Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Film Scanners - About reached their peak ?

Reply
Thread Tools

Film Scanners - About reached their peak ?

 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2003

"Philip Homburg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <blehgs$3hr$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> David J. Littleboy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >(although grain is a tad less obnoxious in 5400
> >scans, there was no additional detail.)

>
> I think that this is the most important effect of scanning at very high
> resolutions. Better defined boundaries of grain will make it easier for
> NeatImage-like algorithms to reduce the visibility of grain.


Using better film or a larger format (or digital, since this difference is
largely for negative films, which (in 35mm) are worse than dSLR digital
however you scan them) makes a lot more sense than the tiny improvements
we're talking about here. We're talking about the difference between
unacceptably soft and grossly grainy vs. unacceptably soft and unpleasantly
grainy.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dickbo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2003

"FOR7b" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> >You've got some responses claiming that there's still
> >a lot of room left for improvement, that 4000 dpi still leaves
> >a lot of detail unresolved.
> >
> >I say baloney. Or at the very least: unless you've got
> >the very best optics, shooting on very slow, fine grained
> >film, with a tripod, etc etc -- you're getting 98% of what's
> >there at 4000 dpi, with the current generation of film
> >scanners.


Not enough bits yet squire.....we need 24 before you can say that and a far
wider dynamic range, to boot, at sensor level.

This technology is nowhere near worked out.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2003
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
> > No, but it continues to get older.

>
> Film deteriorates with extreme slowness if it is properly stored.
>
> > Also, the hundreds of hours I've already spent scanning a tiny
> > percentage of my own photos is not an amount of time I can casually
> > spend *again*.

>
> If a better digital camera comes out, you'll have to spend even more
> time trying to actually _photograph_ those pictures again. With film,
> all you have to do is scan again, and you get a better version of the
> original.


Yeah, but the energy for doing new work is different from the energy
for perfecting old work; I can't easily swap them around arbitrarily.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2003
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
> > Careful, I've got plenty of 30 to 40 year old transparencies that have
> > faded considerably, in "ordinary" storage (decent materials, in a
> > lived-in room; but not a climate-controlled archival vault).

>
> Consider this: If some of those pictures are of dead relatives, and you
> get a better scanner, you can still get better pictures of those
> relatives by rescanning. But if those pictures were digitally-captured,
> what you have is the best you could ever hope to get, even if digital
> cameras have improved 1000% since the death of the relatives in
> question.
>
> In other words, the advantage of film is that you capture with the best
> possible quality at the time you click the shutter. Even if scanners
> aren't able to pull everything off the film affordably today, they might
> be able to do so in the future, and there will always be drum scanners
> as well. If you shoot digitally, though, your photos will forever be
> limited by today's digicam quality, no matter how good digicams may
> become in the future.


In my digital works, I have them archived on gold CDRs and they need
no further work from me (until it's time to transfer to a new disk or
a new media type).

My film collection is gradually (quite slowly) rotting away around me,
and even the parts I've scanned I don't have the best possible scans
of, so it continues to niggle at me.

One more reason I really prefer digital.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stuart B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2003

David writes:

>. People who like
>test charts will get all hot and bothered, and I suppose someone will come
>along with a licence plate that can be read at 5400 dpi but not 2700 dpi.


Pretty much. I was able to compare the tiffs from a particular slide
scanned first on my 2700 ppi Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III with what
was done on some 4000 ppi Nikon from a commercial outfit.

Some very tiny details were more visible in the 4000 ppi scan than in
the 2700 ppi -- but this would not motivate me to spend the money for
the more expensive scanners. (This is a hobby, not a job).

From what I've done to date, I really don't enjoy film scanning. I
don't enjoy the action or the time it takes. The results can be good.

For me to spend big dollars on a "next gen" film scanner, the real
obstacle is probably not resolution but very smart automation.

If they get to the point where I can slap in a strip of 6 negs, push a
button and 5 minutes later have six very high quality scans sitting on
disk 100% READY TO CROP/PRINT, I might buy another, better one.

But as it is now, the flow of index, decide if what I see is worth
scanning, pre-scan, decide if it is _still_ worth scanning, set
histogram per frame, scan frame, edit the result to cope with
remaining dust/scratches, sharpen acceptably, etc -- way too ugly.

In my experience, _all_ film seems to have way more dust and scratches
than I imagined, even fresh from a mid-to-high end development shop.

In simple terms: until film scanning becomes nearly as brainless as it
is to insert the digicam media into a card reader and load it on the
PC, I'm not going to be eager to own another film scanner. Price and
resolution will be secondary drivers to time, for me.

Stuart B


>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Azzz1588
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2003
In article <uwkeb.10297$(E-Mail Removed) .net>, "John"
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>Right now, 4000 dpi scanners are relatively cheap. For 35mm film, that is
>already much more resolution than you need.



I recently got an Epson 3170 scanner, (3200 x 6400) and have
found that it does just fine with slides I scan at 6400 dpi, and
get files around 2 Gig in size. Than I rework them over in PS,
and print the final result. I'm very happy with how easy it is
to use !! (tried 12,000 DPI, and got a 200 Gig file <G>)

For photo's 600DPI is just fine for my Epson 820 printer.
I've tried 1200 DPI, but seen no noticable difference

This is the first flatbed scanner that does a very good job
scanning slides !! And it only cost $200 at Comp USA




































"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bryan Olson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2003
Folklore wrote:

> Have consumer level film scanners pretty much come near their peak and
> improvements moving forward will be fairly minor from a quality
> standpoint with speed and ease of use being the primary improvements?


Maybe.

> EG, is now a good time (like with the Elite 5400) to begin digitizing
> years of film (for viewing on PC/HDTV, mid-quality cost effective
> prints, archiving) or are there improvements coming in the next few
> years, particularly from an image quality standpoint, that recommend
> waiting?


No. It just doesn't make sense for legions of photographers to
buy scanners, develop the skills to use them well, tediously
scan all their old film, then e-bay the hardware. The right
solution is clearly for manufacturers to build high quality,
high volume, highly automated commercial systems, and for labs
to develop efficient workflows and sell the service.

Digital mini-labs already scan the film. As more photographers
move to digital and get used to handling images on computers,
demand for scans will increase. (Reportedly, one service has
been selling 3000dpi scans from the Fuji Frontier for 60 cents
each; see <http://bermangraphics.com/press/frontier.htm>.)

Obviously there are quality-control concerns, but in a large
market, competition works wonders. Scanning is mostly a skilled
but artless technical process, and that's where high-volume
professional services have the greatest advantage over do-it-
yourself.


--
--Bryan
firstname dot lastname at domain of the Association for Computing Machinery

 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Homburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2003
In article <ZC8fb.8995$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Bryan Olson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Folklore wrote:
>
> > Have consumer level film scanners pretty much come near their peak and
> > improvements moving forward will be fairly minor from a quality
> > standpoint with speed and ease of use being the primary improvements?

>
>Maybe.
>
> > EG, is now a good time (like with the Elite 5400) to begin digitizing
> > years of film (for viewing on PC/HDTV, mid-quality cost effective
> > prints, archiving) or are there improvements coming in the next few
> > years, particularly from an image quality standpoint, that recommend
> > waiting?

>
>No. It just doesn't make sense for legions of photographers to
>buy scanners, develop the skills to use them well, tediously
>scan all their old film, then e-bay the hardware. The right
>solution is clearly for manufacturers to build high quality,
>high volume, highly automated commercial systems, and for labs
>to develop efficient workflows and sell the service.


I think there are three separate issues.
1) Whether to own a scanner or to have your film scanned.
I have access to enough film (not just my own, but also my parents',
my grant-parents', etc.) that scanning everything is not really an
option.
I prefer my own scanner to handing irreplaceable film to someone else.
2) Highly automated. In theory there is no difference between a desktop model
and a digital mini-lab in this regard. I guess that most people want to
be able to tweek their scans. Nikon offers a bulk slide option, which
(apart from some mechanical problems) operates automatically.
Nikon's software for scanning film strips is quite poor. I don't know
about other vendors, but for some reasons, reliable, automatic scanning
was not a major design issue for Nikon.
2) High volume. I guess that desktop scanners are optimized for quality,
not for speed.

>Obviously there are quality-control concerns, but in a large
>market, competition works wonders. Scanning is mostly a skilled
>but artless technical process, and that's where high-volume
>professional services have the greatest advantage over do-it-
>yourself.


If you can make software with those skills, you can put the same software
in desktop scanners. If you rely on people to judge that scans, then
scanning is likely to become expensive, unreliable or both.




--
Philip Homburg
begin no-virus-in-sight.exe
"I just want to say LOVE YOU SAN!! billy gates why do you make this possible ?
Stop making money and fix your software!!" -- W32/Blaster-A
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
To PEAK or not to PEAK Tzury Bar Yochay Python 1 02-24-2008 08:29 PM
Peak-to-peak detection problem tee_huipeng@yahoo.com.sg C++ 10 09-11-2007 08:56 PM
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
peak to peak vs rms noise in images. jpc Digital Photography 24 04-07-2004 02:22 AM
Re: Have small, fixed-lens digital cameras passed their peak? Mark Johnson Digital Photography 2 04-01-2004 07:49 PM



Advertisments