Scanning Resolution Question

[Pere Casals]

I read you all right, you are desperate to elevate the V750 and are producing voluminous clouds of obfuscation and disinformation. Unlike you, I know how higher end scanners behave compared to the Epson because I have used them. You are increasingly becoming a textbook illustration of Dunning-Kruger.

False.

I just stick in what "LFPF Collaborative scan test" shows, that's consistent with what I found when comparing drum scans to the cheap Epson. What Epson is shown in post #33. Not more, not less.

About the Dunning-Kruger... you see the mote in the other's eye.... Well, post #33. A Fact.

[faberryman]

I just stick in what "LFPF Collaborative scan test" shows, that's consistent with what I found when comparing drum scans to the cheap Epson. What Epson is shown in post #33. Not more, not less.

In comparing drum scans to the Epson, have you actually had one of you negatives drum scanned and compared it to the Epson, or are you relying on internet reports and images? If you had a drum scan done of one of you negatives, which drum scanner was used and at what resolution was it scanned?

[interneg]

Today I am printing files from the new Phase One XF - the 100mb beauty.

44 x 60 inch prints on Silk Bayrta paper. I can say that this is the first time since making large murals on Cibachrome from 8 x10 trans that the image quality I am seeing is equally impressive.

There is a significant difference at this magnification from the clients old camera NikonD 800 to this new camera.

I think with these new systems we are reaching very high quality output and once this quality is out there the bar has been set.

Interesting to hear about this - was making some 50x65" prints recently for a client from stitched digital files to get 300ppi of resolution & spent most of the project feeling that scanned 8x10 would've made the whole job much easier...

Have you tried the newish Fine Art Baryta Satin from Hahnemuhle? Even better than the Silk Baryta (which I like a lot) I feel - the colours are amazingly good & it has even more of a darkroom FB paper feel than I've seen before - even compared to Canson's papers etc.

[Pere Casals]

Today I am printing files from the new Phase One XF - the 100mb beauty.

44 x 60 inch prints on Silk Bayrta paper. I can say that this is the first time since making large murals on Cibachrome from 8 x10 trans that the image quality I am seeing is equally impressive.

There is a significant difference at this magnification from the clients old camera NikonD 800 to this new camera.

I think with these new systems we are reaching very high quality output and once this quality is out there the bar has been set.

It has to be noted that D810 and D800E can deliver 50% more resolving power than the D800 you mention, in area terms, because D810 and D800E lack that lowpass optical filter. Of course that +50% happens if lens (and shot) is good enough to not be a limiting factor.

Still the IQ3 has 2.5x the FF surface, so difference has to be seen, anyway the D800E shortens that difference.

What I don't know is when 60, 80 or 100 Mpix on the IQ3 makes a real difference, as for the lens it is clearly difficult working in practice at "up to" 100Lp/mm performance glass manufacturer speaks about.

[bob carnie]

Interesting to hear about this - was making some 50x65" prints recently for a client from stitched digital files to get 300ppi of resolution & spent most of the project feeling that scanned 8x10 would've made the whole job much easier...

Have you tried the newish Fine Art Baryta Satin from Hahnemuhle? Even better than the Silk Baryta (which I like a lot) I feel - the colours are amazingly good & it has even more of a darkroom FB paper feel than I've seen before - even compared to Canson's papers etc.

I love the silk baryta - as well their photo baryta which has a bit of texture.... Both are really nice, I am not a big fan of luster or satin but some of my clients like it.

There are clients of mine using this 100mb camera and stitching making monster files, I am worried my measly PS printing platform will need to be upgraded to handle these monster files, keeping and printing in 16 bit (though not critical over 8bit) means files over 1 gb which starts slowing down things.

I have a 60 inch printer but for sanity's sake have made all my offerings based on 44 inch( i feature 5 Hannamuhle papers) ... I can see the day where I will be making 60 inch x 10 ft prints for clients using this advanced imaging methods and using stitching to make huge, huge, prints.

Hanamuhle has made good efforts to provide printers like me , help when I need it and marketing help as well...

[bob carnie]

It has to be noted that D810 and D800E can deliver 50% more resolving power than the D800 you mention, in area terms, because D810 and D800E lack that lowpass optical filter. Of course that +50% happens if lens (and shot) is good enough to not be a limiting factor.

Still the IQ3 has 2.5x the FF surface, so difference has to be seen, anyway the D800E shortens that difference.

What I don't know is when 60, 80 or 100 Mpix on the IQ3 makes a real difference, as for the lens it is clearly difficult working in practice at "up to" 100Lp/mm performance glass manufacturer speaks about.

I let my eyes do the talking and not charts... those days are gone for me... kinda like testing film ... been there done it.

[Pere Casals]

In comparing drum scans to the Epson, have you actually had one of you negatives drum scanned and compared it to the Epson, or are you relying on internet reports and images? If you had a drum scan done of one of you negatives, which drum scanner was used and at what resolution was it scanned?

Yes, I've drum scanned (hired service) with Imacon 848, and X5, and I scanned V750 the same again. Mostly it was 35mm Velvia 50 shot in Finland with very special winter light by a mate that's a remarkable artist, winner for example of the Zoom Photo Festival, Saguenay, Canada.

Resolution was this one (raw from drum before editing):



There was an underexposure bracketing, the best images came from pretty underexposed slides that had highlight plenitude for all that Polar Circle light beauty. One can stay hours viewing those slides on a boosted light table with a loupe. It is amazing to see how Velvia records deep shadows. All digital is pure crap compared.

Target size for the exhibitions was only 60x40, but all could be very well enlarged to 1m without flaw.

The X5 did an amazing job, really. Something where a V750 would come pretty short.

In the same way I see no advantage beyond V750 for a BW 4x5 negative with 1.8 densities. What I see is that a good postprocess and understanding printers is critical.

It was Bob Carnie that months ago stated that not all Lambda shops were obtaining same results with FB paper, and this is not only because he said that, it's a lot like that. The printer skills !!!

Let me add that in real world photography a lot of shots have more shake (or other optical flaws) than lab testings, and a common situation is that the on negative resolved information is the limiting factor, not the scanner. Then what counts is to apply the right sharpening algorithm to the right area.

And about color management, again what counts is operator and software, IMHO.

[Pere Casals]

I let my eyes do the talking and not charts... those days are gone for me... kinda like testing film ... been there done it.

This is ok... anyway for learners like me it is interesting to understand the scientific basis of thinks. This leads to understand when specs matter or not. Of course nothing substitutes artistic push and creativity. If a true artist only has a hammer he makes something like La Pietà.

[faberryman]

In comparing drum scans to the Epson, have you actually had one of you negatives drum scanned and compared it to the Epson, or are you relying on internet reports and images? If you had a drum scan done of one of you negatives, which drum scanner was used and at what resolution was it scanned?

Pere,

You have responded to several other posts, but not to mine. Do I take it then that you have not compared one of your own negatives drum scanned against Epson scanned, and are only relying on internet posts and images for your opinions? In evaluating you opinions, it is important to know whether you speak from actual experience.

[Pali K]

Yikes not again. I will start and end my contribution to this thread with this post. PM me if you want to discuss anything privately.

I have the following scanners with multiple years of use with each.

Epson v700
Eversmart Pro
Scanmate 5000 Drum Scanner
Scanmate 11000 Drum Scanner
Heidelberg Tango Drum Scanner

Eversmart Pro is a lower model of a pro flatbed that will outshine Epson V series scanners in a heartbeat. There is simply no debate when you see the performance side by side over 100s of same negative scans. No technical comparisons are necessary when your eye will tell you the obvious.

Drum Scanners including "cheap" Scanmate 5000 will outdo most flatbetds. Eversmart Pro and higher models will actually outperform entry level drum scanners in some tests but not in difficult slides or overexposed negatives. This is where the purity of the PMTs really can't be beaten.

Tango is the Holy Grail for Slides and Scanmate 11000 is the Holy Grail for negatives if you have the modified board and upgraded IR/UV filters.

Epson V series is a fantastic scanner for it's price. It's also the best unless you use pro scanners regularly and realize that it's not the best

Pali