About 3 weeks ago, we took deliver of a Noritsu 3101 digital to photo paper minilab. I have had the opportunity to compare print output from the same negative onto photographic paper (Kodak Edge 8 in this case) using both an optical printer, and now a high end production digital printer.
The 3101 is a somewhat low resolution scanner, about 2000x3000 dpi scanning. While this is not a high scan density, I was also comparing 4R print outputs, so the scanner limitation should not be a factor. This is a compromise solution for the manufacturer, a higher scan density is nice, but the machine also needs fast production values. The 3101 will scan a roll of 24 exposures as a single strip in about 12 seconds with Digital Ice being used. One of the first things I noticed about the output was a lack of smoothness in flesh tones. Flesh tones look almost like the output from an older generation inkjet print, rather course and not at all pleasing. While we haven't had any complaints, I am not as pleased as I would like with this. Also, image components that are minus a primary colour are definitely grainy looking, although the rest of the image is fine. The scan density is deep enough to see the grain on faster Kodak films like Max 800, but not Superia 800, which is a much finer grained film. Comparing the same image, printed on both machines, I can see advantages and disadvantages to both. The digital prints definitely look sharper, but there is not the depth of fine detail that is visible in the optical print, even at a 4R print size, viewed with the naked eye. OTOH, the digital machine allows for highlight, overall and shadow contrast correction both on an individual negative basis, and on a global basis. This allows us to bring negatives that were formerly unprintable on a machine of this type up to a good quality image. With the ability to handle digital files comes the problems relating to working with an uneducated public. The program's interpolation routine does well enough that we can give good quality 4R prints from 1024x768 images, and even 600x800 pixel files look decent. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who seem to think that since a 240x320 image looked fine on their monitor, it should also print well. This, unfortunately, is not the case, and I have found myself on a few occassions been in the situation of telling customers that the moron at Future Shop didn't know what he was talking about. I turned one fellow away without even looking at his card when he told me he had 96 images on an 8MB Memory Stick. What I would like to know is what the hell manufacturers are thinking about when they give the dumb customer the ability to screw up this badly in the first place? Anyway, in short, this technology, while nice, still has a way to go to be really good quality. As long as the negative fits the range of the paper, the optical prints do look better than the scanned negative prints in terms of smoothness and richness of detail. William Robb
