Custom Search
|
|
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] |
Custom Search
|
Hi Kennedy As I previously mentioned Ektachrome E100SV has grain that can be optically scanned at 8000 dpi without a problem. I believe all of the newest formulation films from Kodak and Fuji may use the newer "T structure" or similar random grain technology to that patented by Agfa a few years ago. Kodak has had a number of new patents approved also for new dye formulations that are better suited for scanning. This is where Portra came from VPS also. In my testing of scanners no scanner has had an optical visible resolution better than 8000 dpi equivalent. Most 5600 optical specified scanners really have 3500 or less. The CCD scanners lack of quality gives people the perception that this all the film has but it's not true. Most film is better than most scanners and most professional scanners are better than digi cams. Also slow scan scan backs are nothing more than relocatible small CCD scanners themselves. Phil Lippincott Aztek Kennedy McEwen wrote: > In article <3D000891.F1BE1BAE@worldnet.att.net>, Phil.Lippincott > <phil.lippincott@worldnet.att.net> writes > >Big Apples Sign scanned an Ektachrome E100SV 35mm slide for me at 8000 > >dpi optical. This scan produced a 250 mega byte flawless with no grain > >full fidelity histogram file that they directly printed from the Aztek > >Digital PhotoLab scanning software (without Photoshop) on their Lambda > >to a 50 inch by 150 inch print. We have a one of these prints on our > >wall (in California) from this picture and you can walk up with your > >nose to the print or look at it from across the room, and it is perfect. > > Perfect? I find that difficult to believe. As has been mentioned many > times on this list and elsewhere, an average eye can easily resolve over > 100lppi at a close viewing distance of 10". A 150in print from a 35mm > frame is a magnification of over 100. So, to have a perfectly sharp, > ungrained result, the combination of both film and taking lens must have > a resolution of 10,000lppi. Assuming that film and lens contribute > equally to this resolution then we need a lens AND film capability of > 15,000lppi - and that doesn't even include the scanner limits, which you > state is only a quarter of this perfect performance! > > 1. Kodak don't have any ISO100 versions of Extrachrome which come close > to 15,000lppi resolution on their website - and I am fairly certain they > would be shouting it from the rooftops if they did. Their best > published figures look like limiting Ektachrome resolution less that a > fifth of this. > > 2. A perfect lens will only produce this sort of resolution if opened > up beyond f/2, and very few lenses are this close to perfect, especially > at wide apertures. > > 3. Even just using the 8000ppi scanning resolution as the only > limitation, the effective resolution on a 150in print reduces to 80ppi, > which, although difficult to focus on "with your nose to the print" is > CLEARLY visible when viewed from 10". > > My conclusion can only be that whilst your 50x150inch print from 35mm > film looks impressive, it certainly is a long way short of perfect on > the resolution stakes alone. > > To paraphrase Scotty "Ye cannae brek the laws o' physics, Phill!" > -- > Kennedy > Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; > A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. > Python Philosophers > - > 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.
 |