graybrick

"...for others photography is far more serious as an art form and way of self-actualization. These people are willing to spend the bigger bucks..."

 

So you have to spend gobs of cash to be 'serious' as an artist? You make me laugh. Like when folks tell me that my camera takes nice pictures. LOL

 

Yeah, ok. Nice chatting with you.

Edd- 'your' (ie ... "your an idiot") is a posessive, indicating something belonging to <i>you</i>. You're means you are. Before you call someone else an idiot, at least have the dignity to say it with proper English.<BR><BR>

 

Print 'quality' is a very subjective thing. Many say 300DPI is a 'photo quality' image, so an 8x10 would need 2400x3000 pixels (just over 7MP). However, most monitors have output at 72DPI, and I think that it looks pretty good and you need to get pretty close to the screen to see individual pixels. So, you may be able to print, say, 100DPI and still have an acceptable image. Viewer distance has a lot to do with it, and larger prints will likely be viewed from a greater distance so it works out well. As stated above, though, a good looking image will depend more on photographic technique than software and printing. I have some images from my 20D that look like crap at 8x10, and some that make awesome prints at 20x30- it just depends on the original image quality. The more you enlarge, the more your flaws become obvious.

<BR><BR>

As for the megapixels: The sensor is a rectangle, so pixels are arranged in a 2D format. This means that you're dealing with exponential factors when trying to acheive larger image sizes. For example, say you have a 2x2 matrix. That's four pixels. Now, if you want to 'double' your print size, you're going to need more than eight pixels- you'll need sixteen to double the size in width and height (a 4x4 matrix). Basically, to figure out how much bigger on a side your extra pixels will let you go, take the square root (bigger sensor/smaller sensor)- in this case sqrt(16Pixels/4Pixels)=2; a 10MP sensor vs an 8MP sensor: sqrt(10/8)=~1.12; this will give you roughly a 12% larger print in each dimension. This means, at 300PPI, you'll basically get an extra inch per side, not much closer to your 'banner' size than you started. Frankly, I'd recommend the 30D for the build alone, though you should decide based on features you want. Don't let the extra 2MP woo you too much.

<BR><BR>

Anyway, I think in any case you won't end up needing to print too many shots in gargantuan sizes despite your current enthusiasm. It's fun to do, but impractical in general. Either way, though, yeah, you can get a nice 16x20,18x24, or 20x30 print with a well-taken photograph from a 30D.

You won't get TTL with these, and for some you may need a hotshoe adapter unless they come set up with a hotshoe mount. Take a good look before you pick one, as there are several models available.

OK, you win. Thanks for quoting portions of this thread and giving me a link to someone's subjective assessment as objective, scientifically derived 'facts' in evidence of your assertions. 'Everybody' says so so it <i>must</i> be true. Again, since your understanding is obviously obtunded and your attention very selective (putting this on a new line so you might read it this time...)<BR>Yes, there <i>is</i> a bit of difference in the results from high-end and low-end scanners (genius) and there better be at 60x (or even 10x) the price.<br>However, in anything but massive enlargements, the average viewer (not you, smarty pants) will never notice the difference, as they won't be likely to scrutinize the print as you might. Even then, with good technique, on some prints the difference probably won't be obvious. On an 11x14, 12x18, or similar sized print what I get is excellent. You might not beleive this, but hey, that's ok. Given that most films in 35mm format are limited to <16MP of usable detail anyway, the film itself becomes the limiting factor. Now, good b/w films give much better numbers, and also much better scans for me. My point here has been that linear increments in scan quality come with exponential increases in price, and the low end of the scale is more than adequate for everyday use unless you have a special need.<br>I don't claim any right to tell anyone how to spend or waste their money. Suggesting that anyone <i>needs</i> a $12k scanner, however, to get good results is absurd. A bit like saying you need a Ferrari and a Rolex to get to work on time (and well)... it's just stupendously ignorant. Next you'll tell me that I <i>need </i> a Hasselblad to get 'quality' pictures. Or that my digital will never approach the 'quality' of film. I'm not pissing here, buddy, it's you who's got your shoes all wet. I understand that you feel the need to defend your reasons for unloading masses of cash for the 'real' thing, though, and if it makes you feel good, then by all means...<br>I'm done here. I hope you are too. You've proved your point- your scanner <i>is</i> bigger than mine :o)

1. You haven't seen the prints.

 

2. You still have yet to offer any real substantiation to your assertion that you can't get more than 2400DPI from a flatbed with good technique.

 

Enough said.

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5189247-lg.jpg">

Ugh. OK, just a couple points here. First, this is a ridiculous argument, and you're apparently having a hard time understanding my english. The choice of a scanner is based on need and economy. For your purposes, and I presume you work in a printing type industry, a drum scanner might be the obvious choice. I am an amateur photographer. While I'd love to have an ICG, or even a measley Creo, but I'm not in the commercial scan-to-print business, and if you take a look at the original post here you'll surely pick up that the OP isn't either. As for the 'high quality' 30 inch print, well, it seems subjective but I'm looking at one right now. As for the OPs question, 12x18 prints are easily within the range of my cheap Epson scanner from 35mm. You might get a slightly better-to-your-eye nose in the print result from your drum scanner, or your 'real' flatbed, but again, for sixty(?) times the price or more you better, or you are throwing your hard earned cash away.

 

As for your assertion about DPI of the scanners, your link provided nil for actual data. I've heard a lot that flatbeds don't perform to their specs, but I've never actually seen anyone put that assertion to a properly designed scientific test. I'm willing to bet that you haven't either and you're still talking out your ass, quoting 'everybody' as if heresay must be fact. Do us a favor and show us where you tested the 4800DPI output at 1800DPI. Or, for that matter, where anyone else did. In any case, it's irrelevant to this particular topic. In the end, my scanned prints look as good as my darkroom prints, and I've had many comments from others who have seen them to the same effect. Maybe we're all just not as discerning as you, but hey... I'm no snob. You shoot Leica? 'Everybody' will tell you that 35mm doesn't enlarge well past 11x14 anyway, so the 20x30 is moot, wouldn't you say?

Van-

 

Who is everyone, anyway? I mean, those that will tell you that a 4800DPI sensor only gives you 1800DPI? I'd love to see that. I'd also like to see your tests that prove it. Yes, there is a small difference in quality, but I have seen it and for $1800 you're gonna need a pretty serious job to make up the cost. The images I'm scanning are at 4800DPI. The actual resolving power, due to glass and other factors, is somewhat less accurate than that, but they're very very close in quality at full resolution to the $2000 Nikon dedicated scanner. I'm not speculating. I'm telling you what I have seen firsthand. At 8x10 there's essentially no differnce. At 12x18 there's essentially no difference. At 20x30, there's a slight difference, but you have to look pretty hard to see it and the average viewer won't ever notice. So it all comes down to your personal needs. No doubt you'll get a slightly better result from using a much more expensive product, but again (if you had trouble understanding me the first time) for the average user, with some patience and care, the Epson flatbed scans are excellent. From your reaction, you'd think I was pissing on you (my legs are dry). So, feel free to send on the tests that 'everyone' has performed refuting Epson's calim of a 4800DPI sensor... I'll be waiting.

I assure you I've done my homework, and while there is certainly a quality difference, with the proper use and some experience the difference between the flatbed and the dedicated scanner is minimal, if even discernable. I've seen gallery prints. I've seen the dedicated film scanner output. I've seen the output from a $12k flatbed (which was superior, I may add, to many of the drum scans I've seen at full size). You're going to have to print some massive images to really pick out the quality difference between the $200 Epson flatbed and the $2000 Nikon. This assumes, of course, that you have the patience to learn to use your equipment, as the flatbed is slower and a bit more work to get 'just right.' If you're making 'gallery prints' or planning to sell a couple grand worth of scanned prints in the next few months, maybe it's worth the extra money to you, but for the non-professional spending the extra money just doesn't, IMO, make a bit of sense. The perceived quality difference just isn't there. As for the $5-10K for a DSLR, well, there's really no comparisen there either... and you can get a very good DSLR for under $2k that will likely support your lenses if your film setup is decent... however, we're comparing scanners, not cameras, and the truth of the matter is unless you have a special need for ultra-huge ultra high quality prints, the extra $1800 for the dedicated Nikon film scanner is just not going to buy you much, if any difference in final quality. (pissing contest over, Gray crawling back in his happy little hole)

<i>"1200-1500 PPI..."<BR><BR></i>

 

Bollocks. Utter ignorant shite. Don't listen to a word that guy has to say, because he's obviously speaking frome heresay and conjecture, and has no real experience using a good flatbed scanner. Had he actually <i>tried</i> a few and done some comparison, he wouldn't be trying to compete in this DPI pissing contest with numbers which are obviously a load of made-up trash. Probably 'read it' or 'heard it' somewhere, and now trying to spread it on. Maybe he's trying to justify the chunk of cheese he dropped on a dedicated film scanner? Well, for both of you, I'm going to say it one last time. It's a load of hooey. Hogwash. If you don't beleive me, get out there and actually put your hands on some scanners and compare it for yourself, Look at nikon's super-pricey dedicated film scanner and look at Epson's bargain bin 4800DPI scanners with <i>the same film</i> and judge for yourself if the extra $1800 is worth the insignificant boost in resolution. I think you'll tend to agree with me after you've actually <i>done it for yourself</i>.<br><br>

 

I have an Epson 4490 flatbed with film trays that has an optical resolution of 4800DPI. Granted, as has been stated, it is difficult to get the film perfectly flat in the trays, and this will cause some deviation from the published resolution. The dedicated film scanners handle the film automatically, which makes it a whole lot easier to deal with and, in the end, gives overall more consistent results for an inexperienced user. However, the late Epson scanners have a <i>physical sensor resolution</I> of 4800DPI, and the newest ones (haven't checked in a while) may (or will)be even higher than that. That's sensor density. <i>NOT</i> interpolation. I've made 20x30 b/w prints from 35mm Ilford HP5 carefully scanned at 4800DPI in 16-bit greyscale on the Epson 4490 and I would beg anyone who thinks you can't get excellence from a flatbed scanning tiny film to have some impartial observers compare my full-sized prints to their most beloved drum-scanned prints in a blind side-by-side, any time, any day of the week (print quality, not artistic merit, of course). Bottom line, the prints I've enlarged from this scanner look every bit as good as darkroom prints (some maybe better thanks to digital post-processing).

<br><BR>

Be sure that the resolution of your scanner is optical resolution, as often companies will advertise 'maximum' resolution which is an interpolated figure. Many scanners are also capable of scanning more lines down an image than across, which muddles things a bit too (mine can do 9600LPI in one direction, but the sensor is limited physically to 4800DPI). Anyway, don't beleive everything you hear from the 'film scanner' devotees. Yes, they work well, and they do have some advantages in film handling, speed, and ease of use. However, for half the price or often even much much less, you <i>can</i> get an <i>excellent</i> flatbed scanner that will give you very satisfying and useful results. I know. I have one.<BR><BR>

 

Good luck.<BR><BR>

 

GM

Not sure what you're asking...

Another consideration here is that your lenses are likely to outlive any digital camera body by a long stretch. I have some film bodies from the 70s and 80s that still perform flawlessly, but much like your cell phone, tv, printer and fax machine, ther will be a bigger, badder, better digital body out sometime likely next week. And just like all your electronics, the service life is limited to a few good years, after which the majority of the electronics will be outdated and probably won't have parts available to replace worn out units. The lenses, however, will last for a long time to come, likely through five or six bodies with good use... so I'd look into quality glass and try to keep in mind that the camera body is mostly just the box that holds your lens in place. :o)

 

-e-

Bear in mind that a shot that is twice as big in both dimensions is actually four times the size of the original. ie, a 2x2 matrix(4) is one quarter of a 4x4matrix(16). So, the square root of the difference factor in size will approximate the actual enlargement in each dimension you acheive. The XTi is 1.25x the number of pixels as the XT, so this will give you a picture that is roughly 1.12x larger in each dimension than the XT. In practical terms, if you're printing 'photo quality' 300 DPI (quite a subjective term and measurement) then your maximum size for the XT will be roughly 8x11". With the 10MP XTi, your maximum will be roughly 9x12". Given that your monitor's resolution is about 72DPI, though, I think it's safe to say that 'photo quality' is rather subjective and that you can make a large print at much lower resolution than 300PPI and still have something that looks good. I do it a lot, and have yet to be disappointed with 200PPI, sometimes lower depending on the subject. If you have to, you can always upres through interpolation with PS or the equivalent, and with good results. My point is that the difference sounds like a lot in sheer pixel numbers, but they're so spread out that you probably won't even notice. Judge the value of the features and don't beleive the megaschmixel hype, because it's kinda bogus.

Well, how big is big? I print 12x18 from my 20D (equivalent to the xt) with excellent results, and have printed up to 20x30 and been quite pleased. The practical difference between 8 and 10 MP is really pretty small, and you're going to have to look really hard to notice the difference at 20"x30"... however, if your standard print size is that large, maybe the extra 2MP will help you out, but if you're printing 12x18 then I wouldn't think about that. I think the biggest issue for you is features vs cost, as the image quality is going to be pretty close between the two. They're both nice cameras. You gotta ask yourself if you have to have the extra features of the XTi. Personally, I'd go for the 30D (better build and handling, faster frame rate, spot metering...), but that's just my opinion.

Even at larger than that size you'll be hard-pressed to see a quality difference with proper post-processing work anyway... look at Bob Atkin's reviews on the main page, and he will describe the major differences, and you'll be the judge of which features you find meaningful and whether it's worth the extra cheese to have the newest best thing. Remember, people have been happily shooting with the xt for some time now, and it's a high quality camera for its price.

Mr. Atkins has done your homework for you... thanks Bob!

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/30D/">Canon 30D review, with comparisons to its predecessor, the Canon 20D</a>

As far as I know, it's just how it is. This happens with my 20D at ISO 800+... unlike film grain, it's not random, so it can be quite distressing. It seems like some people know how to avoid it, but I haven't found a good workaround so I find the high ISOs pretty much useless for larger prints, though the noise is bearable for 4x6 and 5x7 prints for the most part. It helps to lean toward overexposure if you can, without blowing out highlights, as using software to 'up' your exposure will tend to enhance these defects. Indeed, even at ISO 100 you can find these artefacts if you increase exposure intensely.

I second the air blower recommendation, along with some lint-free white gloves. I have found that with my Epson 4490 the ICE feature tends to do more harm than good with scans. I tend to turn off the sharpening, too, as I would rather retain control via PS than surrender to the scanner software in my original scan output. Thorough use of the blower will remove the vast majority of the dust from your films pre-scan most of the time, and this will allow you to rely much, much less on software-driven processing and retain much more of your original quality in scanning, as well as cutting your post-processing clean-up time significantly. I have also heard (anecdotally) of the use of ionizers such as the ionic breeze in the area of the scanner to keep down dust and keep dust from adhering to the film, thus aiding in blower removal and cutting working time. As always, it's much much better to start with a quality product (scan) than to try to restore a poor product. Good luck.

 

GM

I'm wondering if the resolution of traditional print paper has been

established. Basically, if I make a 5x7 print in a darkroom, will I capture

the full resolution of my film? Is the resolution of the print paper close to

the resolution of the film itself, say Ilford HP5? I'm wondering for scanning

purposes, I've noticed that traditional prints will make excellently detailed

scans, while film scans are really pushing the limits of the scanner

resolution. Thus it seems that for resolving ability it makes sense that

printing to scan is more appropriate, if you're trying to capture fine details

(assuming good printing technique, of course, and disregarding the debate

about digitally sussing out DR with good scanner technique). Any thoughts on

this, and is my assumption valid? (I know that prints made at 300PPI will not

gain resolution in this manner, but I assume that traditional photo paper is

much, much higher resolution, ie detailed past the limits of normal human

vision, much like emulsion films...)

Have you tried blowing it out with a hand blower (not compressed air!)? This is usually all that's really needed to clean your sensor. Buy a high-pressure hand blower and give it a try. Otherwise there's a lot of information available on varios 'wet' techniques available by searching threads here and on the web which will detail all you need, how to make your own, pros/cons of individual products, the difference in brushes and swabs, and many more aspects. The big thing is, it is easy to damage or make worse your problem if you're not careful cleaning the sensor, and it's going to cost a lot to fix it if you do, so I suggest you do some careful howemork and research, try the blower method (thoroughly, several times if necessary), and determine how big a problem any dust you have really is before proceeding with a 'wet' cleaning method. Also, if your problem si that bad, you might consider sending your camera to a repair center for cleaning. Good luck.

 

GM