How to print large files?

[interneg]

As we are talking about PPI (one PPI may include several dots "dpi") with continous tone, 150ppi are quasi 6 pixels per mm that can print 3 line pairs in a mm.

The Lambdas etc are essentially filmsetting machines running RGB rather than single colour laser/ LED etc output. Essentially they use a stochastic screen (FM screening), which if done right will pretty closely resemble what you might perceive as 'film grain'. Inkjets also use a stochastic screen but can vary the droplet size - which essentially hybridises in elements of AM screening.

perceived sharpness has strong factors other than resolving power... and digital process adds powerful sharpening tools...

Artificial sharpening becomes very obvious, very fast - far too many people grossly oversharpen.

The optical system testing 6900ppi is when scanning 35mm film, but as zoom is applied to take 4" then resolving power "on film" of the lens will decrease dramatically in terms of effective on film ppi. The hardware 2040ppi of the X1 (for 4x5") may be resolving under 35 lppmm in USAF 1951 terms, perhaps 1800 effective ppi. Also an scanner resolving x lppmm will degradate the IQ of a media also resolving the same x lppmm.

What I suggest is that while the lens resolves 135 line pair per mm on film when taking 24mm (of 35mm film) it will resolve much less on film when zoomed out to take those 99.6mm of 45 sheets.

Nope. It doesn't 'zoom'. The whole thing moves internally on leadscrews to change magnification ranges. That's why it's so tall. More to the point, there's plenty of lenses out there that were designed to meet a spec demanding consistent performance between a 1:1 and 5:1 reduction ratio. No evidence exists to suggest that the Hasselblad is any different. All the available tests show that it delivers the resolution it claims at both the 120 and 4x5 settings & comes incredibly close for even the highest resolution setting (and that may have as much to do with limitations in the filmholders etc than anything else).

the X1/X5 is more intended for MF or 35mm, Hassy is in the MF business... for this reason even a cheapo V850 can (slightly) beat it with LF in resolving power terms. Still the amazing DMax capacity of X1/X5 may be much more important for some slide shots !!! So at the end the X1/X5 is great for 45 because few print or negatives may require more pixels.

Wrong. The Epson might slightly outresolve the X5 on an ultra high contrast test chart, but it's a soft aberrated mess otherwise. I suspect that the MTF graph for the Epson's optical system is horrifically awful. No amount of BS in PS or voluble sophistry will solve that. The filmscanner.info test of the X5 compared it directly to an A3 Epson which had been tested to nominally outresolve the X5 on a test chart, but even when the Epson had benefit of being downsampled to 2040ppi, the X5 blew it away in sharpness, colour, dmax. And that's against the only Epson that actually has a focusing system.

You should also ask yourself this: why do people seem to prefer the Heidelberg Tango to the Scanmate 11000 (to go from a recent thread) if the Heidelberg is outresolved by the Scanmate?

Well, IMHO we can say that a true drum is a true drum, problem is that mounting task may not be worth for a particular job.

For speed & quality trade-offs, the Hasselblad & some high end flatbeds can be unbeatable - until you have to clean the dust off the file - then a good fluid mount becomes a suddenly much more attractive proposition.

[bob carnie]

Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
As we are talking about PPI (one PPI may include several dots "dpi") with continous tone, 150ppi are quasi 6 pixels per mm that can print 3 line pairs in a mm.
The Lambdas etc are essentially filmsetting machines running RGB rather than single colour laser/ LED etc output. Essentially they use a stochastic screen (FM screening), which if done right will pretty closely resemble what you might perceive as 'film grain'. Inkjets also use a stochastic screen but can vary the droplet size - which essentially hybridises in elements of AM screening.

No Lambdas use three lasers that combine the light into a single beam of energy to expose any emulsion you put in front of it.. . There is no Stochastic Screen involved with the Lambda Process.

If for example you print a high resolution scanned image what one sees on the print is the original film grain , not pixels or dots. Print resolution is determined by file quality and I have seen problems with small , poorly processed files .

[Pere Casals]

until you have to clean the dust off the file - then a good fluid mount becomes a suddenly much more attractive proposition.

I solved that completely with $60 HEPA filtering system combined with a suitable "clean room". No dust at no stage. Zero dust...

Artificial sharpening becomes very obvious, very fast - far too many people grossly oversharpen.

I completely agree... Anyway Ps sharpening tools are amazing, a lot of sharpening tools/settings are there and careful selective usage may solve problems in images. It is a matter of dose and smart local application.

Nope. It doesn't 'zoom'. The whole thing moves internally on leadscrews to change magnification ranges. That's why it's so tall. More to the point, there's plenty of lenses out there that were designed to meet a spec demanding consistent performance between a 1:1 and 5:1 reduction ratio. No evidence exists to suggest that the Hasselblad is any different. All the available tests show that it delivers the resolution it claims at both the 120 and 4x5 settings & comes incredibly close for even the highest resolution setting (and that may have as much to do with limitations in the filmholders etc than anything else).

Variable magnification system in X1/5 has a nice Linos (Rodenstock) lens inside (V850 is not as luxurious), but it is very easy to understand that while lp/mm on sensor can be the same for 45 than for 35mm it happens that the "on film" resolved lp/mm decrease dramatically to 1/4 of the nominal when magnification is 1/4 od the nominal, this is field changes from 1" to 4".

Look, if X5 (for 4x5) has 2040 pixels for each inch of film it wont be able to see well 2040 lines (or 1020 line pairs) in that inch, because in those condirions you have a very severe aliasing, as the pixel can be on a line or just in taking half black and white lines and delivering a perfect grey: this is it has 40 pixel pairs per mm, and a pixel pair per mm is not able to scan a line pair without severe aliasing.

V850 has a +36000 pix rgb sensor, while the X5 is 8000, this is what makes a difference for LF and makes X5 oriented to MF and 35mm. Why do hasselblad not use a 36k pix sensor ??? because they are not much interested in the LF market !!! IMHO.

Wrong. The Epson might slightly outresolve the X5 on an ultra high contrast test chart, but it's a soft aberrated mess otherwise. I suspect that the MTF graph for the Epson's optical system is horrifically awful. No amount of BS in PS or voluble sophistry will solve that. The filmscanner.info test of the X5 compared it directly to an A3 Epson which had been tested to nominally outresolve the X5 on a test chart, but even when the Epson had benefit of being downsampled to 2040ppi, the X5 blew it away in sharpness, colour, dmax. And that's against the only Epson that actually has a focusing system.

You should also ask yourself this: why do people seem to prefer the Heidelberg Tango to the Scanmate 11000 (to go from a recent thread) if the Heidelberg is outresolved by the Scanmate?

You overlook V850 capabilities... Sure that in very dense slides PMT and flextight makes a difference, I've seen that with velvia. But what's for BW and LF... V850 rocks. I fully agree with this Petapixel test:

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/160...s-500-scanner/





Note this is MF, in LF V850 is slightly better if no important 3.2D areas

[interneg]

Bob - you're absolutely correct, for whatever reason I remembered that Lambdas & imagesetters are remarkably similar internally in the way they use the optical laser system for exposure, then forgot that they run it in completely different ways! Have been spending too much time variously dealing with offset pre-press & doing battle with Durst flatbed printers & their screening options...

Pere - it's pretty easy to skew a test to 'prove' that your cheap scanner 'outperforms' a professional workhorse or that a drumscanned 8x10 is 'outperformed' by the Phase One de jour. It makes for easy clickbait, & the hard work necessary to dismantle such nonsense takes time, money & a lot of effort. I've handled plenty of images scanned from 120 & 4x5 on Epsons & the sad truth is that they pale next to a competent scan from a Hasselblad, or an iQSmart or a Heidelberg or anything like that. It doesn't matter if the film is B&W, C41 or E6, the difference is visible, especially in prints. I've seen a fair few bad scans off high end kit too, but it's often bad sharpening decisions or poor colour correction (ie operator error) or a poorly maintained scanner rather than fundamental shortcomings with the scanner on a technological level. Rooting around in the weeds of aliasing isn't going to help your case either - yes the Hasselblad will alias grain, but that's largely a problem with 35mm at the highest resolution settings.

[Pere Casals]

Pere - it's pretty easy to skew a test to 'prove' that your cheap scanner 'outperforms' a professional workhorse or that a drumscanned 8x10 is 'outperformed' by the Phase One de jour. It makes for easy clickbait, & the hard work necessary to dismantle such nonsense takes time, money & a lot of effort. I've handled plenty of images scanned from 120 & 4x5 on Epsons & the sad truth is that they pale next to a competent scan from a Hasselblad, or an iQSmart or a Heidelberg or anything like that. It doesn't matter if the film is B&W, C41 or E6, the difference is visible, especially in prints. I've seen a fair few bad scans off high end kit too, but it's often bad sharpening decisions or poor colour correction (ie operator error) or a poorly maintained scanner rather than fundamental shortcomings with the scanner on a technological level. Rooting around in the weeds of aliasing isn't going to help your case either - yes the Hasselblad will alias grain, but that's largely a problem with 35mm at the highest resolution settings.

The test I skewed demonstrates nothing, but it is very consistent with what I found. Just it is the way I say what kind of practical difference I see with MF/LF when comparing X vs V devices.

For 35mm X beats V clearly, but then we can compare the X to a (also cheap) 35mm Plustek 8xxx delivering 3800 effective dpi, not as high as V but I'm not sure there is any practical benefit beyond those 3800.


Let me say my practical view when I made my V850 choice for LF: Under $1000, new with full warranty and official service, Windows 10 drivers. More effective resolving power than X5 for 4x5, makes 8x10, perfect for BW common densities, also perfect for negative color film densities, good even for most Velvia shots with multi-exposure feature, weights, occupies and costs little. And I still retain a budged for drum service for those little shots clearly requiring a drum job some because +3.2D in important subject areas.

It is true that pro scanners pre-cook the image better, with V you always need to adjust better in Ps...

But see the alternatives... and 150Lb old and beaten pre-press device with little service and spares or a drum monster ??

And for what ? to see an slight difference in 2m prints when viewed with nose on it ?


Understand me, if I was all day long (or 3 hours dayly) scanning or selling scanning services I would not consider V850 as the workhorse of my business. At best V850 is semi Pro.

But we can be careful about analyzing practical results.

[bob carnie]

I was making Mural prints 72 inch x 8ft on kodak paper from 8x10 colour film in 1980-83 at Jones and Morris Mural Enlarging in Toronto... I just finished a similar size print job using a 100mp Phase One Camera.
So we are talking about a 30 year gap in time.... For the first time I can say that when I looked at the current print project and walked around these monster prints I felt that the image matched what we could do back then with film. It was a very surreal moment for me as I have been vested in this long campaign of original file to print.. vs film to print and I think I was completely happy that at 65 years of age(2018) I will still have time to work with people that are using these cameras and be able to confidently make prints from these files.
I think the very first revelation to me was the Leica Monochrome (latest) that surprised me with its quality.

Just practical observation here, but I think the horse has left the barn so to speak on this particular issue and I am not sure if the camera makers will continue the constant sensor capability chase they have been on since the early 2000. Its kind of like the Lambda Issue- I am still using 1995 technology to make prints and once the manufactures hit this platform, they concentrated on smaller less expensive workarounds (Chromira) as the bar had been set. We humans can only appreciate certain resolution and then its all a matter of MATH equations.

I think 2018 is the year where people will comprehend that the resolution is at its practical limits, stitching programs, focus shift programs, capability for 3d technology , and of course more economic cameras at the 100mp range are going to be the norm and I do see a 100mp camera under 10k coming soon, its only logical as Spock would say.

I have seen this type of pixel peeping going on here for years when it comes to scanning technology, I have tested most devices and am quite happy with the results I get from my Imocan and Eversmart Supreme, as well my glass carrier enlarger may be old but they deliver great results that I have been able to sell over the years.
Almost in all cases the human at the controls will make the exceptional images, and a great photographer could put a coke bottle as a lens and make magic happen.

[Pere Casals]

...

Bob, I completely agree with you. At the end human vision see no IQ enhacement beyond effective 60 Mpix, this is related to the amount and type of "photosites" our retine/fovea has. A 4k TV has 8 Mpix... and a 100MPix IQ3 may end in at least 60 Mpix effective.

Single reason to need more is for very large prints and wanting to view that with nose on it and also see no flaw.

But most important thing you said is that a great photographer may do all the magics with a coke bottle. To me Sally Mann is a great example.

Only I would like to add that LF is much more than resolving power, as Sally (for example) proved.