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: s.jessurun95 at chello.nl (animal)
Date: Tue Nov 23 14:07:56 2004
References: <03d301c4d1a5$6c19dda0$6401a8c0@ccapr.com>

Yes from what i found and thought looked thorough they do.
They also seem to agree that the other qualities of the leica lenses do show
things like brilliance whatever i,m sure u know that a lot better then i do.

> The reason most studios are using the 22 mp backs has to do with the
> fact that they are trying to replicate fine grain 2 1/4 and 4x5 film
> with digital...
>
> As to what Mr. Puts stated...many a naked eye can't tell the difference
> between a negative or image produced with a Leica lens and a top quality
> Canon or Nikon lens, so why should a scanner? And do other
> reviewers/critics make the same statement, or only those who, like Mr.
> Puts, do contract work for Leica? ;-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
> animal
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 4:35 PM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled
>
>
> Thanks for your quick reply.
> The reason i asked is that most sources say that 4000 is not enough for
> maximum resolution. I believe reading somewhere  mr. Puts stated that a
> 4000 dpi scanner is not even able to show the difference in resolution
> between a leica lens or anyother big name brand . The only film i
> scanned without a lot of noise on my scanner was techpan sofar.Going to
> attempt copex this week. I have seen scans from the latest Epson flatbed
> that look about the same as mine on the Nikon but with 4 strips at
> once.And 4 large format negs.That should save a lot of time. Is your
> 5000 a lot faster then the 4000? I agree ,again from crude tests that 10
> mp should have more or less the same resolution for handheld shots with
> longer lenses. But on a tripod and with a high end scanner that cannot
> be so. Why else would most studios that have gone digital use 22 Mp
> backs? Best simon jessurun,amsterdam
>
> > 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
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
In reply to: Message from bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)