New Epson Film scanner?

"Two" wrote in message
...

"rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote in message
...

For the same reason that optical enlargers do.

Have you lost your mind? There is no correspondence whatsoever. We want to
scan every possible detail. Changing the lens in order to take in less
detail is counter-productive. Why should we shoot MF only to have it
diminished to 35mm detail?

Because with a given scanner, you get a fixed number of pixels in the
horisontal direction. So you want to match those pixels to the size of the
image you are scanning. And that means they should get allocated to 24mm for
35mm and 56mm for 120 (although maybe a 645 setting also would be nice). But
since lenses are expensive, you're lucky to get two in a consumer scanner.

There's also the point that resolution tends to go down as the image circle
gets wider (which is why cheap dcam zoom lenses can provide decent contrast
at 110 lp/mm or so, something not even Leitz and Zeiss can dream about).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

An entity mysteriously identified only as "Two" spake thus:

"rafe b" wrote in message
...

"reboot" wrote in message
...

Ah, the old CoC thing, eh? I hate it. I see no rationale at all.

Ignorant post, but you've probably never used a film scanner
anyway.

Oh, but I use scanners every day. Now, instead of spitting out bull**** such
as "it isn't new", tell me why us LF and MF users should not use the same
lens that 35mm does. Why should a larger format get a diminished scan of the
same real-estate.

When I scan a 6x12 (for example) why should I settle for a larger,
diminished scan than I would with 35mm.

Back at you, asshole. Fess up.

Now, now, John, no reason to get all snarky. Calm down and take a shot
of booze.

By the way, whatzwith all the phony IDs? You getting a blizzard of spam
there up north?


--
Every American is full of Cheney's buckshot.

- Sign on the Grand-Lake Theater, Oakland, CA, Feb. 14, 2006

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

Because with a given scanner, you get a fixed number of pixels in the
horisontal direction.

Bull****, Littleboy. It's a scanner. It doesn't mean squat the the format
size is. Use the same step-motor and lens rez for all formats. A scanner is
not a camera. Get it?

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

There's also the point that resolution tends to go down as the image
circle gets wider

My 3" LF lens gets 80 lp/mm wide open at F/4.5. My 135mm gets even better. I
want it all.

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:14:14 -0600, "Two" wrote:

"rafe b" wrote in message
...

"reboot" wrote in message
...

Ah, the old CoC thing, eh?
I hate it. I see no rationale at all.

Ignorant post, but you've probably never used
a film scanner anyway.

Oh, but I use scanners every day. Now, instead of spitting out bull**** such
as "it isn't new", tell me why us LF and MF users should not use the same
lens that 35mm does. Why should a larger format get a diminished scan of the
same real-estate.


When you enlarge 35 mm, do you use the same
enlarging lens as you would for a 6x12 transparency?

With lens A, you scan a width X at N dpi.
With lens B, you scan a width X/2 at 2*N dpi.

What's so difficult to comprehend about that?

A CCD sensor has a finite number of pixels along
a finite length. Wrap your little brain around
that fact, and get back to us.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"Two" wrote in message
...
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

Because with a given scanner, you get a fixed number of pixels in the
horisontal direction.

Bull****, Littleboy. It's a scanner. It doesn't mean squat the the format
size is. Use the same step-motor and lens rez for all formats. A scanner
is not a camera. Get it?

Off your meds again, John? I suggest that you try thinking and logic for a
change instead of letting your stupidity run rampant.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:17:24 -0600, "Two" wrote:


"rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote in message
.. .

For the same reason that optical enlargers do.

Have you lost your mind? There is no correspondence whatsoever.

Do you know any 50 mm lenses with a 350 mm
image circle? You want to image a 6x12"
transparency with the same lens that you'd
use for 35 mm? Try again?


We want to scan every possible detail. Changing the
lens in order to take in less detail is counter-productive.

We're not taking in less detail, just less width.

This new Epson is still a CCD scanner. It's not
a drum scanner, and it's not a Scitex.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

Dual lens, 3200/6400 dpi, Pro model supports wet-mounting.
Prices on par with 4990 and 4990 Pro.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php

FWIW, someone on photo.net claims that Epson claims that these are "true
4800 dpi" scanners and that they've tested them with serious charts.

I suspect that whatever scanner I use, 645 isn't going to be enough better
than the 5D to be worth the bother, but a clean 2400 dpi scan (i.e. a 4000
dpi Nikon 8000 scan downsampled to 2400 dpi) from 6x7 will edge out the 5D
at 13x19.

So there's at least hope for this thing for my purposes...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

rafe b wrote:
Dual lens, 3200/6400 dpi, Pro model supports wet-mounting.
Prices on par with 4990 and 4990 Pro.

Just after I went out and bought a 4990. Thanks, Epson!

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

On 24 Feb 2006 02:08:25 -0800, wrote:


Just after I went out and bought a 4990. Thanks, Epson!


My poor boy. But this sort of thing happens
all the time. When I was looking for a scanner
for my LF film, the 4990 wasn't quite available
yet, and I spent $1000 (quite a bargain) on a
Microtek 2500.

The Microtek was sharp but otherwise flawed,
and it basically put all my LF work in limbo.

So after nearly a year of casting about for
alternatives, I finally gave up and bought a
4990 -- about three months ago, fully aware of
its limitations with regard to real resolution.

The Microtek was an five year old design that
had been branded originally by Agfa and sold
at retail in the $3k-5k range. When I was
done with mine, I sold it for a pittance on
eBay. I'd have been better off dumping it
in the trash.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com