7250 dpi Scanner Introduced by Pacific Image Electronics

"Father Kodak" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:57:07 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


"jeremy" wrote in message
news:Fecpi.620$zJ4.150@trndny03...
I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical
resolution,
ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides.

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php

Yee Gads!! - That's 51.8 megabytes! I don't believe I have even one slide
out of thousands that could justify a scan of that resolution....Even the
ones that were taken from a tripod on a quiet day.

I think that the file size is actually about 395MB! Here is how I
got this number. The Nikon 5000 scanner produces 120 MB files and its
resolution is "only" 4000 dpi. Scale that up to get 395 MB.

Now there are some serious limitations on this scanner. Like no
ability to batch feed slides. Nikon has the SF-210 slide feeder which
will do 50 slides at a time.

Second, and probably more important, the Dmax for this scanner is
quoted as 3.6. The Nikon scanner has a 4.8 Dmax. That is a big
difference and is important for pulling out shadow detail.

Of course, the Nikon scanner is about one thousand dollars, US, plus
more for the batch feeder. I didn't see a price for the Pacific Image
Electronics scanner.

Father Kodak

Yes. In general, 35 mm film scanner technology far exceeds my needs. - I
suppose I could use a good feeder, but then, the quality of the scans
wouldn't be as good, since I don't have a "clean room" to work in, and I
have to brush off and blow off each slide before scanning in order to reduce
my Photoshop clean-up time. But using up a third of a gigabyte or more per
slide boggles my imagination.....I sometimes wonder, "Where will it ever
end?" Will the universe end when we have completely digitized it? ....:^)
Can a machine ever have enough storage to digitize itself? I think I will
write a letter to the mathematics department of Duke University..........

"Scott W" wrote in message
...
Noons wrote:
On Jul 24, 9:36 pm, Scott W wrote:

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php
Well 7200 ppi not 7250 ppi, still a crazy high number that would lead
one to believe it is more hype then anything else. I have a flatbed
scanner that goes to 12800 ppi, but its optical resolution is much
closer to 1200ppi, kind of makes the 12800 ppi setting worthless.

Scott

well, they say it's "optical resolution 7200X7200",
that's a bit different from just claiming 7200 ppi rez...
Quite frankly, just because flatbed scanners don't
have this is no confirmation whatsoever these
folks won't be able to get there in a film scanner?
After all, drum scanners go considerably higher
than that.

Drum scanners only have to image one pixel at a time, much easier.
And a drum scanner holds the film very flat, something you need
for very high resolution, the higher the resolution the smaller a
DOF you are going to get.

And the few 6000 ppi scans I have seen from a drum scanner look like
total crap at the pixel level.

Scott

It's just like the old "Hi-Fi" music systems of the 60's and 70's.....They
were only as good as their weakest link.....Usually the speakers. The same
thing is true of scanning film....If the detail isn't on the film to begin
with, then you can't "Scan a silk purse out of a sow's ear." I don't see why
anyone would want to scan a 35 mm slide at greater than 4000 dpi
resolution.....I have never seen a slide that could benefit from detail more
than about half that.......

William Graham wrote:
Yes. In general, 35 mm film scanner technology far exceeds my needs. - I
suppose I could use a good feeder, but then, the quality of the scans
wouldn't be as good, since I don't have a "clean room" to work in, and I
have to brush off and blow off each slide before scanning in order to reduce
my Photoshop clean-up time. But using up a third of a gigabyte or more per
slide boggles my imagination.....I sometimes wonder, "Where will it ever
end?" Will the universe end when we have completely digitized it? ....:^)
Can a machine ever have enough storage to digitize itself? I think I will
write a letter to the mathematics department of Duke University..........


I deal with a lot of image larger then that, but then I tend to keep
them as jpeg images not 16 bit/color tiffs.
A 35mm slide scanned at 7200 ppi will produce an image that is just
under 70MB, if the image is fairly clean this can be stored in less then
10MB, as can be seen here.
http://www.sewcon.com/largephotos/Ship_at_7200ppi.jpg

Note if you don't have a lot of ram on your computer you might have to
download the image and view it in a program like Photoshop, which should
have not problem with it.

Note that image only takes up 9MB of hard disk space, not bad at all.

Having said that I see very little added detail in 4000ppi scans
compared to 2000 ppi scans, going to 7200ppi seems like a waste of time
to me.

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:
Yes. In general, 35 mm film scanner technology far exceeds my needs. - I
suppose I could use a good feeder, but then, the quality of the scans
wouldn't be as good, since I don't have a "clean room" to work in, and I
have to brush off and blow off each slide before scanning in order to
reduce my Photoshop clean-up time. But using up a third of a gigabyte or
more per slide boggles my imagination.....I sometimes wonder, "Where will
it ever end?" Will the universe end when we have completely digitized it?
....:^) Can a machine ever have enough storage to digitize itself? I
think I will write a letter to the mathematics department of Duke
University..........

I deal with a lot of image larger then that, but then I tend to keep them
as jpeg images not 16 bit/color tiffs.
A 35mm slide scanned at 7200 ppi will produce an image that is just under
70MB, if the image is fairly clean this can be stored in less then 10MB,
as can be seen here.
http://www.sewcon.com/largephotos/Ship_at_7200ppi.jpg

Note if you don't have a lot of ram on your computer you might have to
download the image and view it in a program like Photoshop, which should
have not problem with it.

Note that image only takes up 9MB of hard disk space, not bad at all.

Having said that I see very little added detail in 4000ppi scans compared
to 2000 ppi scans, going to 7200ppi seems like a waste of time to me.

Scott

Yes....I have the capability of scanning to 5400 dpi, but I have found that
I gain nothing by doing this over what I can get with around 2500 dpi. If I
am trying to read something in the background, for example, like a license
plate on a car, scanning at the higher resolution doesn't seem to help. -
The information just isn't there, and there is nothing I can do about it.

On Jul 24, 2:23 pm, "William Graham" wrote:

Yes....I have the capability of scanning to 5400 dpi, but I have found that
I gain nothing by doing this over what I can get with around 2500 dpi. If I
am trying to read something in the background, for example, like a license
plate on a car, scanning at the higher resolution doesn't seem to help. -
The information just isn't there, and there is nothing I can do about it

My results (with the same model scanner) are similar.
You just can't get more detail by scanning 35mm film at higher
resolutions.
You'll need D-Mac's Super-Secret resizing algorithm for that.

"Father Kodak" wrote in message

Of course, the Nikon scanner is about one thousand dollars, US, plus
more for the batch feeder. I didn't see a price for the Pacific Image
Electronics scanner.

Father Kodak

Amazon has it now for $550, if memory serves me correctly. As for the dpi,
the user can select virtually any dpi he wants--he is not limited to only
the maximum value.

I have the 3650 dpi scanner from Pacific Image Electronics, having bought it
on Amazon for about $350, and am quite happy, given the price paid. It
takes 6 minutes to scan a neg at 3650 dpi, with ICE3 turned on. But I'm
just an amateur, and a low-volume shooter, so that really does not pose a
big problem for me.

I think that the lower-priced scanners are where this market is headed.
Paying $550 and getting 7250 dpi represents excellent price-to-performance,
and it may contribute to slowing down the wholesale abandonment of film by
amateurs. It certainly can't hurt.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 24, 11:04 am, "jeremy" wrote:
I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical
resolution,
ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides.

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php

Just a word or two of caution here.

Pacific Imaging have created some rather natty little scanners, but I
would question their reputation for producing a product that:
- has resolution that matches its claims in reality (that sort of res
would require *very* good optics and a very secure method to hold the
film flat)
- has a decent dynamic range - what is the point of a sharp scan if it
can't dig into the shadows? If you're only scanning print film, maybe
it will be ok, but if you are a chronic underexposer of slide film
like me... be afraid!
- is a long lasting product (I've heard more complaints about PIE
scanners breaking down than for the name brands, but I'll happily
admit the plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'information').

Also, such scans are probably going to take a little while, so...
think carefully about the 'no feeder'... It does say it batch scans
roll film - doesn't show what that means, but slides are one at a time.


It will scan an entire roll of negs--up to 40 frames--without manual
intervention. That's how I do my scans--I have the film developed and I
take it home UNCUT, and feed it into the scanner. That way, I can walk out
and come back in a couple of hours, and everything is done.

It also takes cut strips, such as one is likely to get back from
conventional film processing.

It does slides, one at a time. Slow. PIE does make a couple of models that
allow the user to put the slides in a rotary tray, and the scanner
automatically scans each one, in turn. They go for around $1200.00.

"Noons" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 24, 9:36 pm, Scott W wrote:

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php

Well 7200 ppi not 7250 ppi, still a crazy high number that would lead
one to believe it is more hype then anything else. I have a flatbed
scanner that goes to 12800 ppi, but its optical resolution is much
closer to 1200ppi, kind of makes the 12800 ppi setting worthless.

Scott

well, they say it's "optical resolution 7200X7200",
that's a bit different from just claiming 7200 ppi rez...
Quite frankly, just because flatbed scanners don't
have this is no confirmation whatsoever these
folks won't be able to get there in a film scanner?
After all, drum scanners go considerably higher
than that.


I would point out that, at $550, this could represent quite a lot of bang
for the buck. Admittedly, it may not be up to the performance of an $1800
Nikon scanner, but it probably eclipses anything that was available as
little as 3 years ago.

For a guy like me, who already has a full complement of film bodies and
lenses, this represents an economical opportunity to keep on using film,
rather than having to dump all that gear and start all over again. It may
not be appropriate for the professional, or for the very advanced amateur,
but those guys already know what they require, and they know what price
they'll have to pay. I'm just grateful that this higher-end performance id
finally filtering down to the small-time users, who would not ordinarily be
expected to shell out big bucks for film scanners--especially when DSLRs
have been dropping in price, to the point that one can get performance at a
price that makes a film scanner an impractical expense.

On Jul 25, 1:38 am, Scott W wrote:

Drum scanners only have to image one pixel at a time, much easier.

and in what shape or format does that prove that a scanner
can't do higher than a flatbed?

And a drum scanner holds the film very flat, something you need
for very high resolution, the higher the resolution the smaller a
DOF you are going to get.

so what? does that prove a film scanner can't
scan at higher rez than a flatbed?


And the few 6000 ppi scans I have seen from a drum scanner look like
total crap at the pixel level.

Well, that is your experience with drum scanners.
It proves not that a film scanner can't have
better rez than a flatbed.

I made my statement very clear:
there is no technical reason why a film scanner
can't have a rez of 7200, higher
therefore than most flatbeds. Drum scanners
regularly scan at much higher rez.
Why, or if it is worth it, is irrelevant:
you may think it is not needed, I may
think it is very welcome. That proves
absolutely nothing as to it being possible
in PIE's case.

Their statement is "optical 7200X7200" .
Sounds very clear to me.

On Jul 25, 3:43 am, "William Graham" wrote:

It's just like the old "Hi-Fi" music systems of the 60's and 70's.....They
were only as good as their weakest link.....Usually the speakers. The same
thing is true of scanning film....If the detail isn't on the film to begin
with, then you can't "Scan a silk purse out of a sow's ear." I don't see why
anyone would want to scan a 35 mm slide at greater than 4000 dpi
resolution.....I have never seen a slide that could benefit from detail more
than about half that.......

I have. And there are plenty of reasons
why one would want to scan at higher rez
than 4000.