megapixel equivalent of 35mm scanned at 4800 dpi ?

Sander Vesik wrote:


This is not multi-image abveraging. For that you take say three shots of
the same thing, scan the results and then merge them. This reduces noise
from grain - multipass scanning only reduces noise from scanning process.

Noise is noise. In both cases however, if there is registration
error in the scanner, then there is also a bit of
averaging/smearing between pixels ... which gives the appearance
of noise reduction. As the scanner and Photoshop (or equiv.) do
these differently, the result will likely appear different.

--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Subject: megapixel equivalent of 35mm scanned at 4800 dpi ?
From: (Leonhard Pang)
Date: Tue, Jun 22, 2004 12:19 AM
Message-id:

(Chris Brown) wrote in
:
But neither is film equal to 'retail b&W/c41/e6 process films'.
Specialty engineered films which have resolution far excess of that
exist

Splendid!

Shoot away on those to your heart's content, then scan them at 4800
dpi with a 4870.


The Epson 4870 has only a effectiv resolution of 1700x1600 dpi!

Forget the 4800 dpi. If you really want to scan a slides with 4800 dpi
you need to get the Minolta Elite 5400, which has 5000x4000 dpi.

-Leonhard



To the OP/many others on this thread:

..."now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall"...

Is there no resolution to resolution?

Does (pixels/numbers) counting have no end? ;-)

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin or a pixel? ... a sensor
(CMOS/CCD Bayer or Foveon)?

Does anybody realise what a serious waste of time counting dots (pixels) is?
Use whatever works for your look (quality characteristics/rendition), level of
acceptable (or excelent) quality and for whatever print size you might expect
to use it at.

Arguing is not going to change preferences or expectation, experience will. Get
some large blow ups made from film and DSLR to whatever print size you prefer
and compare/decide for yourself.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled standard level of chatter/boredom
:-).

One megapixel...

Two Megapixels...

Three...

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Correction:

Oh, yeah, meant to write:

"now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall" from the song
"A Day In The Life", album "Seargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"

© 1967 Lennon & McCartney

All Rights Reserved

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

"Leonhard Pang" wrote in message
...
(Skip M) wrote in
kwOBc.27854$0z6.26499@fed1read07:

[snip]
That only supposes that digital cameras, particularly DSLRs, stay in the
vicinity of 6 mp. The Canon 1D mkII, Canon 1Ds and Kodak twins DCS
Pro/n and /c are already beyond that threshold, and there's no real
indication that sensor development for prosumer cameras won't advance to
that level too.

As if Megapixel is everything. The whole system has to be looked at. The
limiting factor will be very soon the optic. Megapix as digits doesn't say
much. You need to know, how big the sensor is, then you will know how many
lpi it has. And that is what counts (resolution wise).

-Leonhard

--
Leonhard Pang
http://www.steimann.li/

True, and if the optics are the limiting factor, I'd rather have the choice
of lenses from Canon, Tamron, Tokina and Sigma rather than be limited to
buying my lenses from one manufacturer, and one that doesn't make a full
line, at that...
And, all things being equal, the megapixel is what counts, since that is
what produces output.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

(Sabineellen) wrote in message
please tell me what makes you happy with your purchase, i'm considering this
scanner but i'm leaning more towards film scanners instead.

I've had a 4870 for 3 months now. As an amateur photographer I'm
digitizing my archives. I've done 5000+ scans until now. This is what
makes me happy :
1. it scans *everything* : 120 rollfilm, 135 film, 4x4 slides,
photo's, ... In other words : _all_ formats I have in my archives. The
only alternative to that is a much more expensive (and I agree also
better) Nikon Coolscan 9000 + some good flatbed scanner (an Epson 4870
? - why not) to scan the very old family photos of which the negs have
gone lost.
2. it has ICE. Don't buy a scanner without ICE. Even if you're very
careful there will be tiny dust particles all over. ICE gets rid of
all of them.
3. ICE also works for scans of reflective material (e.g. damaged
photos). I got very good results with it.
4. it can handle up to 8 slides or 24 negatives in one run. Put them
in before you go to sleep, and then you don't care if it takes 2, 3 or
4 hours to complete.
5. colours are excellent
6. the price is very reasonable (you can get one for 400 to 500 $
now).

If you're looking for the highest available resolution, don't buy it.
Buy a dedicated film scanner like the Nikon LS V or 5000, or a Minolta
5400. Buy a Nikon 9000 if you also want to scan 4x4 or 120 rollfilm
(you're well above $1000 now). Add many $$$ to that if you want to
batch scan slides or 135 film rolls. Add a good flatbed scanner (I'd
suggest an Epson 4870 :-) to that to scan reflective material, with
ICE if you want (total price getting way above $1000 now).

I've decided to start with an Epson 4870. If some day I need a better
resolution for some scans I'll get myself a Nikon LS V too (only for
135 film then).

Jan

PS
1. I'm not payed by Epson in any way
2. what I've written is only my opinion. I am not saying that the
Epson 4870 is "the best". I am not saying that my choice is "the
best". I'm just saying that as an amateur photographer having done
5000+ scans with a 4870 over the last three months, I'm _very_ pleased
with it.

wow! 5000 scans! I thought the 4870 does not have a feeder. Am I wrong?

Mark

Jan wrote:


I've had a 4870 for 3 months now. As an amateur photographer I'm
digitizing my archives. I've done 5000+ scans until now. This is what

Mark Panszky wrote in message
wow! 5000 scans! I thought the 4870 does not have a feeder. Am I wrong?

Mark

No feeder.

Slides go in in groups of eight. Negatives in groups of 16 to 18. The
holder can take up to 24 at once (4 rows of 6), but since my negs are
cut in rows of 4... My PC is a P4 3GHz, 1 Gig RAM, harddisks 80 GB +
160 GB + 200 GB backup. It takes about 8 to 9 minutes per scan @ 4800
dpi with ICE (2 minutes for the RGB scan, 2 minutes for the infrared
ICE scan, and 4 minutes for the ICE software part. Doesn't take
significantly less time at 2400 dpi.

I scan my 6x6 (120 Rollfilm) at 2400 or 3200 dpi. Takes about 20
minutes per scan with ICE.

My Epson 4870 takes on average 500 scans per week. That's about 70
hours of scanning per week. The only effort required is to change the
slides or negs, then it continues al by itself for the next 1 to 3
hours (depending on the number of slides/negs). It requires my
attention for somewhere between 5 and 10 hours per week. I can do
other work on my PC when it is scanning, it doesn't slow down too
much.

Anyway, another 5000 scans to go and then I'll have scanned about all
I have :-)

The perfectionist in me preferred (and still prefers) a Nikon Coolscan
V or 5000, but the V only takes 1 (one...) slide at a time or 6 negs
(but then again, my films are cut in rows of 4), the 5000 can batch
scan 50 slides at a time but the slide feeder alone costs an extra
$500, it can also do rolls of film for another $500 extra (that is if
the film is uncut...). Neither V nor 5000 takes 120 Rollfilm. And then
I still would have needed a solution to scan my old prints.

I had been waiting for a real solution for my needs since more than a
year (I was helped a little by my wife to exclude the option of
spending $2000+ :-). I absolutely wanted ICE, that is what prevented
me from buying an Epson 3200. When Epson announced their 4870 I found
right what I needed. The test on www.photo-i.co.uk convinced me, and
another test on the same site made me exclude the Canon 9900F.

Jan