Sharpness vs. Resolution vs. MTF vs. Diffraction

[C.T. Greene]

I don't know about fine art being a special case, but sure, any time you want a ton of detail in something bigger than a small print ... or if you need camera movements for any reason, LF still seems like a better choice than a dslr.

Smaller film formats have a much harder time competing. I've abandoned medium format and 35mm in favor of the dslr.

Hmm . . I still shoot 35mm, in fact took it out this morning, shooting some Ecktar 100. But the point is yes, I need to upgrade & the scanner is probably the most probiting factor so not having or wanting to spend an arm or a leg . . what flat beds scan 35mm & 4x5? Most seem only to scan medium formats & of course LF prohibits dedicated film scanning.

[engl]

The Epson V700 and V750 flatbeds give good results with 4x5. The results with 35mm film will not come close to what a dedicated scanner can offer, but it is good enough for me. You could get a V700 for 4x5 and a Plustek 7600i for 35mm.

If you want a single scanner capable of great results from 4x5 and 35mm you'd need one of the professional flatbeds, in which case you will be spending a ton more than what the V700+7600i cost together, and will have to fight compatibility issues.

[Leigh]

Diffraction?

Here's an Apo-Ronar 300mm/f9 with calibrated apertures down to f/250


Given that this is a high-end process lens, used in an environment where the lighting is completely controllable, I doubt they would provide an f/stop that gave significantly degraded performance.

- Leigh

[rdenney]

Diffraction?

Here's an Apo-Ronar 300mm/f9 with calibrated apertures down to f/250


Given that this is a high-end process lens, used in an environment where the lighting is completely controllable, I doubt they would provide an f/stop that gave significantly degraded performance.

- Leigh

Hmm. Diffraction is what it is. I suspect they provided those apertures because in the macro world, depth of field is particularly challenging. And then they leave it to us to determine if the resulting diffraction is acceptable or not.

Rick "not drawing too much conclusion from that aperture ring" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

Leigh - the aperture ring is like a speedometer on a car that goes up to 150mph, even
though it's a compact 4-cylinder vehicle. Just a standardized component which doesn't
imply recommended usage. Diffraction is optical fact, not a variable of labeling or
marketing. Anyone who actually uses lenses like these knows it from practical experience too.

[C.T. Greene]

Thank you for the info, a separate dedicated 35mm may be the best solution. It would be alot quicker & easier when doing rolls of 36 frames.
As for LF, I have looked (considered) the both V700 & V750. I'm still looking around, heard some about the 4990 but they seem to be out of stock with unknown delivery date which leaves the Hp G4050 aas the only option?

[engl]

The 4990 is since long discontinued. For some time they were available as refurbs from Epson, but I think those days are gone as well. They are sometimes available used, but I think I'd rather get a V700 with warranty, better holders and possibly better image quality (there is some debate about the last point).

As for scanning 35mm negatives quick and easy, the V700 is probably a lot better than the Plustek. You simply cut the negatives into strips of 6, load 24 frames at once and hit scan (the software finds the frames and balances exposure per frame). With the Plustek you are scanning one frame at a time, waiting 1-10 minute per frame, then manually advancing. Every 4 slides or 6 photos on negative strips, you have to reload the holder. Unless you do the 3 minute 7200DPI scans and downsample, you are not going to see any advantage over the V700. If you want ICE dust reduction, scans take 11 minutes at 7200DPI, per photo. You'd be finished with a 36 frame roll in about 7 hours.

From what I quickly skimmed about the HP G4050, it does not seem like a very good scanner.