[filmscanners] Re: Minolta 5400 scan Elite Tests
- Original Message - From: Bob Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks Bob In my few tests with it, I've found that manual focussing 'on-screen' rather than using the knob on the front of the scanner seemed to give me much better results. Does that mean several preview scans while changing focusing in between or is there another way? I have, so far, found at least one slide which the 5400 simply could not find focus on. I set it to manual focus after setting focus on the previous slide. I hope there won't be too many of them. And saving the files as tiffs with lossless LZW compression reduces them to about a third. I have found that when I save a 16 bit file as a tiff (using PS6) with LZW compression on, the file size does not reduce by much. It only changes from about 260Mb to about 240Mb. When I change the file to an 8 bit poer colour image and save it then as Tif with LZW on, it is much smaller (40-50Mb) I don't think LZW compression works on 16 bit files? - Thys van der Merwe Portfolio of African Images: http://mysite.mweb.co.za/residents/teknovis Cell: (+27) 83-441-3108 Tel: (+27) 35-753-3766 Fax: (+27) 35-753-4489 --- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Minolta 5400 scan Elite Tests
- Original Message - From: Henning Wulff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vuescan does nominally support the scanner, but it always wants to 'warm up the lamp' for 3 or 4 minutes before every step, so it takes 40 minutes to do one scan. Useless. Henning Maybe you should check Vuescan again, because I think Ed fixed that. (I've just downloaded the latest version and it certainly does not do that any more - it starts to scan very quickly now) Regards Thys - Thys van der Merwe Portfolio of African Images: http://mysite.mweb.co.za/residents/teknovis Cell: (+27) 83-441-3108 Tel: (+27) 35-753-3766 Fax: (+27) 35-753-4489 --- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
240 dpi is all that is needed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Pixels and Prints I suspect I will 'go digital' sometime in the next year or two. My question regards what type of print output quality I can expect from digital. I print on an Epson 2200 at sizes of up to 13x19 inches. In reality, I tend to leave an inch margin or so around the image, so lets say an image size of 11x17 inches. Conventional teaching with scans (and I suppose that this could be part of the answer..that the conventional holds with scans but not direct digital acquisition) is that for critical sharpness you should be able to send 300ppi to the printer. Say this is overkill and you really only need 250 ppi. By my calculations you would still need 11 megapixels fo an 11x17 image at 250ppi. Yet everyone raves at the output of even the Canon 10D at significantly less resolution. So is the conventional teaching incorrect when it comes to direct digital capture? Perhaps more importantly, how many megapixels are needed for an extremely sharp 11x17 inch print? I realize there are other benefits to digital capture as it translates to printing, such as lack of grain, but sharpness is quite important to me as well. I would appreciate any help in how to look at this as I think about getting a digital body. Right now I am using a 1V and a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 Plus. A DS1 at 14 or so megapixels and full frame sensor is way too expensive for me...but if a new Canon EOS 3 type digital body were to come out I could see spending up to $2500 or so. Howard 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: Pixels and Prints
Paul, You can get super-sharp prints at 12x18 from a D100 providing the image was super-sharp to start with (I also uprez with QI). I hand-hold my camera most of the time, and buying the 80-200 VR AFS lens has made an enormous difference to my print sharpness. Set the speed to 1/1000 and it is equivalent to 1/8000 and sharp!! (providing the object is not moving too fast of course). I control the speed all the time now, and let the Auto ISO feature take over if I run out of aperture. If you hand-hold at slow/medium speeds, you will not get super-sharp prints unless you are very good with differential USM. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're right that you won't get _super_ sharp images from a 6Mp camera at 11x17, but they'll still be quite sharp at 180ppi. I like the results I get with a Canon 10D and an Epson 2200. For some subjects with a lot of sharp lines, you can use tools like the Geniune Fractals plugin to upsize, because it does a good job of artificially preserving edge sharpness. Another alternative in some situations, is to shoot multiple shots and stitch them together. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints
Karl, Yes, but you can get rid of real grain and artifical grain if you use a program like Neat Image. Use it last of all after sharpening and it will get rid of sharpening artefacts as well, or at least reduce them to the level where they are not noticeable. Neat Image Pro+ is my best buy of all time. A 6MP digital image is equivalent to a 2000dpi scan, not a 4000dpi scan which gives 24 MP. My Minolta 5400 gives about 40MP scan (230 MB files!), but some of my D100 images look as good at 12x18. Depends on content. l use Neat Image on both. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: KARL SCHULMEISTERS [EMAIL PROTECTED] The idea that you won't have grain is somewhat misleading. When you upsize to 11x17, you will have the equiv of grain in the form of digital artifacts. At even 8x10, I can tell the difference between a 35mm film image and a 6mpixel Camera, and it is even more obvious at 11x17. Realistically, a 6mPixel camera is equiv to 4000dpi scan of 35mm film. Which generates some amazing images, but still doesn't quite match film when you enlarge it. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 10D Tony shots
My experience is that most digital devices focus amazingly well in low light conditions. The Nikon Coolpix 5700 is a NOTABLE exception. It's low light focusing capabilities are very poor. Other than that, it's a great little camera. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: connecting scanner to computer
The SCSI cable on my flatbed scanner is 6' long, and it's never caused me a problem. I don't believe I've ever seen anything longer, however. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi Eugene, 240 dpi is all that is needed. Needed? I have images that show more detail (and look better) using up to 480PPI to the printer... 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: Pixels and Prints
Eugene, 240 dpi is not all that is needed, because the Epson driver upsamples that (or any other dpi you send it) to 720 dpi (desktop printers), using Nearest Neighbour type upsampling. So 720 dpi is what is needed by the driver. The question is can you get better results by upsampling to 720dpi yourself (using QI for example that upsamples with various superior methods - bicubic, lanczos, vector, etc). You seem to be suggesting that you can't, but others suggest you can. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Eugene A La Lancette PhD MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] 240 dpi is all that is needed. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] VueScan constant color
I'm trying to find it in VueScan's help pages but cannot find it. How to set VueScan so that it doesn't change color of scans when I go through the whole film of images of similar type? (transparency) I cannot fing any lock color balance button in VueScan. I'm scanning in Color/Color Balance/White Balance Mode because I cannot figure out how to use the Neutral and None modes. Thank you in advance Tomek Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints
I've produced very acceptable 13x9s from a 1.68 megapixel camera, the Canon Pro 70. Yes, when you get up close you can see staircasing from the lack of resolution, but in practice you don't examine big pictures close up. And for me the complete absence of film grain makes all the difference. In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote: I suspect I will 'go digital' sometime in the next year or two. My question regards what type of print output quality I can expect from digital. I print on an Epson 2200 at sizes of up to 13x19 inches. In reality, I tend to leave an inch margin or so around the image, so lets say an image size of 11x17 inches. Conventional teaching with scans (and I suppose that this could be part of the answer..that the conventional holds with scans but not direct digital acquisition) is that for critical sharpness you should be able to send 300ppi to the printer. Say this is overkill and you really only need 250 ppi. By my calculations you would still need 11 megapixels fo an 11x17 image at 250ppi. Yet everyone raves at the output of even the Canon 10D at significantly less resolution. So is the conventional teaching incorrect when it comes to direct digital capture? Perhaps more importantly, how many megapixels are needed for an extremely sharp 11x17 inch print? I realize there are other benefits to digital capture as it translates to printing, such as lack of grain, but sharpness is quite important to me as well. I would appreciate any help in how to look at this as I think about getting a digital body. Right now I am using a 1V and a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 Plus. A DS1 at 14 or so megapixels and full frame sensor is way too expensive for me...but if a new Canon EOS 3 type digital body were to come out I could see spending up to $2500 or so. Howard Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints
Sorry, there is no hard-and-fast print resolution answer--a lot of it depends on the subject matter. I've gotten 11x17's I was very happy with from my 4MP Olympus E-10. I've also gotten 8x10's that were awful, even though there were no actual problems like focus or noise. One example is people--a tight headshot is very tolerant of low resolution, because the details that drop out are things like individual hairs, things we don't have a huge objection to not seeing. 8x10s from my antique 1.4MP Sony DSC-770 look pretty good. On the opposite end of the spectrum is a group shot with 20 people. Here low resolution means faces with monotooth and missing nostrils and eye-whites--all things that are visually disturbing. 8x10s off my 4MP E-10 look awful, even 8x10s off of 35mm don't look that great, this is still the domain of MF. Comparing digicam pixels to scanner pixels is misleading because scanner pixels are second-generation--4000 scanner pixels=2700 digicam pixels seems empirically like a good approximation, but I don't have research to prove this. And comparing lines resolved between digicams and film is a little misleading anyway--digicam generally have pretty decent MTF right down to their theoretical limit, then fall off to zero. On film, the MTF starts to fall off sooner, but keeps going longer. Assuming 3 pixels/line pair, 300 dpi can resolve a hair under 4 lp/mm. 200 dpi is 2.6 lp/mm. Both well under the standards for a fine enlarger print of 6-8 lp/mm. The catch is that at the 3 lp/mm frequency, the 300 dpi digital probably has better MTF than the enlarger print, even though it loses the ultimate resolution battle. The reason you need 6-8 lp/mm from an enlarger print is not so much that you can actually see that resolution from a normal viewing distance, but that a 10% MTF at 6 lp/mm is a good predictor of a 80%+ MTF at 2-3 lp/mm, which is what really matters. Roger Krueger Eugene A La Lancette PhD MD wrote: 240 dpi is all that is needed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Pixels and Prints I suspect I will 'go digital' sometime in the next year or two. My question regards what type of print output quality I can expect from digital. I print on an Epson 2200 at sizes of up to 13x19 inches. In reality, I tend to leave an inch margin or so around the image, so lets say an image size of 11x17 inches. Conventional teaching with scans (and I suppose that this could be part of the answer..that the conventional holds with scans but not direct digital acquisition) is that for critical sharpness you should be able to send 300ppi to the printer. Say this is overkill and you really only need 250 ppi. By my calculations you would still need 11 megapixels fo an 11x17 image at 250ppi. Yet everyone raves at the output of even the Canon 10D at significantly less resolution. So is the conventional teaching incorrect when it comes to direct digital capture? Perhaps more importantly, how many megapixels are needed for an extremely sharp 11x17 inch print? I realize there are other benefits to digital capture as it translates to printing, such as lack of grain, but sharpness is quite important to me as well. I would appreciate any help in how to look at this as I think about getting a digital body. Right now I am using a 1V and a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 Plus. A DS1 at 14 or so megapixels and full frame sensor is way too expensive for me...but if a new Canon EOS 3 type digital body were to come out I could see spending up to $2500 or so. Howard 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: Pixels and Prints
on 10/21/03 2:04 AM, Eugene A La Lancette PhD MD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 240 dpi is all that is needed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Pixels and Prints I suspect I will 'go digital' sometime in the next year or two. My question regards what type of print output quality I can expect from digital. I print on an Epson 2200 at sizes of up to 13x19 inches. In reality, I tend to leave an inch margin or so around the image, so lets say an image size of 11x17 inches. Conventional teaching with scans (and I suppose that this could be part of the answer..that the conventional holds with scans but not direct digital acquisition) is that for critical sharpness you should be able to send 300ppi to the printer. Say this is overkill and you really only need 250 ppi. By my calculations you would still need 11 megapixels fo an 11x17 image at 250ppi. Yet everyone raves at the output of even the Canon 10D at significantly less resolution. So is the conventional teaching incorrect when it comes to direct digital capture? Perhaps more importantly, how many megapixels are needed for an extremely sharp 11x17 inch print? I realize there are other benefits to digital capture as it translates to printing, such as lack of grain, but sharpness is quite important to me as well. I would appreciate any help in how to look at this as I think about getting a digital body. Right now I am using a 1V and a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 Plus. A DS1 at 14 or so megapixels and full frame sensor is way too expensive for me...but if a new Canon EOS 3 type digital body were to come out I could see spending up to $2500 or so. Howard 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 I agree that 240ppi looks pretty darn good. I can get that scanning a 35mm neg with the Minolta Scan Dual II. I've printed 12x18 on 13x19 watercolor paper and it looks pretty fine. Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: connecting scanner to computer
Hi Austin, The SCSI cable on my flatbed scanner is 6' long, and it's never caused me a problem. I don't believe I've ever seen anything longer, however. Single ended SCSI, as most here will be using, is spec'd for up to 3 meters. Typically, in my experience, the main issue people have with SCSI is improper termination. 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: Pixels and Prints
Hi Bob, 240 dpi is not all that is needed..., because the Epson driver upsamples that (or any other dpi you send it) to 720 dpi (desktop printers), using Nearest Neighbour type upsampling. So 720 dpi is what is needed by the driver. Just a minor clarification...both of you really mean PPI, as in pixels per inch, which is what you send to the printer...you don't send dots to the printer, the printer, though, in our case, prints dots. 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: Pixels and Prints
Roger Krueger writes: Comparing digicam pixels to scanner pixels is misleading because scanner pixels are second-generation--4000 scanner pixels=2700 digicam pixels seems empirically like a good approximation, but I don't have research to prove this. My estimate is 4000 scanner pixels=2400 digicam pixels. Here's a scan (the left is an in focus scan and the right an out of focus scan of the same area) first straight, and then carefully downsampled to 2400 dpi. (Velvia 100F) http://www.pbase.com/image/22348855/original http://www.pbase.com/image/22348935/original And comparing lines resolved between digicams and film is a little misleading anyway--digicam generally have pretty decent MTF right down to their theoretical limit, then fall off to zero. On film, the MTF starts to fall off sooner, but keeps going longer. Assuming 3 pixels/line pair, 300 dpi can resolve a hair under 4 lp/mm. 200 dpi is 2.6 lp/mm. Both well under the standards for a fine enlarger print of 6-8 lp/mm. The catch is that at the 3 lp/mm frequency, the 300 dpi digital probably has better MTF than the enlarger print, even though it loses the ultimate resolution battle. The reason you need 6-8 lp/mm from an enlarger print is not so much that you can actually see that resolution from a normal viewing distance, but that a 10% MTF at 6 lp/mm is a good predictor of a 80%+ MTF at 2-3 lp/mm, which is what really matters. Agreed. This is, IMHO, exactly right. David J. Littleboy 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: Pixels and Prints
Roger, Comparing digicam pixels to scanner pixels is misleading because scanner pixels are second-generation--4000 scanner pixels=2700 digicam pixels seems empirically like a good approximation, but I don't have research to prove this. So what if it's second generation? Unless you can analyze the fidelity of it to make claims from, that's simply an argument that has no teeth. Fact is, digicam pixels have some %66 of the red, %66 of the blue and %50 of the green data interpolated. Scanned film data does not. It has all three color values as original information. So, second generation or not, the fidelity (which is what is important) of the data from scanned film far outweighs digicam data of the same resolution. How good the scanned data is, depends a lot on how good the original film image is, as well as how good the scanner/operator is. Not all scanners scan 4000 PPI the same. Even if you recorded Ozzie live with your 8 track tape recorder, my nth generation CD will have a far higher fidelity. 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: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Wed 22 Oct, 2003
Hi All, Just a note of appreciation for the quality content and positive tone of recent weeks. My thanks to Tony and all for the demonstration of support on this list. It appears that there is still much to share, discuss and to learn. Regards, Steve Dreiseszun Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints
Thats what I get for doing math late at night, my bad. - Original Message - From: Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 10:19 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints From: KARL SCHULMEISTERS Realistically, a 6mPixel camera is equiv to 4000dpi scan of 35mm film. Which generates some amazing images, but still doesn't quite match film when you enlarge it. 4000dpi comes out to about 4K by 6K, or 24M. A 6Mp camera is closer to a 2700dpi scanner. Save your pennies for when D1s technology makes it down to $2500, or get the 10D as a camera to use when you don't really intend to go much bigger than 8x10 That's only good advice if you're obsessive about sharpness, and intend to examine the prints with a loupe. Believe me, the 10D makes very nice 12x18 prints. -- 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 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints
Upsampling always results in some loss - it might be artifacts, it might be loss of tonal gradation. My math was late night error. My practical experience is that I have yet to see a digicam image of less than 10+mPixels that looks as good printed at 11x17 as 35mm scanned at 4000dpi printed to the same level. It might simply be that the regularity of digital artifacting is more noticeable than grain. It just doesn't look that good. And this includes images others have raved about. It may also be a matter of what you look for in an image and how experience/biased the viewing eye is. - Original Message - From: Bob Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:01 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints Eugene, 240 dpi is not all that is needed, because the Epson driver upsamples that (or any other dpi you send it) to 720 dpi (desktop printers), using Nearest Neighbour type upsampling. So 720 dpi is what is needed by the driver. The question is can you get better results by upsampling to 720dpi yourself (using QI for example that upsamples with various superior methods - bicubic, lanczos, vector, etc). You seem to be suggesting that you can't, but others suggest you can. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Eugene A La Lancette PhD MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] 240 dpi is all that is needed. 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
