Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled
From: Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie)
Date: Tue Nov 23 13:02:16 2004
References: <BDC68D10.AC9E%mark@rabinergroup.com><341A7A4E-3C2F-11D9-AE5E-00306599C552@earthlink.net><20041122025039.5953.qmail@balhpl01.ncable.net.au><E4E2FBC6-3CE4-11D9-885D-000A95C33F68@dodo.com.au> <E8ABD80C-3D1F-11D9-B715-0003938C439E@btinternet.com> <009201c4d193$eb19f0c0$4649c33e@marvin>

Hi Simon,
I scan at the native resolution of my Nikon 8000 scanner, 4000dpi. At 
this scan rate I get pretty hideous grain aliasing on fast print film 
but nice scans from slides. The 8000 produced noticeably better scans 
than the 4000 which has nominally the same spec. I have no idea why.
The biggest prints I have from digital are A3 plus.
Frank

On 23 Nov, 2004, at 19:37, animal wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


Replies: Reply from s.jessurun95 at chello.nl (animal) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from feli2 at earthlink.net (Feli di Giorgio) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from firkin at balhpl01.ncable.net.au (firkin) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from rdcb37 at dodo.com.au (Rick Dykstra) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from s.jessurun95 at chello.nl (animal) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)