scan sharpness

[sebastianmoran]

<p>What did it take to get there? Here's the layer stack:</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-LayerStack.jpg" alt="" /><br /> And, a brief listing:</p>

<ul>

<li>V500 Scan to 16bit tiff at 2400 ppi (I read here that I could get a little more resolution by scanning at 4800 ppi and then down-sampling). Color Space sRGB, with profile.</li>

<li>Noise reduction and capture sharpening. I find this essential when scanning.</li>

<li>Hue/Sat for minor color adjustments... (reds and yellows shifted a bit to orange)</li>

<li>Vibrance to bring up the saturation and punch</li>

<li>The top layer Curves adjustment for the major color correction</li>

</ul>

<p>These are shown in the layer stack above. Then (not shown)</p>

<ul>

<li>Resize to 3600x5400 to make a 12x18" print</li>

<li>Flatten Image</li>

<li>Sharpen for output (per Bruce Fraser's nice book)</li>

<li>Mode = 8 bit. Save as JPG, high quality.</li>

</ul>

<p>In case it might be helpful to anyone else using a V500 on Ektar 100, here is a link to a <a href="http://2under.net/images/100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-Crop1.psd"> fully layered PSD file</a> (5MB) of the 600x600 pixel first crop from above. The bottom layer is the original 16bit tiff scan from the V500.<br /> I would be interested in any comments about the processing above, or the scanning.</p>

<p>I'm going to keep my V500... I think I can make nice 12x18 prints from my 6x9 negatives and chromes. For 35mm, I would only try for a 4x6 or a web image with the V500. I hope this is helpful to the OP and to anyone else reading this far.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Finally, in case anyone would like to look at the final file, ready to print at 12x18", here is a <a href="http://2under.net/images/100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-8x12.jpg">link</a> to the JPG, 3600x5400 px, 5MB.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Here are 100 percent crops and 50 percent crops. They both appear in the monitor much larger than they would in a 10inch wide print the details in the rope would hardly be visible and the crop area would be around 1.5 cm high.</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Richard the file you uploaded is only 3600x2400 pixels. It does look nice though.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Oops.. So it is. My error... In <em>everything</em> above, I meant 8x12" print, not 12x18" print. Sorry for getting this confused today.</p>

<p>Yes, I'm happy with 8x12" prints from my V500. (I don't know about 12x18")</p>

<p>And, Stuart, your boat image looks good too. How large did you print it?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Richard, every marker on the test chart corresponds to aprox 730 lines per picture height.<br /> In this particular test the results were:</p>

<p>__________________________________________<br /> <br>

*** 40D:<br>

marker = 3<br>

lpph = 2160 lines per picture height<br>

effective total real resolution: 2160 * (1+1.5) = 5.5 megapixels [as opposed to the 10MP nominally advertised]</p>

<p>__________________________________________<br>

*** TMAX+RZ67 scanned with a flatbed<br>

best marker: 6 (it is on 4 in the cross direction)<br>

lpph = 4320 lines per picture height (about 2000 dpi - about 1300dpi in the other direction)<br>

effective total real resolution: 4320 * 4320 * 4/6 * 69mm/56mm = 15.3 megapixels</p>

<p>__________________________________________<br>

*** TMAX+RZ67 scanned with Coolscan:<br /> marker: 11.5<br /> lpph= 8400 lines per picture height (about 3810 dpi - it is only 3650 dpi in the other direction)<br /> effective total real resolution: 8400 * 8400 * 3650/3810 * 69mm/56mm = 83.3 megapixels<br /> __________________________________________<br>

*** TMAX+RZ67 visually inspected on the microscope:<br /> marker: 15.5<br /> lpph= 11310 lines per picture height (about 5130 dpi - 200+ lines per millimiter)<br /> effective total real resolution: 11310 * 11310 * 69mm/56mm = 158 megapixels</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>As you can see, the flatbed captured only 1/10 of the information on the film and the Coolscan only 1/2.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>I am always amazed that some folks are "discovering" a flatbed is not as good as a dedicated film scanner; whether today; 5; 10 or 15 years ago.</p>

<p>A pro flatbed 15 years ago was about 1200 dpi and cost about 3000 bucks; today a Modern consumer one is about 1.5 to 2 times the ability to pull out details; and considering inflation only costs 1/10 to 1/20 as much.</p>

<p>Before 1200 dpi pro flatbeds came out; we had 600 and 800 dpi models that cost more than a new Hassleblad kit; ie body; 80mm Planar and back too. </p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Mauro, thank you. That exactly matches my measurements for the V500, 2000 ppi in one direction, 1300 ppi in the other.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The test above uses 6x7 film. Using 35mm film the film+scanner effective real resolution would have been 4.5 times smaller:</p>

<p>Canon 40D = 5.5 megapixels<br>

TMAX 35mm + flatbed = 3.3 megapixels<br>

TMAX 35mm + coolscan= 18.5 megapixels<br>

TMAX 35mm film= 35 megapixels</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I think in the end if you have enough resolution to render the subject as you would expect to see it then prints will usually look pretty good at reasonable sizes. I will get it printed around 10inches wide and I think it will be fine. I don't make big prints. I used to like making 8x8 inch darkroom prints from 2 1/4 square negs.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>You are welcome Richard.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Having tripped up in my own confusion about print size, I just prepared a file for printing 12x18" at 300 dpi from the same V500 scan. Since I originally scanned at 2400 ppi, I had plenty of pixels.</p>

<p>Looking at the file, I think it would make a nice sharp print at 12x18". Here is the <a href="http://2under.net/images/100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-12x18.jpg">ready to print JPG file</a> at 12x18" (8MB) in case anyone is interested.</p>

<p>I think the V500 has some usefulness for MF, especially at the modest price. For modest sized prints, web images, and files to view on the iPhone, the V500 lets me enjoy the results of my MF work. </p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Mauro wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[40 D] effective total real resolution: 2160 * (1+1.5) = 5.5 megapixels [as opposed to the 10MP nominally advertised]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with your results, but I think the math for the 40D is: 2160 * 2160 * 1.5 = 6.9 Megapixels</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I think you will get a 12x18 from that file no problem at all. I would maybe sharpen it a touch more for printing. It gets really crisp when I applied a bit of unsharp mask. ( 0.7 Radius ), ( 140 percent ), ( 0 threshold ).</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Richard, you are correct. I'm sloppy today.</p>

[leo_papandreou1]

When I was scanning 135 with a V750 I was getting better results with regular old film than from a good Canon P&S. Oftentimes much better. MF + the V750 was at least as good as a DSLR, oftentimes much better. Now obviously DSLRs and P&Ss are good enough for almost everyone (in fact P&S are wildly more popular than DSLRs) and therefore a good flatbed can be better than what most people are accustomed to from digital. That's all I wanted to say. I'm sorry, I can't help with your particular scanner. Obviously something's wrong with it.

[marc_felber1]

<p>You are better off investing in a Nikon coolscan V ed or Nikon Coolscan 5000 Ed. My images scanning use Nikon if that should tell you something with at least 4000 DPI.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Thanks, Stuart. The proof will be on paper, and I'm going to print it to see. That would mean that from a V500 scan we can get good prints 6x the linear dimension of the film.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here I got one of these *FREE* when I bought some paper for my business.</p>

<p>It seems to test about 2700 dpi compared to a high end scan; great for a flatbed. The film holders are abit clunky; but are rugged. Jim helped me set up the drivers; the scanner bundle even came with a test slide; some type of dorky red vegetables. The scans seem normal; ie about as quick as other scanners as far as time goes.</p>

<p>When you do a scan one does get a popup; an tiny advert for Sabre's paper division; I am not sure yet how to turn it off yet. I tried it on Win2000 and Vista Home; but not the iMac duo yet.<br /> <br /> The scans are decent; and tech support was great; the scanner supports USB 1/2/3. It scans abit faster on a USB 2 port; but with 3.0 the scanner is the bottleneck as far as time goes.</p>

<p>OK, first let's go over some parameters; it is really NOT a 4200 dpi scanner; <em>"more like a 2600 dpi one with a high contrast original; probably about 2000 with low contrast pictorial stuff."</em> That's what she said; the lady in tech support.</p>

<p>TOTALLY COOL; a scanner company's employee mentioning PRACTICAL numbers in an honest dialog!!!. I did not even have to pay for shipping; Darryl in shipping bubble wrapped the scanner and had it on top of the paper order. I was worried that the scanner would get ruined by a fork truck!</p>

<p>The scan software is some what strange; Sabre uses dmi instead of dpi.. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.sabre-corp.com/products.shtml"><strong>Sabre ExelScan i4200</strong></a></p>

[andrewg_ny]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"That's what she said; the lady in tech support"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>:-)<br>

The salient point in Kelly's last post is the one immediately to the right of his (her?) name, following the 'film canisters' icon.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>OK, jokes aside... </p>

<p>We can keep our V500's! I have in my hands a 12x18" print from my V500 scan of 6x9 Ektar color negative. The print is plenty sharp. Here's another link to the <a href="http://2under.net/images/100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-12x18.jpg">ready-to-print file</a> if you want to look for yourself. Based on this, I'm ready to say the V500 is OK for prints up to 6x the linear size of the film you are scanning. This makes it a cheap and helpful tool for my MF shooting. Yes, there's more on the film than is realized in a V500 scan; I'll use my V500 for convenience and then buy better scans of the keepers. </p>

<p>Stuart, I'm still digesting your suggestion for more sharpening.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I found that just a touch more sharpening made the image pop a bit more and it became really crisp. The brick work became more defined. Did you try sharpening it a touch. It may just be a taste thing more than anything. It is not unsharp as it it and the scan looks very nice. You could print it at 16x24 at 225ppi. The scan looks good even when viewing at 100% so I don't thnk it would be a problem. I spent around six years working as a wide format printer and doing photgraphy work I had to make many large prints from much much worse scans than this one.</p>

[troyammons]

<p>You must have one of the good ones. Mine wouldn't even come close to that.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Hi Richard, this image could stand a lot more sharpening to bring out detail. I just did a quick and dirty edit using unsharp mask and also increased the overall contrast a bit (using curves/autocolor). See how this compares to your other print.</p><div></div>