Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 155

Thread: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

  1. #101

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    781

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    > It has nothing to do with Nyquist.

    You are mistaken, it has everything to do with Nyquist.... 1/R is the basis of recordable resolution, period...




    > It has to do with the different between how many pixels one can make vs the actual optical resolution of the sampling mechanism (how many bars it can separate).

    This is Nyquist and 1/R, you are contradicting yourself.....




    > In a drum that would be related to the stepper motor and the choices of steps where the samples are taken.


    That is ONE variable of the drum scan, its equivalent to one axis of resolution on a XY scan. At 8000 dpi, this equates to 157 pp/mm. A diffraction limited lens viewing film at f2.8 can deliver 1500/2.8 = 536 lp/mm, almost 4x the resolution of a 8000 lines / inch on the drums rotation. A lens has more potential than revolving drum. A drum scanners native image can be thought of as threads of a screw. I think you are overlooking the potential of a sharp optics.


    > You probably never tested a Premier, it's better than the older ICG's, for certain. The Cezanne is not close. It don't think it would be equal to any drum scanner.


    I have compared scans from a Howtek 8000 I owned, and still use vs. the Premier, I can see little or no differences. As you know. the basis of the premier was the Howtek 8000. A friend of mine a few years back, went to visit Phil when considering an upgrade from his 8000 to the Premier, he brought film he had scanned on his 8000, and Phil could barely match it after tweaking it for quite some time. Bottom line, the last generation of Howtek scanners, mainly the 4500 and 8000 scanners were great scanners, period. (of course, anyone can get a bad sample) After comparing Howtek scans to Cezanne scans, for color film, I would consider them nearly the same, hence why I finally left the drum world and went flat bed. However, if I was scanning B&W, I would still own a drum.


    As for the price of scanners, lets get real, we all know scanners in the early 90's were in the 200k price range.... I was comparing prices of todays scanners, not early 90's like you converted my reference to... no company can sell a $30k scanner if it performs like a consumer level "soft" scanner as you have implied many times for the Cezanne. Others on this list have mentioned their Cezanne scans have equaled or beat drum scans, yet somehow, you continue to ignore what they write. You accuse everyone of defending their scanners, instead, it appears from your posts, it's you who continually defends your Aztek....



    > The Seybold test is not considered authoritative.

    It was the last non biased, independently juried scanner test I have read about....do you have any other tests to share?

  2. #102

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    781

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    > The optical resolution of flatbed scanners is determined by how many times they sample at 90 degrees to the direrection of travel of the CCD. My EverSmart Pro, for example, samples at 8020 spi in the direction of the run of the CCD as determined by the stepper motor, but only 3175 spi in the other direction. The stated optical resolution is therefore 3175 spi, or about 62 lpm. However, if you actually test a resolution target with this scanner it will show effective resolution of about 78 lpm. I assume that the Cezanne will do likewise as Peter alluded to in a message a couple of days back.


    Fully agreed with above.... but as I mentioned previously, much of this is premised on some of the variables we don't know. Such as, at each step, what size image is captured? how is that image spread out over the pixels on the CCD chip? How much over sampling? Depth of focus at the CCD chip? etc, etc. So my point is, many of these unknown variables still leaves some mystery...but in the end, it all comes out in the wash when you make a scan, so IMO, it makes no sense beating up all the "possible" internal hardware / software / optics that each manufacturer utilizes to achieve their desired scan resolutions. This is whats nice about a head-to-head comparison like Seibold did in 2001....

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Petaluma, CA
    Posts
    1,802

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    > It has nothing to do with Nyquist.
    You are mistaken, it has everything to do with Nyquist.... 1/R is the basis of recordable resolution, period...
    > It has to do with the different between how many pixels one can make vs the actual optical resolution of the sampling mechanism (how many bars it can separate).
    This is Nyquist and 1/R, you are contradicting yourself.....
    First of all, Phil Lippincott told me that Nyquist wasn't a factor in what he did. We already went over this, some possible explanations for his stance were offered. That was good enough for me. I don't have to rehash it.

    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    > In a drum that would be related to the stepper motor and the choices of steps where the samples are taken.
    That is ONE variable of the drum scan, its equivalent to one axis of resolution on a XY scan. At 8000 dpi, this equates to 157 pp/mm. A diffraction limited lens viewing film at f2.8 can deliver 1500/2.8 = 536 lp/mm, almost 4x the resolution of a 8000 lines / inch on the drums rotation. A lens has more potential than revolving drum. A drum scanners native image can be thought of as threads of a screw. I think you are overlooking the potential of a sharp optics.
    There are a lot of other factors here. CCD's vs PMT's and everything else. Accuracy of sampling area, the machine knowing where it is. We've been doing this thread for days now.

    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    > You probably never tested a Premier, it's better than the older ICG's, for certain. The Cezanne is not close. It don't think it would be equal to any drum scanner.
    I have compared scans from a Howtek 8000 I owned, and still use vs. the Premier, I can see little or no differences. As you know. the basis of the premier was the Howtek 8000. A friend of mine a few years back, went to visit Phil when considering an upgrade from his 8000 to the Premier, he brought film he had scanned on his 8000, and Phil could barely match it after tweaking it for quite some time. Bottom line, the last generation of Howtek scanners, mainly the 4500 and 8000 scanners were great scanners, period. (of course, anyone can get a bad sample) After comparing Howtek scans to Cezanne scans, for color film, I would consider them nearly the same, hence why I finally left the drum world and went flat bed. However, if I was scanning B&W, I would still own a drum.
    Gee, the BG in BGLick wouldn't be short for Bill Gillooley (SP?), would it?

    What you are saying simply does not jive with my experience. I have a client that did a lot of scans on the Cezanne - some of which he brought to me and were analyzed by the both of us - and came here only because this machine could outdo his by such a wide margin. That was last year, he moved back to Australia... and I checked, don't have any of those older originals. I saw no reason to keep them.

    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    As for the price of scanners, lets get real, we all know scanners in the early 90's were in the 200k price range.... I was comparing prices of todays scanners, not early 90's like you converted my reference to... no company can sell a $30k scanner if it performs like a consumer level "soft" scanner as you have implied many times for the Cezanne. Others on this list have mentioned their Cezanne scans have equaled or beat drum scans, yet somehow, you continue to ignore what they write. You accuse everyone of defending their scanners, instead, it appears from your posts, it's you who continually defends your Aztek....
    Everyone makes claims about everything. Luminous Landscape will have you believing that a 4x5 piece of film is less than the latest 35mm digital camera. I simply respond to how I see things. I don't think a Cezanne is worth 30K.

    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    > The Seybold test is not considered authoritative.
    It was the last non biased, independently juried scanner test I have read about....do you have any other tests to share?
    I refer to the tests at Aztek, with my discussions with them, etc., and their independent scannerforum site. According to them they made a real effort to be fair... and I have no reason to distrust them. They aren't the kind of folks who would stretch it just to further their product, certainly not with me...
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    4,613

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    What goes on inside a scanner is pretty much a mystery to me, but I do understandhow to test my equipment to evaluate end results.

    What I did want to emphasize about the Cezanne Elite, which perhaps you understand, is that if you are scanninig anything over 1.5" wide at 5300 spi there is some interpolation going on since the lens will have to zoom out to cover a larger area, and this results in decreased optical resolution. This may or may not make much difference in the actual end result sharpness -- that is for Cezanne users to evaluate and judge.

    Sandy King




    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    > The optical resolution of flatbed scanners is determined by how many times they sample at 90 degrees to the direrection of travel of the CCD. My EverSmart Pro, for example, samples at 8020 spi in the direction of the run of the CCD as determined by the stepper motor, but only 3175 spi in the other direction. The stated optical resolution is therefore 3175 spi, or about 62 lpm. However, if you actually test a resolution target with this scanner it will show effective resolution of about 78 lpm. I assume that the Cezanne will do likewise as Peter alluded to in a message a couple of days back.


    Fully agreed with above.... but as I mentioned previously, much of this is premised on some of the variables we don't know. Such as, at each step, what size image is captured? how is that image spread out over the pixels on the CCD chip? How much over sampling? Depth of focus at the CCD chip? etc, etc. So my point is, many of these unknown variables still leaves some mystery...but in the end, it all comes out in the wash when you make a scan, so IMO, it makes no sense beating up all the "possible" internal hardware / software / optics that each manufacturer utilizes to achieve their desired scan resolutions. This is whats nice about a head-to-head comparison like Seibold did in 2001....

  5. #105

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    781

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    > Gee, the BG in BGLick wouldn't be short for Bill Gillooley (SP?), would it?


    Is this a joke I am not getting? Who is Gillooley?




    > First of all, Phil Lippincott told me that Nyquist wasn't a factor in what he did.


    Phil was excited to sell his products. You seem to think anything Phil once said is Gospel, and all other knowledgeable people should be dismissed. Your Aztek allegiance is loud and clear. There is nothing wrong with that. Anyone that understands image capture can not escape the Nyquist premise. All scanners are digital cameras, they all have a subject plane and an image plane.



    > Everyone makes claims about everything. Luminous Landscape will have you believing that a 4x5 piece of film is less than the latest 35mm digital camera.

    I think you are exaggerating to make a point..... Mike R never claimed this, but he did compare 4x5 to 39MP MF back, which i addressed in another post, which should be moved here, as I mistakenly posted it to the wrong thread.



    > I refer to the tests at Aztek, with my discussions with them, etc., and their independent scannerforum site. According to them they made a real effort to be fair...

    hmmmm.... a manufacturer running a test, with their scanner being one of the participants. I bet I know the outcome before even reading the results. And you feel this would represent a less bias test than the Seibold, which you were quick to dismiss? I do not agree with your logic here....

  6. #106

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    4,613

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    This is kind of funny. Bill is a former Scitex operator/technician who knows a lot about EverSmart scanners, and scanners in general including drums. He is known as Mr. Bill on teh Scan Hi-End forum and has given us EverSmart scanners a lot of technical support.

    It is a hoot that Lenny would think you were BG. Bill has many times made the point that EverSmart scanners are sharper than Fuji Lavonia and Cezanne because of a higher quality lens and XY stitching.

    Sandy





    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    > Gee, the BG in BGLick wouldn't be short for Bill Gillooley (SP?), would it?


    Is this a joke I am not getting? Who is Gillooley?




    > First of all, Phil Lippincott told me that Nyquist wasn't a factor in what he did.


    Phil was excited to sell his products. You seem to think anything Phil once said is Gospel, and all other knowledgeable people should be dismissed. Your Aztek allegiance is loud and clear. There is nothing wrong with that. Anyone that understands image capture can not escape the Nyquist premise. All scanners are digital cameras, they all have a subject plane and an image plane.



    > Everyone makes claims about everything. Luminous Landscape will have you believing that a 4x5 piece of film is less than the latest 35mm digital camera.

    I think you are exaggerating to make a point..... Mike R never claimed this, but he did compare 4x5 to 39MP MF back, which i addressed in another post, which should be moved here, as I mistakenly posted it to the wrong thread.



    > I refer to the tests at Aztek, with my discussions with them, etc., and their independent scannerforum site. According to them they made a real effort to be fair...

    hmmmm.... a manufacturer running a test, with their scanner being one of the participants. I bet I know the outcome before even reading the results. And you feel this would represent a less bias test than the Seibold, which you were quick to dismiss? I do not agree with your logic here....

  7. #107

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Petaluma, CA
    Posts
    1,802

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    > Gee, the BG in BGLick wouldn't be short for Bill Gillooley (SP?), would it?
    Is this a joke I am not getting? Who is Gillooley?
    Bill's a poster on another list.

    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    > First of all, Phil Lippincott told me that Nyquist wasn't a factor in what he did.
    Phil was excited to sell his products. You seem to think anything Phil once said is Gospel, and all other knowledgeable people should be dismissed. Your Aztek allegiance is loud and clear. There is nothing wrong with that. Anyone that understands image capture can not escape the Nyquist premise. All scanners are digital cameras, they all have a subject plane and an image plane.
    I have been very up front that the Aztek folks are friends of mine. They've been good to me. They aren't perfect, by any means. I don't want to dismiss anyone who knows something. I do give Phil's opinion a lot of weight. Of course, I don't know who you are, what your experience is - or anything about you. For all I know you could be a great genius. Maybe I should take your word over Phil's. I'm not being sarcastic. But I don't know your name, there is no link to a web site, there is no way for me to judge how I should weigh your comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    > Everyone makes claims about everything. Luminous Landscape will have you believing that a 4x5 piece of film is less than the latest 35mm digital camera.
    I think you are exaggerating to make a point..... Mike R never claimed this, but he did compare 4x5 to 39MP MF back.
    He didn't compare his P45 to a high end drum scanner. I think he should have. If you think the Cezanne is just as good, maybe it doesn't matter to you. I think if you compare the top product in one category you should use the top product in the other.
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  8. #108

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    162

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    Hi, I posted this in response to Bglick's comment on the other thread but as it really relates to this one will post it here as well:

    Bglick, many thanks for the well reasoned comments. Can I ask one question which bothers me - how does the Bayer filter (if I've got the right term!) affect your resolution figures? Surely with a one shot back you need to reduce the effective number of pixels to take account of the distribution of the colour pixels? Also presumbaly the interpolation itself loses some resolution? If you do adjust for this how would the revised numbers look?

    David Whistance

  9. #109
    Peter J. De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    3,186

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger View Post

    What you are saying simply does not jive with my experience. I have a client that did a lot of scans on the Cezanne - some of which he brought to me and were analyzed by the both of us - and came here only because this machine could outdo his by such a wide margin. That was last year, he moved back to Australia... and I checked, don't have any of those older originals. I saw no reason to keep them.
    So your evaluation of the Cezanne amounts to results from one scanner/user? That seems a rather small sample to support your rather sweeping generalizations.

  10. #110

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    If you consider a simple approach of how the CCD in a MFDB works through a Bayer pattern, that is one factor, though more in colour interpolation than resolution (not file sizes). There are twice as many green filtered areas as blue or red. There is also a factor of how much light passes through the colour filtering, and gets collected in the well. Quite simply, the physical size of the pixel, and the spacing from one pixel to another, can have a greater affect on optical capability than the Bayer pattern.

    I have yet to see any test of any MFDB or D-SLR that can resolve a true clean optical capability greater than about 70% of it's file size suggested theoretical limits (excluding scanning backs). My terminology might not be as technical as other's here, but hopefully that makes sense. Addition of an anti-alias filter or anti-moiré layer can further reduce resolution, though can be useful to avoid other possible errors.

    Remember that white is a full signal capture while black is no signal capture (or think of it as full charge and no charge respectively). Due to this factor, and Bayer filtration, and interpolation between adjacent pixels, darker areas of a scene could be more prone to errors or reduced accuracy than brighter areas. Sometimes this shows up as noise, while other times it is false colour at a near pixel level.

    Some of the current MFDBs are quite good, and can allow very impressive and compelling results. I don't see a need to state or claim that this newer technology is better nor worse than scanned film. In reality, a well shot image on film, translated nicely into a compelling printed image, can potentially be quite good, and impress many people. The biggest arguments in favor of MFDBs are largely speed and convenience.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat Photography

Similar Threads

  1. "Digital 4x5"?
    By Eric Leppanen in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 18-Jul-2005, 22:59
  2. Grafmatic 6 sheets 4x5 film folder
    By NG Sai-kit in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 25-Dec-2001, 10:18
  3. Digital printing 6x9 vs 4x5
    By Glenn Kroeger in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 22-Feb-2000, 12:42
  4. 4x5 best optics w/ Scheider HIGH END BACK sharper than 8x10?
    By Bill Glickman in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 17-May-1999, 04:31
  5. 4x5 digital camera back
    By Peter Tucker in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26-May-1998, 15:30

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
  •