Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled
From: s.jessurun95 at chello.nl (animal)
Date: Tue Nov 23 14:05:55 2004
References: <BDC68D10.AC9E%mark@rabinergroup.com><341A7A4E-3C2F-11D9-AE5E-00306599C552@earthlink.net><20041122025039.5953.qmail@balhpl01.ncable.net.au><E4E2FBC6-3CE4-11D9-885D-000A95C33F68@dodo.com.au><E8ABD80C-3D1F-11D9-B715-0003938C439E@btinternet.com><009201c4d193$eb19f0c0$4649c33e@marvin><1F299A0B-3D93-11D9-9CF0-0003938C439E@btinternet.com><013b01c4d1a4$515fa180$4649c33e@marvin> <F0CA86A6-3D98-11D9-A247-0003938C439E@btinternet.com>

Sorry 8000 is it faster then a 4000?
good point ofcourse they are.
I reasoned when i ordered the digital back for the r that 10 mp would be
enough with a telelens
i wonder if the 16mp Canon will have a lot of succes.
my sport pro friends all get one but i wonder if  the results look different
with fast action we,ll see.
Yes i got a Sinar for that reason .
But i can carry a Leica with a summicron and a Gitzo around town a lot
better
tha(e?)n the big one.
simon

> Mine is an 8000 not a 5000. I think the studios going 22 megapixel are
> replacing medium format not 35mm. It is true that a Leica on a tripod
> gets more resolution than my digital SLR but if I want high resolution
> and am prepared to carry a tripod I use a Rolleiflex!
> Frank
>
> On 23 Nov, 2004, at 21:35, animal wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from feli2 at earthlink.net (Feli di Giorgio) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from firkin at balhpl01.ncable.net.au (firkin) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from rdcb37 at dodo.com.au (Rick Dykstra) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from s.jessurun95 at chello.nl (animal) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from s.jessurun95 at chello.nl (animal) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)