Digital v Film

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Simon Marchini, Jul 13, 2003.

  1. Oops. I meant 50%. 100%'s no compression at all in the way we were using
    percentages in that discussion<g>.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 18, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. You left out the $3K for the scanner.

    Of course, no one (other than M. Reichmann) is seriously claiming that the
    1Ds is better than MF. It's not. However, MF (other than 6x9) isn't enough
    better that if one had a $3K 3D one would use one's MF gear much. And the
    choices in 6x9 gear are getting fewer and fewer every month. Sigh.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 18, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Simon Marchini

    Rafe B. Guest

    55 mega pixels. C'mon Dave, you can do the math.
    6 cm by 4.5 cm at 4000 dpi...

    This here image I'm looking at now is 8776 x 6508 pixels.
    Ideally: 9448 x 7086, nearly 67 MBytes.

    I did the experiment differently: I up-sampled the 1Ds image in
    Photoshop (bicubic) to match the pixel dimensions of the 645 scan,
    then view both side-by side at 200% in Photoshop.

    I think the 645 scan has a slight edge in terms of resolution, but
    of course it has lots of grain which the 1Ds capture does not.
    I do see some color fringing in the 1Ds image, however, at
    a few high-contrast edges.

    Doing the experiment your way -- with both images down in the
    11-14 MPixel range -- makes them harder to compare; they both
    look very good.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Jul 18, 2003
  4. My scanner cost 400.00 I use a conventional darkroom for
    95% of my printing work , I am using the MF equipment 1 to 2 weekends a month
    for weddings and almost always for my magazine work. My MF camera is earning me
    at least twenty grand a year. I shoot 6x6 in MF only, its alot more versatile than
    35mm but maybe not so portable.

    --
    Check out My Homepage at
    http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

    Support bacteria - they're the only culture
    some people have." -Stephen Wright
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Jul 18, 2003
  5. Simon Marchini

    Rafe B. Guest


    Yep, I figured that's what you meant.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Jul 18, 2003
  6. Shadow detail's pretty amazing with Reala, and non-existent with Provia. The
    only problem with negative film is that it limits one to prints 1/2 the
    size. Sigh.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 18, 2003
  7. Simon Marchini

    Rafe B. Guest


    I don't really know of any $400 scanners that will do justice
    to a well-shot MF image on decent film.

    That said, I know of at least one pro photographer who
    scans 4x5 film on an Epson 1640.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Jul 18, 2003
  8. Simon Marchini

    Mxsmanic Guest

    It's random, though, whereas smearing of colors in a digicam is not.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 18, 2003
  9. Nothing is going to compare to my conventional RA prints.
    Have you seen what the 2450 can actually do? The scans seem
    to satisfy all my output needs, website, inkjet prints
    four color printing and prints up to 16x20 on Durst Lambda.
    After 20 years of conventional custom printing I have pretty
    critical standards. I will say this 90% of the
    inkjet s-it I see from other people leaves alot to be desired.
    Maybe its the fear of spending money and using cartridges,
    I on the other hand bit the bullet and bought a C.I.S once
    I obtained the ability to make color corrections without fear of
    wasting ink (read here "Money"),....I begain to make decent Ink prints.

    --
    Check out My Homepage at
    http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

    Support bacteria - they're the only culture
    some people have." -Stephen Wright
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Jul 18, 2003
  10. Simon Marchini

    Rafe B. Guest

    No. But I own a 1640 which I purchased originally to
    scan MF film -- this was before I acquired my LS-8000.

    In brief: the 1640 claimed 1600 dpi, and subjectively,
    I don't think it was delivering that.

    The 1640 for me was a stopgap measure. Scanning
    645 with the 1640 might, with some sharpening, yield
    a decent 8x10" print. We both know that's not doing
    justice to the film.

    I don't know anything about the successors to the 1640
    in the Epson lineup -- once I had the LS-8000, it was of
    no interest to me.

    Feel free to email me a scan snippet, if you like.
    I'll post it on my website along with some 1640 scans.

    (email to: rafe dot bustin at verizon dot net)


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Jul 18, 2003
  11. Sure I will send a snippet , my question though is why the
    need for such high resolution anyway? Most printers are interpolating the
    information and actually down sizing the larger higher
    files, your lucky if the output for a 1280 is really 400 Dpi.
    Lambdas only need either 200 or 400 Dpi, and 4 color
    only needs 600 Dpi in general. S why not just scan at the rsolution you need for
    the purpose at hand?


    --
    Check out My Homepage at
    http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

    Support bacteria - they're the only culture
    some people have." -Stephen Wright
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Jul 18, 2003
  12. Simon Marchini

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Well, the grains must be forming gangs, then.
    --
     
    JPS, Jul 18, 2003
  13. Simon Marchini

    Lionel Guest

    Exactly. Mr Maniac claims not to be able to see that in the film scans,
    as usual.
     
    Lionel, Jul 18, 2003
  14. Simon Marchini

    Lionel Guest

    No, of course not. But if you want a JPEG that can stand up to single
    pixel inspections, you need to create it with very little compression.
    Exactly. It's a pity our Maniac can't (or won't) identify JPEG colour
    artifacts when he's looking straight at them.
     
    Lionel, Jul 18, 2003
  15. What your then saying is your scanning at a high res and down sampling for
    printing.

    --
    Check out My Homepage at
    http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

    Support bacteria - they're the only culture
    some people have." -Stephen Wright
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Jul 18, 2003
  16. Simon Marchini

    Rafe B. Guest


    Yes, you always seem to have one ready at hand --
    and more often than not, it's something you just pulled
    out of your butt (like "depth of modulation").

    Now, if 1152 x 864 was good enough for you in 1999,
    and your're getting 80 Mpixels now from your KewlScan,
    just how much "depth of modulation" do you need?


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Jul 18, 2003
  17. That would help to avoid visible grain aliasing (the image looking grainier
    than it actually is). The 2450 "solves" that with very diffuse
    trans-illumination, and an optical system that is limited in quality. I own
    one, and would be hesitant to enlarge a MF frame to 8x10inch or more.

    What's more, output quality can be improved by controlling (= avoiding) the
    interpolation that the printer driver will do, unless it gets its data
    delivered at the native resolution for the paper and ink (in case of inkjet
    printers). A program like Qimage will feed the printerdriver very good
    quality data, but it might like e.g. 1200 ppi data to do it optimally. It
    also allows to better sharpen at the threshold of visibility, thus avoiding
    visible artifacts.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 18, 2003
  18. Indeed they are. Grains themselves are too small to be an issue. But the
    larger dye clouds they are replaced by, and the irregular aggregates they
    form when seen in a 3D perspective, are exactly what the human eye is
    sensitive to. Scanning with diffuse light and at a high enough resolution
    counteracts that.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 18, 2003
  19. Simon Marchini

    Rafe B. Guest


    No, I'm afraid you missed the point of the example
    above.

    No resampling whatsoever. For the example cited,
    a 2700 dpi scan of 35 mm yields a final output dpi
    that is almost ideal (or maybe a shade high) for
    making an 8x10" print on a good photo quality inkjet
    printer.

    When I scan 645 film at 4000 dpi, it's a different
    story -- in that case I do in fact downsample
    because the printer really can't use all the
    data in the image. No harm done there, either;
    the pixels that result are simply richer in
    information than the original lot, prior to
    resampling.

    In this 2nd case, without resampling I'd be asking
    the printer to print an 8x10 at 800 dpi and that would
    simply choke the printer.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Jul 19, 2003
  20. Simon Marchini

    Mxsmanic Guest

    A resolution of 1152x864 was fine in 1999 because I was taking photos
    only for my Web site. In fact, it was more than enough. However, I
    finally decided that I might want to make prints, and I also received
    inquiries on image licensing, and I rapidly discovered that 1152x864 was
    woefully inadequate for these purposes. So I returned to film.

    I'd like to have more than 80 Mp, but that would require spending an
    order of magnitude more money, for a large-format film outfit, a
    specialized computer (Windows could not handle it), and a specialized
    scanner that can scan 8x10 or 4x5 at least 4000 dpi (or preferably
    above).

    A scanner with higher resolution alone would be a very slight
    improvement, although the additional data gained as one goes above 4000
    dpi on most scans isn't not that striking.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 19, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.