Hi Ted,
Thanks for putting this machine through it's paces for us. I'm confused about your 3x to 4x comment though. If the old 1800f 1800dpi was capable of 3x to 4x why wouldn't the new 4800dpi optical of the m1 be capable of a far greater enlargement?
John
Probably because the 1800ppi was closer to the real value of approx 2000ppi than the 4800ppi. The real rez of the scanner is probably limited to around 2200 to 2400ppi. The scanner can sample higher, but won't obtain anything further from the film.Originally Posted by John Brady
I do question the 4X figure though. I've seen scans that were done with the V750 and 4x5 Fuji Pro160 that printed well out to 6X.
And with the Epson 750 you can get a perfect 8x or 10 times enlargement from 35mm if you have the neg on the right position!
In my case I got always the grey totaly sharp at 6400 DPI on 35mm!
Happy scanning, Armin
I respect Armin's eye and his talent so won't argue but remember that YMMV and different folks have different ideas of what is acceptable. We are also dealing with the age old question of how we measure enlargement is an 8x10 from a 4x5 a 2x or a 4x enlargement ... depends on how you measure and this difference does count when we are messing with pixels. The standard nomenclature calls an 8x10 a 2x and a 16x20 a 4x when in fact the area of the 16x20 is actually 16 times the area of the 8x10 .... that for another thread at another time.
Armin, I will try some 35mm slides next and then do some prints.
For now here is another scan, again not messed with at all. Standard settings in Silverfast, 48 (16) bit, scanned at 2400 spi, autofocus set manually for the side of the building. The second image is a crop at 100% meaning full pixel size. No manipulation in PS at all other than resizing for here.
The autofocus makes a difference. More later.
Ted,
Not that I think you have too much time on your hands....but can you cmpare that same chimney shot to an Epson V700 / 750 or 4990?
Thanks,
He doesn't own one, he is going to ship me a tranny so we can compare them.
As per 6x from a 4x5 color neg? Not to my standards. I have scanned hundreds of negs on the 750, dry, wet and with great attention to film height and focus. I have never seen one that would be acceptable to me over 3x. If I wanted a first rate 16x20 I paid always ended up going to an Imacon or paying for a drum scan.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Why am I unimpressed? 2400dpi is not that much, but the chimney looks as though the resolution is not much above half that.
Try a 35mm with good detail and scan it in the highest resolution.
pango,
2400 is the highest REAL optical reolution for all of the consumer scanners; in fact none of them reach 2400. This one might be more but I won't know until I scan the AIG test target.
I'll scan a 35mm eventually but that is not the primary interest of folks here or of our readers (View Camera magazine). When I am doing scanning workshops I always recommend a dedicated consumer film scanner such as the Nikon V/5000/9000 for scanning 35mm as opposed to a consumer flatbed.
Ted,
Could I suggest that you start a new thread with your observations of the scanner. My browser is having difficulties with this thread.
Steve
Ted, just to get a feel for what I'm looking at in the two images of the brick mill - I assume the transparency is a 4X5 size image so the 1888 sign on the chimney is about 100 mils (2500 microns) in width on the 4X5. Then roughly, the grout lines between the bricks from the enlargement are about 2 mils (50 microns) referenced to the 4X5 original and limited in resolution either by the scanner or the taking lens. Do I detect a bit of film grain resolved within the bricks? Does this quick result look promising for the M1?
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks