Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The reason most studios are using the 22 mp backs has to do with the fact that they are trying to replicate fine grain 2 1/4 and 4x5 film with digital... As to what Mr. Puts stated...many a naked eye can't tell the difference between a negative or image produced with a Leica lens and a top quality Canon or Nikon lens, so why should a scanner? And do other reviewers/critics make the same statement, or only those who, like Mr. Puts, do contract work for Leica? ;-) -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of animal Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 4:35 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled Thanks for your quick reply. The reason i asked is that most sources say that 4000 is not enough for maximum resolution. I believe reading somewhere mr. Puts stated that a 4000 dpi scanner is not even able to show the difference in resolution between a leica lens or anyother big name brand . The only film i scanned without a lot of noise on my scanner was techpan sofar.Going to attempt copex this week. I have seen scans from the latest Epson flatbed that look about the same as mine on the Nikon but with 4 strips at once.And 4 large format negs.That should save a lot of time. Is your 5000 a lot faster then the 4000? I agree ,again from crude tests that 10 mp should have more or less the same resolution for handheld shots with longer lenses. But on a tripod and with a high end scanner that cannot be so. Why else would most studios that have gone digital use 22 Mp backs? Best simon jessurun,amsterdam > Hi Simon, > I scan at the native resolution of my Nikon 8000 scanner, 4000dpi. At > this scan rate I get pretty hideous grain aliasing on fast print film > but nice scans from slides. The 8000 produced noticeably better scans > than the 4000 which has nominally the same spec. I have no idea why. > The biggest prints I have from digital are A3 plus. Frank > > On 23 Nov, 2004, at 19:37, animal wrote: > > > I,m curious what scanner did you use and and at what > > resolutions(which?)? Crude tests i did show that my scanner (nikon) > > is not able to get all detail > > out of slide or fine grained film. > > The detail i can see on a lightbox with a high powered loupe thingy. > > The noise i get when scanning at high resolutions is not visible in > > the film > > . > > best,simon jessurun,amsterdam > > > >> The thing is Rick the fact that you have scanned the film at > >> 6144x4096 pixels does not mean that there is meaningful data at > >> this resolution. In absurdam if the frame was a uniform colour a > >> scan of 1 pixel and a scan of 6144x4096 pixels will contain the > >> same data and would be equivalent. I have not found 35mm print film > >> to have more data on it than my 6 megapixel Canon, whatever scan > >> resolution I chose to use. My scans from > >> slides have been better but not hugely so. > >> I am entirely prepared to believe, based on my own experience of > >> prints > >> from scanned 35mm film and digital SLRs that the 10megapixel R back > >> will equal 35mm film in resolution. I have heard all the pseudo > >> technical absurdities about huge sampling rates but none of it > >> actually > >> agrees with my actual experience of producing my own prints. > >> Frank > >> > >> > >> On 23 Nov, 2004, at 00:16, Rick Dykstra wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Alistair. You've posed exactly the question I've asked of > >>> Leica, though no response yet. > >>> > >>> The lab I use does high end scans (though not the highest - were > >>> not talking drum scans here) which are 6144 x 4096 pixels and > >>> around 75 to 100 MB in size (depending on the variety of colours I > >>> suppose). I get > >>> these printed to 20 x 30 inch. The DMR sensor is 3872 x 2576. So > >>> how > >>> can this sensor make images reproduced at 20 x 30 in of the same > >>> clarity as film scanned to 6144 x 4096? And I could get these > >>> trannies drum scanned to even higher standards. > >>> > >>> I'm not knocking the DMR - I want one or two - but will it be as > >>> good as my Velvia? I can't see how. Again, not necessarily a > >>> problem, I just need to know before I spend the money. :-) I've > >>> also heard it will be upgradeable and that's good. Any comments > >>> on this? > >>> > >>> Rick Dykstra, Australia > >>> > >>> > >>> On 22/11/2004, at 1:50 PM, firkin wrote: > >>> > >>>> Feli di Giorgio writes: > >>>>> I would be very happy with a 10-12MP full frame camera. > >>>>> Manageable file sizes, DOF of a 135, low noise at high ASA, due > >>>>> to the large size of individual receptors. I really don't need > >>>>> 20MP for what I do... > >>>> > >>>> The immediate question is what do you do that requires 10 to 12. > >>>> I mean this seriously, not as a jibe or insult. My mind tell me > >>>> that 10 to 12 seems about right, because I suspect (never tried > >>>> and therefore > >>>> don't know) that you could print 16 x 20 at about this level with > >>>> 35mm happiness. Barry Thornton claimed that only really "lucky" good > >>>> 35mm negs could produce "perfect" images larger than about 10 x 14 > >>>> (I > >>>> think) I remember thinking "I've got larger ones" but then thinking > >>>> but they are not all "perfect", so he may be right. > >>>> Like many, I suspect I've been too worried about making big > >>>> enlargements, when smaller well crafted images would be "better" and > >>>> store much more easily !!!!! > >>>> This brings me back to my nagging question; will todays good film > >>>> scanners "match" a 10 mega pixel dedicated digital camera when you > >>>> view moderately large images side by side? > >>>> Alastair Firkin @ work ;-) > >>>> http://www.afirkin.com > >>>> http://www.familyofman2.com > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Leica Users Group. > >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Leica Users Group. > >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > >>> information > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > >> information > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information