radek_pohl

December 20, 2012

Few days ago, Plustek published interesting table on their blog: <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pEO474i6hWQ/UKVD1XU4zWI/AAAAAAAAAWo/qAZiAiNiS3E/s640/scanner+measured+resolutionsJPG.JPG">http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pEO474i6hWQ/UKVD1XU4zWI/AAAAAAAAAWo/qAZiAiNiS3E/s640/scanner+measured+resolutionsJPG.JPG</a>

Table contains measured resolution data, including new Plustek opticfilm 120 scanner numbers. According to Plustek, optical resolution at 10600dpi is impressive 5793dpi, at 5300dpi it is still very good 4598dpi.

However, same source lists optical 4096dpi for plustek 7600 (at 7200dpi) - what substantially differs from 3250dpi measured by these guys: <a href="http://www.filmscanner.info/PlustekOpticFilm7600i.html">http://www.filmscanner.info/PlustekOpticFilm7600i.html</a>

(filmscanner.info is reliable source)

So if we divide Plustek numbers approximately by 1.25, we will probably have correct numbers, cca 4600dpi maximum resolution for 35mm film (very nice result for $2000 scanner).

Real numbers for 60mm wide film (mf) will probably differ from above results, as 10660px ccd array (used in Plustek scanner) leads to 4500dpi (just theoretical limit, there are more limiting factors like optics, dof ...)

Indeed, anything above real 4000dpi for MF would be phantastic!

Filmscanner.info also mentioned 15.1.2013 as date, when scanner will be available ...

<a href="http://www.filmscanner.info/PlustekOpticFilm120.html">http://www.filmscanner.info/PlustekOpticFilm120.html</a>

March 21, 2012

Still no news (exact parameters, specifications, output examples) on new mf plustek scanner ?

It would be nice to have any affordable and high quality replacement of Nikon's ... but I'm a bit skeptical:

10660 will be number of elements (pixels) on linear CCD array, so maximum theoretical output resolution is already limited to 4200-4600 dpi (it depends on shorter side -width of the scanning area, what will be approx. 60mm)

8 element lens is probably nothing special - Nikon has 14/6 lens (with 6 ED elements)

So probably no drum scan killer, but there's still hope for good, nearly 4000 dpi scans :)

February 28, 2011

Daniel Lee Taylor:

"Note that the 7D has finer resolution of relief texture details, which are color, than 35mm velvia 50 on an Imacon scanner"

And where are blue river lines gone ? - river network drawing is clearly visible on velvia scan, but missing on 7D image (actually not missing, but drawn with background color tone instead of blue)

November 2, 2010

home processed Kodachrome - impressive results:

<a href="http://www.temnakomora.cz/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=3492">http://www.temnakomora.cz/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=3492</a>

September 16, 2010

nice to see any new film emulsion ... however, ten years old supra 400 had pgi 36 (for 4.4x magnification) what is marginally, but still better! than 37 for new portra 400 (at same level of magnification)

<a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e58/e58.pdf">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e58/e58.pdf</a>

<a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4050/e4050.pdf">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4050/e4050.pdf</a>

May 16, 2009

the top 9 stops are burned through the emulsion

point is that not through the emulsion of ektar 100 ... which has colors of velvia, but dynamic range of ektar ;-)

May 10, 2009

Am I at the technical max of my scanner ?

yes ... simple and good enough solution is to resample file to size and resolution, requested by lab

bit more complicated, (and lot more $ consuming) solution is to scan your chrome optically at cca 8000dpi, using dedicated hi-res scanner like flextight or even better some drum scanner

May 8, 2009

there are still a few K-mount zenitars in production

<a href="http://www.zenit-foto.ru/index.php?show=cat&raz=21&m=230">http://www.zenit-foto.ru/index.php?show=cat&raz=21&m=230</a>

and also belomo still offers their fisheyes in m-42 and nikon mount

<a href="http://www.belomo.by/rus/15raz.htm">http://www.belomo.by/rus/15raz.htm</a>

March 21, 2009

In going through my scans I was reminded how many skies I had to remove grain from to get the photo to look good enough for even displaying on the computer screen.

Scott, i think visible grain (or invisible grain) is critical for displaying on computer screen, as what you see is 70-100dpi image, for prints it's much more acceptable, at 300 or even more dpi

no doubt, generally film has more grain than has digital noise, and it's easy getting worse (for film) at higher isos

but even 35mm film is capable to catch details, fully comparable with ff digital, of course for many people is film grain unacceptable and disturbing

March 21, 2009

Perhaps you could get better details from the film than I could, but the processing ability of the RAW files allowed me to get in : take my images : get out : deliver a product to the client all in the same day

Yoshio, it's true, and your work, it's exactly what is digital used for

the goal of this thread is, that for some categories of photographers, film is fully suitable when properly scanned, and that earlier conclusions about 6-8mpix limit of 35mm film, or 10-12mpix from 6x4.5, these are just myths :)

no doubt, for you is far better to shoot digitally, but many others can get comparable or far better results with film gear instead of digital

you don't need to buy mf digital back for landscape shooting, as you can get stellar results with some cheap 6x7 system ... of course, the best drum scans are pricey, but how many "best" shots are good enough to be drum scanned ... so as with 35mm, you don't need to buy ff dslr at 10x - 20x higher price, compared to film slr

and you still have ff dof, can use ff lenses, and can simply achieve 14-18mpix (and maybe more if drum scanned) resolution

and you have much more than digital shooter - slides, with it's unbeatable look, look which can not be achieved by any s-xga or hdtv :)

March 21, 2009

for illustration, this is unresized 512x256 cutout yes, 35mm film cannot compete at high isos, but you can get very good home made results even with cheap hardware and if you can see this slide projected - its just another world :-)

it's handheld shot at 1/125, f4 or 5.6, so the DOF is just few mm, but surely, it's not film what is limiting resolution here :)<div></div>

March 21, 2009

here is downsized original (cca 4600x3100px)

March 21, 2009

you can go easy to true 14mp with (at this time) dirty cheap scanner (canoscan fs4000us), third party prime (6/4 105/2.8 kiron) and pentax mx there are apparently 1px wide details on 14mpix scan ... with better scanner, better lens (fa 100/2.8), use of tripod and mlu ... you will get much more cutout is 79x64 4x nn upsampled (so 316x256), there are clearly visible some just 1px wide "spaces" between "tiles" on lizards skin (horizontal line inside red oval)

so there on film (astia 100) is more to be scanned at higher resolution, the film is far no weak part of that chain!<div></div>

March 19, 2009

imho, both waterfall and mountain are scanned film images

March 17, 2009

hassy is 6x6, slr is 2.4x3.6, both scans same size ... what's wrong ? The best quality both in print and on the screen viewed at 100% are clearly from the Canon 5D, followed by the Hasselblad, and lastly - after a significant gap – by the 35 mm film camera. in my opinion, 5D is far worst here (maybe poor raw processing) it's even worse than saturated and contrasty velvia, digital seems oversharpened or too contrasty, with white leaks instead of mortar structure, and even stems are out of texture :) 5D wins in term of grain ... but there is no additional detail even to 35mm, and poor colors and high contrast

5D beaten by museum piece slr :-)

March 17, 2009

Next week Mauro will test an 8x10 film camera loaded with Fuji Velvia chrome film against a keychain digital camera he picked up at Walmart for $1.99. Gee, which one will "win"?

what's actuall D2X price ? (or D700, D3X, A900, D5II) ... let's compare it against $400 pentax 6x7, or $400 mamiya press 6x9 or $400 mamiya 67

will it be fair enough to you ?

or should we compare $15 minolta himatic to contemporary $150 digital ps ? :)) will be 10x price advantage for digi enough to beat film ?

we can also compare $2000 1600x1200 projector against $100 slide projector ... or $400 hdtv against the same $100 slide projector ... is that now fair enough to digital ? :))

March 16, 2009

All of this "proof" on the Internet with close ups of maps, and interpolated digital images proves nothing.

"map" film scan is apparently more detailed, and none, even the best interpolation can not get more detail from raw, result will be sharper or smoother, but sure - no more details from nothing :)

you can like plastic, grainless and detailless digital image better ... it's your opinion, but many others prefer more detailed (and often grainier) film image

however apparently, masses prefer less detailed and clean digital image

you can have marvellous 90x60" slide from astia/velvia/provia & m6 etc, or you can pay for m8 and what you got ? poor, 1080lines "hd" image :)) it's so called progress :)

March 16, 2009

How many drum scans can you get for US$2700?

for such a price, you can get ls9000 ;-)

- and that 21mp vs 6x7 comparison ... is it drum scan ? there is apparently some bug, 12mp ff can be similar to 35mm, but to 6x4.5 ? :)) .... yes, with defocused mf, shake, poor scan ... 6x7 is another league and it's fair to compare it against mf digital back :)

and once shooting 35mm (and 6x4.5 too), you don't need to scan, as you can get phantastic result via simple slide projector - 80x54" image with unbeatable look, for cents - but you still can scan (or get scanned) your best shots, and you will have both slide and print, easy and with much more quality then poor 1600x1200 digital projection, or 4000x2700 digital to film transpher :)

yes, if you want to fill your hdd wiht gigs of raws weekly, then buy some 20+mp dslr and shoot! :) here is dslr apparently better :)

March 15, 2009

sure it's available in CZ,

http://www.fujifilm.cz/cs/produkty/filmy/filmy-profesionalni/barevny-negativni.ep/

http://www.fotoskoda.cz/eobchod/p3020289-cz-fuji-pro-800z13536

i have seen blocks of it in their fridge, both 135 and 120

March 10, 2009

kodachrome ? - definitely worth a try!

it's not only a living legend, but, even in competition with latest "E6" emulsions, very unique chrome - in terms of contrast and color reproduction

March 9, 2009

i have alwaysh thought that shooting highly saturated film, you are limited in reducing colors back to natural look, as some subtle tone differences are lost, replaced by rich and saturated, uniform tone ... but surely there are more competent people to response this question

March 9, 2009

"nc" portra is targeted to portraits, but it's not limited to just that theme - if you like less, or to be correct, naturaly saturated colors, go for it

ektar has vivid colors, but results are not extremely oversaturated, and it has very fine grain, i suggest - try it :)

imho grainy, but sharp print looks better, and the lens is main limiting factor here

to correct color temperature, best results you can achieve using filters, but generally color negatives are quite tolerant and good practice is rather to overexpose it a bit, and then before printing do the corrections - results may vary, as it depends on lab operator skills

March 7, 2009

all of today film manufacturers do make high quality films, best quality ... it depend's more on particular film then on a manufacturer

in my opinion, best color slides are:

kodachrome 64 (kodak) unbeatable contrast and overall look

astia 100f (fuji) ultrafine grain, realistic colors

provia 400x (fuji) very fine grain for such a fast film

best color negative:

ektar 100 (kodak) finest grain, vibrant colors, decent skin tones

of course there are plenty of superb bw films of all major and minor brands, including such pearls like bw slide (foma r100) ...

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by radek_pohl