Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/24

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled
From: bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)
Date: Wed Nov 24 06:04:58 2004

Actually, Simon, I don't, because for all our back and forth about the
uses of Leica equipment, your fascination with things such as micro
detail, etc., you certainly have a better handle than I on the ultimate
capability of the lenses. :-)

-----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 5:09 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled


Yes from what i found and thought looked thorough they do.
They also seem to agree that the other qualities of the leica lenses do
show things like brilliance whatever i,m sure u know that a lot better
then i do.

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 s.jessurun95 at chello.nl (animal) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)