Wonderful Peter! Simply wonderful! Your efforts, along with those of Richard Iles and Daniel Moore, have done a great service to the film community.
Wonderful Peter! Simply wonderful! Your efforts, along with those of Richard Iles and Daniel Moore, have done a great service to the film community.
Peter Y.
That's pretty much what I would have hoped for from the start, and my own investigations showed a definite improvement on a V750 scan, so I'm not surprised that more was available.Originally Posted by Peter
I hope that people take you up on your offer to make comparison scans, and look forward to the results from that...
They said it couldn't be done, but to be Frank, anything's possible if you put your mind to it... As long as it's an open mind-
Last edited by jb7; 29-Sep-2013 at 08:52. Reason: Formatting
Thanks, Guys. It's been a lot of fun, mainly because the people involved were great to work with. At least it was fun until I started testing lenses. Yawn!
“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
Better to say: you don't really want one.
OK, let's do some maths. You DSLR scan in my estimate is 4000 dpi. If you have scaned the whole 4x5" on a Cezanne in one take - it will be 2000 dpi. That is because Cezanne CCD is 8000 pixels and if one will scan 4" so there will be 2000 pixels for one inch.
2000 dpi is the level of Epsons and while it is OK for LF why bother with DSLR scan then? It is better to buy an Epson.
Shall we see those 5300 dpi Cezanne scans compared to DSLR scan? 5300 dpi - is the stated max optical resolution of the Cezanne scanner. It happens when you scan rows and every row will have no more than 8000 pixels.
Peter,
I was following these threads a year ago but have missed much since--you've made a lot of progress. Two thoughts/questions:
1) Many users are looking at what you are doing from underneath--that is, they have or are considering buying a V700/750 and are wondering if what you are doing is significantly better, does it justify the cost/hassle. With that in mind would you consider adding a third comparison (the v700/750) to give us a direct sense of how much better this is?
2) Any thoughts on how soon other users might be able to build/buy their own rig? ...and are we allowed to mention kickstarter here?
--Darin
I scan 4x5 film with 3 rows with the Cezanne. According the the Seybold Report, in their scanner test they used a resolution target. The Cezanne they tested resolved about 6000 spi, the limit of their target. Tim Parkin thinks it capable of even higher. See: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ght=tim+parkinBetter to say: you don't really want one.
OK, let's do some maths. You DSLR scan in my estimate is 4000 dpi. If you have scaned the whole 4x5" on a Cezanne in one take - it will be 2000 dpi. That is because Cezanne CCD is 8000 pixels and if one will scan 4" so there will be 2000 pixels for one inch.
2000 dpi is the level of Epsons and while it is OK for LF why bother with DSLR scan then? It is better to buy an Epson.
Shall we see those 5300 dpi Cezanne scans compared to DSLR scan? 5300 dpi - is the stated max optical resolution of the Cezanne scanner. It happens when you scan rows and every row will have no more than 8000 pixels.
“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
Hi Darin,
I'll try to find someone with a V700/V750 locally, but currently I don't know of anyone.
I love your enthusiasm. People could build their own rigs right now. The control system design and programming is open source and available, complete with Fritzing diagrams and completed Arduino sketches. I'm not sure what we'd offer with a Kickstarter campaign. I don't want to get into the scanner manufacturing business.
“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
Btw, here's a partial scan of the 35mm Technical Pan Negative at 3x magnification: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%203x%20TP.tif
I used a 50mm Componon-s reversed.
My conclusion, and I'm very happy to hear other opinions, is that it does show a tiny bit more image information than a good 1x scan, but I doubt that it'd be visible in anything but a mammoth print, and sharpening and post processing in general would have to be outstanding in order to preserve it. For me, I doubt that such magnification would be anything more than a waste of time and disk space. We can already see the grain with 35mm TP at 1x, which indicates that we should be fine with any regular film, especially as we move up in format.
“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 need a set of step-by-step instruction written at the level of a third graderJust kidding--but I did have to google "Fritzing diagram" and "Arduino."
--Darin
What do you mean by a 1x scan please ?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks