Just as a point of interest, what is the true optical resolution of the Cezanne Elite when scanning 4X5" film?
Sandy King
Just as a point of interest, what is the true optical resolution of the Cezanne Elite when scanning 4X5" film?
Sandy King
Hi Sandy,
I own the regular Cezanne, not the elite, and unfortunately I don't have access to the appropriate resolution test slide. Which one do you recommend?
Pete,
No idea. I tried to find the answer to my question by looking at Cezanne Elite specifications on the web and came up dry. All I know is that while the maximum optical resolution of the Cezanne Elite is 5300 dpi it can only scan at this resolution in a relatively small strip, about 1 1/2" or 2" wide I believe. To scan anything wider the Cezanne has to reposition the lens and place it farther from the CCD, which results in less optical resolution. I am guessing that the maximum true otical resolution for 4X5" is 2400 dpi -3200 dpi but don't know for sure.
Sandy
Hi Sandy,
You're right: 5300 spi is only for originals 1.5" wide. When I scan 4x5 one pass, I scan at 2400 spi. For two pass, which involves combining the two scans in Photoshop, I scan at 4000 spi, as I've not found any benefit from doing 3-pass scans at 5300 spi, with my materials and for my uses.
I scan medium format at 4000 spi one pass, and 35mm at 5300 spi one pass.
-Peter
Edmund Scientifics's variable frequency resolution target 5-200 lp/mm, stock # NT43-488, looks like it would be a good test subject, although since it's rigid, it'd be useless on a drum scanner. Oh, yeah, and it costs almost $500!
I'm certainly no expert in the matter, and don't have a dog in this fight, but I understand that the Aztec Premier drum scanner, used by Mr. Eiger and the company I use for my scans, Pixelnation, is one of, if not the best scanner on the market. One of its principal differences is that it captures scan sizes based on the size of the grain of the film, which results in sharper scans.
I too would like to see a side by side comparison of the state of the art original digital source vs. the state of the art analog source. Perhaps Mr. Eiger will assist us, as this discussion is often entertaining, but does not often shed light.
Rick Russell
richardrussell-1@ca.rr.com
I've always found this claim quite dubious. The size of the film grain clumps (dye clouds in color films) vary widely in most films used to capture real subjects with realistic subject brightness ranges. IOW, there is not one single size of the grain of the film -- film grain clump size is fairly stochastic (clump sizes increase generally with increasing density). And the scanner doesn't vary its aperture size as it scans - the aperture size is fixed. So the claim that the scanner "captures scan sizes based on the size of the grain of the film" (and yes, I realize it's not you making this claim, it's Aztek's marketing hype) is a non sequitur.
More on what film grain is and what it actually looks like can be found in Tim Vitale's excellent paper on the subject.
Bruce Watson
I sent Michael an email.
I yam a fight promoter today.
Come on Lenny ... you'll crush the poor fool. Think what it would mean for your business.
Bookmarks