I own a Cezanne, and Sandy is absolutely right. That said, it isn't that hard to stitch multiple scans together in software, if needed.Originally Posted by sanking
I own a Cezanne, and Sandy is absolutely right. That said, it isn't that hard to stitch multiple scans together in software, if needed.
Amazing thread ... WAY over my head, but amazing. Has given me a lot to think about. I am convinced that I need to learn this area, leave the wet darkroom (as much as I hate that thought) and enjoy the fruits of what the digital revolution has done for film photography.
With the worry of going farther afield in this thread: Two things:
1) Lenny had a booth at the Fort Collins FOTO3 conference and spent at least 45 minutes with me doing a free scan of 4x5 negative ... with a running monologue of sampling ... etc., etc. ... very gracious and generous with his time and expertise ... and patient ... I thank him for that ... I learned a lot.
2) I was recently introduced to Carbon Printing (see Sandy's earlier post) and loved the end result ... I have signed up for the April 2009 Ansel Adams Gallery workshop at Yosemite for carbon printing ... it is an amazing process with enormous returns ... can't wait!
Yes indeed. Some heat but a lot of light. I've learned a great deal in this thread.
Peter, have you ever put test targets in the center and the edges of the scan area, then scanned at 5300 dpi? what was the results?
Do you have the Elite? I am just curious if Screens spec sheet is not accurate, or poorly worded. My scanner is not hooked up right now, otherwise I would try this...
No, I haven't done any testing with appropriate resolution-determining test slides, mainly because one of those slides costs half of what I paid for my scanner.
I have the original Cezanne. I don't have my manual handy, but here's a quote from the Seybold report:
"The Cezanne scans reflective and transparency copy up to a maximum input format of 348x530mm. Although the top resolution is nominally 5,300 ppi, the Cezanne's resolution actually varies according to the type and size of the image to be scanned." p12 of the scanner test issue.
The resolution wouldn't vary if the Cezanne could combine rows of max-res scans to cover it's entire bed. As Sandy said, placement on the bed does not change resolution, but size of original does, as the lens must zoom out to get the whole original imaged on the 8000 element ccd array.
The xy aspect of the scanner means that maximum resolution is available anywhere on the bed but not _over_ the whole bed. This is in contrast to scanners such as Agfa's T2500 in which maximum resolution is only available over a 2" strip down the center of the glass.
[Btw., the late, great Ted Harris, who also owned the original Cezanne, confirmed this view in a private email.]
The original Cezanne doesn't stitch with grayscale or continuous color scans, but it might with copydot scanning, as I seem to remember the manual stating this.
If you look at the brochure pdf for the Elite, available at:
http://www.screen.co.jp/ga_dtp/en/pr...f/204-144E.pdf
You'll note that the specified optical resolution for continuous toned originals is listed as "589 to 5300 dpi". Doing the math confirms that the 589 dpi figure corresponds to what an 8000 element ccd array would produce when focused over the entire front to back depth of the Elite's scanner bed.
As somebody who uses the P45 every day and used to use 10/8 and 5/4 both scanned by drum and Imacon scanners ,I would say that from a commercial point of view the P45 wins hands down , When we did the comparison tests we were working on a job shooting on 10/8 we scanned the trannie with a high res drum scan at 140mgs and compared it with the P45 file ,the digital was sharper cleaner and faster , the agency went with the digital file and that was the last time I shot film on a job . the files from the digital capture are a lot cleaner and can be rezed up without too much loss of detail with film there is a maximum scan size that beyond that point all you are doing is enlarging the grain and that has a tendency to give the image a much softer look . Again from a commercial point of view when we are working on massive prints ( the size of a house) agencies will insist on P45 digital files over film every time.
> the files from the digital capture are a lot cleaner and can be rezed up without too much loss of detail with film there is a maximum scan size that beyond that point all you are doing is enlarging the grain and that has a tendency to give the image a much softer look .
A very valid point which I failed to mention.... all digital capture files have better up rez potential vs. scanned film. When you scan film at its max. you are truly at the max. Its remarkable how well digital capture files up rez... specially the best backs with large pixel sites, low noise and 16 bit A/D.
I am curious though, in this example you cite, what f stop did you shoot the P45 at?
It is quite often that the largest printed size becomes the limiting factor, more so than the capture methods. As commercially printed sizes go up, the printing requirements per unit area decrease, to keep file sizes down, better match the gear, and to ensure reasonable printing times. A billboard is not a high resolution image, just because you are unlikely to stand next to it, just to use a (very) obvious example.
I have yet to ever see any example that was more than a convenience comparison. Sharpness is not resolution, but is often mistaken as improvement, and that can be applied to film-to-film comparison too.
Q. Can you get a very nice large print from 4x5 or 8x10?
A. Yes
Q. Can you use one of the latest MFDBs to get a nice large print?
A. Yes
See how simple that is . . . no need for one to be better than the other. Why doesn't someone throw a 6µm pixel square grid over a piece of film, and then maybe a Bayer pattern, and improve the scanning capability of film? That way we can create discrete blocks of capture that can up-rez into more blocks.
I would not argue against the convenience of a MFDB, and I have enjoyed using one. Does that mean I think film sucks, scanning sucks, or the combination is somehow inferior . . . No. I don't think anyone should buy, lease, nor rent a MFDB based upon anything other than meeting your needs; don't make the commitment based upon claims, in favor or against. Up-rezzing never increases the amount of detail captured; all it does is spread it out more.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
Hello, awhile ago there was post by Victoria Perelet on this forum with link on her site to side by comparison of drum vs flat bed scans of 8x10 neg, contact/digi print and few other comparisons. I googled and searched this site but can not find URL. If anybody bookmarked it - it may add to this thread.
The single best, and most relevant, analysis so far. Academic analysis is interesting, but that is the bottom line.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks