[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography

["Laurie@advancenet.net" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

The DSLR digital camera's mentioned are all the higher end models of their
respective manufacturers as well as among the more current models in the
pipeline.  Their being selected probably has as much to do with the degree
of noise and distortion of their sensors as the number of megapixels that
they are capable of.  I am equally sure that there is also an industry bias
towards certain camera brands and models over others just as there is for
certain medium and large format digital backs over others.  This is not new
and existed with film cameras as well where the premier brands were Nikon,
Canon, Hasselblat, and Sinar or Deerdorf over Pentax, Olympus, Bronica,
Mamiya, and Calumet.

The film scanners are all drum scanners or the equivalent which are high end
industry workhorses use to produce high quality and resolution scans from
film sized 35mm to 8x10 or larger.  The file sizes of the scans may be 100MB
or so per scan and the bit depth at which these scanners scan is far greater
than flatbed or sensor chip based film scanners.  The Nikon 5000 and the
equivalent film scanners may be the top of the prosummer line of film
scanners; but it is not the top of the line scanner by industrial commercial
standards.

Moreover, there probably is a biased belief that professional commercial
scans will b e done by professional craftsmen who specialize in scan with
the equipment that they use and know how to get the most quality out of that
equipment where prosummers - no matter how good or competent - do not scan
for a living and probably nopt as likely to produce flawless scans.  There
is also probably a histroric legacy industry bias among the curators,
archivists, and operators of up-scale stock houses in favor of drum scanners
and certain professional commercial scanning houses, who they have worked
with before.

> Is it really true, as Getty's requirements would seem to suggest, that the
> Nikon D200 and D2X can produce better images than film plus a high end
Nikon scanner like the SuperCoolscan 5000?

Yes because you are mixing apples and oranges in your comparison.  The D200
and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture; it does not need
to be converted into a digital file after the capture by a second external
process.   A 35mm film capture's quality after scanning will depend on the
film uses, and how it was processed, for starters, and the scanning of the
film will comprise the equivalent of a second generation capture  with the
possible introduction of noise, artifacts, and other degrading components
during the scan.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of
> ppatton@bgnet.bgsu.edu
> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 5:54 PM
> To: laurie@advancenet.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] film and scanning vs digital photography
>
> One of the earlier posts in this thread mentioned that Getty
> Images  , a major stock photography company, posted their
> camera/scanner requirements on their website.  I went searching
> on their website today, and located their standards.  Here are
> their requirements for cameras:
>
> If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved
> camera from this list: Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D,
> Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK 11, Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK
> 11. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase One and Leaf
> etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us.
>
> Here are their requirements for film scanners:
>
> We only accept digital files from scanned film if they have been
> drum scanned by a professional scanning house or scanned using
> the approved desk top film scanners from the following list:
> Imacon 949, 848, 646, 343; Fuji Lanovia Quattro and Finescan;
> Creo Eversmart Supreme 11, Eversmart Select 11, IQsmart 1,2,3
>
> I've never heard of any of these scanners and am somewhat shocked
> that not even the high end Nikon scanners are included in the list.
> The first one on the list, the Imacon 949 is a $5000 device,
> which probably explains why I've ever heard of it.  I didn't
> check the prices on the other scanners, but if they are equally
> ruinous, then it looks like the cheapest way to take stock
> quality photos is to get a digital camera like Nikon's D200
> (about $1300), rather than use film plus scanning.  Is it really
> true, as Getty's requirements would seem to suggest, that the
> Nikon D200 and D2X can produce better images than film plus a
> high end Nikon scanner like the SuperCoolscan 5000?  What are the
> prices for having photos professionally drum scanned?
> ___________________________________________________
> Dr. Paul Patton
> Life Sciences Building Rm 538A
> work: (419)-372-3858
> home: (419)-352-5523
> Biology Department
> Bowling Green State University
> Bowling Green, Ohio 43403
>
> "The most beautiful thing we can experience is
> the mysterious.  It is the source of all true art
> and science."
> -Albert Einstein
> ___________________________________________________
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> title or body


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