Resolution or Tonal scale.

This question relates to choosing between two scanners.

One has better optical resolution, the other is able to capture more
detail between shadows and highlights.

4,000 dpi versus 6400.

4 versus 4.9 for scale.

Given the use of same LF original 4x5 which is a better choice.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:55:15 -0500, "Greg \"_\""
wrote:


This question relates to choosing between two scanners.

One has better optical resolution, the other is able to capture more
detail between shadows and highlights.

4,000 dpi versus 6400.

4 versus 4.9 for scale.

Given the use of same LF original 4x5 which is a better choice.


Both measurements can be misleading.

Which specific scanners are you thinking of?

Anyway, here's a good LF scanner comparison site:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
Greg \"_\" wrote:

4,000 dpi versus 6400.

4 versus 4.9 for scale.

Given the use of same LF original 4x5 which is a better choice.

Do you really need 6400 dpi for a 4x5?

wrote in message ...

Do you really need 6400 dpi for a 4x5?


Probably not. And probably not (even) for MF.

Others have made the point that an "honest" 3000
dpi will capture nearly all the detail that can be
captured, in practice, on film.

Trouble is, even in the best scanners, the claimed
resolution needs to be de-rated. Some brands more
than others...

As image areas increase, lens resolutions generally go
down, and problems with film flatness become
significant. This is true in the camera as it is in the
film scanner.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In article , () wrote:

In article ,
Greg \"_\" wrote:

4,000 dpi versus 6400.

4 versus 4.9 for scale.

Given the use of same LF original 4x5 which is a better choice.

Do you really need 6400 dpi for a 4x5?

Not so much that I need the 6400, just that its there.
I've spoken with a reviewer of the V750 Epson and he states its a
true 6400 dpi optical scanner.

I was more interested in hearing wether the 4.9 scale the Nikon
LS9000 is stated in having is a big enough reason to for go
the LF capabilities the Epson has.

I rather like the ability to scan my large pile of 4x5 and 8x10 stuff.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:


Both measurements can be misleading.

Which specific scanners are you thinking of?

Anyway, here's a good LF scanner comparison site:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In an ideal world we could all afford drum scanners.

The V750 versus the LS9000 as you guessed.

Keep in mind I am not hugely interested in making super large prints from
any scans. Merely making fair quality scans for prepress from MF.
Maximum page size 11 x17 -300 dpi.

A main consideration beyond LF scanning is wether the Epson could do
small size scans from 35mm. Good enough for an occasion 6x9 reproduction.

The V750 has Digital ICE, fluid mounting and Silverfast features that
sound good for my purposes.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:17:32 -0500, "Greg \"_\""
wrote:


In an ideal world we could all afford drum scanners.

The V750 versus the LS9000 as you guessed.

Keep in mind I am not hugely interested in making super large prints from
any scans. Merely making fair quality scans for prepress from MF.
Maximum page size 11 x17 -300 dpi.


How about a compromise: a used LS-8000 -- in
good condition -- plus a new V750 or 4990 for LF.

I suspect the V750 will give enough detail for a
decent 6x9" print from 35mm, or 11x17" from MF.
It's probably good for an "honest" 2500 dpi, or in
that ballpark.

Both scanners have digital ICE, and you'll find
that useful -- but not on BW film.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:17:32 -0500, "Greg \"_\""
wrote:


In an ideal world we could all afford drum scanners.

The V750 versus the LS9000 as you guessed.

Keep in mind I am not hugely interested in making super large prints from
any scans. Merely making fair quality scans for prepress from MF.
Maximum page size 11 x17 -300 dpi.


How about a compromise: a used LS-8000 -- in
good condition -- plus a new V750 or 4990 for LF.

I suspect the V750 will give enough detail for a
decent 6x9" print from 35mm, or 11x17" from MF.
It's probably good for an "honest" 2500 dpi, or in
that ballpark.

Both scanners have digital ICE, and you'll find
that useful -- but not on BW film.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

That's more or less my direction, I have a budget for the V750 but
probably not the LS9000 at this point, though I do like the idea. The
Epson can do fluid mounting so it may do well with B&W. I am a pretty
much committed to wet darkroom for that anyway. Still it would be nice to
have the ability at least to do better scans from my very large amount
of 4x5 B&W stuff.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:10:32 -0500, "Greg
\"_\"" wrote:

I rather like the ability to scan my large pile of 4x5 and 8x10 stuff.



November 21, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Me too, except it's a pile of MF stuff
starting two decades ago.

I've even been chipping away at it, too. It's
slow going, but possible. The Epson 4990 is a
nice tool for the purpose, although I find
the transparency scan area too restrictive. I
wish they had at least provided the area of
the old HP 4C transparency adapter I used to
have (came out mid-nineties for Win95). So I
have to position my negs in PrintFile sleeves
very carefully. But that's a minor problem,
and on the whole it's a great catalog tool
for me. I suppose one could say it's an
expensive way to avoid contact sheets, but,
well, it is a great way to avoid contact
sheets. Anyway, at fifty cents per contact
sheet, and several thousand rolls of film in
the can, it's cost effective, too. Plus the
scanner is a great entertainment tool, too
.... magazines, newspapers, comic books, old
letters, the family photos, small objects,
good thing I'm catless at the moment ...

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email:
________________________________
--

Greg "_" wrote:

This question relates to choosing between two scanners.

One has better optical resolution, the other is able to capture more
detail between shadows and highlights.

4,000 dpi versus 6400.

You have to keep in mind what the 'optical resolution' specifies. It
tells you how many samples are collected per unit length. There are
usually two numbers, one for the vertical and one for the horizontal
direction with the latter being the smaller. It is the smaller of the
two that is usually used.

In any case, the number of samples collected determines in principle the
upper limit of how well the scanner does at resolving fine detail
present in the film. But no scanner actually achieves this theoretical
upper limit. Higher quality scanners do better. Also, it is easier to
do better with a dedicated film scanner, particularly if the maximum
size scanned is kept limited as it would be for a 35 mm or medium format
scanner.


4 versus 4.9 for scale.

Again, there is a theoretical upper limit to the dynamic range that the
scanner can handle. It is based on the bit depth. For a 16 bit (per
channel) scanner, it is a bit over 4.8. A value like 4.9 doesn't make
sense, so maybe that was a misprint. Sometimes manufacturers simply
give that theoretical number, but in actual practice, the scanner can't
deliver it. Even a figure like 4.0 is suspect, but is more likely to be
a measured value rather than a theoretical value based on the bit depth.

Maximum density is important primarily for transparency film. If you
use either b/w or color negative film, the dynamic range in the negative
is likely to be less than what any reasonable modern scanner can
deliver. I know most people are wedded to the use of transparencies,
but I would argue for using color negative film. Transparency film
requires much more careful control of exposure and can't handle scenes
with a large range of values. It is harder to scan. Its only real
advantage is that you can compare the transparency, viewed on a light
table, to the scan in determining color balance in the latter. But the
transparency, beautiful as it may look, doesn't necessarily accurately
show the colors in the scene. It is better, whatever film you use, to
use color references in the scene, such as a gray card or other neutral
areas, to establish color balance.


Given the use of same LF original 4x5 which is a better choice.