rishij Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Below is the D2X full frame coverage. Again, the RZ67 coverage way overlapped the map giving the D2X added advantage covering less vertical space as in the link that C.Sharon provided.</p> </blockquote> <p>Um... no it didn't. The D2X just has a different aspect ratio. In fact, the D2X covered more horizontally than the RZ67, whereas the RZ67 covered more vertically.</p> <p>David Littleboy was totally appropriate in calling you out, Les.<br> -Rishi</p>
rishij Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Scott Wilson: your images are ridiculous... as in ridiculous eye candy. I have to say '<strong><em>wow!</em> </strong> ' to every single image you link to :)<br /> <br /> My only guess as to how you do it is by using some combination of multi-image technology... multiple image stitching and/or super-resolution via PhotoAcute? The latter can do quite an amazing job at interpolating resolution and getting rid of noise even with my 10MP Panasonic Lumix LX3.</p> <p>Short of that, my guess would be some home-brewed piezo-technology... are you gonna tell us or are you gonna keep us guessing? </p> <p>:)</p> <p>-Rishi</p>
swilson Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Rishi, the problem with noise reduction software is that often there is texture in the photo that is going to look like noise to the software.</p> <p>In the case of this map this might not be an issue but for most images there are textures that I would like to see as they really were.</p> <p>Try removing the noise of the film scan with out removing the texture of the book next to it. Sure you could select just the map part, but if the book had been taken with film there would be no way to see the texture in the binding.</p> <div></div>
pankaj purohit Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Hi <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=940372">Scott Wilson</a> , here something for you, my first post was just a flat scan without any postprocessing except color balancing from a RAW scan, now this is real 4800 dpi scan of a 35 mm 400 ISO Kodak negative with little postprocessing (Actual image size is <strong>6691X4391 pixels</strong> ) :</p><div></div>
rishij Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Les, what I'm saying is that the Nikon has a larger horizontal FOV, while the MF has larger vertical FOV. Sure, you can hold one constant and let the other vary with different aspect ratio cameras. That's irrelevant.</p> <p>My point is, you can't say just from looking at the full crop comparisons that the Nikon had an advantage because it's 'zoomed in' or such.</p> <p>Scott -- you're absolutely right. Which is why now after using 'multi-sampling' and PhotoAcute to get rid of noise with digital images, it's hard for me to go back to my film camera. A similar approach could be applied to film, but only very low grain film, b/c these techniques don't get rid of film grain.</p> <p>-Rishi</p>
mauro_franic Posted March 17, 2009 Author Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Scott, your picture looks very nice (the water ripples look a bit funny but overall very nice). If it is stiching though, it is definitely not interesting for me. I could stich 35mm film but I use MF instead.</p>
mauro_franic Posted March 17, 2009 Author Posted March 17, 2009 <p>On grain reduction:</p> <p>I don't use it often (or at all) for prints since the grain doesn't show on 24" and the texture is richer. But it is definetily an option for people (both film and digital) who want to include it in their workflow as a routine.</p>
swilson Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Hello<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2378894"> </a><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2378894">Pankaj Purohit</a></p> <p>Now those scale to 4800ppi, thanks.</p> <p>But the 100% crops look very soft. If I scale them down to 50% they start to look sharper, but still with a lot of noise. But scaling them down to 50% means you are left with an image of 7.7MP. Sure your original scan has 4 times that number of pixels, but they are so soft that if you print that at 300ppi it is going to look pretty bad.</p> <p>For what it is worth I don't belive you are getting all that you could out of film, IMO.</p> <p>This is the same size image as yours, but I would print this at 300ppi and expect it to be very sharp.</p><div></div>
pankaj purohit Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Scott, your image is really great in details, is it a 35mm negative or a medium format? this means I should downsize all my images to 7 megapixels...! or I need to work more on postprocessing or scanning techniques, what you think about colors? what would you suggest me to do with my negatives and scanner?</p>
swilson Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p> Mauro,</p> <p>Yes my image is stitched. For those that don't want to do stitching I can understand, but it is a pretty simple way to get large prints that look good.</p> <p>As for stitching using 35mm, there really would be no reason to, much easier to do with digital. I have seen some people who stitched with film years ago, but now with digital just about anyone who is stitching is doing so with digital.</p> <p> <p>MF, it done very well, can also make a very good looking 20x30 inch print, but it is very easy to have it get messed up. Trying to get a good 20x30 inch print from a 6x7 camera and a flat bed scanner would be a challenge. The least expensive scanner that I know of that will do a good job on MF film cost around $2000, way more then I would be willing to pay for a scanner.</p> <p> <p>I know a number of people who have been giving up on MF photograph when they got a FF DSLR, not because the DSLR has more resolution but because the difference is small enough that it makes little sense for them to keep going through all the work of scanning film.</p> <p>There might be a few people who would stick with film a bit longer if they had a better scanning solution, but I think the number is pretty small.</p> </p> </p>
Landrum Kelly Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Great shots (again), Scott. What was the elapsed time between the first shot and last shot on the 54 MP bridge shot? How much time does it take to set up and take down your equipment to get the shots for an image like that?</p> <p>--Lannie</p>
StuartMoxham Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>I printed the crop its about 4.5 cm when printed at 360 dpi. Which was my point about viewing 100% crops on a monitor that they don't represent how the smaller finished print will look. Digital user will complain about film grain when they view 100% crops even though there is no grain in the prints. I never stated that the D2x would be better or worse than the 6x7 scan only that viewing 100% crops is not realistic for most people who are not making very large prints<br> I made two prints one as is and one where I color corrected the D2x image and gave it a bit of a sharpen. If I was a D2x owner I would be very pleased with the results once the colors are corrected and the image is sharpened a bit. The tiny sensor of the D2x holds up rather well at that print size not as good as the 6x7 but then we don't really expect it to be but also I can't honestly say that the d2x looks bad either. I don't think a d2x would be my first choice for a project of reproducing old maps but for more general photography it would be a nice well built camera.</p>
swilson Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2378894">Pankaj Purohit</a>,</p> <p>Down sampling your images will really only help in saving some disk space, the main point is they will not print large and be really sharp.</p> <p>My image if from digital and is only there to show what sharp pixels look like, don't worry about that for now, you will not get to that point with 35mm film, unless you do B/W</p> <p>The main problem you are having is using a flatbed scanner, a film scanner will give far sharpper scans.</p> <p>You are also going to need to use a very fine grain film to get a decent scan, there have been a number of threads on which film is the best.</p> <p>For film there is not much you can do with sharpping, so your lens needs to be very sharp if you are going to get a good image. You also need to shoot at the sweet f/number of the lens, often around f/8, depending on the lens. And since the best films are iso 100, or less, a tripod with a cable release is a good idea.</p> <p>But if you really want a sharp image that will print big and you really want to use film you can go to MF, but the cost is high if you are going to do your own scanning. On the plus side you could get some ok scans with MF and your flatbed scanner, not nearly as good as would coule be had with a film scanner but much better then the flatbed with 35mm film</p> <p> </p>
swilson Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>"Great shots (again), Scott. What was the elapsed time between the first shot and last shot on the 54 MP bridge shot? How much time does it take to set up and take down your equipment to get the shots for an image like that?"<br> --Lannie</p> <p>It took 1 minute 43 seconds between the first shot and the last. It takes about 1 minute to set up the camera, when every thing is in the bag in good order. It takes far less time to take down the set up, maybe 30 seconds.</p> <p>If you are thinking about getting in to this let me know as there is a LOT of detail that you will need to know to really make it work and to make it easy. The panoramic head that I mainly use cost a fair bit, around $550 now days I believe, but it makes it much easier to take the photos. For lower res shots, say in the 20-30 MP range you really don’t need a panoramic head. It is also critical that you get good stitching software, I use PTGui Pro, I have been going through the upgrade path on this so it has been not too expensive but it is not cheap software to buy up front. <p> <p>There is an evaluation version of PTGui, if you would like to play with some of my images let me know and I will send you the source images along with the project file for stitching them, this will give you a better feel for what all is involved .</p> </p> </p>
swilson Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2381463">Rishi Sanyal</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 17, 2009; 05:04 p.m.</p> <p>"Scott Wilson: your images are ridiculous... as in ridiculous eye candy. I have to say '<strong><em>wow!</em> </strong>' to every single image you link to :)<br> My only guess as to how you do it is by using some combination of multi-image technology... multiple image stitching and/or super-resolution via PhotoAcute? The latter can do quite an amazing job at interpolating resolution and getting rid of noise even with my 10MP Panasonic Lumix LX3."</p> <p>Hello Rishi,</p> <p>You are right, multi-images, in this case stitching. </p> <p>In the last few years stitching software as made huge improvements and has gotten far easier to get really good result from.</p> <p>As I have said to others, I know some will want to stitch to MF and that is fine, I just like to point out that there are more options out there for those that like to print big.</p>
Landrum Kelly Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Thanks, Scott. I would be very interested in doing some stitching, but realistically I won't be able to do it until the present semester is over in about seven weeks. (I am teaching an overload.) I will write you via e-mail.</p> <p>Thanks.</p> <p>--Lannie</p>
Landrum Kelly Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Rishi, thanks for posting the comparison with the noise reduction applied to the scan. That helps make it easier to put the shots by Les Sarile (that Mauro used to start this thread) into better perspective.</p> <p>Those were darned fine shots, Les.</p> <p>Mauro, you've hit another home run with this thread, in my opinion. There is a lot to learn, but some of us can get a big boost upward by trying to understand you guys.</p> <p>--Lannie</p>
rishij Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Scott,</p><p>Personal preference, but, I refuse to stitch shots, much like Mauro. Believe it or not, being a landscape guy, nature in fact <em>does not</em> provide you with limitless time during a sunrise or sunset, for example, to take shots over a period of 1.5 or 2 minutes. During sunrise on a mountaintop, the alpenglow can change in a matter of 15-30 seconds, which is sometimes the shutter speed of my shots when shooting ISO 40 film with small apertures and a polarizer. To capture that alpenglow, before the whole mountain is bathed in less saturated light, I wouldn't have the time to move the camera up and down & around to capture images to stitch.</p><p>I will, however, sometimes use the ability of PhotoAcute. At least with this solution, I don't have to move the camera around. I set up my composition, and I click away a number of shots. This in effect multi-samples the scene, and sensor noise is eliminated. With enough vibrational or translational movement from shot to shot, super-resolution is pretty darn amazing at finding detail that may not be there (or has a lower MTF) on any one of the shots to begin with. The resulting image is quite stunning, without requiring any movement of my camera.</p><p>Here's a comparison of one image out of a set of three consecutive shots VS. the super-resolution image (made using PhotoAcute), downsized to the original 10MP resolution of the Panasonic Lumix LX3 camera [one round of sharpening applied to both images in Lightroom, but PhotoAcute applies its own limited sharpening]:</p><p><img src="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/PanasonicLX3_PhotoAcute-2.jpg" alt="" width="800" /><br><a href="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/PanasonicLX3_PhotoAcute-2.jpg">Link to Full-Size Image</a></p><p>And another crop from a different portion of the frame:<br><img src="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/PanasonicLX3_PhotoAcute.jpg" alt="" width="800" /><br><a href="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/PanasonicLX3_PhotoAcute.jpg">Link to Full-Size Image</a></p><p>As you can see, even at base ISO (80), the LX3 has a fair amount of noise. And, as Scott would say, the pixels just aren't 'sharp' at 1:1 viewing. But they sure are sharp once you take the super-resolution file (2x resolution) and downsize it (bicubic). I found the results hard to believe myself, but, there it is.</p><p>Cheers,<br>Rishi</p>
roman_p Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p ><em><strong>Poor scans - May explain why some switch to Digital.</strong></em></p> <p > May be, but it’s partially…</p> <p > </p> <p >The main reasons seems to me is lack of adequate information. Can anybody imagine that such test may appear on Nikon Imaging website or in Popular Photography magazine? Obviously not. Seems like our so called “free public media” sits under tight financial control of digital manufacturers. And how many of us have seen that Nikon is promoting its scanners? Any ads, commercials, articles, announcements… Apparently Nikon already ceased the production of Coolscan V ED. And the reason is simple: it’s affordable, it delivers good performance, it’s popular and in demand. Yes, of cause, it contributes in film photography popularization and makes negative impact on digital camera sales. </p> <p > </p> <p >From my personal experience, 4 years ago I did not believe that scanning my produce good result. The only I’ve read and seen in our magazines it’s how a cheap digital camera can easily overpass scanned film in quality, gray range, res etc. and I was thinking quite serious about buying a DSLR. Until I took a look at Les Sarile Film 2 posting. This posting had drastically changed my mind. Since that I purchased my Coolscan V and never look back at digital again.</p> <p > </p> <p >Seems to me that Les and Mauro do for film photography popularization much more than the leading film manufacturers do. They did lots for all of us on this forum to keep our spirit alive. Guys, I guess the digital camera makers must hate you….</p>
rishij Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Look at the effects of PhotoAcute on high frequency detail... left is one of the original images, right is the super-resolution file downsized to 10MP from just 3 images combined (remember: no manual movement between shots) using PhotoAcute:<br> <img src="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/PanasonicLX3_PhotoAcute-HighFreqDetail.jpg" alt="" width="800" /><br> <a href="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/PanasonicLX3_PhotoAcute-HighFreqDetail.jpg">Link to Full-Size Image</a></p> <p>Sorry I may be going a bit OT now, Mauro, but I figured some of you guys might be interested :)</p> <p>In fact, I wonder if this method would make current dSLR really compete with MF...</p> <p>Cheers,<br /> Rishi</p>
Landrum Kelly Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Rishi, even the color tones are better! Holy cow! What one can learn on Mauro's threads if one keeps an open mind!</p> <p>--Lannie</p>
alan_goldhammer Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2381463">Rishi Sanyal</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 17, 2009; 04:31 p.m.</p> <blockquote> <p>So why not write a scanning tutorial for us?<br> Because my damn unrelated Ph.D [which is quite interesting in and of itself] keeps getting in the way :)<br> Seriously, though, I very well may, as a compendium on high quality scanning that incorporates some of the immense information detailed even here on photo.net simply does not exist (don't even get me started on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.amazon.com/Scanning-Negatives-Slides-Digitizing-Photographic/dp/193395230X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237320994&sr=8-1" target="_blank">this book</a> ; with comments such as "the higher the density of the slide, the brighter & more contrast it will have" even in its second edition, it just makes me irate reading it).</p> </blockquote> <p>I bought a Nikon Coolscan 5000 several months ago to begin digitizing 30 years worth of 35mm slides and negatives. The Nikon manual was essentially useless and I did purchase the book linked above. It wasn't quite useless but came close. A good tutorial would be valued by all of us amateurs out here who are trying to do some good things with our negatives. I have some great scans and some that are not so great but it's largely trial and error. If your PhD dissertation is in biochemistry (as that's what mine is in), I'm happy to lend a helping hand in return for a good tutorial!!! :-)</p>
rishij Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Rishi, even the color tones are better! Holy cow! What one can learn on Mauro's threads if one keeps an open mind!<br> --Lannie</p> </blockquote> <p>Hopefully, Lannie, you're joking :)</p> <p>I went ahead and post-processed the latter file more thoroughly, hence the color/tone difference. I should probably re-post with both tuned the same, argh. Just bein' lazy.</p>
robert lee Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>PhotoAcute works nicely but the resolution gain, for the current implementation at least, isn't actually all that great. At some small fraction of the resulting linear doubling of image dimensions, the improvement certainly isn't enough for really large prints. </p> <p>This is why stitched composites can really shine. As for capture speed, it's about 3sec per frame with a Gigapan head. Figure on having to shoot 6 frames to get a quadrupling of native camera resolution.</p> <p>By the way, it really isn't an either/or situation. The tonality advantage and noise reduction aspects of PhotoAcute can be had by a contrast blending step, vis. the open source enfuse package. Stitch the blended frames for a resolution increase. It's not as hard as it sounds - Hugin will jointly do both (and more actually.)</p> <p>I'll include an example of what to expect from just enfuse in isolation. The individual frames were shot with a Canon A720IS compact digicam at 800ISO, and in JPEG. This is no DSLR and profound noise at these settings is to be expected.</p><div></div>
robert lee Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Crop of one of the individual frames, straight JPEG out of the camera.</p><div></div>
rishij Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Alan - ha! It *is* in fact... well, medicinal chemistry technically, but mostly biochem/biophys -- I'm working on understanding the packaging motor of viruses...</p> <p>I'll make a deal with you: help me purify my intractable viral protein & I'll take some time out to write a book :)</p> <p>The sad thing is, by the time I (we, because certainly it'd be a joint effort with all the help & work provided by folks like Roger Smith, Erik de G, Mauro, Mendel Leisk, Scott Turner, Robert Budding... countless wonderful people in these threads have contributed to my knowledge & efforts) ever get around to writing one, film will probably be dead.</p> <p>I'll try anyhow, for the sake of posterity. But first I'm trying to finish my prototype holders for the Nikon LS-4000/5000 and the Minolta DSE 5400 aimed at holding film as flat as wet-mounting would allow. Still not sure if the concomitant light source modification required for the LS-4000/5000 would allow ICE functionality though... so I've got some kinks to work out. Famous last words.</p> <p>-Rishi</p>
rishij Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <blockquote> <p>PhotoAcute works nicely but the resolution gain, for the current implementation at least, isn't actually all that great. At some small fraction of the resulting linear doubling of image dimensions, the improvement certainly isn't enough for really large prints.</p> </blockquote> <p>Robert, have you tried different profiles when processing the super-resolution image? I've found that using profiles for higher-end cameras results in better resulting resolution, but sometimes less noise removal. Not sure why, as I don't understand (yet) how the different profiles for the different cameras actually function.</p> <p>-Rishi</p>
Landrum Kelly Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Hopefully, Lannie, you're joking :) --Rishi</p> </blockquote> <p>No, Rishi, I am just that stupid. I have been looking at all the pairs of files that had different tones and wondered exactly why they varied so much. (Does film v. digital routinely affect tonal accuracy that much?)</p> <p>--Lannie</p> <blockquote> <br /></blockquote>
swilson Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p> <p>Rishi, I am trying PhotoAcute and only seeing very small improvements. I am thinking in your test case one of your shots was out of focus or motion blur and the large gain you saw was mainly from PhotoAcute picking detail from one of the sharper images.<br> I also find it much slower then stitching.<br> Still it is an interesting product, I will play with it more and see if I can’t get better result from it.</p> </p>
rishij Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Still can't tell if you're being serious or not, Lannie, but for whatever it's worth:</p> <p>Scanned negative film has no color accuracy, so to speak. The scanning operator + software determines the overall color balance. Of course, there are red, green, and blue sensitive layers in the film, so the color information is accurately recorded (unlike Bayer sensors, hence why the blue rivers turned black in the Nikon digital capture). However, what those colors map to in the final digital file is up to the scanner/software/operator.</p> <p>In slide film, the resultant colors are whatever the film manufacturer specified the colors to be given E-6 processing. The color dyes in both negative & slide film respond to a wide range of colors, hence the color information is vast in comparison to a Bayer sensors who's color filters only record narrow bandwidths of the spectrum. What that color information maps to in the final chrome is up to the film manufacturer. For Velvia, arguably, it's quite pleasant, not necessarily accurate.</p> <p>The nice thing about digital RAW capture is that by shooting color cards in real world shooting scenarios yourself, you can make your own profiles (using Adobe DNG Profile Editor) that accuratel reflect the color response of your digital sensor in the real-world. That way, when you use said profile to process your RAW file at home, you can actually achieve the colors that you saw out there in the real world when you shot the image (provided you have a profiled monitor of course).</p> <p>This is quite powerful.</p> <p>It's also possible with film, just arguably much harder. Especially since, in my observation, Velvia colors for the same subject vary wildly depending on exposure value (EV). So you'd have to shoot color cards for different EVs... Then use some open source profiling software that works with Gretagmacbeth color charts, then take the raw scan file and apply the profile to it. I dunno how well that works, honestly.</p> <p>What I do is just profile the film+scanner combination, then apply that profile, getting me exactly the colors I see on the film on a 5000K lightbox. It's quite wonderful, actually, since Velvia already produces very pleasing colors. No post-processing necessary -- just apply the profile. Velvia chemistry does all the post-processing :)</p> <p>-Rishi</p>
rishij Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Rishi, I am trying PhotoAcute and only seeing very small improvements. I am thinking in your test case one of your shots was out of focus or motion blur and the large gain you saw was mainly from PhotoAcute picking detail from one of the sharper images.</p> </blockquote> <p>Scott, I also initially thought the same thing. But, no, the original image you see there is the sharpest of the 3! No motion blur... it was tripod mounted with a 2 sec shutter delay. No shutter vibration b/c, well, technically it's a P&S :)</p> <p>Try the different profiles. For the LX3 I use the Leica M8 profile. The Canon Rebel profiles give you pretty good resolution jumps, but less noise reduction. Again, not sure why. Try one of the SLR profiles even if you have a P&S. Also, I was working with RAW images from the LX3, not JPEG. Dunno how much of a difference that makes. PhotoAcute uses Adobe DNG converter to process the RAW files.</p> <p>-Rishi</p>
rishij Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Scott & anyone else, here try yourself with my 3 original RAW files:<br> <a href="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/LX3/">http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/LX3/</a></p> <p>Here you can download a trial of PhotoAcute:<br> <a href="http://photoacute.com/">http://photoacute.com/</a></p> <p>Try using the Leica M8 profile when doing the super-resolution stitch.</p> <p>-Rishi</p>
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now