Serious Digital Printing DPI

[interneg]

Interneg, in 35mm a hassie extracts x10 more optical pixels than a V850, in LF a V850 extracts more optical pixels than a hassie. This is because each machine has different limiting factors for each format. The V850 has an scan width of 5.9" and this limits optical performance in 35mm while the hassie can zoom in to a 1" scan width.

But for sheets limiting factor of the hassie is the low pixel count of its linear sensor: 8k, while the V850 sporting a 40k is not limited by the sensor. I'm pretty sure you can count from zero to 40.800, so you should understand what happens.

For MF it happens this, you know, this test is fair: https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/160...s-500-scanner/

Of course a hassie is an amazing pro machine and a V850 not, but V850 has a way stronger linear sensor, that is not used in the hassie because it's slow for a pro machine.

That scan on the left was at 2040ppi. Both the same negative. QED.

[Pere Casals]

That scan on the left was at 2040ppi. Both the same negative. QED.

Perhaps, but in any case in that shot the V850 was scanning 5.9" and the hassie 1". When the hassie scans 4" it loses the advantage. Read well my post.

[interneg]

Perhaps, but in any case in that shot the V850 was scanning 5.9" and the hassie 1". When the hassie scans 4" it loses the advantage. Read well my post.

I'll repeat this for your benefit: the left hand image was scanned with the X5 set to 2040ppi, the right hand image from the Epson was downsampled to match. That's the reality of both of these scanners.

[Pere Casals]

I'll repeat this for your benefit: the left hand image was scanned with the X5 set to 2040ppi, the right hand image from the Epson was downsampled to match. That's the reality of both of these scanners.

That may be the reality for 35mm. For MF both are close, and for LF the EPSON resolves more.

The EPSON cannot zoom in to a 1" strip for 35mm (like the Hasselblad does) and the EPSON sensor always covers 5.9", for this reason the EPSON is way worse for 35mm: 2400 vs 6300 effective dpi. This is the reality and this is true.

But the EPSON does not experiment a perfomance loss at 4" scan width, it has the same 2400 effective dpi for 35mm than for 4x5, at the end for 35mm it sees 4 strips wide. But the Hasselblad for 4" scan width it experiments a severe performance loss from the effective 6300 to 1800, or if you want to no more than 2048. Just divide 8192p/4"? So there you have your limiting factor !!

Interneg, the hassies are incredible for 35mm, really amazing, but sadly this is not a Leica forum...

35mm: EPSON 2400: / X5: 6300

4x5": EPSON 2400: / X5: 1800 (or 2048 hardware, if you want)

Those are the facts.

[interneg]

Which bit of this do you refuse to understand: the image is a section of a negative scanned on the '4x5' settings at maximum resolution (2040ppi)? The difference is rather like how a disposable camera lens' absolute high contrast resolution at f11 (or the designed aperture) probably outresolves most LF lenses at f45, but no one would suggest that a moulded plastic lens is better at rendering an actual scene.

[Pere Casals]

Which bit of this do you refuse to understand: the image is a section of a negative scanned on the '4x5' settings at maximum resolution (2040ppi)? The difference is rather like how a disposable camera lens' absolute high contrast resolution at f11 (or the designed aperture) probably outresolves most LF lenses at f45, but no one would suggest that a moulded plastic lens is better at rendering an actual scene.

interneg, instead showing 35mm scans, show a side by side of 4x5" scans, have it ?

do it like the Petapixel guy...

[interneg]

Here's sections of a 4x5 at 2040ppi & resized 2400ppi, do you want to continue to deny the blatantly obvious? At both of those resolutions, it will not matter what your source format is, if all you need to see is the resolution of detail for comparative analysis.

[Pere Casals]

no comment...

[neil poulsen]

I don't know if all your prints are black and white or not. But for those that are, and if you digitally print, I would recommend using Quad Tone RIP. This excellent software replaces Epson drivers and does an excellent job of (only) printing B&W. It gives you many options for print color, and if desired, split printing.

You might ask your mentor about this software; likely, he'll be familiar with it. See the following link . . .

www.quadtonerip.com

[RodinalDuchamp]

Ok everyone thank you for your feedback, I am not sure why interneg believes I don't have access to an Imacon scanner but I do. I have decided to scan everything at 4800 and scale it down as needed. I will create a new thread regarding my photo papers as this is proving to be a big first decision.