35mm film scanner questions

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Allan, Mar 13, 2006.

  1. Allan

    Allan Guest

    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
     
    Allan, Mar 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Allan

    george Guest

    "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
    >
    >


    Definitely not with what I've got (up to 3200 dpi)...my D200 wins hands
    down. I don't know if the orphaned 5400 II might or the Coolscan 5000 (but
    I'd be very surprised if either one could).
     
    george, Mar 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Allan

    rafe b Guest

    "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?



    No experience with a D200, but lots of experience with
    film scanning in general (35mm, MF, LF) and with a
    Canon G2 and 10D. Bottom line, I wouldn't bother
    shooting/scanning film in any format smaller than MF
    these days.

    IMO: scanned 645 (MF) roughly matches a Canon 5D
    and/or Nikon D2X. Scanned 6x7 (MF) might be matched
    by a Canon 1Ds MkII.

    95% of users will get better results from a Canon 20D
    than from 4000 dpi (Nikon Coolscan) scanned 35mm film.

    You've got to be really hard core to want to shoot and
    scan 35mm film these days. And if you're going to do it
    at all (scanning film, that is) with 35mm or MF, forget
    about doing it with an Epson film/flatbed scanner (yea,
    even the 4990.) It'll have to be a dedicated film
    scanner, 4000 dpi or better.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 13, 2006
    #3
  4. Allan

    Scott W Guest

    Allan wrote:
    > 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?


    It is not going to be easy to get the same quality photo from scanned
    film as the D200. To get an idea of what different scanners and film
    combinations produce you might look at Rafe's web page where he has
    scan samples from a number of people.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

    Whereas there are still some disagreements for the most part the
    consensus is that DSLRs have now moved past 35mm film.

    This is not to say that you can't get a very good photo from 35mm, and
    it might meet you needs well but trying to match the D200 with scanned
    film is not going to be cheap or easy.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 13, 2006
    #4
  5. Allan

    tomm42 Guest

    There is a lot of disagreement here on this. I think an of the shelf
    scanner like the Nikon 5000 or Minolta 5400 and ie 100 Ektachrome give
    you between a 6-8mp camera. Less if you have old slides (more than 30
    yr old), which have substantial grain. If you shoot Velvia you may
    equal a D200. Also faster slide and neg film also have more grain than
    dslrs have noise. If I had $1500 to spend and a set of Nikon lenses I'd
    go for the D200, a lot more flexibility.
    That said a Minolta 5400 is about $700 give or take a few $.
    If you are looking to scan 180 slides (@ 5min per scan) that is a lot
    of work. but you'll learn to edit very quickly.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Mar 13, 2006
    #5
  6. Allan

    m4w3y3 Guest

    A 3200 dpi film scanner will produce around a 4480 x 3045 pixel file from a
    35mm frame (which is the equivalent of a 13.5Mp digital camera). It will
    produce that file form film used in a 35mm SLR or a 35mm point and shoot.
    There are similar anti-noise filters and grain-melting filters that make the
    scan as clear as anything that comes from a dSLR costing many times more
    than the scanner.
    However, my scanner will do 6400dpi which can give me a 160Mg TIFF file
    (8800 x 6000 or equal to a 53Mp digital camera) from a 35mm frame.
    I can scan 24 slides in a single batch and, once the files are saved, I have
    exactly the same editing capabilities in Photoshop (or other photo editing
    software) as any digital camera user. Of course, I can also scan medium
    format and large format (4x5) negatives too...at 6400dpi. (which is 25600 x
    32000 pixels or 820Mp).
    I think the greatest advantage that I find with scanning is the ability to
    rescan a great shot at a higher resolution. My first film scanner was
    1200dpi. When I got a 6400dpi scanner, I could take my best shots and rescn
    them at the higher resolution. If those were dSLR shots and I bought a
    higher resolution digital camera...there is no way that those older shots
    can take advantage of the new resolution. Sure, there are those phony
    interpolation programs but that is simply injecting false data into the
    scene to expand the pixel count...a higher resolution scan actually pulls
    more information from the frame.
    For affordable scanners...look at Microtek..they have a good range of very
    well reviewed scanners.

    "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
    >
    >
     
    m4w3y3, Mar 13, 2006
    #6
  7. Allan

    rafe b Guest

    "Scott W" <> wrote

    > It is not going to be easy to get the same quality photo from scanned
    > film as the D200. To get an idea of what different scanners and film
    > combinations produce you might look at Rafe's web page where he has
    > scan samples from a number of people.
    > http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
    >
    > Whereas there are still some disagreements for the most part the
    > consensus is that DSLRs have now moved past 35mm film.
    >
    > This is not to say that you can't get a very good photo from 35mm, and
    > it might meet you needs well but trying to match the D200 with scanned
    > film is not going to be cheap or easy.



    I think so far we all agree, but I wouldn't want
    to overstate the case. With careful shooting and
    careful scanning, the results will be close and
    might even favor the film in some regards --
    but not by much.

    Relative "ranking" of the results would probably
    be subjective, and of course there are so many
    real variables that nothing definitive can really be
    said.

    Just for kicks, I'm going to make one or two 16x24"
    prints from 35mm scans this evening and have
    another look. It just so happens that all my prints
    at that size are from 10D captures. Just like my
    Nikons, my 35mm film scans aren't getting much
    of a workout these days either.

    One thing's for sure, the digital capture is a hell of
    a lot less work, at every step of the way. That's
    why I say one really needs to be hard-core to
    shoot and scan 35mm these days.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 13, 2006
    #7
  8. Allan

    rafe b Guest

    "m4w3y3" <> wrote in message
    news:MUlRf.761$...


    > However, my scanner will do 6400dpi which can give me a 160Mg TIFF file
    > (8800 x 6000 or equal to a 53Mp digital camera) from a 35mm frame.
    > I can scan 24 slides in a single batch and, once the files are saved, I
    > have exactly the same editing capabilities in Photoshop (or other photo
    > editing software) as any digital camera user. Of course, I can also scan
    > medium format and large format (4x5) negatives too...at 6400dpi. (which is
    > 25600 x 32000 pixels or 820Mp).



    What 6400 dpi scanner are you using?

    Is that 6400 dpi optical resolution, or interpolated?

    Most of us who have worked with both film scans
    and digital have learned that comparing pixel-counts
    from these two methods is rather meaningless.

    Furthermore, there's not much correlation
    (unfortunately) between scanner dpi ratings and
    their actual resolving power.

    For example: I own a Nikon film scanner rated
    at 4000 dpi, and an Epson flatbed/film scanner
    rated at 4800 dpi. The Nikon's scans are far
    sharper, even though they're at lower resolution
    than the Epson's.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 13, 2006
    #8
  9. Allan

    Scott W Guest

    m4w3y3 wrote:
    > A 3200 dpi film scanner will produce around a 4480 x 3045 pixel file from a
    > 35mm frame (which is the equivalent of a 13.5Mp digital camera). It will
    > produce that file form film used in a 35mm SLR or a 35mm point and shoot.
    > There are similar anti-noise filters and grain-melting filters that make the
    > scan as clear as anything that comes from a dSLR costing many times more
    > than the scanner.
    > However, my scanner will do 6400dpi which can give me a 160Mg TIFF file
    > (8800 x 6000 or equal to a 53Mp digital camera) from a 35mm frame.

    Of course 53MP from a 35mm frame is complately useless as the film has
    no where near enough detail to support that scanning resolution.

    If you have high speed intenet and want to see what you are up against
    here is a real 54MP digital photo.
    http://www.sewcon.com/temp/car_6000_9000.jpg

    I have compressed it about as much as I can but it is still about 14
    MBytes.

    But if you want a much easy comparison here is the same file downsized
    as if it were scanned but a 5400 ppi scanner.
    http://www.sewcon.com/temp/car_5400_ppi.jpg

    It takes a lot of work and care to get a scanned 35mm frame to look as
    good as a photo from the 20D, much more work and care then the vast
    majorty of people can or are willing to do. A lot of this care and
    effert as in how the photo is taken in the first place, a better
    scanner will not help after the fact.

    What I don't understand are the people who seem to go to extremes
    trying to get that last bit of detail out of 35mm film. If you really
    want high quality out of film it is pretty easy to move to MF or LF.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 13, 2006
    #9
  10. "Allan" <> writes:

    > 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?


    You'll get higher resolution probably (if you use the right film,
    lens, tripod, and scanner). But you probably won't be able to enlarge
    pictures as large and have them look good.

    Plus, of course, you'll spend a lot of money on the good scanner, and
    a LOT of time scanning. Plus the cost of film and processing. (The
    D200 is pretty expensive itself, of course).

    > What are the current thoughts on this - models, features etc?


    If you're seriously looking to compete with a good DSLR you'd better
    look at the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED.

    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <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/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 13, 2006
    #10
  11. In article <MUlRf.761$>, m4w3y3
    <> writes
    >A 3200 dpi film scanner will produce around a 4480 x 3045 pixel file from a
    >35mm frame (which is the equivalent of a 13.5Mp digital camera). It will
    >produce that file form film used in a 35mm SLR or a 35mm point and shoot.
    >There are similar anti-noise filters and grain-melting filters that make the
    >scan as clear as anything that comes from a dSLR costing many times more
    >than the scanner.
    >However, my scanner will do 6400dpi which can give me a 160Mg TIFF file
    >(8800 x 6000 or equal to a 53Mp digital camera) from a 35mm frame.


    Except it doesn't work out that way so your comparisons are exceedingly
    wide of the mark. For a start, the information you are pulling off of
    the film at that resolution is at a very low contrast - due to the
    vanishingly small MTF of the film, not to mention the original camera
    optics. Similarly, you gloss over the noise with some glib "anti-noise"
    filter statement without recognising that no filter can distinguish
    between signal and noise, so reducing noise also reduces the signal - of
    which you have already precious little anywhere near the limiting
    resolution of your scanner. Meanwhile the dSLR image has contrast and
    SNR in abundance right up to it resolution limit.

    In your scanned film image, the MTF at the nyquist frequency of the
    scanner is likely to be of the order of 2-3% at best, based on the MTF
    curve for Provia. By comparison, the MTF of the dSLR sensor at Nyquist
    will be around 65% - a figure that Provia could only produce at about
    35cy/mm, or just under 2000ppi.

    So most of those 160MB in your Tiff files are redundant information but,
    because it is mainly noise, doesn't even compress efficiently. It
    certainly isn't the equivalent of the 53Mp digital camera that your
    exceedingly naive assessment claims. More like 15Mp - if you are very
    lucky, and probably less than half that.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Mar 14, 2006
    #11
  12. Allan

    m4w3y3 Guest

    I have found that whenever there is an attempt to directly compare digital
    and analog images, there is always something that renders the comparison
    'invalid'. I wonder if this is an attempt to protect digital from
    unfavorable comparisons.

    For example, my scanner will capture an image at a full 24bits/channel...I
    don't know of any digital cameras that come even close to that...what can we
    get...8 bits/channel? maybe more (theoretically with so-called RAW formats)
    and yet, I will bet that someone will argue that the reduced bits/channel
    figure of digital is somehow...'better'.

    For another example, the resolving ability of film and film camera lens has
    been measured in lpmm (line pairs/mm) for years. There are, therefore, years
    of data on lens and film resolution measured in lpmm...but digital cameras
    resolving potential is NEVER stated in lpmm thus making direct comparisons
    impossible. Instead, digital camera resolution is measured in LPH (or Lines
    per Picture Height)..a completely incompatible unit of measurement with no
    conversion factor. They say that this is to take into account the different
    sizes of digital sensors in spite of the fact that lpmm is used for ALL
    sizes of film. I think the reason for this is that digital cameras just
    wouldn't compare very favorably to film when the same units are used.

    But, people do claim that the results from their digital cameras are
    'better' than the results from film. I am wondering if there isn't some
    interesting psycho-engineering of preception going on here. Digital images
    with artificial sharpening, averaging out 'noise', and all the various
    enhancements that go into producing the image that fools the eye. Much of
    this is based on a set of assumptions (and you hear them quoted in many of
    these discussions) such as 'normal viewing distances' which means 'Don't
    look too close at my digital print!' On the other hand, I can look closely
    at my film prints or even through a 5x loupe and still see detail.

    One thing that digital people obsess over is 'noise' and they (and the
    manufacturers) go to extraordinary lengths to remove any hint of noise even
    if it means the loss of detail. It seems that, psychologically, a noise-free
    shot is perceived as clearer even if it contains less detail. Much of what
    people 'think' they see in digital images could be more illusion than
    reality...so don't look too closely!



    "rafe b" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    >
    >
    > What 6400 dpi scanner are you using?
    >
    > Is that 6400 dpi optical resolution, or interpolated?
    >
    > Most of us who have worked with both film scans
    > and digital have learned that comparing pixel-counts
    > from these two methods is rather meaningless.
    >
    > Furthermore, there's not much correlation
    > (unfortunately) between scanner dpi ratings and
    > their actual resolving power.
    >
    > For example: I own a Nikon film scanner rated
    > at 4000 dpi, and an Epson flatbed/film scanner
    > rated at 4800 dpi. The Nikon's scans are far
    > sharper, even though they're at lower resolution
    > than the Epson's.
    >
    >
    > rafe b
    > www.terrapinphoto.com
    >
    >
     
    m4w3y3, Mar 14, 2006
    #12
  13. In article <RIoRf.1114$>, m4w3y3
    <> writes
    >I have found that whenever there is an attempt to directly compare digital
    >and analog images, there is always something that renders the comparison
    >'invalid'. I wonder if this is an attempt to protect digital from
    >unfavorable comparisons.
    >
    >For example, my scanner will capture an image at a full 24bits/channel


    Really? And what do you do with this amazing dynamic range which, at
    7.2 is more than a thousand times more than the density range of the
    best film?

    Whilst the tiff format will support huge bit depths, there aren't too
    many applications that will interpret anything more than 16
    bits/channel.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Mar 14, 2006
    #13
  14. "m4w3y3" <> wrote:
    >
    > For another example, the resolving ability of film and film camera lens
    > has been measured in lpmm (line pairs/mm) for years. There are, therefore,
    > years of data on lens and film resolution measured in lpmm...but digital
    > cameras resolving potential is NEVER stated in lpmm thus making direct
    > comparisons impossible. Instead, digital camera resolution is measured in
    > LPH (or Lines per Picture Height)..a completely incompatible unit of
    > measurement with no conversion factor.


    LPH is a far better way to measure resolution, since it requires no
    conversion between formats. (Film comes in a lot of sizes, from Minox
    through 4x5, and some of us use several of them.)

    > They say that this is to take into account the different sizes of digital
    > sensors in spite of the fact that lpmm is used for ALL sizes of film. I
    > think the reason for this is that digital cameras just wouldn't compare
    > very favorably to film when the same units are used.


    The P&S dcams are far better than film in terms of lp/mm for actual imaging.
    (Zeiss uses blue light and microfilm to get some insane numbers, but slide
    films have almost no practically usable response at 50 lp/mm while most P&S
    dcams show strong contrast at well over 100 lp/mm.)

    > But, people do claim that the results from their digital cameras are
    > 'better' than the results from film.


    In my 6x7 vs. 5D tests, the 6x7 does better at high contrast detail. This is
    very noticeable in urban architectural shots where there are signs and fine
    architecturel detail everywhere from nearby to infinity. But for landscape
    and nature shots, where the contrast in the detail is a lot lower, there's
    no significant difference. 35mm is, of course, a pitiful joke compare to the
    5D.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 14, 2006
    #14
  15. "m4w3y3" <> writes:

    > I have found that whenever there is an attempt to directly compare digital
    > and analog images, there is always something that renders the comparison
    > 'invalid'. I wonder if this is an attempt to protect digital from
    > unfavorable comparisons.


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

    The important comparison to make is taking the kind of pictures you
    want to take, and making the size and kind of prints, web displays,
    slide presentations, or whatever other uses you want to make of your
    photos, and *then* comparing the digital and film versions. And of
    course you have to be equally competent at the relevant skills for the
    two sides, to make the comparison fair. Ideally the visual
    comparisons of prints should be made "blind", that is the person
    viewing the prints shouldn't know which ones came from which sources.

    > For example, my scanner will capture an image at a full 24bits/channel...I
    > don't know of any digital cameras that come even close to that...what can we
    > get...8 bits/channel? maybe more (theoretically with so-called RAW formats)
    > and yet, I will bet that someone will argue that the reduced bits/channel
    > figure of digital is somehow...'better'.


    I don't believe your 24 bits per channel. Some scanners achieve 14
    bits per channel (which are stored in 16-bits-per-channel files). I
    can imagine modern professional drum scanners perhaps achieving 16
    bits per channel of real data, maybe. What scanner are you using
    again?

    > For another example, the resolving ability of film and film camera
    > lens has been measured in lpmm (line pairs/mm) for years. There are,
    > therefore, years of data on lens and film resolution measured in
    > lpmm...but digital cameras resolving potential is NEVER stated in
    > lpmm thus making direct comparisons impossible. Instead, digital
    > camera resolution is measured in LPH (or Lines per Picture
    > Height)..a completely incompatible unit of measurement with no
    > conversion factor. They say that this is to take into account the
    > different sizes of digital sensors in spite of the fact that lpmm is
    > used for ALL sizes of film. I think the reason for this is that
    > digital cameras just wouldn't compare very favorably to film when
    > the same units are used.


    In measuring film camera and lens results, people mostly reported lpmm
    on the film, as determined by microscopic examination. Given the very
    wide range of digital sensor sizes, I think the explanation given
    makes sense, and lpmm doesn't make much sense for that use.

    > But, people do claim that the results from their digital cameras are
    > 'better' than the results from film. I am wondering if there isn't
    > some interesting psycho-engineering of preception going on
    > here. Digital images with artificial sharpening, averaging out
    > 'noise', and all the various enhancements that go into producing the
    > image that fools the eye. Much of this is based on a set of
    > assumptions (and you hear them quoted in many of these discussions)
    > such as 'normal viewing distances' which means 'Don't look too close
    > at my digital print!' On the other hand, I can look closely at my
    > film prints or even through a 5x loupe and still see detail.


    And do you *care* about the detail you can only see through a 5x
    loupe? This is one of those decisions each artist needs to make;
    there is no right or wrong answer, really.

    Your choice of the phrase "artificial sharpening" shows me that you
    have a strong film bias, and are ignorant of digital imaging.

    > One thing that digital people obsess over is 'noise' and they (and
    > the manufacturers) go to extraordinary lengths to remove any hint of
    > noise even if it means the loss of detail. It seems that,
    > psychologically, a noise-free shot is perceived as clearer even if
    > it contains less detail. Much of what people 'think' they see in
    > digital images could be more illusion than reality...so don't look
    > too closely!


    Um, I hate to break this to you, but stuff you see through your eyes
    is heavily processed. The measure of image quality is how it works
    with the human visual system -- that is, the subjective experience of
    people looking at your pictures. Can you make much of an argument for
    any *other* standard of quality? (The only one I can think of is to
    be prepared for when we meet aliens, whose visual systems work very
    differently from our own. Okay, that's a reasonable argument; it just
    won't get very many people following you, I don't think.)

    I see lots of people complaining about the "plasticy" look of
    overly-noise-reduced images, rather than everybody running out and
    eliminating every hint of noise as you suggest.

    But I think you're *right* that a noise-free shot is perceived as
    cleaner than a noisy shot. And also, something you didn't quite say,
    that many pictures can have lesser detail and still look first-rate
    (especially if not compared side-by-side with the same picture, just
    as clean, but with more detail).

    But go back to my second paragraph. If you're in serious doubt (as
    many reasonable people *should* be) about whether digital or film will
    be better for some particular aspect of your work -- make the test.
    Take some pictures both ways, print them to the sizes you normally
    use, with the care you normally use, and show them around to a bunch
    of friends. Don't tell them which are which. Borrow equipment to do
    this if necessary. Possibly get help in post-processing and printing,
    if you're not an expert on both film and digital printing. See how
    *you* like the pictures, and how people you show them to react to
    them. Then make an informed decision about which will work for you at
    the moment. And you should then be reasonably confident that you're
    doing the right thing. At that point, laugh at people who claim
    you're wrong -- at least unless they can point out problems in your
    technique, or changes in technology since you made your tests.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <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/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 14, 2006
    #15
  16. Allan

    Scott W Guest

    m4w3y3 wrote:
    > I have found that whenever there is an attempt to directly compare digital
    > and analog images, there is always something that renders the comparison
    > 'invalid'. I wonder if this is an attempt to protect digital from
    > unfavorable comparisons.
    >
    > For example, my scanner will capture an image at a full 24bits/channel...I
    > don't know of any digital cameras that come even close to that...what can we
    > get...8 bits/channel? maybe more (theoretically with so-called RAW formats)
    > and yet, I will bet that someone will argue that the reduced bits/channel
    > figure of digital is somehow...'better'.


    You seem to want to argue based on just numbers without looking at the
    final scanned files. If you are going to argue based on just numbers
    you should at least get them right , there is no film scanner that does
    24bits / channel. If you believe you are running 24 bits per channel
    it most likely means that in fact you are getting 24 bits/pixel or 8
    bits / channel.

    So we have been hearing about how good your scanner is compared to
    digital cameras, might we see one of these scans? I posted a link to
    one of my digital photos it just seems fair that you post one of yours.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 14, 2006
    #16
  17. Allan

    m4w3y3 Guest

    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.

    "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > m4w3y3 wrote:
    >> I have found that whenever there is an attempt to directly compare
    >> digital
    >> and analog images, there is always something that renders the comparison
    >> 'invalid'. I wonder if this is an attempt to protect digital from
    >> unfavorable comparisons.
    >>
    >> For example, my scanner will capture an image at a full
    >> 24bits/channel...I
    >> don't know of any digital cameras that come even close to that...what can
    >> we
    >> get...8 bits/channel? maybe more (theoretically with so-called RAW
    >> formats)
    >> and yet, I will bet that someone will argue that the reduced bits/channel
    >> figure of digital is somehow...'better'.

    >
    > You seem to want to argue based on just numbers without looking at the
    > final scanned files. If you are going to argue based on just numbers
    > you should at least get them right , there is no film scanner that does
    > 24bits / channel. If you believe you are running 24 bits per channel
    > it most likely means that in fact you are getting 24 bits/pixel or 8
    > bits / channel.
    >
    > So we have been hearing about how good your scanner is compared to
    > digital cameras, might we see one of these scans? I posted a link to
    > one of my digital photos it just seems fair that you post one of yours.
    >
    > Scott
    >
     
    m4w3y3, Mar 14, 2006
    #17
  18. Allan

    m4w3y3 Guest

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

    "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:-b.net...
    >
    > Nope; mostly it's attempts to protect film from unfavorable
    > comparisons.
    >
     
    m4w3y3, Mar 14, 2006
    #18
  19. Allan

    rafe b Guest

    On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:09:09 -0500, "m4w3y3" <>
    wrote:

    >I have found that whenever there is an attempt to directly compare digital
    >and analog images, there is always something that renders the comparison
    >'invalid'. I wonder if this is an attempt to protect digital from
    >unfavorable comparisons.



    <snip>

    By all means please send me a scan sample to post!

    Whatever resolution you're scanning at, send a
    sample representing 0.25" x 0.25" of film, plus
    a small overview scan of the frame that it came
    from. If it's on par with what I've already
    got posted here, I'll gladly post it.

    Here's the scan samples site:

    www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis

    and my email address is there as well.

    Save your high-res scan sample and the
    overview frame as high-quality, low-
    compression JPG and email to me.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 14, 2006
    #19
  20. Allan

    Bryan Olson Guest

    rafe b wrote:
    > "m4w3y3" wrote:
    >>However, my scanner will do 6400dpi which can give me a 160Mg TIFF file
    >>(8800 x 6000 or equal to a 53Mp digital camera) from a 35mm frame.
    >>I can scan 24 slides in a single batch and, once the files are saved, I
    >>have exactly the same editing capabilities in Photoshop (or other photo
    >>editing software) as any digital camera user. Of course, I can also scan
    >>medium format and large format (4x5) negatives too...at 6400dpi. (which is
    >>25600 x 32000 pixels or 820Mp).

    >
    > What 6400 dpi scanner are you using?


    I see he declined to answer, but I suspect he's talking about his
    Microtek i900 flatbed/film scanner.

    > Is that 6400 dpi optical resolution, or interpolated?


    Probably both. Microtek reports the optical resollution as
    3200x6400 dpi.


    > rafe b
    > www.terrapinphoto.com


    Great page, thanks.


    --
    --Bryan
     
    Bryan Olson, Mar 14, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Martin Riddle
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    89
    Martin Riddle
    Apr 23, 2014
  2. Paul Ciszek
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    98
    J. Clarke
    Apr 26, 2014
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    114
    Whisky-dave
    Apr 29, 2014
  4. Joe Kotroczo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    89
    Joe Kotroczo
    Apr 25, 2014
  5. Joe Kotroczo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    98
    Joe Kotroczo
    Apr 25, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page