From: David J. Littleboy on

"Tony" <none(a)none.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I would love to find out what's going on. If he has some trick that
> actually gets this to work for real then it makes the problem of settling
> on a flatbed maybe not so bad.

My take would be that if you can live with up to 6x enlargements, you
probably don't need the 9000. But at 8x and above, you need to compare scans
you've done yourself. 16x20s from the 8000 and 6x7 look amazing.

Back when I did it, the 2450 was cheap and bad. I got my money's worth from
it learning how to scan, and then was very happy with the 8000. Nowadays,
the V700/V750 are pricey enough that it's harder to do that. More money
thrown away, and the improvement may not be as much.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: Tony on

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in message
news:hbadnZtaoJb-YpPanZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Tony" <none(a)none.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, I would love to find out what's going on. If he has some trick that
>> actually gets this to work for real then it makes the problem of settling
>> on a flatbed maybe not so bad.
>
> My take would be that if you can live with up to 6x enlargements, you
> probably don't need the 9000. But at 8x and above, you need to compare
> scans you've done yourself. 16x20s from the 8000 and 6x7 look amazing.
>
> Back when I did it, the 2450 was cheap and bad. I got my money's worth
> from it learning how to scan, and then was very happy with the 8000.
> Nowadays, the V700/V750 are pricey enough that it's harder to do that.
> More money thrown away, and the improvement may not be as much.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

Wonder if the Canon 9900F might be a better way to go. I do not plan on
printing my 35mm work beyond 8x10 or 11x13 or so tops.


From: David J. Littleboy on

"Tony" <none(a)none.com> wrote:
>
> Wonder if the Canon 9900F might be a better way to go. I do not plan on
> printing my 35mm work beyond 8x10 or 11x13 or so tops.

I don't know. The Canon scanners get talked about a lot less than the
Epsons. (My best bet is that there isn't any flatbed that'll make a quality
8x10 from 35mm.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: Raphael Bustin on
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:01:57 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <username(a)qwest.net> wrote:


>I plan on getting a V750 at some point, but some reviewers say
>it is not much different than an Epson 4990. The largest difference
>I see in the better flatbeds versus dedicated film scanners is the
>glass adds reflections and reduces contrast.

No, the worst problem is the highly folded optical path
and the tiny, short-focal-length lenses used on flatbeds,
as compared to dedicated 35mm or MF scanners.

Compare the imaging lens on an LS-9000 to the one
on a 4990, or compare the optical paths on the two
-- it's like comparing Palomar to a Questar.

That layer of glass that your negative sits on is really
only a minor part of the problem.

>However, scanning
>at 16-bits/pixel it is easily corrected.

I've worked enough with CCDs and scanner firmware to
hazard a guess that anything beyond 11-12 bits of real
S/N from a CCD is a pipe dream.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) on
Raphael Bustin wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:01:57 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark)" <username(a)qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I plan on getting a V750 at some point, but some reviewers say
>> it is not much different than an Epson 4990. The largest difference
>> I see in the better flatbeds versus dedicated film scanners is the
>> glass adds reflections and reduces contrast.
>
> No, the worst problem is the highly folded optical path
> and the tiny, short-focal-length lenses used on flatbeds,
> as compared to dedicated 35mm or MF scanners.
>
> Compare the imaging lens on an LS-9000 to the one
> on a 4990, or compare the optical paths on the two
> -- it's like comparing Palomar to a Questar.

Hmmm 200 inch/3.5 inch = 57 times the aperture.
I have taken apart some flatbeds and in the better ones,
lens aperture is ~3/4 inch or so. I haven't checked
a 4990, of dedicated film scanner. You're saying
a dedicated scanner has lenses much larger than 3/4 inch
(0.75 * 57 = 42-inch aperture lens ;-)?

> That layer of glass that your negative sits on is really
> only a minor part of the problem.

If the aperture, f/ratio and sensor deliver the MTF, then
the optical system is not the issue. There are quite large
linear arrays available at low cost these days, so matching
the linear sensor to a lens system is not that hard.

>> However, scanning
>> at 16-bits/pixel it is easily corrected.
>
> I've worked enough with CCDs and scanner firmware to
> hazard a guess that anything beyond 11-12 bits of real
> S/N from a CCD is a pipe dream.

To get 12-bits of S/N one needs to collect over 16 million
photons (with zero read noise), so I'll agree with you
here. With read noise of 4 electrons, you would need to
collect over 65 million photons/pixel! No CCD or CMOS
sensor can do that, unless the pixel is mm in diameter.
Are you referring to dynamic range?

Then with image stacking (multiple sampling in scanner),
one can beat down the noise and get well above 12-bits dynamic range.
This is done even with 8-bit web cams by amateur astronomers
imaging the planets! Multisampling scanners are no big deal.
Film doesn't have 12-bits of S/N, not even 200 (perhaps if you
average large areas with special controlled development).
I think you mean dynamic range.

Roger
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Rayovac PS3 charger
Next: Direct Compact Flash to Hard Drive