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: Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie)
Date: Tue Nov 23 13:43:56 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>

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
>


Replies: Reply from s.jessurun95 at chello.nl (animal) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
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)