Hi David,
How can a scanner have superior spectral response to a Bayer camera?
Unless all the sensors seen the same thing, they aren't seeing the same
thing. In a Bayer pattern sensor, each sensing element is seeing
different
light, unless there is a filter over the sensing elements that
From: Austin Franklin
Lower noise? What you are calling lower noise is dubious. Perceived
lower noise does not mean higher fidelity. How do you know it's lower
noise? Have you actually done a comparison of it to the original image
scene to see what was noise and what was not? The Bayer
isn't supported by the math or
by visual inspection.
- Original Message -
From: David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:43 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think you've
Karl writes,
But the claim that a 10D is better than film isn't supported
by the math or by visual inspection
That wasn't my claim: my claim was that 900x900 pixels of a 1Ds image look a
lot better than 900x900 pixels of a 4000 dpi scanned image if you print them
at the same size. Please don't
Hi Paul,
Lower noise? What you are calling lower noise is dubious. Perceived
lower noise does not mean higher fidelity. How do you know it's lower
noise? Have you actually done a comparison of it to the original image
scene to see what was noise and what was not? The Bayer pattern
my claim was that 900x900 pixels of a 1Ds
image look a
lot better than 900x900 pixels of a 4000 dpi scanned image if you
print them
at the same size.
David,
Your terms are amorphous. looks a lot better in what regard? What may
look a lot better to you, or to anyone else, may not look a
From: Austin Franklin
Blue sky is hardly noiseless. That doesn't mean that there can't be other
sources of noise, some more significant than others, of course, but to
assume that there is simply no noise in a blue sky is, IMO, a bad
assumption. Do you have any actual data to back up this
Hi Paul,
when you look at the sky, you don't.
How do you know you don't?
But the point is that
the amount
of noise you get in the digital image depends upon the hardware, so it
obviously can't all be actual noise coming from the sky. My old
DiMage 7 is
_very_ noisy, even at ISO 100. My
From: Austin Franklin
How do you know you don't?
I dunno. How do I know this isn't all a dream?
But that doesn't mean that every combination of film/scanner has
noticeable
noise generated by these things in sky regions.
I assume drum scanners do much better, but they're a heck of a lot
This discussions seems to have turned into how many pixels can dance
on the head of a pen or as Brian Eno put it long ago: the heuristics
of the mystics. Might I suggest that those of us who want to continue
the discussion do so privately?
Ellis Vener
Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to
Hi Paul,
But that doesn't mean that every combination of film/scanner has
noticeable
noise generated by these things in sky regions.
I assume drum scanners do much better, but they're a heck of a lot more
expensive than a Canon Digital Rebel.
As do high end CCD scanneras as well, and
Hi David,
How can a scanner have superior spectral response to a Bayer camera?
Unless all the sensors seen the same thing, they aren't seeing the same
thing. In a Bayer pattern sensor, each sensing element is seeing different
light, unless there is a filter over the sensing elements that
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How can a scanner have superior spectral response to a Bayer camera?
Unless all the sensors seen the same thing, they aren't seeing the same
thing. In a Bayer pattern sensor, each sensing element is seeing different
light, unless there is a filter
I'm guessing here, based upon what seems logical to me. I'm sure Austin
knows a lot more about this stuff than I.
Here's my best guess: I assume the sensor element responds as a unique
unit, at the moment it gathers the light information, so I also assume
it responds in some manner by generating
Yes, you are correct.
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This didn't start out as a film vs digital comparison but a scanned film
vs digital one.
So both images have hard pixels.
Unsubscribe by mail to
] Behalf Of Darrell
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Hi all
Good question Laurie. I see you have asked it several times. The one about
what the printer does with the binary data you send it. I vaguely recalled
seeing
Of LAURIE SOLOMON
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Thanks Darrell!
The link does offer some good information on the subject and does help
answer some of the questions - even the recent one involving the 240ppi vrs
720 ppi
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because that's a different question. Someone argued that scanners produce
better quality pixels because they measure all RGB, and I'm pointing out
that this is wrong because scanned pixels are, in fact, worse than digital
camera pixels.
It's not
have. The imact of the latter would be of a different type and
nature.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Darrell
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 12:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
I also suspect
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
I also suspect that the printer driver will always touch the binary data
flow.
I am not sure that is in question. What may be in question
Hi David,
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because that's a different question. Someone argued that
scanners produce
better quality pixels because they measure all RGB, and I'm
pointing out
that this is wrong because scanned pixels are, in fact, worse
than digital
camera
David J. Littleboy wrote:
The question is what the cutoff point is. It looks to me that 35mm film is
worth about 9MP, not 24MP. Most people comparing the 1Ds to 35mm film find
the 1Ds winning hands down. There is a question as to how much more
information a 5080 dpi scanner gets out of a
Art, Austin, et al.,
Does a sensor 'average' the light falling on it, or does it use some other
mathematical function?
Bob Frost.
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, within its resolution, it accurately represents the average
hue and luminosity that the
Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a question as to how much more
information a 5080 dpi scanner gets out of a 35mm frame than a 4000 dpi
scanner. I suspect that it's not enough of a difference to be significant.
I think this is probably true, due to the cutoff of the human eye
: [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
Hi David,
Because that's a different question. Someone argued that scanners produce
better quality pixels because they measure all RGB, and I'm pointing out
that this is wrong because scanned pixels are, in fact, worse than digital
camera pixels.
It's not wrong. If you are talking image
, October 23, 2003 12:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
From: LAURIE SOLOMON
We may be miscommunicating. The native optical resolution of my Umax
PowerLook III is 1200 ppi and for my film scanner around 2780 ppi for 35mm
and 1100 for 120 films
I'm curious what your ppi is when you print to that 13 x 19? It's got to
be in the low 100's.
-Bill
I'm very sure!
The Pro 70 was the first consumer digicam with CFII and hence Microdrive
compatibility, it's that old :-)
It has a great lens and RAW capability so can dodge JPEG artifacts
I'm very sure!
The Pro 70 was the first consumer digicam with CFII and hence Microdrive
compatibility, it's that old :-)
It has a great lens and RAW capability so can dodge JPEG artifacts
altogether.
I know it's pushing the accepted wisdom, but people have mistaken the
pictures for
This didn't start out as a film vs digital comparison but a scanned film
vs digital one.
So both images have hard pixels.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arthur Entlich)
wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
The question is what the cutoff point is. It looks to me that 35mm
From: Bob Frost
Does a sensor 'average' the light falling on it, or does it use some other
mathematical function?
Yes. However, there are spaces between the sensor elements, and it's
desireable to capture the light that would fall there. In addition, you
don't want the capture area of each
Laurie,
I thought I had read somewhere that if you send images to the Epson driver
with dpi that are larger than its native dpi (360/720) it simply discards
rows of pixels as scanners often do, rather than downsample them by any
interpolation method.
Bob Frost.
- Original Message -
So a 1.68M pixel camera for a 13 x 19 image is not pushing the
envelope,
it's simply not believable.
Just for the record, I did not say that a 1.68M pixel camera for a 13 x
19 image is pushing the envelope: I said that it was pushing the
envelope to print a 13 x 9 inch print from a 1-2
Austin,
Surely you can; it just isn't 'original' detail. But to anyone who hadn't
seen the original detail, it might look just as good. After all, people pay
millions for artists' representations of original detail, so why shouldn't a
digicam representation of original detail make a good picture.
Hi Bob,
Of course, you can make up anything in an image that you want...you can put
a soldier pointing a gun at a man with a child, but what's important is that
anything you simply make up isn't original. I don't know of any programs
that create new detail (automatically that is) where none
And just where would you put Ansel Adam's highly manipulated images in this
scheme of things?
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest'
Hi Austin,
And just where would you put Ansel Adam's highly manipulated
images in this
scheme of things?
Er, as highly manipulated images ;-)
Regards,
Austin
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
I already pointed out that I was talking about A3+ pictures, so the size
is in inches.
I also didn't use any pre-print rescaling as I still believe the printer
driver has the best information available to interpolate with knowledge of
where it is going to dither.
Also you haven't specified what
Bob,
If true than I would think that this would be something important to
know and play an important role in how one approaches things. I would
have thought that to maintain quality output, they would have selected
to design the printers to resample rather than merely discard pixels in
an
does seem to make a difference.
Darrell
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Laurie Solomon
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 5:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
Bob,
If true than I would think
Austin,
I know, but I've lapsed into using the same terms as most other people (you
excepted). It gets painful banging your head against a brick wall after a
while. Same with metamerism; hardly anyone uses it correctly, so after a
while you just 'go with the flow'.
Bob Frost.
- Original
All the more reason to insure that your P/D converter card is in tip top
shape.
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as
Karl,
I think you've missed my point. All images, whatever their ppi (correct this
time, Austin), printed on Epson inkjets are upsampled by the Epson driver,
unless they are already at the ppi which the driver requires (360ppi for
wideformat printers and 720ppi for desktop printers) whether you
Hi Bob,
I think you've missed my point. All images, whatever their ppi
(correct this
time, Austin)
I'm flattered, Bob ;-)
, printed on Epson inkjets are upsampled by the Epson driver,
unless they are already at the ppi which the driver requires (360ppi for
wideformat printers and 720ppi
O.K., you win. I had to look that one up. :-0
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [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
, October 21, 2003 9:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
From: LAURIE SOLOMON
Based on the discussion, an interesting question is raised. Since
720 ppi is
needed by the printer driver for a desktop printer and 360 ppi for a wide
format printer, is it better to send the printer files with less
than 320 or
720 ppi and let it upsample the image or
Of course each pixel of a scanned film has all three colours faithfully
reproduced.
The interesting question though is what that pixels's actual colour was?
Unlike a camera, a film scan records something that has already been
sampled into RGB, that's what film does!
Yes the film grain is much
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course each pixel of a scanned film has all three colours faithfully
reproduced.
The interesting question though is what that pixels's actual colour was?
Unlike a camera, a film scan records something that has already been
sampled into RGB, that's what film does!
It is very simple Paul; if you scan an image or film frame at 1200 ppi
or above and do not down sample in PS or another editing program but
send it on to the printer, you will be faced with this choice. It is
only if you DO resample downward in this case would you not be faced
with the chouce.
Hi David,
Then there's the reality check of actually looking at film scans and
actually looking at some digital camera images and seeing how
they compare.
If one actually did that, one would see that, on a pixel-for-pixel basis
(that is, comparing the same number of pixels), film scans are
From: Laurie Solomon
It is very simple Paul; if you scan an image or film frame at 1200 ppi
or above and do not down sample in PS or another editing program but
send it on to the printer, you will be faced with this choice. It is
only if you DO resample downward in this case would you not
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then there's the reality check of actually looking at film scans and
actually looking at some digital camera images and seeing how
they compare.
If one actually did that, one would see that, on a pixel-for-pixel basis
(that is, comparing the same
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:29:05 -0400, Austin Franklin wrote:
An excellent point, one I'd like to hear more results from. I have heard,
but have not tried, of people doing this. The claims I heard were that the
image was improved...but of course, that's subjective, and will be quite
image
I'm with Austin on this one...
Yes, the scanner would be hard pressed to fully accurately represent
every grain (dye cloud) unless if was extremely high resolution.
However, within its resolution, it accurately represents the average
hue and luminosity that the film represents in that pixel
Hi David,
I think you've misunderstood what I've said. Take a 900 x 900 pixel crop
from your 5080 dpi scan and print it at 3x3 inches. Take a
900x900 crop from
a 10D image and print it at 3x3 inches. Which looks better?
That depends, and I am curious why you think that is of any value? If a
Now wait a minute here...
If I am not mistaken in one case you are taking a 900 x 900 pixel sample
from a 3000 x 2000 pixel (approximately) dimensioned image. In the
other case, you are taking the same 900 x 900 pixel section from a 5080
x 5080 (or there about) pixel image, which is considerably
Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I am not mistaken in one case you are taking a 900 x 900 pixel sample
from a 3000 x 2000 pixel (approximately) dimensioned image. In the
other case, you are taking the same 900 x 900 pixel section from a 5080
x 5080 (or there about) pixel image, which
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think you've misunderstood what I've said. Take a 900 x 900 pixel crop
from your 5080 dpi scan and print it at 3x3 inches. Take a
900x900 crop from
a 10D image and print it at 3x3 inches. Which looks better?
That depends,
It doesn't depend. I've
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul D. DeRocco
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
From: Laurie Solomon
It is very simple Paul; if you scan an image or film frame at 1200 ppi
or above and do not down sample in PS
From: LAURIE SOLOMON
We may be miscommunicating. The native optical resolution of my Umax
PowerLook III is 1200 ppi and for my film scanner around 2780 ppi for 35mm
and 1100 for 120 films. If, for the sake of the argument, I
want the size
of the image to be 1:1 at those resolutions, I
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
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
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
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],
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
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
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
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:
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,
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
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
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.
- 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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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
- Original Message -
From: Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 7:14 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE
Karl,
Realistically, a 6mPixel camera is equiv to 4000dpi scan of 35mm film.
Where on earth do you get that idea? Basicall, your claim is simply not
even close.
Regards,
Austin
Unsubscribe by mail to
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
79 matches
Mail list logo
