Epson V800 2400ppi Only After Down Sampling From 6400ppi

[Ted Baker]

Apparently there is a time delay between the time I revised my post and the time you responded. Please reread my post.

That filmscanner.nfo conclusion is still misleading, but perhaps now we are arguing for the sake of arguing...

Things to consider are:

1. USAF test target is not suitable to show how to extract the maximum capabilities of the unit. (not saying it is not a useful measure for comparison)
2. Does the scanner actually support 4800? It is not capable of the that resolution in the X dimension, the sensor size never changes, just the amount of overlap.
3. How does grain aliasing picture in this.
4. What resolution is most suitable for capture sharpening, or an actual debluring algorithm

[faberryman]

That filmscanner.nfo conclusion is still misleading, but perhaps now we are arguing for the sake of arguing...

Things to consider are:

1. USAF test target is not suitable to show how to extract the maximum capabilities of the unit. (not saying it is not a useful measure for comparison)
2. Does the scanner actually support 4800? It is not capable of the that resolution in the X dimension, the sensor size never changes, just the amount of overlap.
3. How does grain aliasing picture in this.
4. What resolution is most suitable for capture sharpening, or an actual debluring algorithm

Interesting questions. I still don't see what is misleading about the filmscanner.nfo review. Which of its conclusions is inaccurate? It doesn't answer every question and is not a how-to article, but that doesn't make it misleading. Do you have any contrary data?

[IanBarber]

We have "3 kinds" of sharpening: Input, Creative and Output.

Normally we may sharpen the raw file from the scanner, while editting we can perform creative local sharpening like in the eyes in a portrait, but perhaps not in the cheek, and after resizing to match the output device (printer) we can perform another sharpening for the pixel level.

For sharpening the Raw file, I usually use Un-Sharp Mask (low radius high amount). Are there any other methods which may do a better job.

[Ted Baker]

Interesting questions. I still don't see what is misleading about the filmscanner.nfo review. Which of its conclusions is inaccurate? It doesn't answer every question and is not a how-to article, but that doesn't make it misleading. Do you have any contrary data?

I have a 4990 and have run my own tests, and run testing continuously, admitted it is NOT a v800.

But you might find the following contrary data on filmscanner.nfo itself... at http://www.filmscanner.info/en/Aufloesung.html

The answer is clearly yes. During the scan of a film, there are interferences as aliasing, other interferences, etc. They are all related to the intermediate effects of the used resolution of the scanner and the actual image resolution. The higher the scan resolution, the lower are those interferences. Thus, it does make sense to scan an original with 4000 dpi that has a resolution of only 2500 dpi by itself.

But hopefully I have opened your eyes to the possibility that there is more too it. I am not suggesting Ian scan everything at 6400dpi either! I gave the method I use earlier for his and anyones consideration.

[IanBarber]

Although I have scanned mainly at 2400 it dawned on me that I might not actually be getting 2400, hence the reason for asking.

I have now scanned about 6 or 8 4x5 negatives both at 2400 and 6400 (Linear) and I have to say, when inspected closer, unless my eyes are deceiving me, I would say the 6400 ones do look better. When I say better, they just appear have better edge definition and better detail in the deep shadows.

[Jac@stafford.net]

If your goal is to print your scan, you must consider how the printer re-sizes your image to make it possible. Think using a factor of 360 or 300 ppi. There is no way we can get better so far. It is all about print capability.

[faberryman]

But you might find the following contrary data on filmscanner.nfo itself... at http://www.filmscanner.info/en/Aufloesung.html

The answer is clearly yes. During the scan of a film, there are interferences as aliasing, other interferences, etc. They are all related to the intermediate effects of the used resolution of the scanner and the actual image resolution. The higher the scan resolution, the lower are those interferences. Thus, it does make sense to scan an original with 4000 dpi that has a resolution of only 2500 dpi by itself.

This is not contrary data, but consistent data. Filmscanner.nfo has tested, and advocates, scanning at a higher rate than the actual resolution of the scanner, at least with the two software packages - EsponScan and Silverfast. And amazingly, it is consistent with Pere's chart, and with your own testing. Hardly seems controversial, much less misleading.

[Pere Casals]

For sharpening the Raw file, I usually use Un-Sharp Mask (low radius high amount). Are there any other methods which may do a better job.

To me Ps unsharp masking works perfect.

Here there is a nice tutorial :

https://web.archive.org/web/20171207...sharpening.htm

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...sharpening.htm

[Ted Baker]

For sharpening the Raw file, I usually use Un-Sharp Mask (low radius high amount). Are there any other methods which may do a better job.

I sometimes use a variaton of that by I using some of the controls in rawtherapee to limit that capture sharping to edges only I set the threshold such that it only sharpens edge bigger than about 2pixels. You can do something similar if you know how in PS I don't unfortunately.

I actually prefer to use the RL deconvolution algorithm it seems to give a better result with out enhancing grain aliasing. I am still not sure what I like best. But I most certainly get a better result than I did when I scanned at lower resolution and did not understand scanning. I also don't like to waste time either!

[Alan Klein]

Anyone have the actual resolution for the Epson V600?