[filmscanners] Re: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > What I want to know is: which one will make a better 11x14 or > 12x16" print? 4000 dpi scans of 645 slides look very nice at 12x16. Very. I've enver been able to get a decent 11x14 from 35mm, but people claim it's possible. I remain dubious. (But, FWIW, IMHO, 35mm ISO 100 slide film edges out 6 MP DSLR digital.) > Looking at screen pixels is not the final product, even though it > does tell us something. If you resize the scanned image down to 6MP, then you can do meaningful on-screen comparisons. However, there may be actual detail that's lost by resizing in this manner (though I doubt there is much). >> The game that I described was the results of downsampling to various levels and seeing when things looked similar. I'll give 35mm credit for 8MP as opposed to DSLR digital 6MP. Beyond that, there are other differences between scanned slides and DSLR images. I'm of the opinion that digital cameras generally have more accurate color, because the chemical processes involved in film involve finicky response curves that need to be canceled out by other equally finicky curves, while what goes on in a CCD or CMOS sensor is pretty simple and linear. Maybe, but the new Velvia 100F and Astia 100F are pretty neutral in color rendition. Nice grain, too. >> > I am especially interested in comparisons of prints made from the Sigma > Fovion images versus the new Olympus E-1 DSLR versus scans of film. Also, > any other DSLR vs film scan prints. The Foveon technology looks interesting, but their current implementation doesn't have any diffuser over the sensor, which makes it appear sharper than most competitive sensors, but it is prone to aliasing and moire. << Yes, the lack of an _antialiasing filter_ makes the SD-9 rather problematic. I was looking closely at the SD-9 and 10D versions of one of my favorite test images, the "house shot", the shot of the brick building in Steve's Digicam's reviews. Straight lines at a slight angle to vertical or horizontal are an amazing mess in the SD-9 shot. Far worse than I would have thought. I shoot a lot of urban stuff, and that would really irritate me no end. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
Berry, > What I want to know is: which one will make a better 11x14 or > 12x16" print? That depends on what characteristics of an image YOU like. No one else can tell you what YOU might think is better (except your wife ;-). Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > What I want to know is: which one will make a better 11x14 or > 12x16" print? > Looking at screen pixels is not the final product, even though it > does tell > us something. If you resize the scanned image down to 6MP, then you can do meaningful on-screen comparisons. However, there may be actual detail that's lost by resizing in this manner (though I doubt there is much). Beyond that, there are other differences between scanned slides and DSLR images. I'm of the opinion that digital cameras generally have more accurate color, because the chemical processes involved in film involve finicky response curves that need to be canceled out by other equally finicky curves, while what goes on in a CCD or CMOS sensor is pretty simple and linear. > I am especially interested in comparisons of prints made from the Sigma > Fovion images versus the new Olympus E-1 DSLR versus scans of film. Also, > any other DSLR vs film scan prints. The Foveon technology looks interesting, but their current implementation doesn't have any diffuser over the sensor, which makes it appear sharper than most competitive sensors, but it is prone to aliasing and moire. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
on 9/11/03 4:59 PM, David J. Littleboy at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > "Nagaraj, Ramesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asks: > Take a picture using 6MP DSLR at full resolution. Also scan a slide > using 4000dpi scanner. Open both image files in Adobe and observe at 100%. > > Image from DSLR looks to have sharper edges compared to scanner output. > What is the reason for this? > Is it because of in-built sharpening of DSLR? > < > > It's because the digital image is sharper, cleaner, and better. > > If your 4000 dpi scan is from a sharp slide, sharpen lightly, downsample to > 2400 dpi, and sharpen lightly again. You should get an image that is almost > as good as the DSLR image and has a few more pixels as well. > > (This works even better if you use the new version of Picture Window Pro's > Advanced Sharpen function, which includes Neat Image style noise reduction, > for the "sharpen lightly" steps.) > > If your 4000 dpi scan is from a sharp _645_ slide, sharpen lightly, > downsample to 2800 dpi, sharpen lightly, downsample to 2000 dpi, and sharpen > lightly again. You'll get an image that is just as good as (if not better > than) any DSLR image, and has 13MP or so. > > David J. Littleboy > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tokyo, Japan > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or > body What I want to know is: which one will make a better 11x14 or 12x16" print? Looking at screen pixels is not the final product, even though it does tell us something. I am especially interested in comparisons of prints made from the Sigma Fovion images versus the new Olympus E-1 DSLR versus scans of film. Also, any other DSLR vs film scan prints. Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
"Nagaraj, Ramesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asks: >>> Take a picture using 6MP DSLR at full resolution. Also scan a slide using 4000dpi scanner. Open both image files in Adobe and observe at 100%. Image from DSLR looks to have sharper edges compared to scanner output. What is the reason for this? Is it because of in-built sharpening of DSLR? < It's because the digital image is sharper, cleaner, and better. If your 4000 dpi scan is from a sharp slide, sharpen lightly, downsample to 2400 dpi, and sharpen lightly again. You should get an image that is almost as good as the DSLR image and has a few more pixels as well. (This works even better if you use the new version of Picture Window Pro's Advanced Sharpen function, which includes Neat Image style noise reduction, for the "sharpen lightly" steps.) If your 4000 dpi scan is from a sharp _645_ slide, sharpen lightly, downsample to 2800 dpi, sharpen lightly, downsample to 2000 dpi, and sharpen lightly again. You'll get an image that is just as good as (if not better than) any DSLR image, and has 13MP or so. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Archiving scans - DVD vs CD
I was lucky enough to attended IFA, the Berlin consumer electronics exhibition, last week & managed to speak to a guy at Verbatim about their disks and longevity. (They're claiming 100 years on their write-once discs.) He was very honest in making clear that this was a projected value based on extended temperature, pressure & humidity storage. He mentioned that humidity is a particular problem - time to buy sealable storage units & silica gel maybe (or is silica gel a contaminant???) Verbatim claim that their "Super AZO" dye makes a big difference (I notice that some Verbatim CD-R disks in a local store were "Azo" and others "Super Azo"). He went on to say that DVDs are better than CDs because both top and bottom surfaces are coated with plastic - reducing the risks from humidity and atmospheric contaminants. Interesting conversation but I'd like to see some lab results! Mike Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
> From: Nagaraj, Ramesh > > Take a picture using 6MP DSLR at full resolution. Also scan a slide > using 4000dpi scanner. Open both image files in Adobe and > observe at 100%. > > Image from DSLR looks to have sharper edges compared to scanner output. > What is the reason for this? > Is it because of in-built sharpening of DSLR? Partly, and I usually turn it down because I don't like it. But also 4000dpi is higher resolution than any digicam, so you should expect softer images when viewing at one screen pixel per image pixel. On top of that, some slide scanners have trouble getting good focus from center to edge, because of the curvature of the slide. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
Hi Ramesh, A two pixel camera will give you a perfectly sharp image. Sharpness is no indication of image fidelity (ability to reproduce accurately). It also depends on your scanner and your film and a whole lot of other things... Regards, Austin > Hi, > > Take a picture using 6MP DSLR at full resolution. Also scan a slide > using 4000dpi scanner. Open both image files in Adobe and > observe at 100%. > > Image from DSLR looks to have sharper edges compared to scanner output. > What is the reason for this? > Is it because of in-built sharpening of DSLR? > > Thanks > Ramesh Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Why DSLR ouput looks sharper?
Hi, Take a picture using 6MP DSLR at full resolution. Also scan a slide using 4000dpi scanner. Open both image files in Adobe and observe at 100%. Image from DSLR looks to have sharper edges compared to scanner output. What is the reason for this? Is it because of in-built sharpening of DSLR? Thanks Ramesh Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> ...It doesn't apply to computer-generated > images with gradients, tints, etc., either. > > Preston Earle > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can you scan those with a film scanner? ;-) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
"Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> noted: "I MUST stress, that Margulis is specifically talking about COLOR images, NOT B&W, and that distinction is VERY important." Yes, color *photographic* images. It doesn't apply to computer-generated images with gradients, tints, etc., either. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
>Preston wrote >When Photoshop converts from 16-bit to 8-bit it applies very fine noise >to try to control subsequent problems. Most scanners don't. I would have >expected this to make a difference but not to the point that the scanner >8-bit file would completely suck and the Photoshop 8-bit file would be >just as good as the 16- bit version. I don't know whether this is all a >function of Photoshop's superior algorithm or whether the scanner is >doing something bad. Furthermore, I don't care. One way or another, the >8-bit scanner file is bad and the 8-bit Photoshop file is good." This is an interesting point. I too think Adobe may do better job of converting to 8bit than Vuescan. I will follow it. Thanks Ramesh Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Preston, Great post, thanks...but again, I MUST stress, that Margulis is specifically talking about COLOR images, NOT B&W, and that distinction is VERY important. Regards, Austin > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Preston Earle > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 > > > Of interest in this discussion: > http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-8-b > it-16-bit.htm > and > http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-16- > bit-2002.htm > > Money quote from Dan Margulis: "The bottom line of all my tests was, > with one important caveat that I'll get to in a moment, there is no > 16-bit advantage. I blasted these files with a series of corrections far > beyond anything real-world; I worked at gammas ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 > and in all four of the standard RGBs, I worked with negs, positives, > LAB, CMYK, RGB, Hue/Saturation, what have you. While the results weren't > identical there were scarcely any cases where there would be detectable > differences and in those one would be as likely to prefer the 8-bit > version as the 16. So, I have no reservation in saying that there's no > particular point in retaining files in 16-bit, although it doesn't hurt > either. > > I'll show all these results later, but the surprise was in the files > that Ric [Cohn] sent, which appeared to show just the sort of damage > that 8-bit editing is supposed to cause, in an image with a dark rich > blue gradient, a worst-case scenario in conjunction with the very dark > original scan, which in itself was an attempt to give an advantage to > 16-bit editing. > > Ric provided both original 8-bit and 16-bit versions of these files. > Granted that the necessary corrections were very severe, they still > showed that what he said was true: the 8-bit version banded rather badly > and the 16-bit did not. I tried several different ways of trying to get > around the disadvantage and could not do so without excessive effort. > > Ric's 8-bit original, however, was generated from the 16-bit scan not by > Photoshop but rather within his own scanner software. Therefore, I tried > further tests where I applied the same extreme corrections to the image, > but this time not to Ric's 8-bit image but rather a direct Photoshop > conversion of Ric's 16- bit image to 8-bit. Shockingly, this completely > eliminated the problem. There was no reason to prefer the version > corrected entirely in 16-bit. > > When Photoshop converts from 16-bit to 8-bit it applies very fine noise > to try to control subsequent problems. Most scanners don't. I would have > expected this to make a difference but not to the point that the scanner > 8-bit file would completely suck and the Photoshop 8-bit file would be > just as good as the 16- bit version. I don't know whether this is all a > function of Photoshop's superior algorithm or whether the scanner is > doing something bad. Furthermore, I don't care. One way or another, the > 8-bit scanner file is bad and the 8-bit Photoshop file is good." > > Preston Earle > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > (Still in Group 3.) > > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
I couldn't resist throwing in my two bits (or eight bits, as the case may be). I tried using my SS4000 at 14 bits, or maybe it was 12 bits (it's not capable of true 16 bits) because I had read that you lose less information when making color corrections on high-bit files. However, I found that my carefully developed scanner-specific ICC profile didn't work on the high-bit file, and so I had to go through a lot of agonizing effort just to get it back to what it would have been after an 8-bit scan. And I didn't entirely succeed. So for me, at least, _profiled_ 8-bit scans beat 16-bit scans every time. Alan - Original Message - From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:30 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16 Hi Art, > ...and that's even concluding that the scanner is really > capturing the full 16 bit depth, which many do not. I'm not sure ANY do. Do you know of a scanner that really has a usable 16 bits of data for each color? I know a few (and only a very few from what I've seen) *claim* 16 bits, but that doesn't mean that they actually can deliver 16 bits. If they could, their dMax would be 4.8, and I've not heard that claim. I believe the best I've seen is 14 bits, or a dMax of 4.2...but even at that, I'm skeptical that they actually meet that. Even if they were capable of that, that doesn't mean the bits are always used, especially for negative film. Color negative film, say, with a density range of 3.0, would only be able to use 10 bits our of what ever range is available, anyway. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Of interest in this discussion: http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-8-bit-16-bit.htm and http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-16-bit-2002.htm Money quote from Dan Margulis: "The bottom line of all my tests was, with one important caveat that I'll get to in a moment, there is no 16-bit advantage. I blasted these files with a series of corrections far beyond anything real-world; I worked at gammas ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 and in all four of the standard RGBs, I worked with negs, positives, LAB, CMYK, RGB, Hue/Saturation, what have you. While the results weren't identical there were scarcely any cases where there would be detectable differences and in those one would be as likely to prefer the 8-bit version as the 16. So, I have no reservation in saying that there's no particular point in retaining files in 16-bit, although it doesn't hurt either. I'll show all these results later, but the surprise was in the files that Ric [Cohn] sent, which appeared to show just the sort of damage that 8-bit editing is supposed to cause, in an image with a dark rich blue gradient, a worst-case scenario in conjunction with the very dark original scan, which in itself was an attempt to give an advantage to 16-bit editing. Ric provided both original 8-bit and 16-bit versions of these files. Granted that the necessary corrections were very severe, they still showed that what he said was true: the 8-bit version banded rather badly and the 16-bit did not. I tried several different ways of trying to get around the disadvantage and could not do so without excessive effort. Ric's 8-bit original, however, was generated from the 16-bit scan not by Photoshop but rather within his own scanner software. Therefore, I tried further tests where I applied the same extreme corrections to the image, but this time not to Ric's 8-bit image but rather a direct Photoshop conversion of Ric's 16- bit image to 8-bit. Shockingly, this completely eliminated the problem. There was no reason to prefer the version corrected entirely in 16-bit. When Photoshop converts from 16-bit to 8-bit it applies very fine noise to try to control subsequent problems. Most scanners don't. I would have expected this to make a difference but not to the point that the scanner 8-bit file would completely suck and the Photoshop 8-bit file would be just as good as the 16- bit version. I don't know whether this is all a function of Photoshop's superior algorithm or whether the scanner is doing something bad. Furthermore, I don't care. One way or another, the 8-bit scanner file is bad and the 8-bit Photoshop file is good." Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Still in Group 3.) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Art, I concur with everything you have said except the last paragraph which concerns something I have no knowledge about and no concern with, given that I am not into gaming. As I have noted in several of my posts, I see as a potential positive for hi-bit scanning the fact that it furnishes more raw data than a low bit scan and therefore provides for potential future flexibility when creating archive master raw image files as ones final output, which are to be used at a later date to generate working files for specific purposes and output devices and products( which in the future may support high-bit files but not currently). Otherwise, for general purposes, high-bit scans as working files typically offer little added value overf an 8-bit file - except in a few rare (if not extreme) cases. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 Hi Laurie, This isn't about minutia, this is about belief systems and religion ;-) The only real solution to deal with the zealotry would be a carefully controlled double blind experiment. Otherwise, we are indeed the blind leading the blind, because simply, we shall see what we expect to see. I am willing at accept that just like people's ability to hear musical tones (AKA being "tone deaf" or not) some people are gifted with greater color perception, and abilities to distinguish between them. I happen to have quite good color perception and color memory (i wish my event memory was as good!), however, I "believe" tests would tend to show that the vast majority within the bell curve cannot see the difference. I do believe there is a small advantage to 16 bit files due to data getting fractionated and pushed around slightly (although there really isn't a very large step for it to go in either direction). But, if a great deal of multiple manipulation is going to be accomplished a color could get pushed a fraction of a 1/256th step in error. However, in terms of printing, viewing on screen, etc, I think 16 bit files are of little to no value, and that's even concluding that the scanner is really capturing the full 16 bit depth, which many do not. Regarding the matter of banding in 3D rendering, the as was mentioned by another poster, that problem is due to use of unnatural restricted pallets, and limited or no use of dithering, because random dithering in a moving 3d object shows up as moving noise and it slows the rendering process down, also. Art LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > On the face of it, this does seem to be another silly debate. In his > responses Austin covered his ass bymaking of point of sayin 16-bit is not > necessary in most color scans as contrasted to all, which means that nay > exception you bring up will be considered by his as an exception and not the > rule. You on the other hand seem to have focused in on the needs of your > own personal work flow and needs and not a general workflow or needs and > come off as having an agenda of convincing others that your workflow is the > only good and acceptible one for everyone. > > If your work flow works for you and is something that requires you to employ > 16-bit scans as you perceive it, then you have to satisfy yourself and > should stick to 16-bit scans. If others think that 8-bit suffices for their > work than they should use that. Neither has any need to convince the other > that what they are doing is justified much less the best and only proper way > to accomplish the goals at hand for each. > > Sometimes we become fanatical over trivial minutia which is not significant > to most and can not be dscerned by most even when they perform the empirical > experiments suggested. Thus, for them this discussion becomes of as much > practical relevance to their needs and work as knowing the number of angles > that can fit on the head of a pin. If there is a key practical significance > to doing 16-bit color scans, it is to generate as complete a quasi-raw data > file as is currently possible from a scan for purposes of archiving as a > master file off of which specific working files will be generated both now > and in the future. By doing a 16-bit scan of a color image, you capture as > much data as is now possible which may be of potential use in the future as > the software and hardware changes and approves to accomodate the use of the > additional data in a 16-bit file. However, in many cases, the need and > usefulness of a refined and tonally enhanced, extended 16-bit image file as > a working file that one is going to produce finished products from is of > little practical use given today's software and hardware. > > If you or anyone thinks they see a difference in the final product when > producing their work by using 16-bit as opposed to 8-bit scans, then by all > means they should use 16-bit scans and not worry about what anyone
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Art-I'm actually partially on your side--I agree that 8 bits is mostly the limit of what humans can discern. There are rare cases of large, "shallow" (not much tonal range) gradients that haven't been dithered, either artificially or by film grain, that can show banding. But again, that's rare. And in any event, there are NO output solutions I know of that actually support 16-bit, so whether or not we can discern 16-bit is pretty much a moot point. The only time I'm saying 16-bit matters is when you make tonal adjustments, either gamma/levels/curves or dodging and burning. These throw away data. To have 8 bits of significant data when you're done you have to start with more than 8 bits. And if you're adjusting things in the scanner, the scanner's bit depth matters. One of the reasons 1990-and-earlier drumscanners do such a horrid job on color neg is that they're only 8 bits internally, spread over a 4.0 dynamic range. The much smaller range of color neg leaves you only 5-6 bits data--generally an ugly mess. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
OK, I was covering my butt, in case "someone" (a-hmmm) knew of some I didn't... I don't deal in the $150,000 scanner market so maybe there are some scanners that can accurately capture a full 16 bit depth. Several scanner companies will throw around dMax numbers based upon the mathematical "possibilities" rather than anything approaching reality. What is the new Minolta 5400 claiming? Art Austin Franklin wrote: > Hi Art, > > >>...and that's even concluding that the scanner is really >>capturing the full 16 bit depth, which many do not. > > > I'm not sure ANY do. Do you know of a scanner that really has a usable 16 > bits of data for each color? I know a few (and only a very few from what > I've seen) *claim* 16 bits, but that doesn't mean that they actually can > deliver 16 bits. If they could, their dMax would be 4.8, and I've not heard > that claim. I believe the best I've seen is 14 bits, or a dMax of 4.2...but > even at that, I'm skeptical that they actually meet that. > > Even if they were capable of that, that doesn't mean the bits are always > used, especially for negative film. Color negative film, say, with a > density range of 3.0, would only be able to use 10 bits our of what ever > range is available, anyway. > > Regards, > > Austin > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
