[filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait

["Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com>]

I agree, and the Flextight used the top of line Kodak 8K CCD.  I assume that
because they advertise the direct to lens light path and the use of
Rodenstock lenses that these also play an important part.  How does the SS
120 work internally on lens and light path?

Simon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kapetanakis, Constantine" <KAPETAC@polaroid.com>
To: <simon@sclamb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 1:42 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 3 year wait


> The quality of the lens is important to the point where you it to have a
> good MTF capable of resolving the scanner advertised optical resolution.
> The CCD plays a more importatnt role. It needs to have a very good signal
to
> noise in order for the hardware electronics to   extract as much image
> detail (out of the shadows in particular) as possible.
> The ss120 you mentioned, is using the 10K element top of the line Kodak
CCD.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Lamb [mailto:simon@sclamb.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 4:25 AM
> To: KAPETAC@polaroid.com
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait
>
>
> I still ask the question, does the quality of the scanner hardware also
have
> any significant effect, such as light path, lens, CCD, electronic
> suppression etc.  This question I raise as a result of comparing Flextight
> Photo scans with SS120 and Multi Pro, where I cannot see any difference in
> detail even under extreme enlargement in Photoshop and careful
examination.
>
> Simon
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>
> To: <simon@sclamb.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 8:42 AM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait
>
>
> > Laurie writes:
> >
> > > I believe that this is truer for medium format
> > > and large format film s than it is for 35mm
> > > format films, where the additional true optical
> > > ppi is important if one wishes to enlarge the
> > > frame to 16 x20 and larger sizes ...
> >
> > This is true only if the emulsion used can hold details visible only at
> > higher resolutions.
> >
> > In other words, if you are scanning T-Max P3200, you won't get any more
at
> > 4000 dpi than you do at 2700 dpi, and so if 35mm doesn't provide enough
> > detail, you have no choice but to go to a larger format.
> >
> > If you are scanning Velvia or Kodachrome, you can occasionally obtain
more
> > detail than is fully resolved by a 2700-dpi scanner, especially on a
> tripod.
> > In this case you gain a little by scanning at higher resolution, and
your
> > comment above is applicable.  If you are scanning Technical Pan, there
is
> a
> > _lot_ of detail that is not visible at 2700-dpi (assuming you used a
> > tripod), and you can go to nearly ten times that resolution figure and
> still
> > extract additional information.
> >
> > For handheld work, it is frequent that detail is no better than 2700 dpi
> > will resolve, simply because of camera movement.  And even if Velvia
will
> > resolve 120 c/mm in ideal conditions on a tripod, that requires very
high
> > contrast AND a very, very good lens.  A figure of 80 c/mm is more
likely,
> > with an excellent lens, and that requires 4064 dpi.
> >
> > So you might get a bit more with 4000 dpi than with 2700 dpi for some
> > photos.  And going further to 4800 dpi might gain you something under
> > absolutely ideal conditions.  But beyond that, you are just resolving
dye
> > clouds with most emulsions, shooting situations, and lenses.
> >
> > Put more simply, if you aren't getting enough detail at 2700-3200 dpi
from
> > your 35mm slides, you probably need to go to medium format to get more.
> And
> > if MF isn't good enough, you'll need large format.  The emulsions are
all
> > the same and their resolution is fixed, and good scanners can already
pick
> > up essentially everything they provide in the case of commonly-used
> emulsion
> > s, so the only variable you can change to get better images is the area
of
> > film being scanned.
> >
> > > Only if you are attempting to print uncropped
> > > 35mm frames at less than 11x14 sizes.
> >
> > It's independent of that.  The limit is imposed by the emulsion, the
> > shooting conditions, and the lens on the camera.  It is arguable that
2700
> > dpi scanners miss a little bit on the best images, but at 4000 dpi or
> > beyond, this becomes pretty much untenable.  And beyond 4800 dpi, you're
> > almost always resolving nothing more than additional grain, even with
the
> > sharpest color emulsions.
> >
> > In the future, we can hope that films will become sharper (as they have
> > throughout their history), and that lenses will become better (also
quite
> > likely, even though progress is slow).  Scanners are already ahead of
the
> > other elements in the chain, although they'll probably continue to get
> > better, too.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body