unexpectd film scanner problem

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

  1. No. - When the sun is out at all here in Oregon, it's a, "pretty rare
    lighting condition".
    William Graham, Apr 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements


    Alan Browne Guest

    I'm sure it boggles your mind that people don't limit themsleves to
    normal to short lenses. For that matter, when I use a wide angle the
    tripod becomes _more_ essential, not less to control composition.

    As to shutter speed rules of thumb, they're fine for snapshots, but try
    a 20mm shot with a lot of foreground detail. Any movement will blur the
    FG even if the rest of the image looks acceptably sharp.

    This whole silly thread branched into "where do you get the most
    sharpness that a high rez scanner will discern it". Well I gave an
    answer. You rebutt with whether or not a tripod is a valid way to shoot
    photography at all.

    Not all shots will be at high speeds where "acceptable" sharpness will
    occur. But be sure that w/o a tripod you are not getting maximum
    sharpness at any speed.
    Alan Browne, Apr 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements


    Alan Browne Guest

    You ignore a general fact: People are not limiting themselves to wide
    angle. Further, the best wide angle shots often include a lot of
    foreground detail. Hand holding in that case results in blur in the
    foreground areas. This is where rules of thumb fall apart: when you're
    at the limits.
    Alan Browne, Apr 14, 2006

    Scott W Guest

    But you did not limit when a tripod would be needed. In fact when Rafe
    said that it was not always needed when using a wide angle lens and
    fast shutter speeds your response was "Any photo at any speed will be
    sharper with a tripod."

    I think perhaps we can agree at least that some shots will benefit from
    a tripod and some will not?

    Exactly how much benefit there is under what conditions would depend on
    many factors. I believe in doing experimentation to determine what the
    gain is rather then taking it on faith.

    There are many cases where a tripod is just plain needed, then there
    are cases where it helps and then there are cases there it add nothing
    to the sharpness of a photo.

    I am not arguing that a tripod is not useful or that people should not
    use them what I am saying is it is rather silly to make broad
    statements that a tripod is required if one wants a sharp image.

    Scott W, Apr 14, 2006

    Scott W Guest

    I never said that all shots can be done without a tripod, what I
    question is the need for a tripod in all shots.

    Have you tested this? Have you taken the same shot with and with out
    when using a shutter speed of say 1/500 and a 50mm lens. This would
    seem a simple test for you to do, why not try it?

    Scott W, Apr 14, 2006

    Alan Browne Guest

    I'm not going to waste my time. First of all you claim that 5400 dpi
    can't be done. Then when the conditions for which it can be done are
    ennunciated you claim that that's inconvenient to you.

    You can keep squirming but the plain fact is you are generalizing in
    technical areas where generalization leads to poor quality results.
    Alan Browne, Apr 14, 2006

    Alan Browne Guest

    Using the softest parts of the lens (wide open) will not contribute ot
    highest scan resolutions [subject]. Of course it's more important to
    shoot for the desired DOF than sharpness alone.
    Alan Browne, Apr 14, 2006

    Paul Furman Guest

    I hate using a tripod but I have to say that test shows a sharper result
    on the tripod. 1/160 sec at 80mm (equivalent). Hmmmm so even double the
    rule of thumb doesn't seem enough.
    Well there is the bayer pattern and antialiasing (blur) filter.
    Paul Furman, Apr 14, 2006

    Colin D Guest

    Aaahh, yes, my blunder. But not quite; the left image has to be sharper
    for the alias to develop, and the general look and feel of the image in
    the roof, the foliage, etc. appears sharper in the left image. I'm not
    convinced they are equally sharp images.

    Colin D.
    Colin D, Apr 15, 2006
  10. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Scott W Guest

    I think the aliasing is in part based on the phasing of the pixels to
    the blinds.
    I would have a very hard time saying one was sharper then the other.
    I have to also note that I can easily get way more detail using a
    longer lens, at the same shutter speed, if I am not losing the detail
    with a long lens it is hard to see why I would be losing it with a
    short lens. The bottom image was also taken with at 1/160 sec
    handheld, clearly the limitation for detail is not camera shake but a
    combination of the sensor and lens.

    Scott W, Apr 15, 2006
  11. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    pioe[rmv] Guest

    The Minolta has only one white light LED. That means it still has to
    use a traditional color filter, which will eventually fade. In
    contrast, the Nikons have four LED's, for RGB and Infrared.
    Well, the Nikon Coolscan V/LS-50 has exactly the same build as the
    LS-5000. Both are very solid, and if you feel that something is
    lacking I would like you to point out what weaknesses you may think

    Since I have tested all these scanners I cannot say that the Minolta
    5400 is more rugged. Quite the opposite, and the film holder of the
    Minolta is also considerably more flimsy than the very solid SA-21 of
    the Nikon.

    Lastly: If you feel that the Minolta gives more detail, I would like
    to see it demonstrated.

    Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
    pioe[rmv], Apr 17, 2006
    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.