film vs. flatbed scanners

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by Mike - EMAIL IGNORED, Apr 7, 2006.

  1. A classic. Did they have to appologize for that one?

    One year they again rated 35mm SLRs: this time by weight! Canon
    EOS Rebel was a better camera than Nikon's F4s, which rated very poorly.

    Coffee was rated by how many tea/table/spoons the can said to use
    per cup: some said less, some more. The more coffee the can said
    to use the higher the 'taste panel' rated the coffee. All the
    Euro brands were at the bottom of the list: the standard Euro
    coffee cup is 1/2 the size of the US standard so the can indicates
    1/2 as much coffee. Mellita and Haag(?) were at the bottom of
    their list - you would have thought common sense would have kicked in.

    Bose Speakers [and I do not like Bose speakers]: The listening
    panel didn't like the way they sounded, rated Radio Shack higher.
    The Mr. Bose of Bose investigated: the 'listening panel' was a 70
    year old retiree and a high-school intern, and only one of them
    had listened to the Bose speakers. CU lost the lawsuit - amazing
    they bothered with a defense. Interestingly, Bose
    components are now _always_ rated highest by CU.

    Used car reliability reports: one year they rated cars by year
    comparing the rate among _all_ years. Anything over 3 years old
    had terrible reliability: a '96 Toyota rated poorly because it
    was much less reliable than a 2000 Chevy. A 96 Toyota should
    have been compared to a 96 Chevy.

    If their ratings don't agree with my preconceptions I ignore
    them ... so why do I bother consulting CR I ask myself.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Apr 8, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Mike Guest

    No, I'm quoting a review and other posters from forums.
    "Some are better than others". Not really w.r.t. reliability and IDE
    drives. They all have similar MTTFs. All drives fail. All brands
    have their duds.

    Which is why you should just spend $140 and buy 2.

    Sure, handhold photography it doesn't make sense to go above 4000dpi.

    But your 2700dpi figure is a bit low. I have plenty of old Ektachrome 100
    slides that make a far better print when scanned at 4000dpi rather than
    2700dpi.
     
    Mike, Apr 8, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Scott W Guest

    Many people are will to say this but very few are willing to post an
    image that show this.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Apr 8, 2006
    #23
  4. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Mike Guest

    The following link clearly shows the 35mm @ 6000dpi has more detail than
    35mm @ 4000dpi.

    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html

    Before you spout off some more, you should read the entire site. It is
    well done and the author knows his stuff (and has Ph.D. to boot)
     
    Mike, Apr 8, 2006
    #24
  5. Yep, and I *bought* a Miranda Sensorex instead of something else
    shortly thereafter (1969). It was a pretty nice camera, and the only
    camera with interchangeable prisms I owned until recently (when I
    acquired a Nikon F in a trade), but it wasn't the best choice I could
    have made, or the most cost-effective. (In hindsight, the reasonable
    choices seem to have been Pentax or Nikormat for me; the F being kinda
    out of reach at the time (I was 15)).

    I don't remember reliability factoring in heavily, though; I remember
    them finding the *lens* better.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 8, 2006
    #25
  6. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Scott W Guest

    I have seen this before. I would say that the only extra detail in the
    6000 ppi scan over the 4000 ppi one is grain. I know Roger does not
    agree with this but it is what I see. The thing that his page does
    show is that going to larger film area is the way to get a real
    increase in detail

    If you want a shock take his scan of the 4 x 5 and shrink it to 50% and
    back up to 100%, I did the trees on the mountain. even though this
    brings the 4 x5 down to the equivalent of 3000 ppi it is far sharper
    then the 35mm at 6000 ppi. To put this another way an image that has
    1/4 the number of pixels covering the same area is sharper then his
    6000 ppi scan.

    Roger if you are reading this and are willing to let me to use a couple
    of your images I would be happy to demonstrate.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Apr 8, 2006
    #26
  7. Thank you for that information....I am currently doing both slides and
    negatives of old (1956 - 1960) photographs on my KM-5400 II. I will
    certainly try your suggestion.....I have already noticed that when I move
    the scanned images from the KM software into Photoshop 7, some sharpness is
    lost in the transfer.....I have been trying to figure out why. Photoshop 7
    is necessary for me, because I have to repair a lot of problems that have
    affected the slides over the years. (Fading colors, and running colors, for
    example) The softer transferred images have less specks on them for me to
    retouch off with Photoshop, but I would rather they came along for the ride,
    and gave me the option of removing them, rather than having the KM software
    remove them for me....I stopped using the "ICE" program some time ago,
    because of this, but the effect seems to still be there.....
     
    William Graham, Apr 9, 2006
    #27
  8. Not only that, but if you routinely scan at 5400 dpi, you had better bring a
    lunch....It takes forever. When I start a final at 5400 dpi, I go upstairs
    and watch TV for a half hour or so, or practice my horn for the same
    period.......:^)
     
    William Graham, Apr 9, 2006
    #28
  9. Yes. - I was blown away by the results of my film scanner....It has made my
    slide projectors completely obsolete. The brightness and resolution of my 10
    year old SONY monitor completely trashes my "beaded screen" upstairs in my
    dining room. Now, my next purchase will either be a top of the line ink jet
    printer, or a better resolution monitor.....I wonder whether these LCD flat
    screen monitors are worth the money.....?
     
    William Graham, Apr 9, 2006
    #29
  10. I used to use the magazine just to compare the specs of the stuff they were
    comparing....I paid no attention to their recommendations. But today, I can
    get these same specs in a few minutes from Google, so the internet has made
    CR obsolete....:^)
     
    William Graham, Apr 9, 2006
    #30
  11. I agree that the difference between 4000 and 5400 dpi is likely to be
    insignificant.

    Also, we are discussing nominal resolution; a very good scanner is
    likely to give a much better/sharper image at 4000 (or even 2700) dpi
    than a mediocre scanner will at 5400 or 6000 dpi.

    I do see a clear difference between 2700 and 5400 dpi.
    Even after resizing and unsharp-masking the 2700 dpi image up to 5400,
    the real 5400 dpi image still has (slightly) sharper edges.
     
    Chris Loffredo, Apr 9, 2006
    #31
  12. We'll see when the next "Film is dead" thread gets going...
    ;-)
    I'll certainly try out your technique, but I don't use the original
    Canon software and my comparisons were made using slide film.

    O.k. Posted:
    100 ISO "consumer" grade slide film. Canon 8400F flatbed scanner and
    Minolta Dimage 5400 film scanner, same software used for both. No
    filtering or processing of any kind apart from cropping.

    Whole (low detail) image (part of a series for a panorama). White
    rectagle shows cropped area:
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Zotty/Test5400_All.jpg

    5400dpi film scanner detail:
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Zotty/Test5400_Crop.jpg

    2700dpi film scanner detail:
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Zotty/Test2700_Crop.jpg

    3200dpi flatbed scanner detail:
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Zotty/TestFlat3200_Crop.jpg

    1350dpi film scanner detail:
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Zotty/Test1350_Crop.jpg


    Certainly all of the shots can be improved by post processing, but the
    native quality difference between a very good consumer film scanner and
    a good, if not first-rate, flatbed scanner is clearly visible.
     
    Chris Loffredo, Apr 9, 2006
    #32
  13. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Colin D Guest

    Agreed on the flatbed, but I can't really tell the difference between
    the film scanner at different dpi's, because the images are different
    sizes on my monitor, and quite small, about 1 x 1½ inches for the 2700
    dpi crop. The 5400 appears a bit sharper, but it's bigger than the
    2700, so it's not conclusive for me.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Apr 9, 2006
    #33
  14. You need to zoom them yourself (for example by saving tehm to disk and
    opening with Photoshop). Resizing the images (using interpolation) would
    falsify the results.
     
    Chris Loffredo, Apr 9, 2006
    #34
  15. Another way of putting it is that the 5400 dpi & 2700 dpi images look
    equally sharp, but the 5400 dpi image is four times larger.
     
    Chris Loffredo, Apr 9, 2006
    #35
  16. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Scott W Guest

    Why should using interpolation falsify the results?
    In fact if we up sample you 2700 ppi scan it looks exactly like the
    5400 scan.
    http://www.sewcon.com/temp2/5400_vs_2700.jpg

    The point here is that you could have gotten the same image scanning at
    2700 and up sampling as you whould have scanning at 5400, it is take
    Photoshop a lot less time to up sample then it does to scan at 5400
    ppi.

    I simply resized you 2700 image to 200% using bicubic in photoshop.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Apr 9, 2006
    #36
  17. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Scott W Guest

    So your telling me that the top image looks sharper then the bottom
    one?
    http://www.sewcon.com/temp2/5400_vs_2700.jpg

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Apr 9, 2006
    #37
  18. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Frank ess Guest

    Frank ess, Apr 9, 2006
    #38
  19. No, not exactly the same (I did a pre-emptive test this time); the 5400
    dpi original does keep a subtle overall sharper look, a bit like the
    difference between 35mm and middle format printed at smaller sizes.
     
    Chris Loffredo, Apr 9, 2006
    #39
  20. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Alan Browne Guest

    Get a dedicated film scanner.

    Minolta 5400, 5400 II
    Nikon 5000, Nikon V

    The new flatbeds are indeed good, but the old (and new) film scanners
    are just better at high res/details and dynamic range.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 9, 2006
    #40
    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.