Sorry Pere, the portrait scan you posted does not show grain. If you enlarge it you see pixelation before you see grain structure, as you would expect from a low-end flatbed scanner like the V500.Originally Posted by Pere Casals
Sorry Pere, the portrait scan you posted does not show grain. If you enlarge it you see pixelation before you see grain structure, as you would expect from a low-end flatbed scanner like the V500.
Yes, pixels are larger than grains. Anyway if you take a very good scan and you reduce the image size to the 1080 lines (vert direcction) a common monitor has... then you will see someting similar. Even with a 4k monitor. This is not enlarging a crop, but showing the full image, of course.
For a lambda/lightjet print there is also a pixel count target, so it will depend on the print size.
Yes, this is for 35mm. But Cezanne has 2000 hardware DPI for 4x5 (1325 dpi optical), this is if placing negative oriented in the best direction as pixel density decreases with larger negative. So it is very good for 35mm but you won't be able to get good grain for 120 and LF, if you are to make big prints.
The way to get very good results with Cezanne is scanning 1" strips and stitching the strips in PS, as Seybolt report did, if I'm not mistaken.
http://www.kar.fi/Skannaus/pixelperf...ol28_nro11.pdf
In normal conditions Cezzane delivers 5300 optical points from the hardware 8000, so max efective 4x5 resolving power is 5300/4 = 1325 dpi, if scanning all at one time, rather stitching strips with PS. This is equivalent to what V500 performance obtains with rolls.
Correct me if I'm mistaken.
Still Cezanne is an amazing pre-press war horse, and 1325dpi from a 4x5 may be more than enough. And then you have amazing resolving power for 35mm...
Stitching strips it's not convenient, anyway the amount of 4x5 quality it can deliver it's amazing.
Blah blah blah let's not get into this again, the thread is not about Epson vs. Cezanne. You continue to state that the Cezanne actually has less resolution than an Epson scan in one go which is simply stupid and demonstrably false.
Scanning in strips is not hard at all. All of the strips can be setup at once. Press "scan" and walk away. It's child's play to merge the strips manually in photoshop.
No, the Cezanne delivers more than 5300, as tested with a chrome on glass high resolution target, and as supported by the Seybold report and other users.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Bryan, the Cezanne delivers more resolution than V850 for 35mm film, but much less than V850 for LF sheets. If you scan 1" strips from 4x5 sheets and stitch that in Photoshop then you get Amazing results, but if you scan the sheet in one pass then you get 8000/N dpi (hardware), where N is the negative width in inches. And then divide by 1.5 (from Seybold results) to get optical dpi.
Ask Mr De Smidt, he knows very well that machine and he can lead you to get very good results with your machine, with the stitching technique.
Hello Peter,
Seybold report stated 5300 dpi optical performance for all the image width, so for 4" this is 1325dpi , for 1" this is amazing 5300 dpi.
http://www.kar.fi/Skannaus/pixelperf...ol28_nro11.pdf , page 16.
This is very consistent with the 8000 pix sensor and having a zoom optical system to have a continous variable medium scan width for the sensor. V850 has two fixed focal lenses, the highress one delivers 6400dpi (hardware) that translates from optical 2800 to 2300 depending on the axis and other factors, it works until 5.9" IIRC. The Lowress lens delivers 4800, so some practical optical 1900 to 1700 dpi for 8x10 sheets.
Cezanne is a $36k (year 1999 dollars) beast, so this gear it is not a joke: a war machine.
I'm thinking that perhaps Photoshop stitching may take advantage of BW grains to make a perfect stitch, if image has detail enough to allow a good pre-align of strips, then perhaps single grains can nail the stitching. I'm just speculating.
It would we interesting to see how stitching works in the limits of the strips, if result is seamless that would give top performance with BW sheets, but a bit it depends (I guess) on the stitching result.
Look, it's not what I read in the internet, it's the Seybold report.
Bryan, it's up to you. It's you that have a Cezanne, and were stating that a D800 has similar resolving power than a 4x5 sheet, not long ago. And saying you would not give a s#it for what the Joe Cornish test (made with the Phase One sales representative UK) concluded.
We are here to learn one from the other and share knowledge and art, not to see who knows the more, IMHO.
Nor does he care to read anything that does not agree with his bizarre assertions - from the Seybold report: "The Cézanne’s result comes very close to the figures stated in the specifications. In this case, however, the interpolated result is even better, with lines visible at 120 lp/mm - beyond the manufacturer’s claimed resolution. This is surprising, and it differs from the results with the other scanners."
aka 6000ppi of real resolution... And he's still not able to understand why a Screen or a Hasselblad or a Heidelberg Tango will produce a vastly better 2000ppi scan from 4x5 than the Epson's nominal 2400, preferring to hide behind obfuscatory nonsense about sharpening & wrongheaded application of metrological techniques to regular photography.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks