|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Medium format scanners which use a 4000 dpi sensor provide medium format scans at about 9000 x 9000 pixels for a 6x6cm scan and larger with longer film frames. The scanner you mention below is fine for sill life or slow moving circumstances (1/125th second of slower shutter speed), but it won't due for faster shutter speed requirements, and what does it cost? If this is a scanning back, it is working at an equivalent of 1/125th second, but it takes 4 minutes to do it, meaning the photographed object has to pretty much be dead. It is nice to get a 378MB file in 4 minutes (I guess), but a 1/8th second equivalent shutter speed takes 32 minutes to produce. By that time even a bowl of fruit is likely to go moldy ;-) Sorry, I'll stick with my funny silver based cameras for now, which allow me to capture images in a fraction of a second. I'm sure eventually CCD sensors and fast memory will make for much faster digital capture at these resolutions, but not yet. Art David Chien wrote: > Damn. Forgot which advertiser had their super high resolution digital > imaging system that could be used to 'scan' stills at 10,000x10,000+ > resolution. > > They had an advertisement in one of those digital imaging magazines last > year which showed an extremely high-powered blowup of a small area of > their sample -- literally showing you the finest details. > > Anyways, it the meantime, try betterlight.com or phaseone.com > > eg. while this is only a 10,500x12,600 digital imager, it should get you > going in the right direction (the other one above I talked about goes > higher -- vaguely remembering it going to 15,000) > > http://www.phaseone.com/en/PRODUCTS/scan/PowerPhaseFX.htm > > For certain, you'll =easily= match and exceed 35mm film quality with > this 132MP imager ;) > > ------------------- > > Anyways, as quoted from Photonics magazine article with a Kodak film > scientist, he currently says that estimates of how many MP film's upper > limit is is approximately 25MP (was 24.xx, but I've forgotten). And > that's for the regular stuff not counting TechPan. > > Realistically, ~8MP will start to match a quality P&S camera like an > Olympus Styus Epic, with both achieving ~50lp/mm of resolution in the > images created. > > Naturally, since most 35mm SLR camera lenses of good quality go much > higher, to 100+lp/mm, you will need to increase the MP of the digital > caemra you use up to Kodak's figure of ~25MP to match the film and lens > combo you typically use, and accordingly, the resolution and quality > you've been getting from that film setup. > > -- > > Most working professionals have bumped into the limit of traditional > desktop slide scanners, and thus have jumped up to things like drum > scans and Imacon Flextight (desktop drum-like scanners) film scanners > instead for better scans and resolution from their slides. > > Similarly, professionals using digital cameras have jumped past the > usual lot of <6MP digicams into the world of high-end imagers like those > sold by BetterLight.com and Phaseone.com. That's because physically, > you simply can not get more than 50lp/mm of resolution (or even 50lp/mm > of resolution) from any digtial camera with less than 8MP of image > information. Since most pros want their work to exceed the general > quality of a basic 35mm P&S camera, those high-end imagers are usually > the way to go. > > Happily, those imagers will easily exceed 35mm film and match medium > format without trouble. You'll easiy be abel to match and exceed the > quality of work you achieve today with any 35mm camera setup, and be on > your way to nirvana. > - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.