Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 >