unexpectd film scanner problem

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

  1. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Alan Browne Guest

    No. Because there is nothing optically wrong with the 5400 other than
    the fluorescent light source which requires occasional calibration.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 11, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertisements


  2. Rubbish to you, sir.

    A tripod can't hurt but is not a necessity with normal or wide
    angle lenses. Good technique and a fast shutter speed
    can often suffice.



    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Apr 11, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Scott W Guest

    As I said, if I'am carrying the weight and size of a tripod then I am
    not going to be satisfied with what I can from a 35mm camera. 35mm is
    a light small camera that can take photos that are good to maybe 8 x
    10. It is the camera that I use to take mountain climbing, it was
    light and easy to use, which is great for many cases. But it is not
    the format of choice for anyone who really cares about capturing
    detail, or making large prints, tripod or not.

    As for the needing a tripod for sharp photos that is just crap, in many
    cases the tripod add very little to the sharpness. Here is a photo
    that I took hand held just to show you don't need a tripod, it was a
    sunny day and the shutter speed was 1/640 and I was shooting pretty
    wide angle. The file size is not too large on this one, around 3.5 MB.
    http://www.sewcon.com/temp/4000ppi.jpg
    Pretty sharp photo I would say, and hand held.

    As for MF vs 35mm, the lenses on a MF camera might not produce the same
    resolution when measured in line pairs / mm on the film, but there is a
    lot more film and so the total resolution is way higher.

    Let's take two cases, both shooting the same scene on a fairly bright
    day. A 35mm camera using a 50mm lens mounted on a tripod vs. a 6 x 9
    camera using a 115mm lens hand held, which do you think will capture
    more detail? It will not even be close the MF camera will blow away
    the 35mm. There will be cases where the light is dim enough that this
    is not the case, but you can alway put the MF camera on a tripod as
    well.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Apr 11, 2006
    #43
  4. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Alan Browne Guest

    Any photo at any speed will be sharper with a tripod.

    Hate to bust your bubble, but that's a fact jack.

    The only exception is flash photography where the flash is the main
    source of light (90% or better).
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 12, 2006
    #44
  5. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Alan Browne Guest

    I stopped reading right there. There is no need for one of your long
    "justification" posts.

    You're talking about the way one might or might not shoot according to a
    lifestyle, artstyle, adventure style, etc. It may be appropriate for
    street shooting and some nature shooting, but is not appropriate for
    portraiture, scenics, documentaries, etc.

    Not everyone wants the bulk of MF or LF, but they do, within their
    means, want the best possible technical result. This is why, as I say
    above, Good and great quality 35mm lenses have higher MTF's than MF.

    While you might prefer "happy and carefree" shooting for 35mm, that does
    not in any way eliminate the fact that the highest resolution is
    attained on 35mm by taking the most care with technique. Many, many,
    many 35mm photographers do so and reap the rewards of it. Most of them
    would sneer at the very idea of lugging around MF for very much the same
    reasons you promote it.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 12, 2006
    #45
  6. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Alan Browne Guest

    I really didn't need you to repeat what I said above...
    No. The resolution on the film is lower for MF (generally). It's only
    when you enlarge to given end print size that the larger film has the
    advantage.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 12, 2006
    #46
  7. Is that any different from using a shutter speed up in the same range?
    Flash bottoms out at about 1/1000 sec., and many bodies go up to
    1/4000 or even 1/8000 these days. (Of course you need pretty rare
    lighting conditions to actually *use* those shutter speeds!).
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 12, 2006
    #47
  8. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Scott W Guest

    Would you care to quantify this? How much sharper would a photograph be
    with a tripod vs. without. Of course this depends on the lighting but
    lets say we are shooting at 1/1000 and a 50mm lens. Now I know I scan
    shoot a 300mm lens hand held at 1/1000 and get not more then 1 pixel of
    blur, mostly less but we will call it 1 pixel, or about 6.5um. So for
    the same amount of motion on the 50mm lens I would be blurring by
    50/300 * 6.5um or 1.08 um. Now lets say we are shooting using the 50mm
    onto film. Lets assume that the film and lens do really well and can
    captured some detail to 100 lines /mm. The blur size from my camera
    motion is about 1/10 of that for the lens and film combination. Now
    the way blurs add is as the square root of the sum of the squares of
    the blurs sizes. This means that the extra blur from camera motion
    would be 1% or the over all, assume detail all the way to 100 lines /
    mm. Now if you are going to use a tripod to get this last 1% I would
    guess that you would also buy a digital camera that has 8.1 MP over one
    that has 8.0 MP, that is after all over 1%. The lens and film choice
    will have far more impact then the use of a tripod when using fast
    shutter speeds and a short to normal lens.

    This is not to say that a tripod is not needed in many cases but to see
    it is a requirement is just not correct.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Apr 12, 2006
    #48
  9. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Scott W Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:
    what I can from a 35mm camera.
    So have you every tested your theory that all shots improve in
    sharpness with a tripod or do you just take this as faith? Seems like
    a pretty easy test, take two shot, one with and one without a tripod
    and see how much difference there it.

    In a lot of cases there will be a large difference but in a lot of
    cases there will be none.
    I did this test this morning, two shots using the 20D and a 50mm lens
    at f/8. The shutter speed in both cases was 1/160. One shot was
    handheld with not supports at all i.e. I was not leaning against
    anything just standing there holding the camera. The other shot was
    done on a tripod just the mirror lock up, on the 20D he mirror swings
    up and then 2 seconds later the shot is taken. I took a third shot
    using a telephotos to capture the detail so one can tell what is real
    in the images and what is aliasing.
    This is what I got
    http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/58561114/original

    Seems to me my carefree shot is the same as my tripod shot.

    Not consisted this the 20D sensor is .886 inches wide and has 3504
    pixels in width. This means that it is sampling the image plane at
    3955 ppi, so my images can me pretty much directly compared to a 4000
    ppi scan of a 35mm frame. I will point out the lens I used is a full
    frame lnes.

    But don't trust me, you have a camera. Take a handheld shot where
    the shutter speed is at least four time faster then the FL and compare
    it to the same shot with the camera mounted on a tripod.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Apr 12, 2006
    #49
  10. It also depends on your age, and ability to hand hold a camera steadily,
    without too much shake. At 70, I notice much poorer sharpness in my hand
    held shots today than I had even 10 years ago. Sure, wider angle lenses
    help, but then, when you blow up and crop with Photoshop, you give up what
    you gained......It seems like there is always a trade off in
    photography.......:^)
     
    William Graham, Apr 12, 2006
    #50
  11. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Alan Browne Guest

    Any shot I take w/o a tripod is soft in compared with the great majority
    of shots taken without. There is no speed where a tripod can't be used
    to get a better image.

    As to high shutter speed, it's rare in natural light photography with
    ISO 50 to 100 speed films that you will get sufficient shutter speed to
    make a really sharp image handheld. Esp. if you shoot in the sweet spot
    of the lens.

    When it comes to printing at large sizes ( 8x12 and up), a tripod is a
    neccesity if sharpness is a criteria.

    This is really old news.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 13, 2006
    #51
  12. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Alan Browne Guest


    *yawn* - end of subject for me. There is little photography I do, with
    the exception of the odd party or similar where a tripod is not a neccesity.

    Of course I failed to mention another essential. Slide film looks like
    soft crap if not on a tripod and then projected. Why would I spend
    money on fast sharp glass and Velvia 100 / 100F and not use a tripod?

    Boggled.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 13, 2006
    #52
  13. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Alan Browne Guest

    Flash runs anywhere from about 1/500 (full discharge of a large flash)
    to 1/50,000 of a second (1/128 discharge). It's quite non-linear, esp.
    at the fastest as the cap/flash circuit does not even get to full
    discharge current before the thyristor opens up. Studio flash, alas,
    can't get this fast (1/32 is about as low a power a studio flash will
    output ... no idea what that is timewise but probably on the order of
    1/10,000 - 1/20,000.

    Other flashes like so-called HighSpeedSync 'pulse' the discharge in a
    flat manner and allow flashhing as the shutter travels as a slit. Lots
    of wasted power and not very good action freezing either (the exposure
    is 1/8,000 (or 1/12,000 in my case, Maxxum 9), but the realtime duration
    of the slit travel is on the order of 1/250).

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 13, 2006
    #53
  14. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Scott W Guest

    So did you look at my test?

    You seem to take this on faith the same way the church took it on faith
    that the moon was perfect and there was no need to use a telescope to
    view it they knew there could be no craters on it..

    You ignore the FL of the lens and you ignore images that clearly show a
    handheld shot to be just as sharp as a tripod one.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Apr 13, 2006
    #54
  15. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Scott W Guest

    What Boggles me is that you can't get a sharp photo without a tripod,
    even in bright light and using a short to normal lens.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Apr 13, 2006
    #55
  16. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Colin D Guest

    Sorry, Scott, but the tripod shot is clearly sharper than your handheld
    shot. Immediately under the word 'lockup' in the left-hand image is a
    small window with a fine vertical grille clearly visible. The same
    window in the handheld shot shows no resolvable grille - the poorer
    resolution is obvious.

    You just disproved your own assertion {:)

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Apr 13, 2006
    #56
  17. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Scott W Guest

    It you look at the telephoto image you will see that this aliased
    detail, the blinds are all horizontal.

    The telephoto shot was handheld BTW.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Apr 13, 2006
    #57
  18. Funny, I use them all the time: Tech Pan in sunshine is 1/4000 at f1.4,
    TMX is 1/4000 at f2.8.

    'Course in Cleveland sunshine _is_ a "pretty rare lighting condition".
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Apr 13, 2006
    #58
  19. It has been written:

    A> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/58561114/original
    A> Seems to me my carefree shot is the same as my tripod shot.

    B> tripod shot is clearly sharper small window with a fine
    B> vertical grille clearly visible. The same
    B> window in the handheld shot shows no resolvable grille - the poorer
    B> resolution is obvious.

    I think scanning/digi-cam/jpg compression artifacts are up the kazoo ...

    Roof tiles on the left side of the house are flat on the top two pics,
    curved on the bottom

    Venetian blinds in the bottom pic, vertical grid and fuzzy spiral
    on the top pics.

    Perspective in the top two pics is identical, shouldn't be a surprise
    if intentional ...
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Apr 13, 2006
    #59
  20. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Scott W Guest

    Yup, but no compression both are from raw, it is a AA filter that is
    not strong enough and a very sharp lens, the result it aliasing.

    This is why you can look at the false detail on one and say it is
    sharper. The fact is with the Bayer pattern and a somewhat weak AA
    filter the 20D will show some artifacts in a really sharp image.

    The perspecttive should be the same, both used the same lens and shot
    from the same position.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Apr 13, 2006
    #60
    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.