Re: [Leica] Re: [LUG] Digital storage??? and delurk

[Steve Hickel <smhickel@x2.alliance.net>]

Sean,

I went to LV's Comdex, the great computer show. I saw a dye-sub printer
from Alps for 899, a fuji silver halide printer for 23K, the new Cannon
Aspen printer, not yet available, that will do 11X14 ink jet prints and
will sell for around 1500. I saw Olympus slide scanners, flat bed film and
slide scanners, I saw digital cameras. I queeried everyone on the
technology to produce museum quality prints with film and digital cameras.
What I came away with was that digital cameras didn't have the resolution
and wouldn't for a few years yet to capture what fuji velvia can. Then the
issue of lens resolution and ccd density came up. I concluded that
retrofits CCD back on the likes of Nikon and Leica cameras to use the
existing glass inventories might be years away as the IBM's and other CCD
folks aren't developing to that market. The form factor of existing CCD
chips fits better into the current array of digital camera point and shoot
types currently being marketed. We may eventually see some high end camera
manufacturers come out with special lines of digital cameras and
interchangeable lenses but I think this is three years out or more before
we see affordable (under $5k) equivalents to leica and nikon f5's and lens
inventories to rival what is available for film-based high-end cameras. 

The issue of digital output rivaling film output is there now! The problem
is cost. I concluded that to get it the sequence of technology is thus:

traditional film output, eg. Leica with good film --> high-end digital
scanner --> digital storage --> software, e.g. photoshop (the new darkroom)
- -->  output device capable of creating desired result (see printers above). 

I looked carefully, including a loop at some, at the prints from the above
printers. The fuji highend film printer was the best by far. The Aspen was
next, the Alps dye-sub printer was next, the Epson Photo Stylus, was ok,
but not as good as the others. Within one year we will have affordable
technology that will be better than CibaChrome, but not probably as good as
that Fuji for under 5000 and allow 11x14 or larger prints. 

I decided to wait on getting any printer yet. I earmarked the Cannon Aspen
to look at further when it is out. I poo-pooed the Epson Photo-Stylus for
now because the next generation is soon coming out. I came home and bought
an M6, in face of APS and digital cameras because I felt 35mm film would be
here for years in face of the CCD and lens issue wasn't even close to being
resolved. I am watching the film scanner technology closely and waiting for
the price to become reasonable. We ARE close though to the
film-->digital-->printer darkroom that is "good enough" for the most
discerning eyes. Very close. The bottlenecks remain the printer as I
believe film and storage, software, and scanners can be affordably
obtained, it is the printers that are just now coming on line that allow us
to finally put the enlarger and wet-darkroom onto a centronic port of a
computer, i.e. the high-end color printer at affordable prices. The next
two years will show us the way.

Anyway, do keep up this discussion because I am looking forward to taking
photographs with my M6 and using the darkroom of the future.

At 11:26 PM 12/1/97 -0800, you wrote:
>> Hello all
>
>This is a first post so a small intro, (didn't get around to that roll
>call!) my name is Sean Murphy-live in Vancouver Washington. Third owner
>of a beautiful IIIc kit (lenses filters cool accessories all from the
>same period - that's a story for later). We had our first baby this year
>so I got a Minilux. Its all the new Leica I could afford; as I was
>spoiled by that Leica glass, and the IIIc is to slow to catch a 10 month
>old in action!  The the IIIc and the Minilux both have Summarit formulas
>(1.5/50 and 2.4/40) and its almost the same form factor. Best of all my
>wife can shoot with it too!
>
>I work as Director of Technology at a Pre Press systems integrator based
>in Portland Oregon, which has over the years, given me access to the
>best scanners, ink jet, dye sub, imagesetters, digital cameras, software
>etc... I've scanned Kodachrome 25 from my IIc on 8000+ dpi scanners for
>instance. I thought I would mention a few thing here and if any are
>interested, I''ll keep posting on the subject. After all it is a Leica
>not a digital imaging list!
>
>Some of the posts in this thread mention storage, size, resolution and
>line screens when scanning and printing images. When scanning with a
>8000+ (some go to 14000 or 16000) all that resolution is used for
>scaling, not just detail capture. An 8000 dpi drum scanner is capable of
>a 26x enlargment with enough detail to print a 200 line sceen @ 8x10 on
>a high resolution device. This is enough to scan down to the grain of
>many 35mm films and is the reason that most pro shoots for scanning are
>done 4x5, it is easier to get to a larger print with out so much
>enlargement.
>
>As one post stated, this is enough to enlarge a 35mm to 30x36 way past
>the point where grain becomes apparent (ask me about "oil mounting" of
>transparencies sometime). This is assuming that the output device has
>the ability to render the dyanamic range of the scanner (measured in
>bits per pixel, 8,10,12,16). This is where is see the most confusion in
>the posts I see. When you are talking halftone dots like in magazine
>printing (lpi), then there is a mathematical relationship between output
>resolution (dpi) and tonality. To get greater dynamic range (tonality),
>then you need more resolution, at higher halftone dots per inch; say 200
>linescreen limited edition prints, you would want to output at 4000 dpi.
>If you output device is "continous-tone" ie dyesub or ink jet, you can
>get away with less output resolution as you are not making halftone
>dots. I have an Epson 800 that I have output Leica transparencies sanned
>on 100K drum scanners that have made pro that I respect alot say "that
>was a computer printer!?" Garbage in garbage out ya know!
>
>I could go on but I won't unlees there is more interest, this all
>confirms that it would take about a $25-35K dollar scanner at today's
>technology to really match what a Leica can capture in terms of
>resolution and fidelity.
>A the pace of imaging tech it will be about 4 - 5 years before that
>comes down to Leica pricing!
> 
>
>Thanks for tech tolerance!
> 
>
>Sean
>
>
>