Linotype-Hell Tango blog

[Leszek Vogt]

Has anyone seen any tests done on the new 35/120 Plustek ? I can appreciate the tests and your blog, though I would rather have someone scan my 4x5 work vs investing in software, hardware, high end computer/monitor, and all the time and frustrations to get every morsel-atom out of the scan. Sure, I enjoy quality, but frankly I'd rather use that time to be out there and enjoy the nature and photography. By the way, much like Nikon scanners, I just heard of two Dimage type bit the dust - they are no longer supported and obtaining parts is increasingly difficult.

Les

[Karl Hudson]

Great Blog Georgl! I'm in Germany too...in Kiel (birthplace of the Tango)...would enjoy the chance to meet sometime.
Karl

[Nathan Potter]

Georgl, I think one can just roughly scale a magnified section of your photo above from the 8 X 10 original.
Your small sections are about 16X of originals as shown. If I measure the width of about the finest line resolved on the magnified sections I get about 0.5 mm (500µm). That would translate to about a 15 µm line on the 8 X 10 original, albeit of quite low contrast I suspect. A 15 µm line is 75 lines/mm or 37 lp/mm really quite exellent for an 8 X 10 image. This would equate to about 1660 spi. as reproduced. This seems to be a high quality 8 X 10 original.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Nathan Potter]

Moderators: you may want to delete my post immediately above; it is in error.

OOps, I should respond to my thread above. What was I thinking last nite?

If I adjust the image size on my screen to about 8 X 10 then the enlarged section is about 7 mm wide on the 8 X 10. Going to the enlarged section on screen then, that represents the 7 mm wide section on the original 8 X 10.
The finest line I can see in the enlarged section is perhaps 0.5 mm (500 µm) wide and appears to be about 110 mm wide on my screen. Scaling the 0.5 mm as a fraction of 110 mm we have 0.5/110 = .0045. Thus the width of the finest line on the original is .0045 X 7mm or .0045 X 7000 µm = 30 µm. 30 µm is nominally about 33 lines/mm. or 16 lp/mm. This is a more likely practical limit for 8 X 10.

The caveat here is that we are looking at a scanned image so is there a resolution limit imposed by the scanner or by the camera and lens? If it were imposed by the scanner then the implication is that the scanning was done at about 840 spi. Georgl reports that it was done at much higher spi (about 1800) so it seems likely that the resolution limit is with the camera and lens arrangement, which contrary to my previous post puts the rez on film not so high and may not be evaluating the optimum performance of the scanner.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.