7250 dpi Scanner Introduced by Pacific Image Electronics

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by jeremy, Jul 24, 2007.

  1. jeremy

    jeremy Guest

    jeremy, Jul 24, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. jeremy

    Noons Guest



    Nice! Thanks for that. I need a dedicated 35mm scanner
    rather than wasting my 9000 on that film format...
     
    Noons, Jul 24, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Yee Gads!! - That's 51.8 megabytes! I don't believe I have even one slide
    out of thousands that could justify a scan of that resolution....Even the
    ones that were taken from a tripod on a quiet day.
     
    William Graham, Jul 24, 2007
    #3
  4. jeremy

    Father Kodak Guest

    I think that the file size is actually about 395MB! Here is how I
    got this number. The Nikon 5000 scanner produces 120 MB files and its
    resolution is "only" 4000 dpi. Scale that up to get 395 MB.

    Now there are some serious limitations on this scanner. Like no
    ability to batch feed slides. Nikon has the SF-210 slide feeder which
    will do 50 slides at a time.

    Second, and probably more important, the Dmax for this scanner is
    quoted as 3.6. The Nikon scanner has a 4.8 Dmax. That is a big
    difference and is important for pulling out shadow detail.

    Of course, the Nikon scanner is about one thousand dollars, US, plus
    more for the batch feeder. I didn't see a price for the Pacific Image
    Electronics scanner.

    Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Jul 24, 2007
    #4
  5. jeremy

    Noons Guest

    tghere are very good reasons for wanting to scan
    at a much higher resolution than the slide's max.
    They have to do with grain aliasing. Plenty of materials
    on that to read. Also a very good scanning resource
    in the yahoo groups, used by scanning pros, talks about it
    from time to time.

    Yup, that would b e the case indeed. Of course,
    more than likely one would apply post-processing
    to all that and only keep a final archive image
    in compressed tiff, 8bit colour, around 20MB or so.

    I don't think at its price point anyone is makin g
    it pass as a serious contender for Nikon scanners?
    Quite true.
    This thing is a serious contender to Epson
    flatbed scanners, not Coolscans.

    It's US$595 RRP, so street prices will be considerably less
    than that. Even at that price, I'd take it instead of
    an Epson.
     
    Noons, Jul 24, 2007
    #5
  6. Just a word or two of caution here.

    Pacific Imaging have created some rather natty little scanners, but I
    would question their reputation for producing a product that:
    - has resolution that matches its claims in reality (that sort of res
    would require *very* good optics and a very secure method to hold the
    film flat)
    - has a decent dynamic range - what is the point of a sharp scan if it
    can't dig into the shadows? If you're only scanning print film, maybe
    it will be ok, but if you are a chronic underexposer of slide film
    like me... be afraid!
    - is a long lasting product (I've heard more complaints about PIE
    scanners breaking down than for the name brands, but I'll happily
    admit the plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'information').

    Also, such scans are probably going to take a little while, so...
    think carefully about the 'no feeder'... It does say it batch scans
    roll film - doesn't show what that means, but slides are one at a time.
     
    mark.thomas.7, Jul 24, 2007
    #6
  7. jeremy

    Scott W Guest

    Well 7200 ppi not 7250 ppi, still a crazy high number that would lead
    one to believe it is more hype then anything else. I have a flatbed
    scanner that goes to 12800 ppi, but its optical resolution is much
    closer to 1200ppi, kind of makes the 12800 ppi setting worthless.


    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jul 24, 2007
    #7
  8. jeremy

    Noons Guest

    well, they say it's "optical resolution 7200X7200",
    that's a bit different from just claiming 7200 ppi rez...
    Quite frankly, just because flatbed scanners don't
    have this is no confirmation whatsoever these
    folks won't be able to get there in a film scanner?
    After all, drum scanners go considerably higher
    than that.
     
    Noons, Jul 24, 2007
    #8
  9. jeremy

    Pudentame Guest

    A 4x5 transparency scanned at 4000 ppi gives a 625MB TIFF file.
     
    Pudentame, Jul 24, 2007
    #9
  10. jeremy

    Scott W Guest

    Drum scanners only have to image one pixel at a time, much easier.
    And a drum scanner holds the film very flat, something you need
    for very high resolution, the higher the resolution the smaller a
    DOF you are going to get.

    And the few 6000 ppi scans I have seen from a drum scanner look like
    total crap at the pixel level.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jul 24, 2007
    #10
  11. Yes. In general, 35 mm film scanner technology far exceeds my needs. - I
    suppose I could use a good feeder, but then, the quality of the scans
    wouldn't be as good, since I don't have a "clean room" to work in, and I
    have to brush off and blow off each slide before scanning in order to reduce
    my Photoshop clean-up time. But using up a third of a gigabyte or more per
    slide boggles my imagination.....I sometimes wonder, "Where will it ever
    end?" Will the universe end when we have completely digitized it? ....:^)
    Can a machine ever have enough storage to digitize itself? I think I will
    write a letter to the mathematics department of Duke University..........
     
    William Graham, Jul 24, 2007
    #11
  12. It's just like the old "Hi-Fi" music systems of the 60's and 70's.....They
    were only as good as their weakest link.....Usually the speakers. The same
    thing is true of scanning film....If the detail isn't on the film to begin
    with, then you can't "Scan a silk purse out of a sow's ear." I don't see why
    anyone would want to scan a 35 mm slide at greater than 4000 dpi
    resolution.....I have never seen a slide that could benefit from detail more
    than about half that.......
     
    William Graham, Jul 24, 2007
    #12
  13. jeremy

    Scott W Guest

    I deal with a lot of image larger then that, but then I tend to keep
    them as jpeg images not 16 bit/color tiffs.
    A 35mm slide scanned at 7200 ppi will produce an image that is just
    under 70MB, if the image is fairly clean this can be stored in less then
    10MB, as can be seen here.
    http://www.sewcon.com/largephotos/Ship_at_7200ppi.jpg

    Note if you don't have a lot of ram on your computer you might have to
    download the image and view it in a program like Photoshop, which should
    have not problem with it.

    Note that image only takes up 9MB of hard disk space, not bad at all.

    Having said that I see very little added detail in 4000ppi scans
    compared to 2000 ppi scans, going to 7200ppi seems like a waste of time
    to me.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jul 24, 2007
    #13
  14. Yes....I have the capability of scanning to 5400 dpi, but I have found that
    I gain nothing by doing this over what I can get with around 2500 dpi. If I
    am trying to read something in the background, for example, like a license
    plate on a car, scanning at the higher resolution doesn't seem to help. -
    The information just isn't there, and there is nothing I can do about it.
     
    William Graham, Jul 24, 2007
    #14
  15. jeremy

    Annika1980 Guest

    My results (with the same model scanner) are similar.
    You just can't get more detail by scanning 35mm film at higher
    resolutions.
    You'll need D-Mac's Super-Secret resizing algorithm for that.
     
    Annika1980, Jul 24, 2007
    #15
  16. jeremy

    jeremy Guest

    Amazon has it now for $550, if memory serves me correctly. As for the dpi,
    the user can select virtually any dpi he wants--he is not limited to only
    the maximum value.

    I have the 3650 dpi scanner from Pacific Image Electronics, having bought it
    on Amazon for about $350, and am quite happy, given the price paid. It
    takes 6 minutes to scan a neg at 3650 dpi, with ICE3 turned on. But I'm
    just an amateur, and a low-volume shooter, so that really does not pose a
    big problem for me.

    I think that the lower-priced scanners are where this market is headed.
    Paying $550 and getting 7250 dpi represents excellent price-to-performance,
    and it may contribute to slowing down the wholesale abandonment of film by
    amateurs. It certainly can't hurt.
     
    jeremy, Jul 24, 2007
    #16
  17. jeremy

    jeremy Guest

    It will scan an entire roll of negs--up to 40 frames--without manual
    intervention. That's how I do my scans--I have the film developed and I
    take it home UNCUT, and feed it into the scanner. That way, I can walk out
    and come back in a couple of hours, and everything is done.

    It also takes cut strips, such as one is likely to get back from
    conventional film processing.

    It does slides, one at a time. Slow. PIE does make a couple of models that
    allow the user to put the slides in a rotary tray, and the scanner
    automatically scans each one, in turn. They go for around $1200.00.
     
    jeremy, Jul 24, 2007
    #17
  18. jeremy

    jeremy Guest

    I would point out that, at $550, this could represent quite a lot of bang
    for the buck. Admittedly, it may not be up to the performance of an $1800
    Nikon scanner, but it probably eclipses anything that was available as
    little as 3 years ago.

    For a guy like me, who already has a full complement of film bodies and
    lenses, this represents an economical opportunity to keep on using film,
    rather than having to dump all that gear and start all over again. It may
    not be appropriate for the professional, or for the very advanced amateur,
    but those guys already know what they require, and they know what price
    they'll have to pay. I'm just grateful that this higher-end performance id
    finally filtering down to the small-time users, who would not ordinarily be
    expected to shell out big bucks for film scanners--especially when DSLRs
    have been dropping in price, to the point that one can get performance at a
    price that makes a film scanner an impractical expense.
     
    jeremy, Jul 24, 2007
    #18
  19. jeremy

    Noons Guest

    and in what shape or format does that prove that a scanner
    can't do higher than a flatbed?
    so what? does that prove a film scanner can't
    scan at higher rez than a flatbed?
    Well, that is your experience with drum scanners.
    It proves not that a film scanner can't have
    better rez than a flatbed.

    I made my statement very clear:
    there is no technical reason why a film scanner
    can't have a rez of 7200, higher
    therefore than most flatbeds. Drum scanners
    regularly scan at much higher rez.
    Why, or if it is worth it, is irrelevant:
    you may think it is not needed, I may
    think it is very welcome. That proves
    absolutely nothing as to it being possible
    in PIE's case.

    Their statement is "optical 7200X7200" .
    Sounds very clear to me.
     
    Noons, Jul 25, 2007
    #19
  20. jeremy

    Noons Guest

    I have. And there are plenty of reasons
    why one would want to scan at higher rez
    than 4000.
     
    Noons, Jul 25, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.