Nikon Coolscan vs. Epson Perfection scanners - recommendations?
in [Scanners]
|
From: Barry Watzman on 3 Jan 2010 23:38 Re: "True but then you don't need to use the full resolution of the scanner" Yes, but there is a problem with that also. Say that you have a 4,000 dpi scanner (about 22 megpixels) and you want to not use "the full resolution". You have only two choices: 1. Use "interpolated" pixels; which most people feel degrades quality 2. Drop back to 2,000 x 2000 (every other pixel) which is only about FIVE megapixels and which clearly degrades quality. To put it differently .... you do NOT have an option to use arbitrary lower resolutions unless you are willing to accept arbitrary interpolated pixels. Which is why I really like 2,700 dpi. VERY FEW (FEW; not "none") 35mm image have even that much resolution much less more. [As for comments that the 4000 dpi Nikons have better print quality; I believe it's as much (in fact almost all) because they ALL have more bits per pixel than because they have more pixels.] Nigel Feltham wrote: > Barry Watzman wrote: > >> Re: "may also want to consider Plustek Scanners as their Opticfilm 7200, >> 7300 and 7400 models are available with ICE and scan at a claimed true >> optical resolution of 7200dpi" >> >> Another indication of people's ignorance. >> >> 7200 dpi is not a benefit, it is a deficit. 2,700 DPI scans of a 35mm >> image are 10 megapixels. > > True but then you don't need to use the full resolution of the scanner
From: Noons on 5 Jan 2010 22:18 On Jan 6, 11:55 am, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...(a)neo.rr.com> wrote: > But once you have enough resolution to scan film grain, you are also at > (or past) the point at which the resolution you are using will capture > ALL of the actual IMAGE data. Oh no I am not! Film "grain" is not the end of detail in film. Flat T-grain for example shows detail within each "grain". > Consequently, once you have enough > resolution to capture film grain, further resolution increases provide > no benefit and are actually detrimental in a number of ways. Disagreee completely. That might have been true 15 years ago, it certainly isn't anymore. And I have proof of that.
From: Charlie Hoffpauir on 6 Jan 2010 10:06 On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 19:18:33 -0800 (PST), Noons <wizofoz2k(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jan 6, 11:55�am, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...(a)neo.rr.com> wrote: > >> But once you have enough resolution to scan film grain, you are also at >> (or past) the point at which the resolution you are using will capture >> ALL of the actual IMAGE data. > >Oh no I am not! Film "grain" is not the end of detail in film. Flat >T-grain for example shows detail within each "grain". > >> �Consequently, once you have enough >> resolution to capture film grain, further resolution increases provide >> no benefit and are actually detrimental in a number of ways. > >Disagreee completely. That might have been true 15 years ago, it >certainly isn't anymore. >And I have proof of that. Now THAT really interest me..... What has changed with film technology in the last 15 years? (other than that there is much less use of film). Or is it that scanning technology has improved? Please expand on that, I'm sure a lot of us are interested in just what you're referring to.
From: Noons on 7 Jan 2010 01:12 Charlie Hoffpauir wrote,on my timestamp of 7/01/2010 2:06 AM: > Now THAT really interest me..... What has changed with film technology > in the last 15 years? (other than that there is much less use of > film). Or is it that scanning technology has improved? Please expand > on that, I'm sure a lot of us are interested in just what you're > referring to. I'll try and be brief, but of course the subject is not simple: 1- most remaining makers have "silently" changed film to become a lot more "scanner friendly". This entailed mostly getting rid of the "hazy" emulsion side which caused horrible artifacts during scanning with the harsh light of LED light sources. These were responsible for 90% of the common claims of "film grain". It wasn't grain at all. Even some of the b&w films now benefit from this. For example: the latest Acros, latest Neopan and most of the chromogenic b&w. Even Adox does it now, for CMS20. 2- true grain - or in the case of colour the replacement dye clouds - has become a lot thinner and much more regular, allowing some of the Ice implementations to reduce grain effects even more. While t-grain for example is much more regular, once again allowing post-processing to kick-in more effectively. Another thing was the complete elimination of the "bubbles" referred to in the LL reference: they simply don't happen anymore. Case in point: scan modern Astia 100 with Nikonscan on a 9000 or VED with Ice turned on at "fine" setting and you will notice a marked reduction of aliased scanned grain in the result, with no appreciable loss of detail. Once again: don't do this with old "freezer" film on a 8000 or IV or an old Minolta clunker! There is a significant and marked difference with those older models, which only shows up when scanning the latest film. 3- in general, most low speed emulsions will exceed what a 4000dpi scanner can resolve, with some of the b&w exotics like Adox CMS20 greatly doing so, to the point where for example it is impossible to see any grain at 4k with CMS20 developed in Technidol. Even with a microscope, it's hard to see any significant grain with mags of up to 30X. Some of the Rollei exotics will do the same. 4- most modern amateur level scanners have the ability to keep constant lighting and focusing characteristics. Older scanners simply did not, with the result that scanning was at best inconsistent with wildly varying results. Modern commercial scanners of course do a great job with some of the Frontiers way out in front of anything else possible even 10 years ago. 5- post-processing software nowadays does a tremendous job of reducing any remaining alias scanned grain effects. Commercial scanners get rid of most of the remaining grain while things like Neat Image and Noise Ninja - latest releases - can virtually eliminate any traces of scanned noise. Combined with 16-bit scanning and tools like Focus Magic, one can easily achieve results at nearly 20MP effective resolution from normal 100ISO 35mm film. Of course, to get such results one has to concentrate on optimizing all the other aspects of the workflow: no way you'll get the top with a low quality or long unserviced shutter on an old clunker, with an uncoated and poorly focused lens, without a tripod and with a severely underexposed image! Similar applies to dslrs with 35mm-sized sensors, btw! An once again, I'll repeat: grain is NOT pixels! Take quality images with any modern t-grain film, put it under a microscope and examine the resulting image edges: they do not match any grain edges at all, clearly resolved inside each individual flat grain. Do the same with any slide film and you get the same result. Ditto for modern colour negative. The important point to recall here is that the above are for *modern* film only! The expired and long forgotten film rolls stashed away in the freezer that most so-called film users claim are not like that, are *not* included in the above and will show all the problems of the past! The interesting thing of course is that most of the traditional "scanning technique" sites still around used old film, with older scanners, and pretend that this is the case forever and ever. Hence the claims of "film cannot do more than 2700" and "increasing scan resolution is worse" that we hear around the place. Simply not true with latest scanning and film technology, using appropriate post-processing. I have plenty of examples in my public gallery of film-based images that easily match and exceed 20MP dslr resolution. Of course: not at 12800ISO, which many seem to think is essential for modern photography. Film to me cuts off at 800ISO with Fuji's 800Z as far as I'm willing to go. Some very honorable exceptions in b&w at around 3200, but those require extensive post-processing to get usable scans. But I'm the first to say it very clearly: you simply cannot get that kind of result without a total commitment across the *entire* workflow, from the lens to the post-processing, starting with modern scanners and with new emulsions. Simply scanning 25 year old P&S Kodak Gold 400 at higher rez is not the solution and achieves nothing, as previously well pointed out by Barry! All I'm disagreeing with is blanket statements claiming it is the case with all film and all scanners. It's not.
From: Charlie Hoffpauir on 7 Jan 2010 10:05
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:12:07 +1100, Noons <wizofoz2k(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >Charlie Hoffpauir wrote,on my timestamp of 7/01/2010 2:06 AM: > >> Now THAT really interest me..... What has changed with film technology >> in the last 15 years? (other than that there is much less use of >> film). Or is it that scanning technology has improved? Please expand >> on that, I'm sure a lot of us are interested in just what you're >> referring to. > >I'll try and be brief, but of course the subject is not simple: > >1- most remaining makers have "silently" changed film to become a lot more >"scanner friendly". This entailed mostly getting rid of the "hazy" emulsion side >which caused horrible artifacts during scanning with the harsh light of LED >light sources. These were responsible for 90% of the common claims of "film >grain". It wasn't grain at all. Even some of the b&w films now benefit from >this. For example: the latest Acros, latest Neopan and most of the chromogenic >b&w. Even Adox does it now, for CMS20. > >2- true grain - or in the case of colour the replacement dye clouds - has become >a lot thinner and much more regular, allowing some of the Ice implementations to >reduce grain effects even more. While t-grain for example is much more regular, >once again allowing post-processing to kick-in more effectively. Another thing >was the complete elimination of the "bubbles" referred to in the LL reference: >they simply don't happen anymore. Case in point: scan modern Astia 100 with >Nikonscan on a 9000 or VED with Ice turned on at "fine" setting and you will >notice a marked reduction of aliased scanned grain in the result, with no >appreciable loss of detail. Once again: don't do this with old "freezer" film >on a 8000 or IV or an old Minolta clunker! There is a significant and marked >difference with those older models, which only shows up when scanning the latest >film. > >3- in general, most low speed emulsions will exceed what a 4000dpi scanner can >resolve, with some of the b&w exotics like Adox CMS20 greatly doing so, to the >point where for example it is impossible to see any grain at 4k with CMS20 >developed in Technidol. Even with a microscope, it's hard to see any >significant grain with mags of up to 30X. Some of the Rollei exotics will do >the same. > >4- most modern amateur level scanners have the ability to keep constant lighting >and focusing characteristics. Older scanners simply did not, with the result >that scanning was at best inconsistent with wildly varying results. Modern >commercial scanners of course do a great job with some of the Frontiers way out >in front of anything else possible even 10 years ago. > >5- post-processing software nowadays does a tremendous job of reducing any >remaining alias scanned grain effects. Commercial scanners get rid of most of >the remaining grain while things like Neat Image and Noise Ninja - latest >releases - can virtually eliminate any traces of scanned noise. Combined with >16-bit scanning and tools like Focus Magic, one can easily achieve results at >nearly 20MP effective resolution from normal 100ISO 35mm film. > > >Of course, to get such results one has to concentrate on optimizing all the >other aspects of the workflow: no way you'll get the top with a low quality or >long unserviced shutter on an old clunker, with an uncoated and poorly focused >lens, without a tripod and with a severely underexposed image! Similar applies >to dslrs with 35mm-sized sensors, btw! > > >An once again, I'll repeat: grain is NOT pixels! Take quality images with any >modern t-grain film, put it under a microscope and examine the resulting image >edges: they do not match any grain edges at all, clearly resolved inside each >individual flat grain. Do the same with any slide film and you get the same >result. Ditto for modern colour negative. > >The important point to recall here is that the above are for *modern* film only! > The expired and long forgotten film rolls stashed away in the freezer that >most so-called film users claim are not like that, are *not* included in the >above and will show all the problems of the past! > > >The interesting thing of course is that most of the traditional "scanning >technique" sites still around used old film, with older scanners, and pretend >that this is the case forever and ever. Hence the claims of "film cannot do >more than 2700" and "increasing scan resolution is worse" that we hear around >the place. > >Simply not true with latest scanning and film technology, using appropriate >post-processing. I have plenty of examples in my public gallery of film-based >images that easily match and exceed 20MP dslr resolution. > >Of course: not at 12800ISO, which many seem to think is essential for modern >photography. Film to me cuts off at 800ISO with Fuji's 800Z as far as I'm >willing to go. Some very honorable exceptions in b&w at around 3200, but those >require extensive post-processing to get usable scans. > > > >But I'm the first to say it very clearly: you simply cannot get that kind of >result without a total commitment across the *entire* workflow, from the lens to >the post-processing, starting with modern scanners and with new emulsions. > >Simply scanning 25 year old P&S Kodak Gold 400 at higher rez is not the solution >and achieves nothing, as previously well pointed out by Barry! > >All I'm disagreeing with is blanket statements claiming it is the case with all >film and all scanners. It's not. Noons, Thanks for a very informative post! I've shot 35mm B&W and color (negative and positive) since the 50's, so I have a lot of old stuff still around. Your post confirms what I've thought.... and greatly expanded on it. Unfortunately, I won't be able to utilize the new information I've learned (about the newer films) since I've not used film at all in the last 10 years. Still, I really appreciate the new information. |