Re: Scanners and PMA orlando

[Juli Wilcox <jwilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Phil---I think I  am missing the information at  www.aztek.com.  I see a
list
of topics but no actual information.  I am not able to attend PMA but would be
interested in your lecture.  

Thanks,  
Juli Wilcox

At 01:40 PM 1/26/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>I think Phil's description below is very informative.I hope he will post a
>version of his lecture in orlando for those of us who can't attend.
>
>Richard
>
>Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:35:14 -0800
>From: "Phil.Lippincott" <phil.lippincott@worldnet.att.net>
>Subject: suitable scanners PMA 02 Orlando
>
>- --------------FD62FDAB5933128BD7F5FF9E
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Hi Richard,
>   All film is not made equal regarding grain.  Nor are all scanners made
>equal
>regarding optical visibility of resolution.  Just because a scanner creates
>a
>particular dpi scan 4000 or other resolutions doesn't assure what you really
>get.  So I've spent years testing now various scanners and films to find out
>what is needed and what can the scanner see.
>   If your shooting color negative films and have an honest 2800 dpi scanner
>your right you generally won't totally benefit from a better scanner.
>Negative
>films vary in optical grain size of between 14 to 20 microns.  A micron is
>1/1000 of a millimeter.  A B/W negative generally is between 3 to 6 microns
>and
>a chrome between 5 to 10.  The scanners are another story all together.  A
>perfectly focused 4000 dpi scanner that can absolutely hold it's spot
>without
>lens or other artifacts has a 6 micron spot size.  There are by the way very
>few scanners this good.  Yet this is exactly what is required to get in the
>ball park of the grain quality of transparency chromes.  Yet if we want a
>substantial enlargement or faithful capture to the grain of the best chromes
>and B & W negatives we need better than 6 microns or 4000 dpi.  This is why
>when people really need the ultimate quality a 3 micron or 8,000 dpi scanner
>can make sense too.  Yet if only a few scanners can do 6 microns then
>obviously
>even fewer can do 3.  A 50" x 70"        Also if you don't have grain
>management software tools in the scanning  application software, a very good
>scanner can instead of producing optically pure results produce grain noise.
>Of course very skilled people may be able to manage the many variables
>involved, but it's real hard and many very knowledgeable people claim it's
>not
>possible.
>   This is one of the reasons for my personal research in this area.  I have
>created software tools to address this issue and created a patented feature
>of
>my firm's Digital PhotoLab scanning software.  Simply to manage through
>artificial intelligence in software the scanner capture spot size and
>dynamic
>range to match the media grain and density fidelity. This to assure the
>faithful flawless optical capture of the analog film original digitally.
>Results can be dramatic and easy to use.  If interested you can read about
>it
>at     www.aztek.com
>   Also if anyone on this list is interested in this and the comparisons I
>have
>found in the various scanners tested over the years;  I am giving a lecture
>with this information at PMA in Orlando on Feb. 23 next month as part of the
>DIMA conference.  The title of the session is photo digital imaging
>"Scanner
>Roundup".  I will be reviewing certain:  Creo Scitex, Umax, Polaroid, Nikon,
>Howtek, Imacon, Aztek, Contex, Epson  and other scanners with the same
>direct
>scanner density and optical resolution benchmarks.  I will also compare the
>scanner performance to the film requirements in order to attempt to address
>the
>issue of what scanners are better for what requirements.    I hope that it
>will
>be an appreciated contribution to the industry and people hungry for
>information to make informed scanner decisions.
>
>Sincerely
>Phil Lippincott
>
>
>Richard Bermack wrote:
>
>> I would agree with Jack's comments below (sans Genuine Fractals) I have an
>> LS 1000 and am making beautiful 13x19 prints using photoshop
>interpolation.
>> You can see the film grain, (HP5) so I'm not shure how much more detail
>you
>> could get with a 4000 dpi scan, perhaps sharper grain. I wonder if 2700
>dpi
>> is close to the resolution of a 400 asa b/w film like tri-x or hp5
>>
>> Richard Bermack
>>
>
>
>-
>Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
>subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
>  
-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.