7250 dpi Scanner Introduced by Pacific Image Electronics

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

  1. jeremy

    Noons Guest

    But wait for the series of proof that "film does not
    need high rez" that will follow this...
    All from folks who haven't used film or scanned one
    in years!

    Bingo again. And don't forget that the dslrs
    that have dropped in price to that level
    are NOT the full frame, 16Mpixel pro devices
    that are invariably brought in to explain how
    dslrs are better quality than film.
     
    Noons, Jul 25, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Their statement is "optical 7200X7200" .
    To me, the question is, what is the error ratio.....Is every one of those
    7200 x 7200 pixels scanned with absolute accuracy, and if you scanned the
    same film frame twice, would both scans be identical?
    I think not. So would a drum scanner yield greater accuracy when it
    makes a scan of the same resolution. and if so, then why, and if not, then
    why not?
     
    William Graham, Jul 25, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Errrr.....Would it be asking too much for you to tell me one of those
    reasons?
     
    William Graham, Jul 25, 2007
    #23
  4. jeremy

    Noons Guest

    of course not. this is not a silicon mask scanner with
    submicron registration!
    I'd say a drum scanner would show much higher ability
    to punch through shade - also known as D=max, but that
    tends to be a swear work here! :)
    It'd also show a lot less grain aliasing, or what is commnoly
    called by that name. And more than likely the focus would
    be spot-on with a high quality macro lens, with an adjustable
    aperture.
     
    Noons, Jul 25, 2007
    #24
  5. jeremy

    Noons Guest

    Do a search for "grain aliasing". It's not a correct term, IME.
    But it describes a problem that can be solved by higher scan
    rez.
     
    Noons, Jul 25, 2007
    #25
  6. jeremy

    Noons Guest

    Noons, Jul 25, 2007
    #26
  7. P.L.Andrews has a good article on it here:
    http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm
    However, at the end, he mentions the "GEM" settings on some scanners, which
    gets rid of (or at least helps) the problem......I have "GEM" on my KM 5400,
    and I normally use it for my scans, which are usually at 2500 dpi or lower.
     
    William Graham, Jul 25, 2007
    #27
  8. jeremy

    Noons Guest

    Exactly. I don't necessarily agree that the cause of the
    "grain aliasing" is the lack of extra rez.
    Although it can be solved that way as noted in some
    of the articles.

    IME it's caused by the nature of the light sources
    in most ccd scanners. Enlargers worked around this
    problem with diffused light boxes.
    It happens mostly with older films where the emulsion
    side is "rough": you can see this when the reflexion of
    light from it shows a "milky" appearance.

    With most modern films - by this I mean films that came
    on the market after the "scan to CD" concept - you will
    notice that the emulsion side is a lot more smooth, to
    the point where it becomes difficult to determine which
    side is which. The latest Astia and some of the new
    consumer Superia films are perfect examples: the emulsion
    side is as smooth as the other.

    With those, I've noticed the "grain aliasing" to be almost
    non-existent.

    GEM on the other hand works a treat to solve the problem.
    I use it at the "1" setting in my 9000ED and it just about
    gets rid of all "grain alias" on older films, with few exceptions.
    All I'm left with is "true grain", which is dirt easy to fix
    with things like Neat Image or Noise Ninja. The end result
    is a virtually "grainless" image from a film scan.
     
    Noons, Jul 26, 2007
    #28
  9. jeremy

    Scott W Guest

    I looked at his article and whereas he might be seeing gain aliasing he
    might also simply be seeing the roughness of the negative surface. A
    fast optical system, like an enlarger, will be less prone to seeing
    surface ripples then a slower (high f/number) system.

    Wet mounting the film also helps to reduce the effects of the surface
    roughness.

    For a scanner to show any aliasing it needs to have a fair bit more
    optical resolution then the scanner resolution, which is not true for
    most film scanners.

    A better test would be to scan using the same film scanner at say 2700
    ppi and 5400 ppi, down sample the 5400 ppi scan and compare it to the
    2700 ppi scan.

    What the images from the PIE scanner is going to look like only time
    will tell. But the fact that it can scan at a resolution of 7200ppi
    tells us very little about what the quality of the scan will be.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jul 26, 2007
    #29
  10. I have done this several times with my KM-5400. (Scanned the same negative
    or slide twice. Once at 5400 and once at 2700) I don't see any difference,
    but then I am usually scanning slides taken with a hand-held 35 mm
    camera.Perhaps there is some photographer in the great beyond whose exacting
    equipment and vast abilities can produce a film strip that can and does
    benefit from 5400 dpi scans.....I just know that it isn't me. I am also
    inspecting the results of these scans on my, (probably 300 dpi) computer
    screen. If I were printing them with an expensive enough printer at 16 x 24
    blow-up size, then I might see a difference.
     
    William Graham, Jul 26, 2007
    #30
  11. jeremy

    Matthew Winn Guest

    I've seen a small difference on some frames but not enough to make
    it worth dealing with files four times as large. I suspect that the
    optics of the scanner aren't capable of maintaining much detail at
    5400 ppi.

    7200 ppi makes me even more suspicious. That requires optics that can
    resolve down to five times the wavelength of red light: not out of the
    question for expensive equipment but far out of the range of consumer
    products.
     
    Matthew Winn, Jul 26, 2007
    #31
  12. jeremy

    Noons Guest

    I've got a funny suspicion this is a rebadged old Kodak scanner
    model , with 1:2 interpolation to make it go to 7200.

    Check this out:

    http://www.creativepro.com/story/review/14922.html

    This was a 3600dpi scanner. Double the rez and you got
    7200 spot-on. And the cases couldn't be more equal.

    Me theenks PIE has bought the right to make this thing
    from Kodak - or its contract with them to make it
    has expired - and naturally they want to put their
    own spin in the product.

    Still darn good value for the price if it is interpolated
    and the presence of GEM, ICE and ROC is also
    welcome, but definitely no match for the coolscan
    5000ED in the optics.
     
    Noons, Jul 26, 2007
    #32
  13. jeremy

    jeremy Guest

    The marketing brochure claims that it has 7200 dpi optical resolution, not
    interpolated.
     
    jeremy, Jul 26, 2007
    #33
    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.