Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??

["Dicky" <corbettr@dircon.co.uk>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@ampsc.com>
> I'm really glad you got into this with your reply, because it was
> exactly what I wanted to say.  At one point, I was in conversations with
> Kodak concerning the possibilities of making some mural sized images
> from 35mm frames (mainly Kodachrome 64/25).  After gritting their teeth
> at me, they told me of some labs using "wet gates" as are used in making
> reproductions for 35mm commercial movie releases when they want to avoid
> as much dirt, dust and scratches in the "prints" (as in film copies from
> negs, not as in photographic prints).  These systems put the film
> through a pre-cleaning wash and then make their enlargements in a
> viscose solution between glass, which eliminates surface scratches from
> being visible, and also surface to air reflection which can soften edges
> due to the nature of light and optics.
>
> When David mentioned that drum scanner operators weren't interested in
> dust reduction options, I too had similar thoughts to your own.   The
> d.ICE or FARE systems are rather ingenious in their use of infrared
> information.  In spite of what our friend from the developers of ICE,
> their magic does soften the results, and this is with good reason.  If
> you have even noticed, there is a little red line on most lens barrels,
> which is off center from the focus line.  The reason for this line is to
> show the differences in focus point between visible white light and
> infra red, for people who are using infrared films.  One makes the
> focusing using the white light image in the viewfinder, and then moves
> the lens barrel the amount of the offset this red line provides.  The
> image now looks out of focus in the viewfinder, but is in focus for
> infrared, which has a different wavelength than white light.
>
> Actually, to go one step further, the focal point from red, green and
> blue light are all different.  If you had a very precision, very narrow
> depth-of-field optics and you were to photograph an image through three
> different filters, (red, green and blue) you would find each focuses at
> a slightly different point.  This might even explain why the three color
> separations made in CCD scanners are not always equally sharp.
>
> Since, as I understand it, d.ICE uses the infrared image as one
> component in the final image (even if it is subtractive in nature) the
> fact that it is likely out of focus probably causes a softening of the
> whole image, however slight.  This is not to "slight" the genius behind
> the process, but unless there is some way to refocus the infrared
> channel, (which might cause other problems during the correction
> process, like make the edges of defects show up more than they wish) I
> would expect a certain amount of softening in the image when d.ICE was
> applied.

A fine reply Mein Entlich, if I might be so bold.
The question of sharpness is highly relevant here because drum scanners
apply USM before digitisation because analogue images have the better
unlimited gradation characteristics. Remember this boys analogue is still
best for con tone quality, although it's time may be limited.
Digital scanners, as far as I am aware, do not apply any USM and it is left
to either software within the scanner package or within the manipulation
software later.That is why the bit depth is so important at the original
scanning stage.

The drum scanner operator attempts to get it right at the scanning stage
with image manipulation coming much later in the production sequence.

The amateur does a pretty rough scan and puts it all right through software
after scanning, including the USM effects.

By the way, when I was in the business the cheapest Crosfield drum scanner
weighed in at £98,000 sterling.

Bit different now I note. Jolly good thing too if you ask me..... which you
might just do.

Richard Corbett


Richard Corbett