![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
2 Questions here, I tried the scanner groups and got no answer - since
it's primarily M?F I'm looking at I wonder if you guys have any answers? I have taken on board the understanding that the A/D specification is an indicator of the *potential* Dmax of a scanner given the CCD is good enough to supply sufficient data to the ADC. No makers ever seem to give an actual measured Dmax, they just give 12/14/16bit x 3 as an indicator of potential dynamic range. Apart from trying several scanners for myself and also taking price as a sort of indicator of CCD quality, how do I know which scanners are going to make the best of my slides? An obvious problem is going to be my habit of trying to take pics when the brightness range is way too great to get good highlight and shadow detail on the film, let alone on on a scan.I'm trying to kick this habit but in the meantime I have some very difficult but potentially rewarding slides to scan. I see some good close out deals on the Minolta scan multi II. How much difference would I see in A3 prints for the 12 bit A/D compared with the 16 bit A/D of the Scan multi pro or the 14 bit of the Microtek Artixscan 120TF? Resolution isn't an issue as I'm scanning medium format for A3 prints. Looking for scans at least comparable with those I'm getting from 35mm on the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED. Thanks Rod Weed my email address to reply http://website.lineone.net/~rodcraddock/index.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: Rod
I have taken on board the understanding that the A/D specification is an indicator of the *potential* Dmax of a scanner given the CCD is good enough to supply sufficient data to the ADC. No makers ever seem to give an actual measured Dmax, they just give 12/14/16bit x 3 as an indicator of potential dynamic range. Apart from trying several scanners for myself and also taking price as a sort of indicator of CCD quality, how do I know which scanners are going to make the best of my slides? Best to either try out the best models (hard to do) or see if someone will do sample scans for you (I've done that a few times for people I know) or look at samples of the same image scanned with different scanners, like here ... nothing like looking at actual files to help you make up your mind. http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM An obvious problem is going to be my habit of trying to take pics when the brightness range is way too great to get good highlight and shadow detail on the film, let alone on on a scan. If the film won't hold the dynamic range then it just gets worse when you scan. I see some good close out deals on the Minolta scan multi II. How much difference would I see in A3 prints for the 12 bit A/D compared with the 16 bit A/D of the Scan multi pro or the 14 bit of the Microtek Artixscan 120TF? Probably none in real life, assuming the color rendition was similar and the rez was similar (I think the Artisan is a 4,000 dpi scanner, the Minolta is 3,200 x 4,800 so you have to resample to get the same or higher rez). Looking for scans at least comparable with those I'm getting from 35mm on the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED. Look at the Nikon 8000 or 9000 too then, since you'll already be familiar with the software. Many people (me included) would choose the Nikon over either the Minolta Multi or the Artisan (which is a re-branded Polaroid). Bill |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Rod wrote:
... No makers ever seem to give an actual measured Dmax, they just give 12/14/16bit x 3 as an indicator of potential dynamic range. That's the problem. Some people claim that in real life you can't get even ten bits of real data. The rest are thermal noise. You could try to find actual test reports from the 'net... ... How much difference would I see in A3 prints for the 12 bit A/D compared with the 16 bit A/D of the Scan multi pro or the 14 bit of the Microtek Artixscan 120TF? Depends on the picture. The bits become important, if there are gradual colours, or if you tweak the curves too much. Smooth surfaces are made of stripes, defined by the pixels where the least significant bit flips. -- Lassi |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 26 May 2004 18:36:43 +0100, Rod
wrote: I see some good close out deals on the Minolta scan multi II. How much difference would I see in A3 prints for the 12 bit A/D compared with the 16 bit A/D of the Scan multi pro or the 14 bit of the Microtek Artixscan 120TF? Resolution isn't an issue as I'm scanning medium format for A3 prints. Looking for scans at least comparable with those I'm getting from 35mm on the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED. Get the LS-9000 and be done with it. It's at least as good as the LS-8000, and available new at 2/3 the price I paid for mine three years ago. By any measure, the LS-8000 (and presumably the 9000) is one of the sharpest CCD scanners available. Or get a preowned or refurb 8000 on eBay, typically $1K these days. The film scanner is as important (to the image) as the camera and film that made the image in the first place. Not a good place to skimp. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You know, you could consider making or getting a nice print made of your
keepers, and then just scanning the print. Even a very cheap flatbed can do that nicely. That way, you have the print which you can mount and display, and you can show it on the web or whatever, and you don't have to spend $1000 on a peripheral that is quickly superceded by better models. Pete "Raphael Bustin" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 May 2004 18:36:43 +0100, Rod wrote: I see some good close out deals on the Minolta scan multi II. How much difference would I see in A3 prints for the 12 bit A/D compared with the 16 bit A/D of the Scan multi pro or the 14 bit of the Microtek Artixscan 120TF? Resolution isn't an issue as I'm scanning medium format for A3 prints. Looking for scans at least comparable with those I'm getting from 35mm on the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED. Get the LS-9000 and be done with it. It's at least as good as the LS-8000, and available new at 2/3 the price I paid for mine three years ago. By any measure, the LS-8000 (and presumably the 9000) is one of the sharpest CCD scanners available. Or get a preowned or refurb 8000 on eBay, typically $1K these days. The film scanner is as important (to the image) as the camera and film that made the image in the first place. Not a good place to skimp. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 27 May 2004 11:58:24 GMT, "Pete" wrote:
You know, you could consider making or getting a nice print made of your keepers, and then just scanning the print. Even a very cheap flatbed can do that nicely. That way, you have the print which you can mount and display, and you can show it on the web or whatever, and you don't have to spend $1000 on a peripheral that is quickly superceded by better models. Pete A print has less dynamic range by far than either a negative or a chrome. Information (tonal range) will be lost making the print. Working from the original is always better. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Raphael Bustin" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 May 2004 11:58:24 GMT, "Pete" wrote: You know, you could consider making or getting a nice print made of your keepers, and then just scanning the print. Even a very cheap flatbed can do that nicely. That way, you have the print which you can mount and display, and you can show it on the web or whatever, and you don't have to spend $1000 on a peripheral that is quickly superceded by better models. Pete A print has less dynamic range by far than either a negative or a chrome. Information (tonal range) will be lost making the print. Working from the original is always better. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com You don't think you can get a good scan from a 5x7 or better print? The things that film scanners bring us are really only of use if we intend to print the scanned file on a computer printer. Of course, it's better to scan the original negative if the idea is to "work" on it and print from it, but if the intention is merely to show the photo on the web, scanning a nice conventional print is more than good enough, and you don't have to keep up with the Jones's in terms of scanners. Pete |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Pete wrote:
You don't think you can get a good scan from a 5x7 or better print? [...] What's good? Compared to a scan done from film, a print scan is not good, no. And that does show when the scanned image is used only on computer displays. That's not to say that you can't use scans made from prints. They're just not as good. Yet lacking a comparison... ;-) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks guys,
After spending a long time going around this in ever decreasing circles, I decided (with the help of my resident financial adviser) to just be happy with the m/f slides and get myself a few each year of the best images printed by a good pro lab. After all the wall space in our house is limited ;-) That way even ten years down the line they will be scanned by the best scanners available at the time. If I want digital output for the web or for recording what we're doing at work I will go there directly by way of the Fuji S2 pro I've ordered. When all's said and done no print is ever going to get near those 6x7 slides. Rod Weed my email address to reply http://website.lineone.net/~rodcraddock/index.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 94 | June 23rd 04 05:17 AM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner | bleanne | APS Photographic Equipment | 1 | November 27th 03 07:34 AM |