Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: optimal settings for 4x5's from a 4870

  1. #11

    Re: optimal settings for 4x5's from a 4870

    Thanks Sandy, it is helpful to quanitfy that resolution information. I had to chuckle in the latest Fraser book on sharpening where he says that he has noticed the viewing distance for a print diminishes as soon as someone finds out it is digital output, shrinking from about two feet, to a distance of about the length of the viewer's nose. ;-)

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    The increase in actual resolution up to the optical limit of the scanner is also what I have seen in testing this scanner.

    As to final print size, there are indeed many things that have to be taken into consideration. Just for the record, I always base my own decisions on resolution figures that will give at least 8-10 lppm at the printing size since I consider this the minimum needed for critical viewing at about 10". In that context about 3X negative side is the highest I would go.

    Sandy

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Carbondale, CO
    Posts
    64

    Re: optimal settings for 4x5's from a 4870

    This is all quite helpful. !!

    People have been going on about sharpening a lot. I am under the impression that the sharpening I can do in CS2 is the best of my options. I used to do USM's a long time ago, but seem to only use the sharpening tool these days.

    I am not a fan of sharpening to the point where it is too crisp/flat... I use film because I like the *slightly* soft look... the look of more depth. Can anyone speak to sharpening? I am sure I will just have to make tests anyway, but it helps to have reference points from people that have made a lot more tests than I have.

    Thanks,
    ~Joel

  3. #13

    Re: optimal settings for 4x5's from a 4870

    I've been at this digital printing now for over ten years and had a hard time quantifying what it was I was doing. The book finally explains the why behind how I doing things.

    Perhaps the biggest point Fraser makes is that you need to print the work to evaluate the results of the sharpening, that viewing it on the monitor is guesswork and that while one can get better at with experience, the ultimate proof is in the print.

    So my suggestion, in short, get the book and read it. A real value at $27 considering how much we spend on all the other equipment and materials. Here's a link to amazon.

    http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Sha.../dp/0321449916

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,697

    Re: optimal settings for 4x5's from a 4870

    Keith and Sandy - I'm unclear whether you're disagreeing with Ted's tests or my interpretation of them. If you're disagreeing with the tests then obviously that's something to be taken up with Ted. If you're disagreeing with my interpretation (which is that there's no point in scanning at a ppi greater than the scanner can resolve) then I guess we just disagree, at least temporarily. I haven't done any testing for myself, I just attended Ted and Michael's scanning workshop around the time the article appeared and came away from that with the understanding that at least in their opinion, scanning at more than the scanner can resolve just created a big file without any gain in actual resolution. I'm a little surprised that Ted hasn't chimed in here, maybe he's busy elsewhere. In any event, since you've tested and I haven't I'm sure your observations are more valid.

    "But, if one can start with a TANGO scan, it is akin to playing a round of golf from the ladies' tees."

    They don't call them ladies tees any more, they're called the "forward tees." That's for people like me who have lost 30 yards of distance off the tee over the years and should be playing from the ladies tees but whose male egos won't let them. Playing from the "forward tees" is perfectly o.k. though. - : )
    Brian Ellis
    Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
    a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

  5. #15

    Re: optimal settings for 4x5's from a 4870

    Nah, Brian, just clarifying that what we're telling Joel to do is the same thing you are.

    In Joel's case, the best optical resolution obtainable with the 4870 is 4800spi (samples per inch). Based on Ted's tests, that setting will get you an actual 2055dpi (dots per inch). There was another thread recently where the same confusion occured.

    Here's a link to my comment on that thread...

    http://www.largeformatphotography.in...t=19794&page=2

    Ted, bless his heart, has made a real effort to sort out the difference in the claimed optical performance of the various scanner manufacturers, and true optical performance. The confusion is often rooted in the blurring (no pun intended) of terminology used to describe resolution: samples per inch, dots per inch, pixels per inch.

    In the case of a flatbed scanner, there are physical limitations to the number of samples per inch that are possible, which is determined by the size and number of sensors on the scanning array in one direction (x axis), and the increments the stepper motor moves the wand (y axis). The manufacturers like to use the stepper motor number because it is usually higher, when in fact, the number of sensors is a better guage (though not perfect).

    But, samples per inch on a flatbed is different than samples per inch on a drum scanner, which has a laser focused on sub-grain sizes, moving by virtue of a stepper motor in microscopic increments in both an x and y axis.

    What Ted has done with his line pair analysis is show how the laser samples per inch compare with the array samples per inch, so that even though he is comparing apples to oranges, at least we can agree they both are fruit. ;-)

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

    Re: optimal settings for 4x5's from a 4870

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ellis View Post
    Keith and Sandy - I'm unclear whether you're disagreeing with Ted's tests or my interpretation of them. If you're disagreeing with the tests then obviously that's something to be taken up with Ted. If you're disagreeing with my interpretation (which is that there's no point in scanning at a ppi greater than the scanner can resolve) then I guess we just disagree, at least temporarily. I haven't done any testing for myself, I just attended Ted and Michael's scanning workshop around the time the article appeared and came away from that with the understanding that at least in their opinion, scanning at more than the scanner can resolve just created a big file without any gain in actual resolution. I'm a little surprised that Ted hasn't chimed in here, maybe he's busy elsewhere. In any event, since you've tested and I haven't I'm sure your observations are more valid.
    Brian,

    I am simply stating what my own tests of this scanner show. If they disagree with Ted's tests, so be it. I have not actually read Ted's tests on this so don't really know what he said beyond your comments so you should not construe my remarks for any more than what they are, i.e. a statement about my own findings.

    I would not disasgree with the comment that one should not use an optical spi setting higher than what the scanner can actually resolve. However, my own tests show that the scanner resolves more when the setting is at 4800 spi optical than when it is set at a lower optical spi. I am not the expert at this that Ted is, and maybe my tests were flawed, but this is what they indicated, and they are what they are.


    Sandy
    Last edited by sanking; 29-Sep-2006 at 17:54.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Carbondale, CO
    Posts
    64

    Re: optimal settings for 4x5's from a 4870

    I know this is an old thread, but I still have a question about optimal scanning size with a 4x5 B&W neg on a 4870.

    If I scan at 4800 dpi, would I scan the negative at 100% (4x5"). My desire is to make a print around 20x24, that looks as good as possible.

    Also, with downsampling to 360 dpi for printing, does that mean just putting in the desired print size and 360 dpi in image size in PS? I thought downsampling had to do more with something like free transform, where you are just compressing the pixels closer together, but perhaps PS does that in it's own way when resizing it?

    And is there an advantage to using lower (3200) dpi, scanning in RGB, and then getting rid of R and B?

    Thanks,
    ~Joel

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Lakewood, CO
    Posts
    722

    Re: optimal settings for 4x5's from a 4870

    Quote Originally Posted by JoelBelmont View Post
    I know this is an old thread, but I still have a question about optimal scanning size with a 4x5 B&W neg on a 4870.

    If I scan at 4800 dpi, would I scan the negative at 100% (4x5"). My desire is to make a print around 20x24, that looks as good as possible.

    Also, with downsampling to 360 dpi for printing, does that mean just putting in the desired print size and 360 dpi in image size in PS? I thought downsampling had to do more with something like free transform, where you are just compressing the pixels closer together, but perhaps PS does that in it's own way when resizing it?

    And is there an advantage to using lower (3200) dpi, scanning in RGB, and then getting rid of R and B?

    Thanks,
    ~Joel
    Joel,

    I think Sandy and I have some differences of opinion in regard to scanning. In my experience, some reasonable amount of oversampling at the scanning step usually results in a better printed image. But if the scanner cannot do the work optically, you can crank up the dpi and get a bigger file, but no additional detail.

    That said, if your goal is still to output to a 16X20, I think the best resolution to scan is 2400ppi with the other size setting at "original size". This seems to be the best optical capability of my 4990, which is very similar to the optics in the 4870. Doing this (assuming you size to 16X20 using all of the image), you'll downsample from about 550ppi to 360ppi before printing in photoshop to a 16X20 and all should be nice and sharp. I apply USM in two passes. I do first 75,0.6,1 and second 30,1.0,2. This seems to put a little tooth on the image without making it look overcooked and without exaggerating the grain in my color photography. You mileage with B&W may vary.

    I've no idea about the RGB minus R&B method for B&W scanning. I've heard of it and it makes sense, but I don't shoot or scan much B&W and have never tried it.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    333

    Re: optimal settings for 4x5's from a 4870

    Quote Originally Posted by JoelBelmont View Post
    with downsampling to 360 dpi for printing, does that mean just putting in the desired print size and 360 dpi in image size in PS?
    This is how I do it. I also check Bicubic sharper.

    I also am in the camp that I scan at the highest optical resolution, then down sample. For my scanner (v750) I've read that scanning at 6400 dpi uses a different set of "high resolution" optics, so that's why I choose to do 6400 dpi.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Forest Grove, Ore.
    Posts
    4,675

    Re: optimal settings for 4x5's from a 4870

    I tried scanning a 4x5 color negative at 4800 resolution (original, 100% scale) and 48 bits on my 4870, and I got a message that the scanning size (4.59x3.63) was too large for the resolution. The message instructed me to reduce the scale, the resolution, or the scanning area.

    In any event, I think the idea is to avoid the scanner software performing any interpolation. (Photoshop does a better job at interpolation.) So, one would scan at the original and 100% scaling settings. I'm thinking that using 2400dpi would avoid using scanner interpolation, being that it's every other pixel. Not entirely sure about this, though. This resolution would still give one the possibility of a 36.72"x29.04" image at 300dpi or a 30.6"x24.2" image at 360dpi from the scanning area mentioned above.

    In downsizing the image for printing at a smaller print size, downsize in Photoshop about 30% at a time until reaching the desired print size, versus downsizing all in one step. I've seen a demonstration where this can make a significant difference in image quality. For example, use bi-cubic interpolation in CS2. Or, whatever corresponds to that in more recent releases of PS.

    I scanned a 4x5 transparency and printed a 16x20 print and got a result that was every bit as sharp as I would typically want. I show people this print, and they comment on how sharp it is. It works for me.

Similar Threads

  1. Digital ICE w/Epson 4870
    By Curtis Nelson in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 29-Jul-2006, 23:14
  2. Crane Museo Silver Rage: printer settings??
    By chris jordan in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 24-Jun-2006, 23:49
  3. Noise in Epson 4870 scans
    By Robert Jaques in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-Aug-2005, 16:55
  4. Alternative to Epson 4870
    By Julian Boulter in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 3-Apr-2005, 15:41
  5. Epson 4870 vs 3200
    By Mark Erickson in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 18-Mar-2004, 07:41

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •