Art wrote:
>Many moons ago, I was working on the concept of a system to allow a 35mm
>frame to be projected on a flatbed scanner surface. This could, in
>theory, allow for even a 600 dpi scanner to record a 35mm frame at about
>4800 x 7200 ppi, optically.
Not unsurprisingly, I thought of the same thing when I saw how "Mickey
Mouse" the HP 6300C's film adapter was; project an 11x8 image onto an
inverted ground-Lucite panel layered onto the scanner glass, and get a
1200x1200ppi scan of *that* size rather than the size of a 35mm slide!
Unfortunately, the "machine" to accomplish this projection, complete with
mirrors and projector, would take up the space of about six 19" monitors
stacked in an unlikely configuration, plus any negs to be scanned would have
to be put into slide mounts. I figured it would be cheaper and at least
3-months quicker to buy an Acer, with a footprint about 1/20th that size,
and wait for technology to improve on my brilliant "Rube Goldberg" design.
;-)
Obviously, I'm not an engineear--I can barely spell it. ;-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS120 & Nikon 8000 ... how do they work?
>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 05:45:50 -0700
>
>
>
>Lynn Allen wrote:
> >
> > Art wrote:
> >
> > >It seems to me for some reason that most of the newer medium format
> > >scanners manufacturers decided to forego the zoom lens approach
> > >that Minolta has and continues to use with their Multi models,
> > >and just basically use the same optics for all the film formats.
> >
> > I seem to be missing something, here. All my scanners have "zoom"
> > capability, but on the screen, only--they can make the image bigger,
>just as
> > I can with my own imaging software. Can a scanner actually enlarge an
>area
> > with an enlarging lens? Well, why not--I can do it with a loupe, can't
>I?
> >
> > So let's say I select a 1/4" x 1/4" section of a slide that would
>normally
> > be scanned at 2400ppi on my Scanwit--if a 2x scanning lens were
>available,
> > would this then appear like a 1/2" x 1/2" section of the slide, at
>2400ppi?
> > Given this, it would seem that the resolution of the section would
>become
> > 4800ppi.
> >
>
>Yes, this is in fact exactly what I am speaking of. Minolta does this
>on a small scale with their Multi scanner line. You might think of the
>CCD as a projection screen (a very narrow one, but that isn't
>relevant). If you could project a cropped portion of the frame upon the
>whole CCD, you could still maintain the "native resolution" of the CCD.
>
>Many moons ago, I was working on the concept of a system to allow a 35mm
>frame to be projected on a flatbed scanner surface. This could, in
>theory, allow for even a 600 dpi scanner to record a 35mm frame at about
>4800 x 7200 ppi, optically. The problem was dynamic range and figuring
>out a way to create a evenly distributed illumination without using some
>type of back projection media over the scanner bed to allow for a focal
>point. Anyway, I never got very far with it, ultimately.
>
>
> > Somehow, I don't see this as likely, tempering it with a bit of
>skepticism
> > for mfgr specs. Can a 4000ppi scanner in fact boost its effective
>scanning
> > resolution to 8000ppi, or did it boost it to 4000 in the first place
>with a
> > magnifying lens, from which point it cannot improve? Inquiring minds
>seem
> > to want to know. :-)
>
>No, the issue is always film size versus number of CCD elements. This
>(in theory) is no different that the idea of converting an image in
>Photoshop to a printer. Just count pixels.
>
>If you could take a 1" wide film frame and distribute it across 4000
>sensor elements, you get a 4000 ppi scan. Now, if you instead use only
>.5" frame across that same 4000 sensor elements, you could indeed end up
>with that portion having 4000 ppi,, and since it was .5 inch, that means
>effectively the scan was at 80000 ppi, as you stated.
>
>The problem is no scanners currently offer the optics or control to
>allow for this to occur. Minolta's Multi comes closest, using set
>magnifications based upon the the film size. I imagine it would require
>some pretty sophisticated focusing to do what we are discussing above.
>
>Art
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
