You mean the tests should stay with the approach of not using the machine to its full potential?Originally Posted by sanking
JY
You mean the tests should stay with the approach of not using the machine to its full potential?
JY
They look like good results you're getting there-
Have you described your method somewhere?
I don't know much about lab, but it might be time to start learning-
This thread couldn't have come at a better time,
I've just got a V750, but haven't used it yet-
I'm learning a lot-
I'm particularly interested in hearing about how to best optimize both the hardware and the software,
so testing done for that purpose will be far more useful than an assessment of out of the box performance.
thanks for all the insights-
j
Exactly. The higher end scanners can greatly surpass the 2400 SPI limit for the comparison. When the comparison was begun, I suggested that the scans should be made at 4800 because at 2400, the scan is just about exactly playing into the real performance of the typical flatbed scanners out there at the time (Epson 4970, etc.) and is not really allowing the better scanners to show why/how they are better.
In the end, the comparison is rife with operator error, variable scanning conditions, etc. that makes it much less than a scientific comparison. It it very useful, nonetheless.
Also, there was originally a b&w scan going around as well. This would be easier to see actual sharpness differences than a chrome (due to silver grain rather than dye clouds, for one), but unfortunately, that film was lost in the Post from m to Leigh back near the beginning of the process, so we were forced to stick to the chrome after that.
If you are suggesting that the V750 will show an improvement, I seriously doubt that, as the settings for the comparison limit the resolution anyway. It won't improve shadow density for sure, and whatever resolution it may gain through the coated/high-rez optics will be lost to the sampling limit of the comparison.
---Michael
I guess you don't understand the difference between using fair and objective standards for comparison and using the machines to their full potential.
I will try to explain it to you. Let' s assume that the tests for the other non-focusing standards did not include, 1) adjusting for best point of focus, and 2) fluid mounting, and then the test for the V750 was posted and it included both. Would that be a fair comparison?
The site is a comparison of scanners, not a treatise on how to use any of the scanners to their full potential.
Sandy King
Yes I would admit that my understanding is limited. I can't understand the benefit of a test on a machine that wouldn't incorporate the techniques that the diligent worker would naturally employ. I can certainly understand, however, that each machine should be tested in the same way, Sandy, even if there are compromises. I am stupid but I thought I was hiding it pretty well...
My original question was really about whether or not the 2 concerns were addressed in the comparison tests. I guess the answer is no.
JY
In defense of 2400 spi, if that is the typical required resolution then the ability to do higher resolution is not better (in the larger sense of the scanner as a whole), just higher; it could only be better if it served some purpose. The rare outlier where much higher resolution is required should not be the determining criteria. In any case it is extremely clear from the scans that those who perform better at 4800 also perform better -- and significantly so -- at 2400. If this were not the case then their "better" resolution at 4800 would be rather suspect, since things such as resolution should taper off by a curve, not a wall.
JY,
First, I thought my original response addressed both of your points.
Second, given your last response we don't appear in disagreement about anything.
Third, any person who tells me that he is stupid but thought he was hiding it pretty well is probably a really cunning and smart person. Stupid peole don't know how to communicate in that way, IMHO.
Fourth, I hope you find a way to maximize the potential of your V750 and sell a lot of prints.
Sandy King
You make a good point about 2400 spi, but only as it pertains to LF. I guess the premise was reasonable since this is a LF forum and in point of fact one finds very little reason to scan LF beyond 2400 spi.
However, for a real comparison I would say, just let the big dogs do their thing. I really would just like to look at the maximum potential of a scanner, without regard to spi limitation or output type. Because then we can interpret the results for all formats. Fact is, many of use here are not only LF photographers, but photgraphers who use a variety of other formats.
Sandy King
I guess Sandy is right. I dont have any experience with drum scanners but I read
about the different options you have with aperture settings on a drum scanner and
how that can change the appearance of the grain etc. So in a sense even the drum
scans could be tweaked with different settings depending on the preference of the
operator.
For example the ICG 350i scans are extremely sharp to the point that they
almost start looking like a dithered 8bit GIF.
I was also surprised by the big differences in the shadow areas. From the many
discussions about drum vs. flatbed I took it as a fact that drum scanners are
vastly superior and worlds apart from flatbeds.
But to me only the Optronics Colorgetter Falcon looks impressive. The Tango
and Howtek 7500 on the other hand look rubbish. The Tango does get
*something* from the dark areas but I am not sure I would want that clipped
mess in my scan.
From the cheap Flatbeds the Artixscan M1 looks very nice to me. Smooth tonality
down to the deepest shadows and very consistent (obviously not as sharp).
Can anyone with drum scan experience explain how to interpret these examples?
The Howtek 7500 even has artifacts that look like stuck hotpixels on a CCD.
Joseph (jb7): I will write an explanation and post it tomorrow. Its very easy.
Another thought is that this pretty much IS a flatbed vs. drum scanner comparison going on and so each flatbed should be used to its full potential. I really want to see the best that each flatbed can do and I am not personally interested in fair practices used between them. Mutli-pass and super sampling included.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks