground: I don't feel like he over sold the scanner. He stated that the 6400 dpi res is achieved by two lenses which boiled down equates to more sensors dealing with less film area. Also based on my own reading, the construction seems to be somewhat higher quality on the V750, the scan comparision found here may be of interest. http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_8.htm Here's some additional of interest pages. http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_5.htm http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_7.htm Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:54:05 -0500, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >Also based on my own reading, the construction seems to be somewhat >higher quality on the V750, the scan comparision found here may be of >interest. I just did a google search of "epson v750 sample scan" and found this: <http://www.webweavertech.com/ovidiu/weblog/archives/000448.html> It's a comparison of the V750 with a Nikon LS-5000, using a test target. Not looking good for the Epson, though I don't understand why there are jaggies in the Nikon scan. If you do end up with a V750, I'd appreciate it if you'd supply a scan sample -- or work with me to do a direct A:B comparison. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:54:05 -0500, "Greg \"_\"" > <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com I seriously question his ability. Never the less, I spoke with someone today who says they are willing to scan an image of mine for comparison if I am willing to wait. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > I seriously question his ability. Never the less, I spoke with someone > today who says they are willing to scan an image of mine for comparison > if I am willing to wait. And what will your reference be, for that scan? rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > > I seriously question his ability. Never the less, I spoke with someone > > today who says they are willing to scan an image of mine for comparison [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com Not needed got the V750 today. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > This question relates to choosing between two scanners. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Given the use of same MF original 6x6 which is a better choice? Given the spec you gave I would say other considerations would likely be more important then either the ppi or the dynamic range. A dynamic range of 4, if it really meets the spec, should be enough for just about anything you are going to scan. Anything past 4 on a slide is likely to be so ugly that you don't really care to see it. And 4000 ppi scanning should be more then enough resolution particularly for MF. So I would look at other areas, like speed, digital ICE, how well the film holder works, how good are the optics.... Scott > > This question relates to choosing between two scanners. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > about anything you are going to scan. Anything past 4 on a slide is > likely to be so ugly that you don't really care to see it. Why would Nikon put 4.9 down as the scale for the LS9000. >And 4000 > ppi scanning should be more then enough resolution particularly for MF. > So I would look at other areas, like speed, digital ICE, how well the > film holder works, how good are the optics.... > > Scott Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:43:31 -0500, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >Why would Nikon put 4.9 down as the scale for the LS9000. Because they can. Whether it's useful or meaningful is another matter. Higher DR is useful for scanning dense chromes and BW film. Less so for C41 film. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:43:31 -0500, "Greg \"_\"" > <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Higher DR is useful for scanning dense chromes and > BW film. Less so for C41 film. But even a dense chrome is pretty much limited to a range of 4 and really the useful range is closer to 3.25 to 3.5. A range of 4.9 would seem to go well past what any film I know can get to. Scott > "Greg \"_\""<grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: > >>Why would Nikon put 4.9 down as the scale for the LS9000. > > Because they can. Whether it's useful or meaningful > is another matter. The DR figures are simply calculated from the number of bits in the A/D converter used. It's an upper limit on the DR assuming that the rest of the electronics (and optics!) are simply perfect. Basically, it's meaningless. > Higher DR is useful for scanning dense chromes and > BW film. Less so for C41 film. FWIW, I was never able to convince myself that 16x scanning was any better than 1x scanning on the Nikon 8000. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > FWIW, I was never able to convince myself that 16x scanning was any better > than 1x scanning on the Nikon 8000. > > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan No less noise? Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> FWIW, I was never able to convince myself that 16x scanning was any >> better [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No less noise? I wouldn't expect less grain noise from negative materials due to 16x scanning, and even the slight grain noise (more blotchiness than noise) that one sees with slide films shouldn't change. The only thing that should change would be the shadows in slides, and I couldn't see any difference. I think the 8000 and 9000 get pretty much all there is to get from slide films in one quick pass. Films like Tech Pan, gigabit film, and maybe some color negative films might appreciate higher res scanning than the 8000/9000 are capable of. Maybe. And less grain noise in color negative scans would be nice. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 00:40:37 -0500, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: [re: oversampling] >No less noise? Marginal improvement, in my experience. I use 2x for critical scans, 4x once-in-a-blue-moon, and never 8x or 16x. When I'm making large prints from these scans, I always follow up with NeatImage. 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.