Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Eversmart vs drum scanners & Aztek plateau

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2

    Re: Eversmart vs drum scanners & Aztek plateau

    Does anyone know how to clean the CCD's on the Eversmart scanners there is suppose to be a special chemical that doesn't leave streaks that i believe is no longer available. I tried to find tech notes on line but could not find any

    Thanks

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,165

    Re: Eversmart vs drum scanners & Aztek plateau

    I suggest you join the Scan Hi-End forum on Yahoo. Ther was some discussion just a few weeks ago. Join the forum and do a search on EverSmart and you should find the messages. I don't know the answer to your question about the cleaner but there is someone on the Yahoo forum who used to work for Scitex and he has a lot of information about the EverSmart. I believe there is also a maintenance manual in the files section which descreibes how to open the scanner to access the mirrors, optics and CCD for cleaning.


    Sandy


    Quote Originally Posted by RCG View Post
    Does anyone know how to clean the CCD's on the Eversmart scanners there is suppose to be a special chemical that doesn't leave streaks that i believe is no longer available. I tried to find tech notes on line but could not find any

    Thanks

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,539

    Re: Eversmart vs drum scanners & Aztek plateau

    Quote Originally Posted by RCG View Post
    Does anyone know how to clean the CCD's on the Eversmart scanners there is suppose to be a special chemical that doesn't leave streaks that i believe is no longer available. I tried to find tech notes on line but could not find any

    Thanks
    If you fail to find the proper cleaner, you might look at the cleaners made for sensors in digital cameras. I have a kit that I have used on one of my 5Ds and it leaves no residue.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2

    Re: Eversmart vs drum scanners & Aztek plateau

    thanks good tip

  5. #25
    Still Developing
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    579

    Re: Eversmart vs drum scanners & Aztek plateau

    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    > I have said this before. If the detail is not on the film you are not going to be able to pull it out, no matter the quality of the scanner or the resolution of the scan.


    Yep, this is the point often overlooked and is the basis of all the confusion of how much information is in a 4x5 scan, (in terms of MP's). This also relates to the scanned film vs. digital capture comparisons. Consider this.....


    A 4x5 Provia capture of a landscape image, at f22 = a max. recorded resolution of 32 lp/mm assuming 1500/f and 60 lp/mm for Provia at a given contrast that is practical. Lets assume at f22, the lens IS apt. diffraction limited. As we know, often you must stop down futher for DOF....of course, if you shoot an infinity shot, you can open up a stop or two, based on the lens MTF data... (most LF lenses only perform well at f16+, but some of the newer modern designs can get to f11, (such as the SSXL's) Anyway, so f22 is nice middle of the road f stop for 4x5. We also know that there is other issues, such as film alignment, depth of focus at film plane, etc. All slightly degrade image quality, but lets assume there is no losses here, since f22 provides decent leeway for a decent camera set up.


    Now, assume you had a scanner that was 100% eff and could extract every bit of that 32 lp/mm from the film. 4x5 film is 90x120mm.... extract the math, at 64 dots per mm, you have a 44MP worth of clean, captured data on the film. Of course, to extract this data, you are forced to oversample by a factor of 3 - 6, you can end up with 150MP to 300MP file....but that is only because its second generation image, again, Nyquist (1/R) is the cause of these large file sizes. They key is, there is only 44MP of recorded data in the entire 4x5 film.


    Now, lets look at a 60MP digital back capture.... lets use a hypothetical 40x50mm sensor size, which it would take a 7000 x 8750 pixels = 61 MP. This equates to 88 pp/mm (pixel pairs per mm) To get the same DOF in the smaller format at the same size final print, you can reduce the f stop by the enlargement factor (and also the lens fl, but thats not relevant here) , which is 2.3x. (2.3 x 40 = 90 mm)... f22/2.3= f9.6. Of course, this assumes same composure.

    Now run the math....

    9.6 f stop
    157 lp/mm aerial rez of lens (1500/f stop)
    56 lp/mm 1/R

    2.3 format factor to match 4x5 final size
    25 lp/mm at 4x5 size


    This demonstrates how a typical 4x5 color image shot at f22, scanned with perfect efficiency will match a 60MP digital capture on a smaller digital format. So why do scanned files have 6x more data? It's due to second generation oversampling requirement, which is Nyquist, regardless of what Phil once said. It's can't be more obvious.


    Now you can see why those touting a 4x5 film capture is equal to 150 - 300MP digital capture is simply NOT comprehending all the issues at play. Many have stated, they believe what they see. Well, this explains why Mike R's Luminous Landscape test, of scanned 4x5 film vs. 39MP capture were very close, with the film just barely edging out the digital capture. this example above, suggests he is right. And even if his eyesight is poor as suggested, it's the same set of eyes being laid on both images. Also, he had several other people come to the same conclusion.


    But then you have variables...such as Velvia will record more resolution than Provia, so the 4x5 film capture will win by maybe 15 - 20%......if you go to Tmax, the 4x5 capture will destroy the digital capture, probably by 40%+. But, as a more fair comparison, to match the DR of the MF digital capture, one must go to color neg film, now the 60MP digital capture will exceed scanned 4x5 film probably by 15%.

    Anyway, the numbers are close, except B&W films like TMAX. Hopefully this will shed some light on how many MP are actually in scanned 4x5 film......vs how massive the scanned files are.
    This threads was dead a long while ago but it's worth linking to some other sources.

    1) 1500/f is rayleigh's value - some consider that it's pessimistic (see Dawes limit)
    2) Chris Perez's lens test have some lenses a 67lp/mm for f/22 and up to 80lp/mm at f/11 for the 110 SSXL
    3) We did some pretty definitive tests of LF with some good lenses etc and had maximum 'detail' for a 5x4 on Provia as about 200 megapixels equivalent
    4) However in visual comparisons, the 5x4 struggled to match the 80mp digital back with it's high contrast. Once you enlarged significantly the fine detail of the LF showed through, especially colour detail.

    So a 5x4 and Provia could be seen as about 80-140mp equivalent in my opinion depending on the criteria used to compare.

    Tim Parkin

    https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...ra-comparison/
    Still Developing at http://www.timparkin.co.uk and scanning at http://cheapdrumscanning.com

Similar Threads

  1. Used pro flatbeds - who are they ?
    By Matus Kalisky in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 22-Apr-2008, 11:02
  2. What's the difference???
    By ignatiusjk in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 7-Jan-2008, 15:39
  3. Purchase drum Scanner or pay for scans
    By Dave Jeffery in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 31-Dec-2007, 16:53

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
  •