Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt
Ok, no comunicative avalanche... no a wild claim
Please see this test:
http://archivehistory.jeksite.org/ch.../appendixc.htm
A LS5000 delivers 4000 dpi with USAF 1951 target, 4000 being the best of 5 measures. What flatbed can reach 4000 dpi performance with a USAF 1951 target?
A Screen Cezanne can reach over 5000 spi, or greater, according to the Seybold comparison test. http://www.kar.fi/Skannaus/pixelperf...ol28_nro11.pdf That has been my finding as well, using an Edmund Scientific chrome on glass target.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
I would like you consider a different way to do things, this is analyzing the statements and arguments, separating controversy from technical facts.
If you want some credibility just quote something wrong what I said and reply it. I've made dozens of posts in this thread, something false or ridiculus may be there.
So I invite you to discredit me with arguments.
Best Regards
Here it says interesting things http://www.largeformatphotography.in...p/t-57047.html
Here "Peter De Smidt" said (2009): "A scan of a 4x5 inch piece of film with a Cezanne will involve interpolation at 5000 and 3000 dpi. 2100 would give you straight optical resolution, assuming you put the long side of the film parallel to the front of the scanner. (8000 element ccd over 3.75 inches = 2133 spi."
"the Seybold reports" say more...
I don't know in what way the Cezanne scans smaller 120 format, but if with 4x5 it delivers 2100... this is less than the V750 effective performance.
This is contradictory or I didn't understant what I read... or perhaps it is another model...
The 5300 dpi information of your link is pure inflated commercial information, IMHO. It reads "Scanner Specifications" . http://www.kar.fi/Skannaus/pixelperf...ol28_nro11.pdf
The link I provide http://archivehistory.jeksite.org/ch.../appendixc.htm is about a real test made by a museum.
5000 dpi can be delivered by a drum or X5, not by a flatbed, I guess. With Epson V750 manufacturer also says a lot, but its is 2896 the best of 5 Vert measures... And Hor is worse, while EPSON says SPECIFICATIONS
Optical Resolution: 4,800 DPI, entire bed, or 6,400 DPI in an area 5.9 x 10. As far from reality than those Cezanne 5300dpi.
"the Seybold reports ... hmmmm ... much better would be if someone of us had checked with a USAF 1951",
Isn't it?
The Cezanne may match in practice and subjectively what a coolscan can do? yes, I guess...
Last edited by Pere Casals; 6-Aug-2016 at 19:14.
Please spend a day with Creo, Scitex, Kodak, Screen, or a Scanview flatbed. Pick the worst one by your own definition and then you can come back and tell us that they are no better than an Epson. If you don't need convincing then just make a note that neither do we.
Regards, Pali
That's right. You didn't understand what you read. That limit is only the limit of one pass at a specific scanning width. You can make as many passes of smaller strips as you'd like, and they're easy to combine. You can scan an 8x10 at 6000 spi if you really want. Some of the scanners stitch these strips automatically.
Again, you didn't read carefully. The article posted both manufactures specifications, which, btw., you've been happy to post as Gospel in other threads (Epson 4.0D!), and measured results.
The 5300 dpi information of your link is pure inflated commercial information, IMHO. It reads "Scanner Specifications" . http://www.kar.fi/Skannaus/pixelperf...ol28_nro11.pdf
That's exactly how the authors of the Seybold Report determined resolution. And, as I said, that's how I confirmed it. This is what I used to do so: http://www.edmundoptics.com/test-tar...targets/58198/
"the Seybold reports ... hmmmm ... much better would be if someone of us had checked with a USAF 1951",
Isn't it?[/B]
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
You should understand than any scanner can do do multipass (or at least we can auto-aling+stitching in PS ) Mixing multipass in optical performance with a scanner and not including it in the other to compare scanners is not fair.
A Cezanne is not by far a 5000 dpi machine, and as professional you know it very well, if it was like this drums would make little sense.
In post #109 I talk about multi-pass:
For multiple pass:
Both in the case of Creo and in the case of V750 the mechanical transmission it cannot repeat 1/3200 of an inch in say 4 inches , this would be 0,008 mm in 100mm, 1/10000 range, precission of that range are possible in "r G1 Mini SCARA robots" have repeatabilities down to 0.005mm. A multipass at lower 1200 dpi perhaps can perform better, I've not measured it and I don't know. I've you have experience with that I'd like to know more details and to know if I'm mistaken.
Anyway when I tested super-resolution that can be obtained from multi-pass, I've did it via PS upon these instructions:
http://petapixel.com/2015/02/21/a-pr...ith-photoshop/
Because PS auto-align/stitching... in this way mechanical precission is not a factor.
No Gospel, Peter: in Post #35 I say:
"Multi-exposure has to be used with V750 to obtain acceptable detail in dense areas. This is something also used with Drums.
Even V700 measures until 4.0D, it can only work well until 3.0D, with multiexposure it works well until 3.4D.
From 3.4D to some 3.6D it can work well if image stitching also used later. Perhaps wetmount improves an additional 0.1D, or 0.2D, I've not well measured it."
Note that Silverfast SE version included with V700 do not support multi-exposure, while SE Plus version V750 included does. So with V700 you have to install SE Plus to go Velvia. "Plus" It also has Multi-sampling to reduse noise in dense areas.
A Cezanne is not by far a 5000 dpi machine, and you know it, don't reiterate in that argument because you discredit yourself. A Hassy X5 it is, also a drum with 3um aperture it is. You should be aware about the difference of an X5 or Drum over a Cezanne.
Hello Pali,
I only use the V750 and X5 service.
I know very, very well when a X5 makes a difference or not to the V750, depending on density, negative size and target enlargement.
Note that it is possible that in some conditions X5 and V750 have results that cannot distingushed. We can discuss again in what conditions.
Single difference is that X5 or Drum always delivers better microcontrast than any flatbed, because less stray light than in flatbeds, because device class nature (Velvia 3.8D shadows apart).
I'm prety sure that color and grey tonality are a matter of LUTs and post. And about perceibed resolution the important thing is using Bicubic for reductions and adjusting sharpenning, note that some scanners sharpen in hardware or by the host driver. The best, to me, it is no default sharpenning, I'll do it on my own with PS where I've a lot of choices.
One thing I've noted with V750 is for LF/BW 1200dpi I have to scan 2400 and make the pixel binning in PS, using "Bicubic, Optimal for reductions" I guess that X5 is more intelligent and makes a Bicubic pixel binning by default from higher resolution, while V750 delivers straight 1200dpi.
The X5 1200 dpi is not sharper than the v750 1200 dpi, but it looks sharper.... until with V750 I make a 1200 dpi from 2400 dpi with bicubic binning.
I think this is something a lot of people is not aware... and then it may confuse things, and make them spend a lot of cash.
Anyway the Creo is also a good option, if one uses it a lot and $5000 is not much money for him.
With the V750 I'd do mostly the same, and have a budget for X5 or drum service when it makes a difference.
Regards
Only if the X5 operator is clueless & does things that enable the test to be skewed to suit your pre-existing agendas.
In my experience as a printer, a 4x5 scanned on an X5 at 2040ppi (the max optical resolution available for 4x5) with appropriate settings will happily blow a v700 scan out of the water, no matter the 'resolution'. There is a lot more to the quality of a scanner than the manufacturer's claimed Dmax & resolution. Anyway, a high contrast resolution target is only part of the story when it comes to the performance of a scanner.
More to the point, the X5 is essentially a CCD flatbed, just with a different film holder/ feed mechanism.
iQSmart/ Cezanne/ etc scanners are all far better than an Epson in just about every metric that matters.
Given the choice between going to 8x10 & getting a high end flatbed or drum scanner, I'd always get the best possible scanner.
Jim, you gave good advice!
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks