Ken, Should be around 1mm between digits in a 35mm TMX, scanned in a Nikon V ED at 4000dpi. The better one is Pyrocat-HD. The other one is xtol.
TOC (Target Object Contrast)
I found it here --> http://www.agfa.com/sp/en/binaries/A...m221-42588.pdf
I am sure that would be better. If there was enough bandwith, I might. 3 Gigs is pretty large. When I look all the way into the grain, it is quite sharp. In fact, when one looks at the different micron apertures, there are some choices. The sharpest one usually does not print the best. It is the next one down, the one that smoothes the grain a bit, but still maintains the details in the image. When one looks at a lightning bolt on a droplet in that tiny a sample, that is holding said details that may or may not appear in the print at a large enough size. Using a sharper aperture will have more grain and anti-aliasing effects. The visual inspection that many are doing is an incorrect analysis. This is not about comparing bars. My test was not about the bars, it was not about resolution at all. I think talking about resolution is pretty meaningless. The only thing that matters is what you can do with the final print.
I don't refuse, I'm just not that interested. You see, I have this piece of film here that I am looking at and all I care about is what I see as the result of my test. I don't need anyone else to help me analyze things, or figure out what happened, or whatever. I am very clear what the capabilities of my printer are, and I don't think it will differentiate the difference between different fstops, or if it will, it won't be dramatic enough for me to care.
As far as your own conclusions are concerned, I would hope you would draw your own. I have drawn mine.
That's not my aim. My aim in this test was to test the ability of different formats to render textural details in a print, in my system. The f64 was a small surprise that I found gratifying.
Exactly. So take a picture, go get a scan from someone with a great drum scanner, who knows what they are doing, have them scan it while you are standing right there, helping set the parameters for how you would like to see it in the final print and you will have your answer. If you can't tell the difference at that time from a digital shot at 22 megapixels, or whatever, then you'll have your answer.
I think you are adding to the trash talk. The reason I use those numbers is that what the scanner is actually scanning at. I have no interest in disproving anyone's ideas about diffraction or its existence, all I said was that I was surprised to find a lot more quality at f64 than what I was expecting given the word on the street about this.
If you want to prove diffraction is awful go do your own tests. You can consider my information totally anecdotal, that one person had a single result. Despite what it may seem, I'm really not here to argue about it.
Lenny
Thanks for that. At 360dpi, we could enlarge that 4000spi sample by around 11X. That would be a roughly 10x17 inch print from 35mm. I can certainly see why we would want to use something like Pyrocat HD for roll-film ! The difference is way more than just graininess.
I see that your Photoshop screen capture, shows the images at 200% magnification. Perhaps I am mistaken, but doesn't that mean we are seeing scanner pixels at that point ?
(Whenever I look past 100%, that's what I see. The higher the % over 100, the more we see pixels, until eventually, the image looks like "tiles").
In the photos below, the sky appears to have grain in the second image - even though it's the same as the first image, just scaled to 200%.
100% - Looks smooth
200% - Exact same image - but looks ragged - sky appears "grainy"
Last edited by Ken Lee; 9-Oct-2018 at 17:10.
I'm not sure what the acronym TOC stands for but it relates to normal scene contrast. So you use the 1.6:1 figure for a truer sense of the films resolution. So the resolution of T-max 100 is 63 lp/mm, I believe in one of my previous posts in this thread I stated a range of 60-65 LP/mm.
As a side note, the late great TechPan had a resolution of 200 lp/mm at 1.6:1
Ken,
The purpose of the side by side comparison was to show a loss of sharpness between developers, which probably could go unnoticed until you have to deal with the enlargement/printing and/or you scan with half the optical resolution (2000dpi). I think the idea is clear in the image.
You’re right, the original cropped fragment contained around twice the size (200%) and unfortunately the image gets altered with all the cut/paste and during the posting (I think it get resized to 650 x ?). If I have the numbers right what you see is “magnified” 1.5 times.
Still what appears like noise is not. 4000 dpi gets close to the size of the grain in this emulsion and due to the light source in the scanner the visible grain is sort of mixed with the scattered light. Good or bad, I doubt you could get much detail of the grain in tmx with an Epson scanner.
Too much dispersion/diffraction in the path, plus CCD.
I think the advantages of the stain in the negative for scanning are still undervalued. But that subject is good enough to start another thread.
What I can notice in you images is the product of compression artifacts (perhaps jpeg) after some sharpening and the resizing interpolation. With a clean scan I feel confident enough to resize 20x without any sharpening and/or grain filtering.
Grain is my friend, even if I want him smaller.
You're more than welcome to take my V ED for a week in a trip to western mass.
Thanks for explaining that. I'm sold
Thanks for the offer. I don't have any 35mm to scan at this time. I had one of those scanners. They are terrific. I wish I hadn't sold it.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Bookmarks