A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

M/F film scanners - again?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 26th 04, 06:36 PM
Rod
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default M/F film scanners - again?

2 Questions here, I tried the scanner groups and got no answer - since
it's primarily M?F I'm looking at I wonder if you guys have any
answers?
I have taken on board the understanding that the A/D specification is
an indicator of the *potential* Dmax of a scanner given the CCD is
good enough to supply sufficient data to the ADC. No makers ever seem
to give an actual measured Dmax, they just give 12/14/16bit x 3 as an
indicator of potential dynamic range. Apart from trying several
scanners for myself and also taking price as a sort of indicator of
CCD quality, how do I know which scanners are going to make the best
of my slides? An obvious problem is going to be my habit of trying to
take pics when the brightness range is way too great to get good
highlight and shadow detail on the film, let alone on on a scan.I'm
trying to kick this habit but in the meantime I have some very
difficult but potentially rewarding slides to scan.


I see some good close out deals on the Minolta scan multi II. How
much difference would I see in A3 prints for the 12 bit A/D compared
with the 16 bit A/D of the Scan multi pro or the 14 bit of the
Microtek Artixscan 120TF? Resolution isn't an issue as I'm scanning
medium format for A3 prints. Looking for scans at least comparable
with those I'm getting from 35mm on the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED.

Thanks

Rod

Weed my email address to reply
http://website.lineone.net/~rodcraddock/index.html
  #2  
Old May 26th 04, 07:02 PM
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default M/F film scanners - again?

From: Rod

I have taken on board the understanding that the A/D specification is
an indicator of the *potential* Dmax of a scanner given the CCD is
good enough to supply sufficient data to the ADC. No makers ever seem
to give an actual measured Dmax, they just give 12/14/16bit x 3 as an
indicator of potential dynamic range. Apart from trying several
scanners for myself and also taking price as a sort of indicator of
CCD quality, how do I know which scanners are going to make the best
of my slides?


Best to either try out the best models (hard to do) or see if someone will do
sample scans for you (I've done that a few times for people I know) or look at
samples of the same image scanned with different scanners, like here ...
nothing like looking at actual files to help you make up your mind.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM

An obvious problem is going to be my habit of trying to
take pics when the brightness range is way too great to get good
highlight and shadow detail on the film, let alone on on a scan.


If the film won't hold the dynamic range then it just gets worse when you scan.

I see some good close out deals on the Minolta scan multi II. How
much difference would I see in A3 prints for the 12 bit A/D compared
with the 16 bit A/D of the Scan multi pro or the 14 bit of the
Microtek Artixscan 120TF?


Probably none in real life, assuming the color rendition was similar and the
rez was similar (I think the Artisan is a 4,000 dpi scanner, the Minolta is
3,200 x 4,800 so you have to resample to get the same or higher rez).

Looking for scans at least comparable
with those I'm getting from 35mm on the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED.


Look at the Nikon 8000 or 9000 too then, since you'll already be familiar with
the software. Many people (me included) would choose the Nikon over either the
Minolta Multi or the Artisan (which is a re-branded Polaroid).

Bill
  #3  
Old May 26th 04, 08:39 PM
Lassi Hippeläinen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default M/F film scanners - again?

Rod wrote:
... No makers ever seem
to give an actual measured Dmax, they just give 12/14/16bit x 3 as an
indicator of potential dynamic range.


That's the problem. Some people claim that in real life you can't get
even ten bits of real data. The rest are thermal noise. You could try to
find actual test reports from the 'net...

... How
much difference would I see in A3 prints for the 12 bit A/D compared
with the 16 bit A/D of the Scan multi pro or the 14 bit of the
Microtek Artixscan 120TF?


Depends on the picture. The bits become important, if there are gradual
colours, or if you tweak the curves too much. Smooth surfaces are made
of stripes, defined by the pixels where the least significant bit flips.

-- Lassi
  #4  
Old May 27th 04, 02:24 AM
Raphael Bustin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default M/F film scanners - again?

On Wed, 26 May 2004 18:36:43 +0100, Rod
wrote:


I see some good close out deals on the Minolta scan multi II. How
much difference would I see in A3 prints for the 12 bit A/D compared
with the 16 bit A/D of the Scan multi pro or the 14 bit of the
Microtek Artixscan 120TF? Resolution isn't an issue as I'm scanning
medium format for A3 prints. Looking for scans at least comparable
with those I'm getting from 35mm on the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED.



Get the LS-9000 and be done with it.

It's at least as good as the LS-8000, and
available new at 2/3 the price I paid for mine
three years ago.

By any measure, the LS-8000 (and presumably
the 9000) is one of the sharpest CCD scanners
available.

Or get a preowned or refurb 8000 on eBay,
typically $1K these days.

The film scanner is as important (to the image)
as the camera and film that made the image in
the first place. Not a good place to skimp.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

  #5  
Old May 27th 04, 12:58 PM
Pete
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default M/F film scanners - again?

You know, you could consider making or getting a nice print made of your
keepers, and then just scanning the print. Even a very cheap flatbed can do
that nicely. That way, you have the print which you can mount and display,
and you can show it on the web or whatever, and you don't have to spend
$1000 on a peripheral that is quickly superceded by better models.
Pete

"Raphael Bustin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 May 2004 18:36:43 +0100, Rod
wrote:


I see some good close out deals on the Minolta scan multi II. How
much difference would I see in A3 prints for the 12 bit A/D compared
with the 16 bit A/D of the Scan multi pro or the 14 bit of the
Microtek Artixscan 120TF? Resolution isn't an issue as I'm scanning
medium format for A3 prints. Looking for scans at least comparable
with those I'm getting from 35mm on the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED.



Get the LS-9000 and be done with it.

It's at least as good as the LS-8000, and
available new at 2/3 the price I paid for mine
three years ago.

By any measure, the LS-8000 (and presumably
the 9000) is one of the sharpest CCD scanners
available.

Or get a preowned or refurb 8000 on eBay,
typically $1K these days.

The film scanner is as important (to the image)
as the camera and film that made the image in
the first place. Not a good place to skimp.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com



  #6  
Old May 27th 04, 02:52 PM
Raphael Bustin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default M/F film scanners - again?

On Thu, 27 May 2004 11:58:24 GMT, "Pete" wrote:

You know, you could consider making or getting a nice print made of your
keepers, and then just scanning the print. Even a very cheap flatbed can do
that nicely. That way, you have the print which you can mount and display,
and you can show it on the web or whatever, and you don't have to spend
$1000 on a peripheral that is quickly superceded by better models.
Pete



A print has less dynamic range by far than either a
negative or a chrome. Information (tonal range) will
be lost making the print.

Working from the original is always better.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

  #7  
Old May 27th 04, 05:50 PM
Pete
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default M/F film scanners - again?


"Raphael Bustin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 May 2004 11:58:24 GMT, "Pete" wrote:

You know, you could consider making or getting a nice print made of your
keepers, and then just scanning the print. Even a very cheap flatbed can

do
that nicely. That way, you have the print which you can mount and

display,
and you can show it on the web or whatever, and you don't have to spend
$1000 on a peripheral that is quickly superceded by better models.
Pete



A print has less dynamic range by far than either a
negative or a chrome. Information (tonal range) will
be lost making the print.

Working from the original is always better.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com


You don't think you can get a good scan from a 5x7 or better print? The
things that film scanners bring us are really only of use if we intend to
print the scanned file on a computer printer. Of course, it's better to scan
the original negative if the idea is to "work" on it and print from it, but
if the intention is merely to show the photo on the web, scanning a nice
conventional print is more than good enough, and you don't have to keep up
with the Jones's in terms of scanners.
Pete


  #8  
Old May 30th 04, 10:28 AM
Q.G. de Bakker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default M/F film scanners - again?

Pete wrote:

You don't think you can get a good scan from a 5x7 or better print?
[...]


What's good?
Compared to a scan done from film, a print scan is not good, no.
And that does show when the scanned image is used only on computer displays.

That's not to say that you can't use scans made from prints. They're just
not as good. Yet lacking a comparison... ;-)



  #9  
Old May 30th 04, 08:09 PM
Rod
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default M/F film scanners - again?

Thanks guys,
After spending a long time going around this in ever decreasing
circles, I decided (with the help of my resident financial adviser)
to just be happy with the m/f slides and get myself a few each year of
the best images printed by a good pro lab. After all the wall space in
our house is limited ;-) That way even ten years down the line they
will be scanned by the best scanners available at the time. If I want
digital output for the web or for recording what we're doing at work I
will go there directly by way of the Fuji S2 pro I've ordered. When
all's said and done no print is ever going to get near those 6x7
slides.

Rod

Weed my email address to reply
http://website.lineone.net/~rodcraddock/index.html
  #10  
Old May 30th 04, 09:51 PM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default M/F film scanners - again?

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

Pete wrote:

You don't think you can get a good scan from a 5x7 or better print?
[...]


What's good?
Compared to a scan done from film, a print scan is not good, no.
And that does show when the scanned image is used only on computer
displays.


I'm not sure anyone would be able to see the difference in a "web size" jpeg
image of say even 640X480 in size between a scan of a print and a scan of
the original film. Given many people display their images smaller than this
(for fear of them being stolen?) I can't see any reason to be scanning film
for web display purposes if the print being scanned looks good.

--

Stacey
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection [email protected] 35mm Photo Equipment 94 June 23rd 04 05:17 AM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner bleanne APS Photographic Equipment 1 November 27th 03 07:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.