Size of scanner CCD, in number of elements

[coisasdavida]

I am sure the OP and anyone else who get this far IS interested in the details...

Exactly. Specially when the manufacturer will try in every way to avoid spilling the truth.

Not sure there are CCDs made for scanning negatives. I believe today most things are done in software. Maybe the last CCDs made for negatives where on the Pakon and the HR-500, maybe those were software solutions as well.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Steven, if you had at home a V850 and a drum probably you would be making 90% of the LF scans with the V850, and you woudn't be the first one in that situation.

While a drum is a way superior machine it happens many times that the print size does not require more quality, having much more optical pixels in the image in that ppi in the print has no effect !!!

And also it can happen that the negative has no more information than the one that the V850 can retrieve, because diffraction, shake, focus... in a 3D scene not all objects are in the perfect plane of focus.

Then it happens that a V850 has more resolving power for 4x5 than a Hasselblad X5 !!!

There are situations where a drum makes a really big difference, but also for LF in many situations simply it's not worth to mount the negative for the drum, given what it's obtained with the V850.

True, but I like to make one scan at the highest resolution I will ever need and since I will print up to 32x40 or larger, I want those extra peels. Plus I do get a benefit when I down size.

[Ted Baker]

Not sure there are CCDs made for scanning negatives. I believe today most things are done in software. Maybe the last CCDs made for negatives where on the Pakon and the HR-500, maybe those were software solutions as well.

The Arriscan XT is still manufactured and is built for negative scanning, not exactly cheap (absolutely no expense spared) and too small for most still formats. The recent Star Wars film afaik was scanned with it or the previous model. The FUJI and noritisu models are still made. The Arriscan even allows wet mounting automatically!

It is interesting to compare the various techniques, for example the Arriscan using separate Red, green, blue narrow spectrum LEDs instead of a broad spectrum illuminant.

Though I agree many use software techniques, as a 3D matrix should do a reasonable job, if done correctly. But the devil is in the detail if you interested in image processing. Much of clever stuff being held by Kodak, Fuji etc, neg/positive film is designed after all as a closed system.

It is interesting that the arriscan seems to use pixel shift as well instead they seem to refer to as "microscanning"

[Pere Casals]

>> if you had at home a V850 and a drum probably you would be making 90% of the LF scans with the V850, and you woudn't be the first one in that situation.
Or ditch the Epson and never look its way again The poor thing can't even focus on the film

You are not well informed, by 4x5" a V700 outresolves a Hasselblad x5 and Screen Cezanne. It is true that the Cezane can scan narrow strips of the 4x5" and stitch that in photoshop.

If you make curled 4x5 sheets then you can wet mount, when a v700 is not focusing the operator can be blamed.



As you see in this graph (with the V700) you have a couple of mm to place your medium, well, if you are not able to place the medium there then you can blame the gear...

[Pere Casals]

Surely not?

It's a complete waste of time if you have all the answers... I made a mistake you just don't get it.

I've the answer that I have, if you have the level then prove that I'm wrong.

But let me explain something else about 6 rows technology. Tailoring the photodiode sensitive area in the pixel is by design, these are micrometer structures when IC manufacturing in is nanometers. In the same pixel we have the photodiode, a capacitor, resistors, transistors and circuitry. Even in de dual configuration the sensor manufacturer places microlenses on pixels to extend sensitive area to the optimal point por best resolving power. The blind areas generate two different kinds of noise. The size and shape of the microlens is the optimal.

Is it painful that the V700 sports 40800 RGB pix and a Hassy 8000 ???

Complain to Hasselblad, rather trying to discredit V700 strengths...

[Ted Baker]

Is it painful that the V700 sports 40800 RGB pix and a Hassy 8000 ???

Absolutely not they are two pieces of manufactured plastic, metal, and glass. Could not care less, just interested in how they work and how I might explore and improve upon there use.

Your arrogance is breathtaking.

What you don't understand is other readers can read, can learn, can reason, and have there own original thoughts, and maybe make there own contributions in image processing and general photography!

I've the answer that I have, if you have the level then prove that I'm wrong.

If you take the time to read what I said... There is no disputing your plausibility of your explanation, it may be the correct explanation, what you fail to understand is why someone might want to enquire further...

[Pere Casals]

Absolutely not they are two pieces of manufactured plastic, metal, and glass. Could not care less, just interested in how they work and how I might explore and improve upon there use.

Your arrogance is breathtaking.

What you don't understand is other readers can read, can learn, can reason, and have there own original thoughts, and maybe make there own contributions in image processing and general photography!

Here we are discussing about linear CCD sensor, I'm not arrogant: I've interfaced linear sensors, designed 3 PCBs for that, I'm attended two seminars about it and I try to explain to you that the 40800 RGB pixels of the V700 sensor are true 40800, with no degradation because of the dual enhacement.

[Pere Casals]

Well, let's see why the X5 desing priorities led them to a 8k sensor. Do you guess why ?

[Pere Casals]

The X5 is a pro machine that may run a business on their own. The priority is quality vs production optimization. The trade of speed vs noise led them to 8k sensors.

That arrangement is optimal for 35mm and MF, but is has shortcomings for sheets, in a way that even a V700 outresolves the X5 for 4x5. While the X5 targets the roll film market it sports perfect capability for a share of the LF jobs, but evidently not for all, beyond it cannot make 8x10.

While a V700 has shortcomings in small sizes (specially in 35mm) it shines the more as the format gets larger. A LF 5x7 / 8x10 BW photographer may fulfill his needs with a V700.

Probably one may want something better for rolls, but for LF a V700 is not a joke. So today, for a multiformat film shooter, an optimal combo is a V850 paired with a Plustek. That combo challenges expensive or pre-press discontinued gear in most situations.

IMHO those trying to discredit the V850 should first learn to use it in the optimal way.

[Ted Baker]

Well, let's see why the X5 desing priorities led them to a 8k sensor. Do you guess why ?

Perhaps some questions you might ask yourself are: Are the readers of this thread capable of making such a guess themselves? does it matter if they guess right or wrong? Could they evaluate the effectiveness of this supposed design priority? Could they evaluate the applicability of this design priority against current sensor technology?
Will it ever be possible to answer the Op original question with exact details on the chip, or will we need to rely on reasonable assertions?