Size of scanner CCD, in number of elements

[Pere Casals]

The Precision II delivers 1800ppi, every subsequent Imacon or Hasselblad scanner that does 4x5 delivers 2048ppi.

The subsequent Hassies deliver 4x5 2048ppi hardware, 1800 dpi effective like the PII. Being minimally smart one will soon realize that because of discretization a 2048 sensor never, never, never will deliver efective 2048 DPI. Thanks to the amazing Linos lens that the Hassies sport the loss is only 10% to the effective 1800 dpi.

If you don't belive me scan a 2048dpi target and then tell me what kind of aliasing effects you see. Weren't you aware?

[interneg]

The subsequent Hassies deliver 4x5 2048ppi hardware, 1800 dpi effective like the PII. If you are minimally smart you will soon realize that because of discretization a 2048 sensor never, never, never will deliver efective 2048 DPI. Thanks to the amazing Linos lens that the Hassies sport the loss is only 10% to the effective 1800 dpi.

If you don't belive me scan a 2048dpi target and then tell me what kind of aliasing effects you see. Weren't you aware?

Think about it for a second. It's the difference between resolving element 2 & element 3 in group 5 of your beloved 1951 target. If what you claimed was true, any competent test would have flagged this up because it would have been obvious. This is basic stuff. Stop hiding behind clouds of hand-waving excuses.

[Pere Casals]

I hate the idea of being run off a forum I've spent a long time participating in. I respect a lot of people here, and I've had great interactions with a whole bunch of knowledgeable and generous people here. But I'm really tired of dealing with deluges of misinformation, only to have it pop up over and over. It's no problem being wrong or making mistakes. That happens to all of us, but being corrected and not having the decency to move forward is disrespectful and tedious.

Peter, it's not mandatory to read my posts.

To me it's interesting to debate what performance has a cheap device compared to expensive equipment, I feel it's useful to the comunity that all opinions can be told.

If anybody gets angry because others say their technical opinions, it's up to him. You can say I'm wrong and I'm not to get angry. And if I'm really wrong it will not be difficult for you to discredit me.

I made my tests and I've perfectly the right to express what I think.

Any one can download samples from the collaborative scanner test http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

and like I did, he can adjust in Photoshop the V750 samples to make it match the other samples, like (repeatable by anyone) this:



It's true that the V sample admit more sharpening than the 4500 and that some crops of the shadows are worse in the V, but my guess in that ME was not used.

[Pere Casals]

Think about it for a second. It's the difference between resolving element 2 & element 3 in group 5 of your beloved 1951 target. If what you claimed was true, any competent test would have flagged this up because it would have been obvious. This is basic stuff. Stop hiding behind clouds of hand-waving excuses.

interneg, please, how can you say that a 2048 sensor can deliver 2048 efective dpi? this is not possible. See Rayleigh criterion...

imagine you scan a 2048 lines per inch target (1024 black, 1024 white lines per inch) with a 2048 dpi sensor: you may take a perfect grey image if sensor pixels fall in the middle of the bars...

[Peter De Smidt]

Here's a quote from Daniel Haybron's Happiness: A Very Short Introduction:

[Pere Casals]

Here's a quote from Daniel Haybron's Happiness: A Very Short Introduction:

If I'm that wrong, I'm only wrong, and it would be pretty easy to you to discredit me technically. Do it...

[coisasdavida]

I hate the idea of being run off a forum I've spent a long time participating in. I respect a lot of people here, and I've had great interactions with a whole bunch of knowledgeable and generous people here. But I'm really tired of dealing with deluges of misinformation, only to have it pop up over and over. It's no problem being wrong or making mistakes. That happens to all of us, but being corrected and not having the decency to move forward is disrespectful and tedious.

Couldn't agree more.
Man, how I regret posting this simple question...

[Steven Ruttenberg]

No, at least for me. It's been done before. It's a waste of time. A client just ordered a large print. I'm going to spend my time working on that.

That is much better endeavor. Don't let a few run you off. I prefer people with knowledge who are willing to help such as yourself especially when your willing to help a stranger out as witnessed by your pm. I am not fond of the infighting and know it alls. My post was simply meant to take away from the all to serious scanner debate that has yet once again cropped up. I find it a waste when it doesn't matter in the end. So I hope you don't disappear.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

If I'm that wrong, I'm only wrong, and it would be pretty easy to you to discredit me technically. Do it...

Stop being antagonistic. It does not help. And if you are right? So? Wouldn't it be better to use your knowledge to help someone make a better image whether a print or negative?

I think you have a wealth of knowledge you could share.

[Corran]

You are not well informed, by 4x5" a V700 outresolves a Hasselblad x5 and Screen Cezanne.

Still you spout this garbage?

As usual, everyone should take anything Pere says about the Epson with a grain of salt. Or the whole salt shaker. Oversharpened Epson scans do not equal resolution.