[filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II

["David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com>]

"Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
> Three things are wrong: digital pixels look better than scanned pixels in
> one-on-one comparisons, i.e. comparing images with the same number of
> pixels, and even in lp/mm comparisons, it just takes more pixles and lp/mm
> in film to get the same apparent sharpness.

That is not necessarily true.  A scan of a negative is very similar to a
digital camera picture, if you are not resolving anywhere near
grain...but...if grain becomes a sampling artifact, then you are correct.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Dunno what scans you're looking at, but every scan I've ever seen has been
uninspired at the pixel level compared to the better digital images I've
seen. Even 4000 dpi Provia scans have noise levels that (while quite
reasonable and not a problem at all) are off scale compared to what digital
SLRs produce. And Velvia's a joke. The best 8000ED scans I've produced
aren't really acceptable at 300dpi, and need to be printed at 450 dpi before
I get the quality I want. (I'm not complaining: I bought into scanned MF on
the theory that 645 + the 8000ED would be adequate for 13x19, and my math
seems to be holding up.)

>>>>>>>>
> The second thing that's wrong is that printing 1Ds images at 250
> dpi (11x16)
> results in prints that are about as good as prints get

Not so.  I can send up to 720 PPI to the printer and get noticeably better
prints.  So I dispute that claim, as I know first hand it isn't true.
<<<<<<<<<<<

With the Epson 950, if I take a large sharp MF scan, gradually downsample
it, and print at various ppi settings, the appearance only begins to degrade
at under 250 ppi. I find that good quality 250 ppi images max out the
resolution of this printer.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> as long as you don't take a loupe to them.

OK, so you are somehow caveating this here ;-)  But I'm not sure what the
basis for your caveat is?  Anyway, I don't need a loupe to see that sending
720PPI to the printer gives me noticeably better prints.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The basic caveat I have in mind is asking a third party to A/B the prints.
When I look at 8x10s with my grossly nearsighted eyes, I like digital
printed at 300 dpi, and film scans at <something large>. Real people are
happy at 250 and 450.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are also involving things here, like the printer driver, that just
because the one chosen may not take advantage of additional PPI when
dithering, that doesn't mean that a "proper" print driver that does make use
of this, won't make a better print!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I use Qimage Pro to print, and it automatically resamples to optimize for
the printer driver.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
> In other words, there's no way for _any_
> technology to
> make a print that any third party will see as better that an
> 11x16 from the
> 1Ds. (So there's no way for MF to win.)

Hum.  I disagree, and know that it's just not true.  Digital will have less
detail, because of the Bayer pattern imaging sensor.  Especially when
talking about B&W, the tonality and tonal transitions will be FAR superior
for a B&W image of that size...because it has more PPI to the printer than
250, and the difference is significantly noticeable.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Again, if you take a loupe to your prints. (And B&W digital isn't under
discussion, since it's a disaster.)

>>>>>>>>>>>>
You seem to be basing your claims on resolution only, and that is not the
only issue here.  First off, there is the Bayer pattern imaging sensor,
which, will lose SOME data, simply because of architecture.  It may not be
much, but the loss is real.  Second, is tonality.  I'm not arguing for or
against, but just pointing out there is more than simple X by Y resolution
that makes a print!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I think you overestimate problems with the Bayer architecture. Bayer sensors
usually have an anti-aliasing filter in front of them, and exhibit
resolution of about 70% of Nyquist. But getting more than 70% of Nyquist out
of any digital imaging system is problematic because of aliasing. So there
really isn't any more resolution to be had. (There are questions of the
magnitude of the MTF response, and one might be able to low-pass filter and
then downsample without introducing aliasing, so downsampling high-res scans
ought to be able to compete with Bayer imaging.)

>>>>>>>>>>>
> And finally, it's easier to make good prints from digital originals.

What, exactly, do you mean by that?
<<<<<<<<<<<

Why do you think Reichmann found his 12x16" digital prints to have more
detail than his MF scan prints? Because he failed to get the detail off the
scan<g>. It must be hard. (More seriously, my experience is that it's easier
to get a decent printable file from a digital camera original than from a
scan. Scans just take more work. Some of that is that munging around with
4000 dpi scans of 645 is slow, even on a fast machine, so it's just easier
to deal with digital camera files.)

Anyway, I've printed out 1Ds samples at A3 (cropped to A4), and they're very
good. A lot better than my best film scans cropped to 300 dpi, and at least
as good as those scans cropped to 450 dpi.

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan

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