Scan Comparison Site, Call for Sample Scans

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rafe B., Dec 16, 2003.

  1. Rafe B.

    Rafe B. Guest

    I've assembled a collection of film scan samples at

    <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/>

    The idea is to see just how much image detail
    can be pulled from 0.25" by 0.25" of film, or
    an equivalent area of a digicam image.

    Forget MTF curves and line pairs per millimeter.
    This is a simple gallery of images achievable
    in practice with good gear and good technique.

    There are samples here from several popular
    drum scanners (Aztec, Howtek, ICG) and CCD
    scanners (Nikon, Minolta, Imacon, Leaf) As well
    as a couple of digicams (Canon 1Ds, 10D.)

    I'd love to post many more. Good sharp scans only.

    Any camera, any lens, any film, any scanner.
    Cherry pick the images all you like.
    There are only a few simple rules:

    1. Image should represent 0.25" by 0.25" of
    film at native scan resolution.
    2. No unsharp masking
    3. Include a small overview image of the frame
    from which the scan was taken and indicate the
    film format (eg., 35 mm, 6x6, etc.)
    4. Compress as high quality JPG.
    5. Post to a web location and indicate the
    URL, or email JPGs directly to me at:

    rafe DOT bustin AT verizon DOT net

    Please, before posting, have a look at the images
    and scanners already represented. If your scanner
    is already represented, there's no need to post
    anything (and I will most likely ignore your submission)
    unless it clearly matches or beats other samples from
    that same model.

    Thanks. And enjoy.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    scan comparisons
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
    Rafe B., Dec 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rafe B. <> writes:

    ....

    > The idea is to see just how much image detail can be pulled from
    > 0.25" by 0.25" of film, or an equivalent area of a digicam image.


    > 4. Compress as high quality JPG.


    JPEG will destroy the details you want to have in your samples, and
    also remove much of the noise. This is the oposite of what you
    need. You shoud use TIFF with data compression or the like. But *NO*
    image compression!!

    --
    Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
    +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
    West Australia 6076
    comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
    Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
    EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
    Paul Repacholi, Dec 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rafe B.

    David Chien Guest

    www.imaging-resource.com for many scanner test reviews and various
    images scanned for comparison of contrast, resolution, etc.
    David Chien, Dec 16, 2003
    #3
  4. Rafe B.

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:05:54 +0800, Paul Repacholi
    <> wrote:

    >Rafe B. <> writes:
    >
    >...
    >
    >> The idea is to see just how much image detail can be pulled from
    >> 0.25" by 0.25" of film, or an equivalent area of a digicam image.

    >
    >> 4. Compress as high quality JPG.

    >
    >JPEG will destroy the details you want to have in your samples, and
    >also remove much of the noise. This is the oposite of what you
    >need. You shoud use TIFF with data compression or the like. But *NO*
    >image compression!!



    I beg to differ. There is no observable difference in this
    case between the JPG and the TIFF. No details have
    been lost. Furthermore, TIFFs can't be viewed by web
    browers and the file sizes of these images would be huge.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Dec 17, 2003
    #4
  5. Rafe B.

    Ti Moute Guest

    Rafe B. <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > I've assembled a collection of film scan samples at
    >
    > <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/>
    >
    > The idea is to see just how much image detail
    > can be pulled from 0.25" by 0.25" of film, or
    > an equivalent area of a digicam image.
    >
    > Forget MTF curves and line pairs per millimeter.
    > This is a simple gallery of images achievable
    > in practice with good gear and good technique.
    >
    > There are samples here from several popular
    > drum scanners (Aztec, Howtek, ICG) and CCD
    > scanners (Nikon, Minolta, Imacon, Leaf) As well
    > as a couple of digicams (Canon 1Ds, 10D.)
    >
    > I'd love to post many more. Good sharp scans only.
    >
    > Any camera, any lens, any film, any scanner.
    > Cherry pick the images all you like.
    > There are only a few simple rules:
    >
    > 1. Image should represent 0.25" by 0.25" of
    > film at native scan resolution.
    > 2. No unsharp masking
    > 3. Include a small overview image of the frame
    > from which the scan was taken and indicate the
    > film format (eg., 35 mm, 6x6, etc.)
    > 4. Compress as high quality JPG.
    > 5. Post to a web location and indicate the
    > URL, or email JPGs directly to me at:
    >
    > rafe DOT bustin AT verizon DOT net
    >
    > Please, before posting, have a look at the images
    > and scanners already represented. If your scanner
    > is already represented, there's no need to post
    > anything (and I will most likely ignore your submission)
    > unless it clearly matches or beats other samples from
    > that same model.
    >
    > Thanks. And enjoy.
    >
    >
    > rafe b.
    > http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    > scan comparisons
    > http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/


    I'm was reading about the scanned film vs digital images and it became
    clear to me that I was confused about something that hopefully you can
    clarify.

    Why is it that "For digital captures, the camera's largest native
    image size is taken to be 1" high"?

    Thanks
    Ti
    Ti Moute, Dec 17, 2003
    #5
  6. Rafe B.

    Rafe B. Guest

    On 16 Dec 2003 20:56:45 -0800, (Ti Moute) wrote:


    >I'm was reading about the scanned film vs digital images and it became
    >clear to me that I was confused about something that hopefully you can
    >clarify.
    >
    >Why is it that "For digital captures, the camera's largest native
    >image size is taken to be 1" high"?



    It's somewhat arbitrary, unless you're using 35 mm
    as the reference, in which case it makes a good
    deal of sense.

    For starters, consider that 1.0" x 1.5" is a close
    approximation to the true size of 35 mm image.

    The 10D produces an image that's 2048 by 3072
    pixels. There's no "dpi" figure in this case, but if
    you equate this image to a 35 mm frame then you
    can think of the 10D image as a "scan" at 2048 dpi.

    Or think of it this way -- again, taking the 35 mm
    frame to be 1" x 1.5" -- my arbitrary sample
    images are 0.25" by 0.25" which is exactly
    1/24 of a 35 mm frame. Applying this same
    scaling to the 10D image you get a snippet
    of 512 x 512 pixels -- ie., 1/24 of the total
    10D image area.

    So the "condensed" version of this arbitrary
    rule is: the short axis of the digicam image,
    measured in pixels, can be thought of as
    the equivalent "dpi" of the digicam capture,
    so long as we understand that we're
    normalizing to a 35 mm frame that's taken
    to be 1" by 1.5"

    You might argue that this standard isn't
    appropriate for scanning backs and MF
    digital backs, but I'll cross that bridge
    when I get some sample images from
    one of those.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    scan comparisons
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
    Rafe B., Dec 17, 2003
    #6
  7. Rafe B. <> writes:

    > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:05:54 +0800, Paul Repacholi
    > <> wrote:


    >>Rafe B. <> writes:


    >>...


    >>> The idea is to see just how much image detail can be pulled from
    >>> 0.25" by 0.25" of film, or an equivalent area of a digicam image.


    >>> 4. Compress as high quality JPG.


    >>JPEG will destroy the details you want to have in your samples, and
    >>also remove much of the noise. This is the oposite of what you
    >>need. You shoud use TIFF with data compression or the like. But *NO*
    >>image compression!!


    > I beg to differ. There is no observable difference in this case
    > between the JPG and the TIFF. No details have been lost.
    > Furthermore, TIFFs can't be viewed by web browers and the file sizes
    > of these images would be huge.


    Then you are wasting your time. You will have a collection that
    is limited by whatever the JPEG encoder someone uses is, and
    have lost the original data.

    Perhaps you should get a better browser, mine if fine with TIFFs.

    --
    Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
    +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
    West Australia 6076
    comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
    Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
    EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
    Paul Repacholi, Dec 17, 2003
    #7
  8. Rafe B.

    Ti Moute Guest

    Rafe B. <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > On 16 Dec 2003 20:56:45 -0800, (Ti Moute) wrote:
    >
    >
    > >I'm was reading about the scanned film vs digital images and it became
    > >clear to me that I was confused about something that hopefully you can
    > >clarify.
    > >
    > >Why is it that "For digital captures, the camera's largest native
    > >image size is taken to be 1" high"?

    >
    >
    > It's somewhat arbitrary, unless you're using 35 mm
    > as the reference, in which case it makes a good
    > deal of sense.
    >
    > For starters, consider that 1.0" x 1.5" is a close
    > approximation to the true size of 35 mm image.
    >
    > The 10D produces an image that's 2048 by 3072
    > pixels. There's no "dpi" figure in this case, but if
    > you equate this image to a 35 mm frame then you
    > can think of the 10D image as a "scan" at 2048 dpi.
    >
    > Or think of it this way -- again, taking the 35 mm
    > frame to be 1" x 1.5" -- my arbitrary sample
    > images are 0.25" by 0.25" which is exactly
    > 1/24 of a 35 mm frame. Applying this same
    > scaling to the 10D image you get a snippet
    > of 512 x 512 pixels -- ie., 1/24 of the total
    > 10D image area.
    >
    > So the "condensed" version of this arbitrary
    > rule is: the short axis of the digicam image,
    > measured in pixels, can be thought of as
    > the equivalent "dpi" of the digicam capture,
    > so long as we understand that we're
    > normalizing to a 35 mm frame that's taken
    > to be 1" by 1.5"
    >
    > You might argue that this standard isn't
    > appropriate for scanning backs and MF
    > digital backs, but I'll cross that bridge
    > when I get some sample images from
    > one of those.
    >
    >
    > rafe b.
    > http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    > scan comparisons
    > http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis


    If the digital image size of 1 inch is arbitrary, then I don't see how
    it can be used for comparisons.
    If the digital image size were arbitrarily 4 inches or 1/4 inch then
    the results would more than likely be different on your site.
    Wouldn't it be better to scan film at the same 2048 by 3072 pixels
    with the same color depth then compare the two images.
    Or either scan the film at maximum resolution and import the digital
    image at its maximum then convert both to 1000x1000 for a comparison.
    Ti Moute, Dec 17, 2003
    #8
  9. "Paul Repacholi" <> wrote:
    >
    > > I beg to differ. There is no observable difference in this case
    > > between the JPG and the TIFF. No details have been lost.
    > > Furthermore, TIFFs can't be viewed by web browers and the file sizes
    > > of these images would be huge.

    >
    > Then you are wasting your time. You will have a collection that
    > is limited by whatever the JPEG encoder someone uses is, and
    > have lost the original data.


    I've never been able to find any significant differences between original
    tiffs and low compression jpegs. Your comments are at odds with objective
    reality. At sensible compression settings, the vast majority of pixels are
    identical. Sure, at higher compression levels things get ugly, but not at
    low compression settings. Given the small amount of high frequency
    information (other than grain noise) in scans, the enormous tiff file macho
    in scanner users is quite misplaced.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 18, 2003
    #9
  10. Rafe B.

    Rafe B. Guest

    On 17 Dec 2003 11:13:47 -0800, (Ti Moute) wrote:

    >Rafe B. <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >> On 16 Dec 2003 20:56:45 -0800, (Ti Moute) wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> >I'm was reading about the scanned film vs digital images and it became
    >> >clear to me that I was confused about something that hopefully you can
    >> >clarify.
    >> >
    >> >Why is it that "For digital captures, the camera's largest native
    >> >image size is taken to be 1" high"?

    >>
    >>
    >> It's somewhat arbitrary, unless you're using 35 mm
    >> as the reference, in which case it makes a good
    >> deal of sense.
    >>
    >> For starters, consider that 1.0" x 1.5" is a close
    >> approximation to the true size of 35 mm image.
    >>
    >> The 10D produces an image that's 2048 by 3072
    >> pixels. There's no "dpi" figure in this case, but if
    >> you equate this image to a 35 mm frame then you
    >> can think of the 10D image as a "scan" at 2048 dpi.
    >>
    >> Or think of it this way -- again, taking the 35 mm
    >> frame to be 1" x 1.5" -- my arbitrary sample
    >> images are 0.25" by 0.25" which is exactly
    >> 1/24 of a 35 mm frame. Applying this same
    >> scaling to the 10D image you get a snippet
    >> of 512 x 512 pixels -- ie., 1/24 of the total
    >> 10D image area.
    >>
    >> So the "condensed" version of this arbitrary
    >> rule is: the short axis of the digicam image,
    >> measured in pixels, can be thought of as
    >> the equivalent "dpi" of the digicam capture,
    >> so long as we understand that we're
    >> normalizing to a 35 mm frame that's taken
    >> to be 1" by 1.5"
    >>
    >> You might argue that this standard isn't
    >> appropriate for scanning backs and MF
    >> digital backs, but I'll cross that bridge
    >> when I get some sample images from
    >> one of those.
    >>
    >>
    >> rafe b.
    >> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    >> scan comparisons
    >> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis

    >
    >If the digital image size of 1 inch is arbitrary, then I don't see how
    >it can be used for comparisons.
    >If the digital image size were arbitrarily 4 inches or 1/4 inch then
    >the results would more than likely be different on your site.
    >Wouldn't it be better to scan film at the same 2048 by 3072 pixels
    >with the same color depth then compare the two images.
    >Or either scan the film at maximum resolution and import the digital
    >image at its maximum then convert both to 1000x1000 for a comparison.



    I'm afraid you quite missed the point.

    This arbitrary one inch rule is only used in
    an attempt to compare digicam captures to
    film scans. It does not apply to the film scans
    at all.

    I've explained the logic of it, so I'm not going
    to go through it again.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Dec 18, 2003
    #10
  11. Rafe B.

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:59:55 +0800, Paul Repacholi
    <> wrote:

    >Rafe B. <> writes:
    >
    >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:05:54 +0800, Paul Repacholi
    >> <> wrote:

    >
    >>>Rafe B. <> writes:

    >
    >>>...

    >
    >>>> The idea is to see just how much image detail can be pulled from
    >>>> 0.25" by 0.25" of film, or an equivalent area of a digicam image.

    >
    >>>> 4. Compress as high quality JPG.

    >
    >>>JPEG will destroy the details you want to have in your samples, and
    >>>also remove much of the noise. This is the oposite of what you
    >>>need. You shoud use TIFF with data compression or the like. But *NO*
    >>>image compression!!

    >
    >> I beg to differ. There is no observable difference in this case
    >> between the JPG and the TIFF. No details have been lost.
    >> Furthermore, TIFFs can't be viewed by web browers and the file sizes
    >> of these images would be huge.

    >
    >Then you are wasting your time. You will have a collection that
    >is limited by whatever the JPEG encoder someone uses is, and
    >have lost the original data.
    >
    >Perhaps you should get a better browser, mine if fine with TIFFs.




    Trust me, nothing's been lost with the JPG conversion.

    Those first two "perfect" scans are also JPGs and
    yet it's still abundantly obvious how much clearer
    they are than any of the film scans.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Dec 18, 2003
    #11
  12. Rafe B.

    Rafe B. Guest

    On 17 Dec 2003 11:13:47 -0800, (Ti Moute) wrote:


    >If the digital image size of 1 inch is arbitrary, then I don't see how
    >it can be used for comparisons.
    >If the digital image size were arbitrarily 4 inches or 1/4 inch then
    >the results would more than likely be different on your site.


    Yes, of course it would. But given that 35 mm is
    presently the standard toward which most digicams
    aspire, there is special significance to the dimensions
    of the 35 mm frame -- and for simplicity's sake, I'm
    calling that 1" by 1.5".


    >Wouldn't it be better to scan film at the same 2048 by 3072 pixels
    >with the same color depth then compare the two images.
    >Or either scan the film at maximum resolution and import the digital
    >image at its maximum then convert both to 1000x1000 for a comparison.



    How do you scan film at 2048 x 3072 pixels?

    You could scan film at 2048 dpi, which would give you
    an image of around 2048 x 3072 pixels. And that would
    in fact give you a fairly decent 8x10" print, if that were
    true optical resolution we're talking about.

    But 2048 is generally recognized to be on the low side
    for scanning a sharp image on fine grained film. Even
    I'll agree that film holds something more than that.

    You are correct about one thing: a proper comparison
    needs to recognize that different dpi scans (of course)
    produce differently sized images from the same area
    of film.

    This is explained (albeit briefly) on the site. To "deal"
    with it, simply choose some arbitrary and reasonable
    standard image size and resample as necessary to
    that size.

    Eg. if you want to properly compare a Howtek scan
    at 4399 dpi to the Nikon at 4000 dpi, one way would
    be to upsample the Nikon scan sample from 1000 to
    1100 pixels on a side.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Dec 18, 2003
    #12
  13. Rafe B.

    Ti Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On 17 Dec 2003 11:13:47 -0800, (Ti Moute) wrote:
    >
    > >Rafe B. <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > >> On 16 Dec 2003 20:56:45 -0800, (Ti Moute) wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> >I'm was reading about the scanned film vs digital images and it became
    > >> >clear to me that I was confused about something that hopefully you can
    > >> >clarify.
    > >> >
    > >> >Why is it that "For digital captures, the camera's largest native
    > >> >image size is taken to be 1" high"?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> It's somewhat arbitrary, unless you're using 35 mm
    > >> as the reference, in which case it makes a good
    > >> deal of sense.
    > >>
    > >> For starters, consider that 1.0" x 1.5" is a close
    > >> approximation to the true size of 35 mm image.
    > >>
    > >> The 10D produces an image that's 2048 by 3072
    > >> pixels. There's no "dpi" figure in this case, but if
    > >> you equate this image to a 35 mm frame then you
    > >> can think of the 10D image as a "scan" at 2048 dpi.
    > >>
    > >> Or think of it this way -- again, taking the 35 mm
    > >> frame to be 1" x 1.5" -- my arbitrary sample
    > >> images are 0.25" by 0.25" which is exactly
    > >> 1/24 of a 35 mm frame. Applying this same
    > >> scaling to the 10D image you get a snippet
    > >> of 512 x 512 pixels -- ie., 1/24 of the total
    > >> 10D image area.
    > >>
    > >> So the "condensed" version of this arbitrary
    > >> rule is: the short axis of the digicam image,
    > >> measured in pixels, can be thought of as
    > >> the equivalent "dpi" of the digicam capture,
    > >> so long as we understand that we're
    > >> normalizing to a 35 mm frame that's taken
    > >> to be 1" by 1.5"
    > >>
    > >> You might argue that this standard isn't
    > >> appropriate for scanning backs and MF
    > >> digital backs, but I'll cross that bridge
    > >> when I get some sample images from
    > >> one of those.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> rafe b.
    > >> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    > >> scan comparisons
    > >> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis

    > >
    > >If the digital image size of 1 inch is arbitrary, then I don't see how
    > >it can be used for comparisons.
    > >If the digital image size were arbitrarily 4 inches or 1/4 inch then
    > >the results would more than likely be different on your site.
    > >Wouldn't it be better to scan film at the same 2048 by 3072 pixels
    > >with the same color depth then compare the two images.
    > >Or either scan the film at maximum resolution and import the digital
    > >image at its maximum then convert both to 1000x1000 for a comparison.

    >
    >
    > I'm afraid you quite missed the point.
    >
    > This arbitrary one inch rule is only used in
    > an attempt to compare digicam captures to
    > film scans. It does not apply to the film scans
    > at all.
    >
    > I've explained the logic of it, so I'm not going
    > to go through it again.



    If you are talking about the information on the website, I'm not in agreement
    with it but since you answered my question with two threads, I will continue
    this in your other response with some reasons why.
    Ti, Dec 18, 2003
    #13
  14. Rafe B.

    Ti Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On 17 Dec 2003 11:13:47 -0800, (Ti Moute) wrote:
    >
    >
    > >If the digital image size of 1 inch is arbitrary, then I don't see how
    > >it can be used for comparisons.
    > >If the digital image size were arbitrarily 4 inches or 1/4 inch then
    > >the results would more than likely be different on your site.

    >
    > Yes, of course it would. But given that 35 mm is
    > presently the standard toward which most digicams
    > aspire, there is special significance to the dimensions
    > of the 35 mm frame -- and for simplicity's sake, I'm
    > calling that 1" by 1.5".
    >

    I don't necessarily agree with arbitrarily picking numbers to suit an experiment
    for the sake of comparison. If you compared to other size film then you would
    end up with different dpi for the digital camera. But since you are using 35mm
    cameras, you have selected chosen 1" and I understand your reasoning but it
    still doesn't mean it is factually correct.

    >
    > >Wouldn't it be better to scan film at the same 2048 by 3072 pixels
    > >with the same color depth then compare the two images.
    > >Or either scan the film at maximum resolution and import the digital
    > >image at its maximum then convert both to 1000x1000 for a comparison.

    >
    >
    > How do you scan film at 2048 x 3072 pixels?
    >
    > You could scan film at 2048 dpi, which would give you
    > an image of around 2048 x 3072 pixels. And that would
    > in fact give you a fairly decent 8x10" print, if that were
    > true optical resolution we're talking about.
    >
    > But 2048 is generally recognized to be on the low side
    > for scanning a sharp image on fine grained film. Even
    > I'll agree that film holds something more than that.


    ok

    >
    > You are correct about one thing: a proper comparison
    > needs to recognize that different dpi scans (of course)
    > produce differently sized images from the same area
    > of film.
    >
    > This is explained (albeit briefly) on the site. To "deal"
    > with it, simply choose some arbitrary and reasonable
    > standard image size and resample as necessary to
    > that size.
    >
    > Eg. if you want to properly compare a Howtek scan
    > at 4399 dpi to the Nikon at 4000 dpi, one way would
    > be to upsample the Nikon scan sample from 1000 to
    > 1100 pixels on a side.


    Here is your first words on your page "How much image detail from 0.25" by 0.25"
    of film?"

    The would think best way to determine detail would be to see how big a picture
    could be produced from the film without losing its quality. The same would go
    for a digital image.

    Going the other way would seem to determine the quality of the scanner.
    Ti, Dec 18, 2003
    #14
  15. Rafe B.

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:39:20 GMT, Ti <> wrote:


    >Here is your first words on your page "How much image detail from 0.25" by 0.25"
    >of film?"
    >
    >The would think best way to determine detail would be to see how big a picture
    >could be produced from the film without losing its quality. The same would go
    >for a digital image.
    >
    >Going the other way would seem to determine the quality of the scanner.



    What is so difficult to comprehend about this?

    In what way does my methodology compromise
    or "constrain" image quality?

    I've posted scans at full resolution based on
    a fixed area of film.

    It goes without saying (or so I thought) that larger
    film formats produce more total information.

    Choosing 1/4" by 1/4" was merely a convenient
    reference area, for several reasons:

    1. With the best film scanners typically
    returning images of 4000 dpi, the resulting
    snippet size is 1000 x 1000 pixels, which
    can be viewed on a decent hi-res monitor.

    2. Hopefully obvious, but using a small
    area also allows users to scan at the full
    capabilities of their scanners.

    2. Bandwidth issues for web browsing

    3. File size issues for web browsing


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    scan comparisons
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
    Rafe B., Dec 19, 2003
    #15
  16. Rafe B.

    stacey Guest

    Rafe B. wrote:

    > Furthermore, TIFFs can't be viewed by web
    > browers


    ??? Even the basic KDE browser Konquerer opens them fine. Maybe you need a
    better browser/OS?
    --

    Stacey
    stacey, Dec 19, 2003
    #16
  17. Rafe B.

    Alan Browne Guest

    Rafe B. wrote:

    > I beg to differ. There is no observable difference in this
    > case between the JPG and the TIFF. No details have
    > been lost. Furthermore, TIFFs can't be viewed by web
    > browers and the file sizes of these images would be huge.



    Netscape 7 accesses TIF's via a viewer such as Quicktime.
    Alan Browne, Dec 19, 2003
    #17
  18. Rafe B.

    jjs Guest

    In article <wmHEb.50220$>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > Rafe B. wrote:
    >
    > > I beg to differ. There is no observable difference in this
    > > case between the JPG and the TIFF. No details have
    > > been lost. Furthermore, TIFFs can't be viewed by web
    > > browers and the file sizes of these images would be huge.

    >
    >
    > Netscape 7 accesses TIF's via a viewer such as Quicktime.


    And TIFFs can be compressed.
    jjs, Dec 19, 2003
    #18
  19. Rafe B.

    Ti Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:39:20 GMT, Ti <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >Here is your first words on your page "How much image detail from 0.25" by 0.25"
    > >of film?"
    > >
    > >The would think best way to determine detail would be to see how big a picture
    > >could be produced from the film without losing its quality. The same would go
    > >for a digital image.
    > >
    > >Going the other way would seem to determine the quality of the scanner.

    >
    >
    > What is so difficult to comprehend about this?
    >
    > In what way does my methodology compromise
    > or "constrain" image quality?
    >
    > I've posted scans at full resolution based on
    > a fixed area of film.
    >
    > It goes without saying (or so I thought) that larger
    > film formats produce more total information.
    >
    > Choosing 1/4" by 1/4" was merely a convenient
    > reference area, for several reasons:
    >
    > 1. With the best film scanners typically
    > returning images of 4000 dpi, the resulting
    > snippet size is 1000 x 1000 pixels, which
    > can be viewed on a decent hi-res monitor.
    >
    > 2. Hopefully obvious, but using a small
    > area also allows users to scan at the full
    > capabilities of their scanners.
    >
    > 2. Bandwidth issues for web browsing
    >
    > 3. File size issues for web browsing
    >

    I comprehend your methodology and perhaps I am not getting a clear picture on
    your examples. When I look at your examples, they do not equate to 1/4 of the
    scanned film if the 35mm was 1" x 1" nor 1/6 of the film if it were 1" x 1.5"

    examples of what I am talking about:

    1)
    On the Aztek Drum Scans -- "Standard" 0.25 x 0.25 snippets
    Photos and scans by J. Arthur Davis
    The Overview 4x5 chrome, I see the highlighted area to be much smaller than 1/4
    or 1/6 of the entire image. If this is 1" x 1" of a 4" x 5" photo, then you are
    not using 1/4 of the film but only 1/20 of the image. If you are only using 1/4"
    x 1/4" of a 4" X 5" photo then you are only looking at 1/80 of the entire image.
    If this is the case, then the digital image should also be taken at the same
    ratios.

    2)
    On the Howtek 4500 Drum scan vs. LS-8000
    Two Scans of the same image
    Photo and scans by Lawrence Smith
    The Overview 35 mm, Kodak 100sw pushed two stops, the highlighted areas are not
    1/4 or 1/6 of the total image.

    3)
    On the Heidelberg Tango Drum vs LS-8000
    Two Scans of the same image
    Photo and scans by Bill Hilton
    The Overview 645, Velvia, the boxed image is not 1/4 or 1/6 of the entire image.

    Giving these 3 examples, can you see why I am confused when you say "How much
    image detail from 0.25" by 0.25" of film?" which would be either 1/4 or 1/6 of
    the entire image when none of the images are 1/4 or 1/6 of the image.
    Ti, Dec 19, 2003
    #19
  20. Rafe B.

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Ti

    >I comprehend your methodology and perhaps I am not getting a clear picture
    >on your examples.


    You apparently are assuming all the films were 35 mm when in fact most of them
    were not.

    > When I look at your examples, they do not equate to
    >1/4 of the scanned film if the 35mm was 1" x 1" nor 1/6 of the film if it were


    >1" x 1.5"
    >
    >examples of what I am talking about:
    >
    >3)
    >On the Heidelberg Tango Drum vs LS-8000
    >Two Scans of the same image
    >Photo and scans by Bill Hilton
    >The Overview 645, Velvia, the boxed image is not 1/4 or 1/6 of the entire
    >image.


    645 refers to the film size being scanned, ie, 6 x 4.5 cm or about 2.7x larger
    than 35 mm. It's "not 1/4 or 1/6 of the entire image" because the film is much
    larger than 35 mm. .25x.25" would only be 1/4 the image if the image (film)
    were 1x1".

    >1)
    >On the Aztek Drum Scans -- "Standard" 0.25 x 0.25 snippets
    >Photos and scans by J. Arthur Davis
    >The Overview 4x5 chrome, I see the highlighted area to be much smaller than
    >1/4 or 1/6 of the entire image.


    That's because the film is 4x5", not 1x1.5" (which is what 35 mm is, roughly).

    >2)
    >On the Howtek 4500 Drum scan vs. LS-8000
    >Two Scans of the same image
    >Photo and scans by Lawrence Smith
    >The Overview 35 mm, Kodak 100sw pushed two stops, the highlighted areas are
    >not 1/4 or 1/6 of the total image.


    I think this one was 6x7 cm or more than 4x larger than 35 mm.

    Rafe picked .25" because it would fit on the screen so long as the scan was
    4000 dpi or less. This was a very sensible move, it seems to me.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Dec 19, 2003
    #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. T.

    Call rates comparison site

    T., Sep 11, 2005, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    464
  2. john chapman

    Drab Scans of Slides with Nikon LS-4000 w/Nikon Scan 3.1

    john chapman, Feb 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    835
    HRosita
    Feb 11, 2004
  3. jamesnorris

    scans and scan

    jamesnorris, Jan 21, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    314
    jamesnorris
    Jan 22, 2007
  4. rapee
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    699
    rapee
    Mar 14, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    732
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page