[Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled

[s.jessurun95 at chello.nl (animal)]

I,m curious what scanner did you use and and at what resolutions(which?)?
Crude tests i did show that my scanner (nikon) is not able to get all detail
out of slide or fine grained film.
The detail i can see on a lightbox with a high powered loupe thingy.
The noise i get when scanning at high resolutions is not visible in the film
.
best,simon jessurun,amsterdam

> The thing is Rick the fact that you have scanned the film at 6144x4096
> pixels does not mean that there is meaningful data at this resolution.
> In absurdam if the frame was a uniform colour a scan of 1 pixel and a
> scan of 6144x4096 pixels will contain the same data and would be
> equivalent.
> I have not found 35mm print film to have more data on it than my 6
> megapixel Canon, whatever scan resolution I chose to use. My scans from
> slides have been better but not hugely so.
> I am entirely prepared to believe, based on my own experience of prints
> from scanned 35mm film and digital SLRs that the 10megapixel R back
> will equal 35mm film in resolution. I have heard all the pseudo
> technical absurdities about huge sampling rates but none of it actually
> agrees with my actual experience of producing my own prints.
> Frank
>
>
> On 23 Nov, 2004, at 00:16, Rick Dykstra wrote:
>
> > Hi Alistair.  You've posed exactly the question I've asked of Leica,
> > though no response yet.
> >
> > The lab I use does high end scans (though not the highest - were not
> > talking drum scans here) which are 6144 x 4096 pixels and around 75 to
> > 100 MB in size (depending on the variety of colours I suppose).  I get
> > these printed to 20 x 30 inch.  The DMR sensor is 3872 x 2576.  So how
> > can this sensor make images reproduced at 20 x 30 in of the same
> > clarity as film scanned to 6144 x 4096?  And I could get these
> > trannies drum scanned to even higher standards.
> >
> > I'm not knocking the DMR - I want one or two - but will it be as good
> > as my Velvia?  I can't see how.  Again, not necessarily a problem, I
> > just need to know before I spend the money.  :-)  I've also heard it
> > will be upgradeable and that's good.  Any comments on this?
> >
> > Rick Dykstra, Australia
> >
> >
> > On 22/11/2004, at 1:50 PM, firkin wrote:
> >
> >> Feli di Giorgio writes:
> >>> I would be very happy with a 10-12MP full frame camera.
> >>> Manageable file sizes, DOF of a 135, low noise at high ASA, due
> >>> to the large size of individual receptors. I really don't need 20MP
> >>> for what I do...
> >>
> >> The immediate question is what do you do that requires 10 to 12. I
> >> mean this seriously, not as a jibe or insult. My mind tell me that 10
> >> to 12 seems about right, because I suspect (never tried and therefore
> >> don't know) that you could print 16 x 20 at about this level with
> >> 35mm happiness. Barry Thornton claimed that only really "lucky" good
> >> 35mm negs could produce "perfect" images larger than about 10 x 14 (I
> >> think) I remember thinking "I've got larger ones" but then thinking
> >> but they are not all "perfect", so he may be right.
> >> Like many, I suspect I've been too worried about making big
> >> enlargements, when smaller well crafted images would be "better" and
> >> store much more easily !!!!!
> >> This brings me back to my nagging question; will todays good film
> >> scanners "match" a 10 mega pixel dedicated digital camera when you
> >> view moderately large images side by side?
> >> Alastair Firkin @ work ;-)
> >> http://www.afirkin.com
> >> http://www.familyofman2.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Leica Users Group.
> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>