«

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:22:30 -0500, "m4w3y3" <>
wrote:

>Well, 48bit color amounts to 16 bits/channel so, that should be an easier
>number for you to accept. Still twice what I can expect from a digital
>camera.

Wrong. AFAIK, most digital cameras use 12-bit
A/D converters internally. The spec for the
Canon 20D explicitly says 12 bits -- that's
per channel, per sensel.

>The other problem is that the act of scanning a film image degrades
>the image since the scanner can't hope to capture all of the detail. One of
>the errors that people who try to compare alaog images to digital images is
>that they think that making a scan of the analog image puts everybody on the
>same level...but it doesn't. It is a ploy to compare a degraded copy of a
>film image to an enhanced original digital image. It's a setup.


Well, if you're going to process film
digitally, you've got to scan it.

If you'd like to prove that you can make
an optical print sharper than I can via
Nikon scan + Epson R1800 print -- that's
a challenge I'd be happy to accept.

Any film format up to 8x10" LF. Any print size.
Let's do it. Make your print. Send me the
print plus the original negative or chrome.
My street address and email address are on my website.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

m4w3y3 wrote:
> Well, 48bit color amounts to 16 bits/channel so, that should be an easier
> number for you to accept. Still twice what I can expect from a digital
> camera. The other problem is that the act of scanning a film image degrades
> the image since the scanner can't hope to capture all of the detail. One of
> the errors that people who try to compare alaog images to digital images is
> that they think that making a scan of the analog image puts everybody on the
> same level...but it doesn't. It is a ploy to compare a degraded copy of a
> film image to an enhanced original digital image. It's a setup.

Seems to me you are trying to do a bit of switch bait. First you tell
us how great your scanned images are and how well they compare to a
digital camera and how many pixels the digital camera would have to
have to meet your scan. The details of your scanner played heavily on
this, 6400ppi scan for example. Now you are trying to say that scanner
degrades the image one film, but if you recall the whole point of this
thread is comparing what one can do with a film scanner compared to a
D200.

You told us that you scanned images from 35mm is the same as a 53 MP
camera, I really would love to see one of these images. For the record
I don't believe you can get 53MP of good sharp pixels even from 6 x 7
film.

Scott

Scott

Scott W wrote:
>>
>> You told us that you scanned images from 35mm is the same as a 53 MP
>> camera, I really would love to see one of these images. For the
>> record I don't believe you can get 53MP of good sharp pixels even
>> from 6 x 7 film.
>>
>> Scott


I have some Nikon ED 5000 film scanners in my business. I also have some 5D
Canon cameras and a few Olympus "E" series DSLR cameras. I'll stick my neck
out here and say that it is absolutely impossible to get a 30" x 40" print
from a 35mm (any 35mm) film from any method - optical enlarging or
scanning - that will equal or come close to equalling the sharpness and
detail in a print that size enlarged from an Olympus E300, 8 megapixel DSLR
image. The proof hangs on the walls of many happy clients of mine. Start
considering large DSLR images and the gap just widens.

There is constant misinformation spread about the process of Interpolation
as applied to digital camera images and I won't get into it again other than
to say if you really don't want to believe me when I say I do it every day
for a living, that's the problem of small minded people who refuse to
believe what they themselves cannot do, can actually be done. The pic on the
index page of my canvas site is a picture of one such enlargement.
http://www.weprint2canvas.com.

It's not rocket science. NASA have been doing it for years. The single
limiting factor with film is not how many lines per inch it can resolve but
how many it can produce in a print. Optical enlargements have to contend
with degradation of the light between the lens and the paper. Scanned film
has to contend with not just grain but the texture of the film itself and
the way in which a film image wraps around the individual grains and
produces anomalies impossible to remove.

this picture: http://www.photosbydouglas.com/film-digi.jpg shows
dramatically and unretouched, the difference between a 100 ISO domestic
Kodak film processed at Kodak's own "Pacific" lab and scanned on an ED 5000
and a 20D image. No retouching here, no fluffing the results. The 20D
incidentally had a back focus error later fixed by Canon which is the reason
for the soft image. The film was shot in a Nikon F90 using a Nikon lens.
Plenty of people have downloaded that image (without my permission) and
enhanced the film part but that's not what this discussion is about. These
are camera/scanner direct images cropped for the Internet.

There is no chance a Nikon 35mm film scanner is ever going to consistently
produce scans to equal the quality of a D200 image - ever. Anyone who say it
will hasn't got any experience to qualify such statements.

--
www.photosbydouglas.com
www.weprint2canvas.com
If you really must write,use my
name at an above domain.

Well, I seem to have started quite a discussion. Thanks for all the replies.
I will give the film scanner some serious thought

It looks like I should just forget about it and invest the money into DSLR
equipment.

thanks

Allan


"Allan" <> wrote in message
news:H3jRf.702$...
> I know there has been discussion on this before, but I now find myself in
> the market for a film scanner. I expect to scan about 5 films per week.
>
> Also, I have older Nikon bodies and lenses. Am I right in thinking that
with
> a good film scanner I can expect similar photograph quality to say the
Nikon
> D200?
>
> What are the current thoughts on this - models, features etc?
>
> thanks
>
> Allan
>
>

If you have a DSLR, you already have the very best film scanner made.
With a macro lens you can do slide copying just like all photographers
did for many decades. The advantage is that you have full control of
contrast and color temperature. So if you want the best film scanner
made, then just get yourself a copy stand and enjoy quality. Would you
rather spend you money on a good macro lens or a film scanner? I know
where my money has already been spent.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

"m4w3y3" <> writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-> wrote in message
> news:...

> > Nope; mostly it's attempts to protect film from unfavorable
> > comparisons.

> If that is true why is there resistance on the part of digital people to a
> fair comparison?

Your film bias is showing again. There is no such resistance. It's
just very hard to do in a repeatable objective fashion. Most people
don't care enough to take the trouble; they can find out what works
*for them* with much less work than doing the first-rate overall
study, and that's all they care about.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd->, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Stephen Henning wrote:
> If you have a DSLR, you already have the very best film scanner made.
> With a macro lens you can do slide copying just like all photographers
> did for many decades. The advantage is that you have full control of
> contrast and color temperature. So if you want the best film scanner
> made, then just get yourself a copy stand and enjoy quality. Would you
> rather spend you money on a good macro lens or a film scanner? I know
> where my money has already been spent.

Well I think calling a DSLR the very best film scanner made is a pretty
big overstatment.
I think it could work well enough for many if not most people but it
can in no way compete with a high end scanner.

Perhaps you could post a sample of you film scanned using your DSLR?

Scott

Allan <> wrote:
>
> Also, I have older Nikon bodies and lenses. Am I right in thinking that with
> a good film scanner I can expect similar photograph quality to say the Nikon
> D200?

As long as your use high quality film and development. Yes. I have
taken pictures with my D70 and with my N80 on Provia and frankly, I am
hard pressed to get a better image out of the slide film. If you adopt
a RAW workflow, you can take your images a long way. Working with
exposure compensation using a scanner is a much longer process as it
requires several iterations of preview scanning before doing one full
scan, followed by the processing of a very large file.

I do both. I probably won't be looking at the D200 until the D300 is
out

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
--

TEUTONIC:
Not enough gin.

m4w3y3 <> wrote:
> If that is true why is there resistance on the part of digital people to a
> fair comparison?
>

You missed the other question he asked, which I was looking to read the
answer too. What scanner are you using that gets 24-bits per channel
color depth?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
--

The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first.
-- Blaise Pascal

m4w3y3 <> wrote:
> Well, 48bit color amounts to 16 bits/channel so, that should be an easier
> number for you to accept. Still twice what I can expect from a digital
> camera. The other problem is that the act of scanning a film image degrades
> the image since the scanner can't hope to capture all of the detail. One of
> the errors that people who try to compare alaog images to digital images is
> that they think that making a scan of the analog image puts everybody on the
> same level...but it doesn't. It is a ploy to compare a degraded copy of a
> film image to an enhanced original digital image. It's a setup.
>

Nikon and Canon and most others offer 12-bits per channel on even the
most low-end offerings. Of course, this is for RAW. It is not possible
to create JPEG images in anything but 8-bits per channel.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
--

Don't buy a landslide. I don't want to have to pay for one more vote
than I have to.
-- Joseph P. Kennedy, on JFK's election strategy.