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 |
#721
|
|||
|
|||
real photography only 30 lpmm?
"nobody nowhere" wrote: The amount of sharpening I apply has been monotonic decreasing over the two years I've been scanning MF. It's simply not a panacea. Would you please elaborate on "monotonic", what it is/does (in simple words please). Sorry, "monotonic decreasing" just means always getting less without ever increasing. Just me being pretentious and too lazy to come up with a better turn of phrase. Some people advocate no sharpening at all, but this seems to me impossible, one surely needs a certain amount of sharpening to correct the softness that comes from scanning. Would you agree? Yes. Some sharpening is required. It's just that the amount of sharpening I use has decreased over time. Sorry to repeat myself, but when people look at the images, they see near 645 quality, not 35mm quality, images. When I scan my 27 years old 35mm slides with a Nikon 8000, I get digital files which often yield acceptable A3, prints. This size would have been out of the question "in the old days", with a traditional enlarger/chemical system. No! Don't say that! The digital naysayers depend desperately on the Nikon 8000 being _worse_ than wet chemical projection printing for their claims to hold up, since the people doing 1Ds vs. 35mm comparisons (and finding the 1Ds better) are scanning their slides with 4000 dpi film scannersg. Seriously, though, 4000 dpi scans of ISO 100 or slower slide films will make fairly nice 12x18 prints from 35mm, as long as you keep them at arms length. Not particularly sharp, but grain's not a major problem. But I'd be surprised if it really were impossible to do at least nearly as well with projection printing. What I am trying to say, unless I am wrong, is that the 645 image quality might be inherent in the digital process, rather than a special quality of the Canon 1Ds and its much praised sensor. If one accepts this, for the moment at least, the combination film + scanner would make more sense than Canon 1Ds (for some, or most amateurs). I don't agree with the theory you're presenting (but the conclusion's right, albeit for other reasons). At least for the sorts of prints I like, any frame size/pixel count has its limitations. The question here is what metric/theory predicts those limitations best. The "film "resolves" 100 lp/mm" theory seems disproved by the existence of a better technology that clearly relies on a lot less than 100 lp/mmg. So maybe true "1Ds quality" images requires Bobm's and my mythical 16MP full frame sensor. When this mythical thing is on the shelves, wake me up! but not before! :-). Yup. That's my line. But I won't be sleeping. Until then it's 645 and a big tripod for me. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#723
|
|||
|
|||
real photography only 30 lpmm?
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:12:21 -0400, Robert Feinman
wrote: Anyway, if you look at my results with the Minolta 5400 scanner I was able to get 12-18x enlargements which look much better than would have been done with a wet darkroom. I think it may be a combination of new lens design, improved film and much better detail capture when using a scanner. So I revise my estimate upwards to about 12x when everything works optimally. Yep, this is what a lot of us have seen. Film scanning and digital darkroom making sharper prints, and with better tonality, than a wet darkroom. When using my Pentax 67 and the Epson 4870 scanner the overall results don't appear any better than what I got with 35mm. Perhaps older lens design, more camera vibration (even with mirror up) and a much lower resolution scanner (in spite of advertised numbers). So depending on the workflow, medium format may not be noticeably better than 35mm. You can see the samples in the tips section of my web site. I suggest it's the 4870 that's the weak link here. Have you had one of your good MF negatives scanned on a top- notch film scanner? I think that might cause you to change your tune. I see noticeable differences between 35 and 645. But that's because I scan both of them on the same 4000 dpi scanner. How does your scanner hold up against comparable samples at my site below? Back when I was scanning MF on an Epson 1640 (supposedly 1600 dpi, but seemingly half of that) I was somewhat disappointed with MF. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com scan samples site: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ |
#724
|
|||
|
|||
real photography only 30 lpmm?
Not without aliasing, and the real resolution is limited to 56.82 cy/mm.
I disagree, the actual figure is 56.873654895418745834587492 lp/mm. Larry |
#725
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Formula for pre-focusing | Steve Yeatts | Large Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 22nd 04 02:55 AM |
zone system test with filter on lens? | Phil Lamerton | In The Darkroom | 35 | June 4th 04 02:40 AM |