Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 155

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

  1. #91

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    423

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

    I've looked at very many of the available comparisons found on the net. From that rather poor perspective what I have noticed is that while the actual resolution and detail is similar on good scans from good machines the shadows are owned by the PMTs. I've seen very nice scans with actual antialiasing in the darker parts of CCD scans that were otherwise very impressive.

  2. #92

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

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

    Tyler,

    To put this in perspective, I print with a rather arcane, but extraordinarily beautiful in my opinion, 19th century process called carbon transfer. I would wager that less than 1% of the people on this forum have even heard of it, and probably only one in a thousand has ever seen a real carbon transfer print. That in itself demonstrates a fair amount of commitment to the craft of photography. And I consider myself first and foremost a shooter and a printmaker, with everything in between the path.

    That said, I love the path, or the process to the final print. The path is how most of us spend our time in the pursuit of our artistic objectives, and in the end the path is more meaningful than the end result, which is when all is said and done a thing, or product. It takes me a fraction of a second to see and make a negative, and once the final print is in hand the mystery is over, but all between is a magical path, and time I treasure.

    Sandy King


    Quote Originally Posted by Tyler Boley View Post
    As Sandy mentioned earlier, this thread has wandered so much I'm not sure what the real focus is any more. But when it comes to in depth comparisons of scanned film, capture, darkroom vs ink, etc. etc. the conversation becomes much more complex than some of this indicates.
    Given that, I have to stress something Bruce often states here, all that matters to me is what happens on paper, the final object. The in between steps, ccd, pmt, whatever, can only be judged by how they impact the final piece. Looking at comparisons of file magnifications on the monitor only gets us so far. Also, if we are going to judge, what are the criteria? What constitutes higher quality? What does better mean? The opinion that the quality of scanning/inkjet surpasses silver is just that, an opinion. I ask this as someone committed to drum scanning and the highest quality inkjet systems and that aesthetic, I love it- how come few, if any, ink prints can sit next to one of Caponigro's (just as an example) finest? A Tice, whatever...
    I ask this against my own interests, I offer drum scanning, inkjet printing, etc etc for a living, my own personal work is committed to these processes and I depend to a smaller degree on sales of that too. But in the interests of real artistic pursuit, real scientific knowledge, and advancement of the craft we love, absolute honesty is required, difficult, but required.
    Tyler
    http://www.custom-digital.com/

  3. #93

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,094

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    Over the past year or so I have had the same 6X7 color negative scanned by several people with different professional flatbed and drum scanners, including Howtek 4500, Howtek 6500 and Screen 1030ai. I have also scanned the same negative with an EverSmart Pro and with a Leafscan 45.
    From this I must conclude that the limiting factor was the film, not the scanners. And this color negative was made with a high quality Mamiya 7II camera and a 65mm lens at f/8, with the camera on a tripod, which is about as good as it gets in the analog world of film.
    Sandy King
    I had seen this before. Perhaps another read is in order. If you want to send the neg over here, I'd be happy to scan it on my machine... just to see...

    Lenny
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  4. #94

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,094

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyler Boley View Post
    Given that, I have to stress something Bruce often states here, all that matters to me is what happens on paper, the final object. The in between steps, ccd, pmt, whatever, can only be judged by how they impact the final piece. Looking at comparisons of file magnifications on the monitor only gets us so far. Also, if we are going to judge, what are the criteria? What constitutes higher quality? What does better mean? The opinion that the quality of scanning/inkjet surpasses silver is just that, an opinion. I ask this as someone committed to drum scanning and the highest quality inkjet systems and that aesthetic, I love it- how come few, if any, ink prints can sit next to one of Caponigro's (just as an example) finest? A Tice, whatever...
    But in the interests of real artistic pursuit, real scientific knowledge, and advancement of the craft we love, absolute honesty is required, difficult, but required.
    Tyler
    []
    Tyler,

    Of course you're right. Great prints are just that, great prints. I love them, in any media. My favorite is a gravure I have, a Clarence White, from Camerawork, called Morning. Ultimately, its about photography.

    I would say two things. The first that on a site like this many participants are asking for advice on what to purchase. Is it worth it to buy an expensive scanner, for example? They have to make a buying decision and they can be costly. As you have I am sure, I have many software programs, plugins and the like that I just threw away, as they were not as useful as we had hoped. There are lots of mistakes to be made. When one is buying a camera, we can't tell them its about artistic pursuit, we have to ask what they want to accomplish and help them get what they need to accomplish it. When it comes to scanning, aesthetics come into play, as some people aren't after what you or I might call a great print. The criteria gets muddled. Manufacturers stretch the truth. Marketers... it would be nice to have clear criteria outlined and results tabulated. Maybe I'm just dreaming... but this topic does come up a lot...

    The other thing is from your lips to God's ears. I wish more of photography had a primary component of honesty. There is way too much post-modernism these days for my taste.

    Lenny
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  5. #95

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

    Sandy, I'm in the 1%, and even the one in a thousand, and am also aware of what you do and your commitment. I absolutely agree with everything you said. I don't think the point I wanted to make is at odds with your post. I also live in the details of the process, and love every educational second of it. I hope I never arrive at any dogma about it, only dogmatic commitment. I'm only saying that beyond pure technical prowess evaluated about each small step, placing judgment on one step's methodology must be in the context of it's contribution to the end piece. I am disturbingly committed to the demands of each step, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, as demonstrated by this article-
    http://www.custom-digital.com/2008/09/bw-print-quality/

    Thanks for your post, nice to read, I am in agreement entirely and hope my point was clear. I'll do anything that I stumble on to get to the print I want, some things I'd never admit amongst the demanding technicians here, other things at the bleeding edge. I hope I'm making sense... There are factual differences between processes that must be acknowledged, but they may or may not be relevant to the desired end.

    Tyler

  6. #96

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

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

    Tyler,

    Thanks for your comments.

    If you ever get to my area of the country bring some prints and plan to stop by and stay for a while. I think we would have lots to talk about.

    Sandy






    Quote Originally Posted by Tyler Boley View Post
    Sandy, I'm in the 1%, and even the one in a thousand, and am also aware of what you do and your commitment. I absolutely agree with everything you said. I don't think the point I wanted to make is at odds with your post. I also live in the details of the process, and love every educational second of it. I hope I never arrive at any dogma about it, only dogmatic commitment. I'm only saying that beyond pure technical prowess evaluated about each small step, placing judgment on one step's methodology must be in the context of it's contribution to the end piece. I am disturbingly committed to the demands of each step, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, as demonstrated by this article-
    http://www.custom-digital.com/2008/09/bw-print-quality/

    Thanks for your post, nice to read, I am in agreement entirely and hope my point was clear. I'll do anything that I stumble on to get to the print I want, some things I'd never admit amongst the demanding technicians here, other things at the bleeding edge. I hope I'm making sense... There are factual differences between processes that must be acknowledged, but they may or may not be relevant to the desired end.

    Tyler

  7. #97

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

    Sandy, Likewise. I've got Todd Gangler right up the street so have seen good tri-color. Have seen mono as well but no contemporary. Speaking of alt processes, anyone seen a woodburytype? Lovely.
    OK, I'm way OT now...
    Back to the OP, I saw side by side, tango scanned 4x5 Velvia and P45 of exact same scene, printed large on Premium Luster at Bill Atkinson's place. He thought it was evidence that capture had arrived, I liked the scanned film better. They were admittedly close. Again, I get lost at the cost comparisons..
    Tyler

  8. #98

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    783

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

    > All I know is that while the maximum optical resolution of the Cezanne Elite is 5300 dpi it can only scan at this resolution in a relatively small strip, about 1 1/2" or 2" wide I believe. To scan anything wider the Cezanne has to reposition the lens and place it farther from the CCD, which results in less optical resolution. I am guessing that the maximum true otical resolution for 4X5" is 2400 dpi -3200 dpi but don't know for sure.


    From Screen Cezanne Elite pdf spec sheet:

    The advanced CCD array and XY zoom mechanism help the Cézanne Elite attain its remarkable 589 to 5,300 dpi range of optical resolutions across the entire scanning bed. This allows operators to use the most appropriate resolutions according to the sizes of the originals and the desired enlargement/reduction ratios. Output is possible at up to 20,000 dpi with the aid of the Cézanne Elite’s precision interpolation function, and the user can choose RGB, CMYK, Grayscale, or lineart output.


    I am curious, maybe this was one of the improvements the Elite had over the original Cezanne? I have not noticed the shortcoming Sandy mentioned above, then again, I never tested for it either...


    > The P45 captures 39mp images, but that is compressed, uncompressed i think its around 120mp(don't quote me on that).


    A pixel is a recording site, period. The MP of the camera is the number of sites in which the sensor can sense light. From there, everything is interpolation. You could make a similar argument with film.... and say its recording capacity is its grain size.



    > Yes, and the Cezanne is a mediocre scanner.

    This is a $45k scanner, maybe today down to nearly half this amount. As Adam correctly stated, in the last Seibold 01 head-to-head test, judged by a panel of experts, the Cezzanne beat every scanner tested, except the ICG drum, which just barely beat it. I have used many drum scanners and the Cezzane, I consider the Cezzane to be at least equal to the best drum scanners, except maybe the ICG, which I have not used.


    As mentioned previously, this thread wandered all over the map, but nonetheless, some great contributions... I would like to add a few comments....

    As others have noted, most comparisons between film and digital are absurd.... in order to compare the two, there must be specific set of categories for comparison, such as type of capture (long DOF shots, shooting flat 2d subjects, subject color, subject orientation), lenses used for each, film type (low rez neg color, higher rez trannie, ulra high B&W, etc) , camera quality, scanner type used, how well tuned is the scanner and operator, etc. How well was the film processed, how accurate was the focus....you could go on forever. The point being, often times the generalizations don't nail down the variables, so the conclusion might be accurate, but not applicable when the variables change...


    The scanners themselves are mystery boxes. No one knows the exact workings of the scanner themselves. For example... when a scanner scans at 2000 dpi.... does this mean it offers a final output at 2000 dpi, or does it take in 6000 dpi, interpolate an output 2000 dpi. I think this is "one" of the reasons we see low end consumer grade scanner suggest 4000 dpi, but deliver 2000 dpi, as Nyquist is at play here... so you need a great deal of over sampling to actually resolve 2000 dpi.... so a mix of "whats in the box" combined with marketing BS, leaves all this mysterious in the end. As mentioned, what counts is the finished scans....and how they compare to other scans...or to digital capture.

  9. #99

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,094

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    > Yes, and the Cezanne is a mediocre scanner.
    This is a $45k scanner, maybe today down to nearly half this amount. As Adam correctly stated, in the last Seibold 01 head-to-head test, judged by a panel of experts, the Cezzanne beat every scanner tested, except the ICG drum, which just barely beat it. I have used many drum scanners and the Cezzane, I consider the Cezzane to be at least equal to the best drum scanners, except maybe the ICG, which I have not used.
    I don't care how much things cost. The fist scanner I used was a Hell 299, it was in the hundreds of thousands, if memory serves. The Seybold test is not considered authoritative. 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 don't know what you are trying to convince yourself of, but there is physics to be taken into account.

    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    The scanners themselves are mystery boxes. No one knows the exact workings of the scanner themselves. For example... when a scanner scans at 2000 dpi.... does this mean it offers a final output at 2000 dpi, or does it take in 6000 dpi, interpolate an output 2000 dpi. I think this is "one" of the reasons we see low end consumer grade scanner suggest 4000 dpi, but deliver 2000 dpi, as Nyquist is at play here... so you need a great deal of over sampling to actually resolve 2000 dpi.... so a mix of "whats in the box" combined with marketing BS, leaves all this mysterious in the end. As mentioned, what counts is the finished scans....and how they compare to other scans...or to digital capture.
    It has nothing to do with Nyquist. 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). In a drum that would be related to the stepper motor and the choices of steps where the samples are taken.

    if you are making scans you are happy with - with a Cezanne, that's great.

    Lenny
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  10. #100

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

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

    This has come up before. The Screen Cezanne Elite uses XY zooming, not XY stitching. So it can scan at 5300 spi anywhere on the bed, but at that zoom magnification the strip is limited to 1.5" wide. For anything wider the lens zooms out to cover the larger area. This is quite unlike the XY stitching used by EverSmart and IQSmart scanners, which mow the lawn and then stitch it together. Unlike the Cezanne and Cezanne Elite the EverSmart and IQSmart scanners can scan at the full platen size at the maximum optical resolution.

    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.

    I don't own a Cezanne and can not comment on its quality. However, in actual comparison tests I have had done with the EverSmart Pro and severla drum scanners, all with higher optical resolution, the EverSmart Pro scans were very comparable in quality. Obviously operator competence has to be taken into consideraton here as in the comparison my friend Don Hutton made a much better scan with his Howtek 4500 than another fellow did with a 6500.


    Sandy King


    "The advanced CCD array and XY zoom mechanism help the Cézanne Elite attain its remarkable 589 to 5,300 dpi range of optical resolutions across the entire scanning bed. This allows operators to use the most appropriate resolutions according to the sizes of the originals and the desired enlargement/reduction ratios. Output is possible at up to 20,000 dpi with the aid of the Cézanne Elite’s precision interpolation function, and the user can choose RGB, CMYK, Grayscale, or lineart output.

    The scanners themselves are mystery boxes. No one knows the exact workings of the scanner themselves. For example... when a scanner scans at 2000 dpi.... does this mean it offers a final output at 2000 dpi, or does it take in 6000 dpi, interpolate an output 2000 dpi. I think this is "one" of the reasons we see low end consumer grade scanner suggest 4000 dpi, but deliver 2000 dpi, as Nyquist is at play here... so you need a great deal of over sampling to actually resolve 2000 dpi.... so a mix of "whats in the box" combined with marketing BS, leaves all this mysterious in the end. As mentioned, what counts is the finished scans....and how they compare to other scans...or to digital capture." [/QUOTE]

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, 11:18
  3. Digital printing 6x9 vs 4x5
    By Glenn Kroeger in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 22-Feb-2000, 13:42
  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
  •