V-12
Well-known
You are not scanning at optimum settings. 7200dpi is the scanners interpolated output, and interpolation is softening your image. The native resolution of the Plustek is somewhere around 3800 dpi, so try scanning at that. Also any form of dust removal etc. can radically degrade the image so never use it. Sharpen scans afterwards in Photoshop. The Plustek is an excellent scanner and can produce very very good scans.
cabbiinc
Slightly Irregular
7200 dpi is not the interpolated number, it's the max optical resolution.
Don't confuse effective resolution with optical resolution. You have to use all 7200 dpi of that scanner to get 3250 dpi's worth of quality. This of course assumes that you need 3250 dpi's worth of quality to begin with, and for some they'll never come close to needing that, others will.
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm8200i.html
Don't confuse effective resolution with optical resolution. You have to use all 7200 dpi of that scanner to get 3250 dpi's worth of quality. This of course assumes that you need 3250 dpi's worth of quality to begin with, and for some they'll never come close to needing that, others will.
boomguy57
Well-known
I have to say that I used to scan on my own with an Epson at home, leaving me frustrated. In fact, I almost quit shooting film because of it. I started sending mine out to NCPS, and love their scans. I get the "budget" scans (the cheaper of the two options) and they are great. I send them all my film too, and have been really pleased with the results. It takes about a week and I get all my negatives and CDs back.
I live far away from NCPS and haven't ever actually been to their store, but someone recommended them to me and I can't speak highly enough of them. I wait until I have about 25-40 rolls (35 and 120) and then send it to them. A week later I get my film, which I then put into neg holders and file away, and the scans are done. Saves me time and energy and frustration. Money well spent in my opinion.
brbo
Well-known
Don't confuse mechanical with optical resolution.
7200 dpi is mechanical resolution. In this case 7200 dpi is the best you can hope for. Stepping motor can make 7200 steps per inch so the ccd line sensor can get 7200 readings per inch. But since the lens also plays it's part, effective resolution will necessarily be less (a little less in scanners with good lenses and a lot less in scanners with bad lenses) than mechanical resolution.
So, even though lens can't resolve 7200dpi (or even 3600dpi), for final image it's a bit better to have 7200 slightly blurry readings per inch than 3600 slightly blurry readings per inch. It's still REAL data.
venchka
Veteran
No examples to back up Internet Expert Fact?
Wayne
Wayne
varchs
Well-known
I have a Rollei DF-S 190 SE and I use this Michel's Pollet guide for scanning my B&W negatives...
why don't you give it a try...
why don't you give it a try...
brbo
Well-known
I have some frames scanned and will post them tomorrow (it a bit late here already). Not the best examples to show the difference, but still...
BTW, why would someone make up something like that? filmscanner.info is IMHO one of the better internet resources for scanner tests and they regularly test and publish at what native resolution particular scanner reaches its optimum effective resolution. Besides, oversampling principle is generally known and used, not only in scanners. So, I'm a bit puzzled at your stance, do YOU have any examples to refute the "Internet Expert Fact"?
venchka
Veteran
I am not here to refute. I am here to learn. I learn best by seeing.
Wayne
Wayne
brbo
Well-known
So, I did Wayne's homework. Learning by seeing is good, learning by doing is even better.
All the scans were done on Canon Canoscan 9900f flatbed. I don't have any of the Plustek or Reflecta scanners that are known to need 7200 dpi at scanning to get effective resolution of about 3300 dpi (scanning at 3600 dpi reportedly yields less than that). So lets see if scanning at 3200 dpi as opposed to 1600 dpi will be, as Wayne claims, adding computer generated pixels and in turn degrade IQ. 3200 dpi is as high as Canoscan 9900f can go.
Canon Canoscan 9900f, 35mm Ektar 100 negative film, M6, 28/2. Full frames shown below were scanned as RAW in Vuescan (no multipass, no multiexposure, no ICE), inverted with ColorPerfect, adjusted for contrast and noise reduction in Lightroom, added clarity and sharpening in Photoshop. All in all, a 1-2 min work per frame.
Scans were done in succession with well warmed-up lamp and negative strip laid between two ANR glass plates.
Crops have no noise reduction and no clarity or sharpening added. All other adjustments were done on 3200dpi scan of the frame, same adjustments copy/pasted to 1600dpi frame.
100% crop...
1600dpi scan
3200dpi scan downsized to 1600 dpi
1600dpi
3200dpi --> 1600dpi
1600dpi
3200dpi --> 1600dpi
200% crop...
1600dpi
3200dpi --> 1600dpi
I can see very little improvement (but it is there) in perceived sharpness when scanning at 3200dpi and quite noticeable improvement in noise department (see the 200% crops). This is in agreement with oversampling principle. Same principle as multi-sampling that improves scans at the expense of longer scan times. So, again, I really don't know what is the basis for Wayne's thinking that oversampling will degrade scan quality?!
Set on flickr with all scans and crops...
All the scans were done on Canon Canoscan 9900f flatbed. I don't have any of the Plustek or Reflecta scanners that are known to need 7200 dpi at scanning to get effective resolution of about 3300 dpi (scanning at 3600 dpi reportedly yields less than that). So lets see if scanning at 3200 dpi as opposed to 1600 dpi will be, as Wayne claims, adding computer generated pixels and in turn degrade IQ. 3200 dpi is as high as Canoscan 9900f can go.
Canon Canoscan 9900f, 35mm Ektar 100 negative film, M6, 28/2. Full frames shown below were scanned as RAW in Vuescan (no multipass, no multiexposure, no ICE), inverted with ColorPerfect, adjusted for contrast and noise reduction in Lightroom, added clarity and sharpening in Photoshop. All in all, a 1-2 min work per frame.
Scans were done in succession with well warmed-up lamp and negative strip laid between two ANR glass plates.
Crops have no noise reduction and no clarity or sharpening added. All other adjustments were done on 3200dpi scan of the frame, same adjustments copy/pasted to 1600dpi frame.
100% crop...
1600dpi scan
3200dpi scan downsized to 1600 dpi
1600dpi
3200dpi --> 1600dpi
1600dpi
3200dpi --> 1600dpi
200% crop...
1600dpi
3200dpi --> 1600dpi
I can see very little improvement (but it is there) in perceived sharpness when scanning at 3200dpi and quite noticeable improvement in noise department (see the 200% crops). This is in agreement with oversampling principle. Same principle as multi-sampling that improves scans at the expense of longer scan times. So, again, I really don't know what is the basis for Wayne's thinking that oversampling will degrade scan quality?!
Set on flickr with all scans and crops...
scottsa
Member
Others have answered but not in a way I believe you are looking for. Additionally, there are terms that are not always used consistently.
Consumer scanners, typically flatbed or flatbed with transparency adapters have crude film carrier mechanisms. I am not familiar with using the OP Plustek, though have seen them. They do not instil confidence, but they obviously do work, but will pale by comparison to commercial or higher-quality, dedicated, film scanners.
I started with the carrier, because that is the physical interface most used by the operator. With the aforementioned scanners, focusing, maintaining a flat film-plane, etc., is a challenge. Irregular film plane, means inconsistent focus, reduced detail contrast, polluted colours, excessive sharpening to overcompensate.
To your question regarding "resolution", there are multiple factors at play. One response mentions stepper increments, the minimum distance the media, optical assembly or sensor is moved before the next line is captured.
If the manufacturer claims 7,200 dpi (spi, ppi), then typically that is the minimum relative [to the original's surface] distance the hardware transits.
This is misleading because the optical path cannot resolve to that fine of a spot. Indeed, there are no changing apertures to isolate increasingly smaller spots on the original. Typically, 1,200 ~ 2,400 spots/dots per inch is the discrete sampling area. Some are better than that with film because they adjust the optical path from letter width to a portion of that.
Regardless of adjustable optical path, large spots with small increments leads to a process of oversampling. While it is not really 7,200 dpi, it isn't all spinning wheels and wasted time.
The extra points sampled do reveal additional information while reducing the signal-nose ratio. if a given location is sampled 8, 16, even 64x, there is potential the result will be cleaner.
Maintaining this extra overhead for more than the time it takes to harvest the image is a waste. But for some images, this ability provided by inexpensive scanners can yield greater results than
more expedient modes.
I have an Epson V750 and a Nikon CS-9000, there is a sample in my gallery (albeit not an award-winning example) that demonstrates using this technique to produce scans close enough to each other that a print is indistinguishable. There are caveats, time is 4x longer and I used fluid mounting techniques to ensure the film was flat.
The essential point, the take away, is that some processing needs to be completed at the higher resolution. When reducing the file size, it is also important to use integer division. 7200, 3600, 1800, 900 are the only acceptable increments without potentially injecting artifacts with some scenes.
By pre-processing, then using nearest-neighbor interpolation, the highest degree of detail contrast will be maintained.
There is no reason, as mentioned, to keep the excessively high pixel-count images once the final reduced versions have been made.
As an aside, there is evidence that some advanced interpolation algorithms that 'rez-up' images before printing do indeed help in the rasterization process in the printer. They don't produce any more information, but they do enhance what is there in a more intelligent way than more mainstream alternatives.
The last detail not handled well by some sources (external to what I have seen here so far) is that all sensors are not equal. Every bit of 'depth' is a doubling of the shades of grey, per colour, that can be transported. Not a guarantee of capture, but space to capture.
The process of converting analogue light into a representative number becomes more accurate with greater bit-depth and quieter electronics. Since a larger portion of information perceived by people is in the first half of an image tones, it should be obvious that sampling at greater than 8-bits per pixel is a good thing (even if it is finally delivered to the computer as 8 bits). If so, it is essential to have the scanner do more work before reducing the bit depth.
It should also be noted that while many scanners tout 16-bit, optics, electronics and a few other details kill at least two bits in depth, so most are really 14 bits or less.
Failure to manage tonality at an early stage, such as within the camera or scanner, reduces colour and detail dramatically. Leads to overcompensation and rapidly decaying quality along the way.
I'm sure I missed something, but I hope this helps clarify a few things.
S
scottsa
Member
Do as much as you can in the scanner and 8-bit scans, or use 16-bit mode and post process. The Canon should be able to do a good deal of work internally (but not sharpening, that is often pixel-based). VueScan does communicate well with by setting look-up tables.
Before sub-sampling, be sure to adjust the image contrast, tonality and even selective colour correction if necessary. Then, after all the tonal work is done, apply unsharp masking (detail oriented). The aperture (radius) needs to be higher because detail is further apart, the amount may need to be lower because of the larger aperture.
Only after that work is done, should you sub-sample using nearest-neighbor, at integer increments, if you wish to have the sharpest possible images.
On my Epson V750, wet-mounted, I can consistently resolve film grain using this kind of workflow.
scottsa
Member
This was not the example I was looking for when originally loaded weeks ago, but one that works adequately even though it won't win any awards.
One side is from a scanner that is over 4x the cost (if you can find one), 4,000 dpi. and is 4x more productive. The ohter is less than 1/4 the cost but can scan 4x5, 8x10 and therefore my 6x9 and 6x12 negs. The CS can almost do the 6x9, and if I sacrifice about 2 mm, it is my preferred choice as it is significantly easier to get consistent work from it.
The ONLY way to achieve this close result is by over-sampling, as described earlier, processing the image and finally sub-sampling it before a last sharpening and saving to disk.
Please note, both scans were wet-mounted. Search Scan Science in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, for further info on their excellent products. Not affiliated, just a customer.
S
brbo
Well-known
I don't believe any home desktop scanner does much work (image wise) in-the-scanner. Scanner sends raw data to software and the software does all the manipulation. And sharpness is certainly not pixel-based. How do you sharpen a single pixel?! You don't. You need surrounding pixels to build up local contrast and that creates greater perceived sharpness.
Otherwise, I do the same as you. I do all contrast and colour work before resizing. After resizing I do clarity and sharpness adjustments.
scottsa
Member
I'm going to assume you quickly skimmed my comment, then tossed this message back. It makes an absurd assertion; a picture with one pixel. Immediately after discussions of thousands of pixels per inch, I can only attribute to distraction or not enough time to work it through. Regardless way it is of no service to either of us, or othes for that matter.
I will admit, it was late when I quickly composed my message to you. If you look, it was after a much longer response to another member. Time is limited and in haste my choice of words was more expedient than fully descriptive.
I would appreciate you reconsidering what was posted to you, as well as additional information I provide next. If you still feel the same way after that, then I guess we can meet at dawn for 20 paces. LOL!
Some clarifications are in order:
Technically all activities are pixel based, millions of pixels! In this circumstance the implied comment was "adjacent pixels", and only adjacent pixels. The algorithm is a 3x3, 9-pixel, matrix called a kernel. The center pixel is compared to the eight, surrounding and adjacent pixels, replaced by the result. Said kernel is offset by one pixel and the process is repeated for each and every pixel. I have written custom convolutions in the distant past.
This is what they look like:
-1 -1 -1
-1 5 -1
-1 -1 -1
I believe my intent was to *discourage* its use in scanner, if that was not conveyed well enough then this should remove doubt. There are better tools, such as unsharp masking (USM), for enhanced detail contrast. These tools allow adjustments to effectively detect period, the distance, contrast and amplitude of the original and apply it back to the image.
USM, for example, can replicate the effect of "pixel based" sharpening, such as the default of low-end scanning software. Many scanning applications do offer USM and it is easy to detect the difference. If there are no options, just "sharpen" and "sharpen more", for example, move along, there is little useful there.
USM is different from "pixel based" sharpening because it conceptually uses a second image. Traditionally it was done by hand, had been for many years before scanning was invented. It was a common technique in lithography to overcome the softening of the halftone process used in order to print. Even stochastic screening that has replace half-toning is a diffusion process, requiring USM to maintain perceived acuity.
Please note the above does agree with you regarding how some forms of detail enhancement function. Hopefully this clarifies the misunderstanding and errors in communicaton. For further information, feel free to ask me, Professor Google, or Dr. Wikipedia. The Peach Pit book "Real World Photoshop" also has a reasonable description of sharpening and unsharp masking, at least the versions I edited were acceptable. I have no reason to expect a degradation of its usefulness.
The scanner you have on your desktop is substantially more capable than an optical mouse -- and an optical mouse is a scanner with a digital signal processor (DSP) embedded in it. The mouse does not push raw, pictoral, information to the host, only the interpreted motion data.
If your desktop scanner was not self-calibrating and correcting its linearity, you would be, you would have streaks down the scans, and like the rest of the scanner owners, in your shorts. ;-)
In other words, even when requesting "raw" data from the scanner, it is pre-processing the image. I made reference to lookup tables (LUT). Those are basic, necessary, tonal transformations.
Innumerable tools in image manipulation applications use lookup tables. The interface may use bezier curves and power curves (called gamma) to calculate the lookup values, then process. If you have Photoshop, call up the Curves dialog, click on the pencil and draw in the box if you don't believe me.
Without that rudimentary ability, even cheap scanners would not be able to quickly manage digital-to-digital (D-D) transforms. The cheapest of modern scanners are at least 10 bits A-D, requiring 10-bit to 8-bit conversions.
The scanner you have, Epson scanners and others, all allow the driver to load LUTs and bias the output. This is unnecessary if you are taking raw, 16-bit data (typically accurate to 12 or 13 bits, 14 for higher quality machines).
It is a different story when scanning into 8-bit per colour files (24-bit, RGB colour files). This is why I offered two options regarding scanning. What I didn't spell out was that doing so reduces the data to transfer, usually through pokey USB2. Though it is half the data, it does not cut the time by half.
Let me re-iterate that. Given an 11 or 12-bit accuracy scanner, scanning to 8-bit per colour files, the data to transfer is halved. This answers concerns of other members. In these circumstances, a scanner driver needs to load a gamma curve with end points (white and black levels) in order to bias the D-D conversion. Not perfect, but > 95% for most, normal images. The final tweaking will rarely be a quality issue.
All of that is moot if you choose to scan in 16-bit mode (48-bit colour).
Thus, my intent was to offer two options. As I said, other members had concerns about scanning at higher resolutions taking longer. There are lots of images that will reproduce well from 8-bit scans.
I will head argument off before it can rear its head. Regardless of my assertions, you need to know your own equipment. Take a good original and a calibration scale if you have one. Make a 24-bit scan without adjusting anything. Then, make a second scan with adjustments to white, black and gamma (curves are harder to replicate). Copy the first scan and apply the same controls, then compare the histograms of each (use a screen capture so you can put them side by each).
If the two adjusted images are identical, try a different driver. Also note, some scanners invert their curve notation. If this is the case, divide 1 by the gamma value. Therefore 1/1.8 = 0.555.
Actually, my workflow is broader than what was noted in that message but you had no way to know that. I wet mount my high-quality scans, for example, and have the luxury of some nice hardware to do it with.
I'm glad to hear you are doing some of the things I suggested at higher resolutions and bit-depths. It is apparent by the samples you posted that more is possible. The difference between the 1600 and 3200->1600 should be noticeable on many images, without degrading qualities.
If you wish to make available the 3200 dpi original of the 3200-1600 sample you posted, I will be happy to return it exposing the extra details available. Of course I will delete the file when I'm done, if you accept the offer. You will then have the option to post the results, I will not do that.
Additionally, "Clarity" is basically a combination of unsharp masking and colour saturation adjustments. Nothing wrong with the tool, just sometimes more or less of one is required. Knowledge is always key to solutions.
As well, you are sharpening upon previously sharpened image. Again, nothing wrong with that technique, if the values are different, I do it all the time, literally.
Finally, because 'clarity' has a colour-specific, not specific-colour, effect, it should be done at high resolutions as a general rule. In fact sharpening should be done at higher resolutions so the image looks appropriate at 25% zoom, 50% normal resolution.
Please ask for clarification if something doesn't seem right or if I've not explained well enough. Given the time, I'm happy to accommodate.
Scott
---
Please also note, my first response to this message is about double this length. I did describe supporting factors as well as alternate ways to understand USM, etc., but it was too much for one post. Even this is way too long, hopefully it is of use, I don't like wasting valuable time -- mine that of others.
brbo
Well-known
Scott, how you got the idea that we need to meet 'for 20 paces' is absolutely beyond me. Indeed, I still feel the same way (sharpness is not a matter of a single pixel and home consumer scanners do very little image wise directly in the scanner). So, now what?! Never held a gun in my life, I guess I should just hide, right?
Please, don't assume that. English is not my native language so I tend to be more careful when reading and writing in English. When I read 'sharpening is pixel based' I tend to take it as that. And when I write 'image based' or 'image wise' I tend to mean it.
I now understand that you didn't mean you can increase perceived sharpness without surrounding data. But the first time you wrote it in that way.
And my intent was to point out that scanners we are discussing here don't know how to sharpen a scan. There is no point in discouraging it when we both know no sharpening can be done directly in the scanner.
And I stand by what I said that scanners do very little image wise (please, note that I said image wise; not pixel wise!) directly in the scanner. Scanners don't know how to sharpen the image, don't know how to invert a negative image, don't know how to adjust black/white point etc. All that is done in user space software. We are discussing home 'consumer' scanners and those do NOT have hundreds of MB or GB of buffer capabilities nor processing power needed to do any of image manipulation. They transmit data back to the computer literary line by line.
True, calibrating compensates for uneven illumination caused by defects in light emitting source itself and other obstacles in the light path (dust on light source/mirror/sensor...). I would call this is pixel based (as individual pixels are 'evened out' at calibration scan and resulting matrix applied to a 'real scan') and indeed happens in the scanner, but I can see that someone would treat that as image manipulating operation done in the scanner. No problem, I said very little (I didn't say 'none') of image base manipulation is done in the scanner.
Virtually all other image manipulation like inverting, levels, sharpening, gamma, scanner icc profiling... - all done outside the scanner in the software.
Maybe you are just treating user space scanning software as part of the scanner and I'm not?!
Scanning in 8-bit vs 16-bit depth will save you practically no time. Tested and tried on multiple scanners and computers (1-2% variation in scanning times - obviously more attributable to measuring error than anything else). All modern computers (and by modern I mean even computers that are 5 or more years old and that is pretty ancient in computer world) and scanner interfaces are more than fast enough to handle transfers from scanner to computer. Scanning time is effectively decided by scanners ability to get a fast readout of the line sensor, which is determined mostly by the line sensor exposure time needed. User deciding to "package" the readout into 8-bit envelope will not decrease this time of exposure.
I would love to see your data on which scanners and on what computers you find noticeable decrease in scanning times when using 8-bit, though.
If you read the thread carefully, you would know that I did this comparison for Wayne. To display that better quality is possible by scanning with higher dpi setting and still not consuming more disk space for a particular file. So, 3200dpi scan was downsized to 1600dpi immediately after scanning (you can have Vuescan do this for you in the background so you never ever need any extra disk space when scanning at higher dpi settings). That was the point.
Unfortunately, because Wayne never commented on the scans (let alone expressed any appreciation for me going through the trouble of setting up my flatbed scanner) I assumed he wasn't really that interested in actual results, I deleted the files. But I can do another scan at 3200dpi and 1600dpi so you can have a go. As a 'dad with a camera (and a few scanners
)' I would really appreciate any advice or trick (that I don't know about already) on scanning and would gladly have a look at a file that a pro can produce from my raw scanner output.I will do the scans and will make them available to download and will publish a link here or in PM if that's what you prefer.
* Please, note that when I write 'scanners' I'm referring to home consumer scanners that are subject of this thread.
** Please, also note that there is no easy way to communicate the 'tone' of one's writing. So, if you again find my writing offensive as you hinted in a PM to me, please point out the sections you would like me to rewrite to be more polite (if that is possible). I will gladly do it. I'm not here to hurt anyone's feelings. Far from it.
DrTebi
Slide Lover
Wow this has turned in quite a "hot" discussion...
There are a couple of things not mentioned that I would like to point out, based on my own experience:
1)
2) For the purpose of on-screen presentation, I always post-process my images and then resize them to the maximum possible resolution that my monitor can cover. In other words, for my 1680x1050 monitor, I resize everything to that size or smaller. I do this because most image viewers will by default resize any image that is larger than your monitors resolution, and, unfortunately, "smooth" the image in the process. This practically makes all your sharpening useless (when viewing images on your monitor). But by resizing to your monitors size or smaller, images are not resized by the image viewer and the actual pixels are displayed just as you saw your image when you did the final sharpening of the resized image.
I hope I am making sense... it's a bit hard to explain, but it works for me.
There are a couple of things not mentioned that I would like to point out, based on my own experience:
1)
Well, I disagree. At least if you do have the space to waste. I do keep the high pixel-count files, simply because I do not want to scan the negative again later on, should I decide to make a large print from it. I also find that any handling of negatives later on, for a second scan, may introduce dust, scratches etc. Of course that could be eliminated by very careful handling, but let's be real... it happens.
2) For the purpose of on-screen presentation, I always post-process my images and then resize them to the maximum possible resolution that my monitor can cover. In other words, for my 1680x1050 monitor, I resize everything to that size or smaller. I do this because most image viewers will by default resize any image that is larger than your monitors resolution, and, unfortunately, "smooth" the image in the process. This practically makes all your sharpening useless (when viewing images on your monitor). But by resizing to your monitors size or smaller, images are not resized by the image viewer and the actual pixels are displayed just as you saw your image when you did the final sharpening of the resized image.
I hope I am making sense... it's a bit hard to explain, but it works for me.
scottsa
Member
I am separating my answer into two parts, the scanning discussion is in the second one. This is, by intent, an answer to perception and communication.
I don't spend much time here, certainly not as much as I would like. Now, a couple of days, later I see my last response did not post properly. Ahh, technology. I will try to recover something and post it but won't be able to say much now and some points will need to be left for other discussions.
My "20 paces" comment was rhetorical -- especially considering how unimportant some of the relevant details are. That is because it is outlandish to consider dispute resolution from such an arcane and flawed process, etc., in this modern context. It was meant, in fact, to be humorous (the LOL) though obviously that can be lost in translation but... not completely as your emoticon seems to show.
Before progressing on this I should note that I frequently state that my comments are to be considered constructive or, occasinoally, in jest. If they do not read that way, then it is an interpretation problem, not one of intent. Time is too valualbe to waste on anything else, especiallly insignificant, historical, minutia (small stuff).
There is no way I can be critical of anyone such as yourself that has gone out of their way to provide information, such as sample scans, for the benefit of others. Without that information, I would have to replicate instead of simply augment it with my experience. The sum is greater than the individual parts and that is what this forum is all about.
I was not offended by any comment, but one is problematic. This is ONLY for clarification due translation; constructive for FUTURE purposes. Period! Your first response can read as dismissive, it dictated an answer to the only question.
It discredits what was said and is therefore a disservice to my comment. This can confuse a reader trying to understand the real topic (not this attempt at clarification). It becomes a further disservice to yourself because later comments, some by yourself, expose the misunderstanding and baseless statements (which is yet to be fully resolved, apparently).
The reality is the world will continue to revolve wether you agree to what I say or not. You will be served well to consider the real probability those statements are well reasoned and substantiated.
In practical terms, there are few differences as you are at least generally correct on a majority of points. At the same time I can assure you I too am correct (on more points than you recognize so far).
The main problems reside in terms of reference and definitions of those terms (language barrier may not help, though your writing is respectable). It also does not help that intended purposes are not fully aligned -- how both of us can be correct, but with seemingly contradictory views.
What is important, however, is others have the opportunity to consider information offered without disruption. Furthermore , to consider this in relation to their needs, not what you or I pre-determine they need.
In other words it does not matter that a majority of modern computers are not hampered by file-size, that 1~2% deviation in timing, there are still machines in use today that are significantly slowed by such workflow. Additionally, I spoke to complete task, not just file to disk, for a finished image.
To close this portion of discussion, everyone has something to contribute, even if it is inspiration for discussion through a question. I freely admit I don't know everything on this subject or others, nor will I ever. Recognition notwithstanding, I am comforted by the fact I am not alone.
As for scans:
At your convenience, three full resolution crops, plus one sub-sampled, is what I will require for demonstrative purposes. Two, full bit depth, straight from the scanner at target and oversampled resolutions (1600 & 3200 dpi, 48-bit colour). The subject image should be a good, properly focussed, illuminated and exposed, exampe. It should have clean neutrals and a reasonable palette of colours. Critically, it needs to be of a subject where fine details (both subtle and obvious) are present.
This specification means whatever is done cannot be heavy-handed nor can it be narrowly applied. In other words needs a broader application and cannot excessively borrow from one part of an image for another. Furthermore, any unreasonable deficiencies in the image can degrade the result and either obscure or confuse evaluation of results.
Finally, two more images will be helpful. First, your own attempt at reveailing potential details within the image, therefore a final, 48-bin, 3200 dpi scan sub-sampled to 1600 dpi, 24-bit RGB version. This will re-confirm your present skills and isolate where I may be helpful. Ass well this image answer any potential questions regarding what you think the image should look like -- the exercise is about objective detail contrast after all. Second, and final, an 8-bit monochrome conversion of the image should be included. This has some close paralels to the 'detail' subject at hand.
I'm rather busy in my regular work at the moment, so don't rush. On the other hand, the subject is current and is likely more benneficial if done in the reasonable near future. The image you choose, and the results would be best if they can be posted -- but that will be your decision. I won't even retain any copies, not my image, not my copyright.
As for transfer, it will depend upon your resources and the image (whatever copyright concerns you may have). While I don't wish to download a 300MB image, it needs to be large enough to work with. I am privileged to have two high-speed Internet connections in my office, and equally privileged to pay for them regardless of reasonably low usage.
I look forward to a meaningful discussion.
Scott
PS. Pro, or other terms, are often meaningless as I know 'amateurs' that have greater talent and skill than many wearing the hat (advertising title, not necessarily owning it). While I have walked a few places, picked up a few boxes of t-shirts along the way, I really don't like hats (or suits) much.
... also, I decided just to answer this now instead of coming back to it again.
Scott, how you got the idea that we need to meet 'for 20 paces' is absolutely beyond me. Indeed, I still feel the same way (sharpness is not a matter of a single pixel and home consumer scanners do very little image wise directly in the scanner). So, now what?! Never held a gun in my life, I guess I should just hide, right?
../snip/..
Unfortunately, because Wayne never commented on the scans (let alone expressed any appreciation for me going through the trouble of setting up my flatbed scanner) I assumed he wasn't really that interested in actual results, I deleted the files. But I can do another scan at 3200dpi and 1600dpi so you can have a go. As a 'dad with a camera (and a few scanners
I will do the scans and will make them available to download and will publish a link here or in PM if that's what you prefer.
** Please, also note that there is no easy way to communicate the 'tone' of one's writing. So, if you again find my writing offensive as you hinted in a PM to me, please point out the sections you would like me to rewrite to be more polite (if that is possible). I will gladly do it. I'm not here to hurt anyone's feelings. Far from it.
I don't spend much time here, certainly not as much as I would like. Now, a couple of days, later I see my last response did not post properly. Ahh, technology. I will try to recover something and post it but won't be able to say much now and some points will need to be left for other discussions.
My "20 paces" comment was rhetorical -- especially considering how unimportant some of the relevant details are. That is because it is outlandish to consider dispute resolution from such an arcane and flawed process, etc., in this modern context. It was meant, in fact, to be humorous (the LOL) though obviously that can be lost in translation but... not completely as your emoticon seems to show.
Before progressing on this I should note that I frequently state that my comments are to be considered constructive or, occasinoally, in jest. If they do not read that way, then it is an interpretation problem, not one of intent. Time is too valualbe to waste on anything else, especiallly insignificant, historical, minutia (small stuff).
There is no way I can be critical of anyone such as yourself that has gone out of their way to provide information, such as sample scans, for the benefit of others. Without that information, I would have to replicate instead of simply augment it with my experience. The sum is greater than the individual parts and that is what this forum is all about.
I was not offended by any comment, but one is problematic. This is ONLY for clarification due translation; constructive for FUTURE purposes. Period! Your first response can read as dismissive, it dictated an answer to the only question.
It discredits what was said and is therefore a disservice to my comment. This can confuse a reader trying to understand the real topic (not this attempt at clarification). It becomes a further disservice to yourself because later comments, some by yourself, expose the misunderstanding and baseless statements (which is yet to be fully resolved, apparently).
The reality is the world will continue to revolve wether you agree to what I say or not. You will be served well to consider the real probability those statements are well reasoned and substantiated.
In practical terms, there are few differences as you are at least generally correct on a majority of points. At the same time I can assure you I too am correct (on more points than you recognize so far).
The main problems reside in terms of reference and definitions of those terms (language barrier may not help, though your writing is respectable). It also does not help that intended purposes are not fully aligned -- how both of us can be correct, but with seemingly contradictory views.
What is important, however, is others have the opportunity to consider information offered without disruption. Furthermore , to consider this in relation to their needs, not what you or I pre-determine they need.
In other words it does not matter that a majority of modern computers are not hampered by file-size, that 1~2% deviation in timing, there are still machines in use today that are significantly slowed by such workflow. Additionally, I spoke to complete task, not just file to disk, for a finished image.
To close this portion of discussion, everyone has something to contribute, even if it is inspiration for discussion through a question. I freely admit I don't know everything on this subject or others, nor will I ever. Recognition notwithstanding, I am comforted by the fact I am not alone.
As for scans:
At your convenience, three full resolution crops, plus one sub-sampled, is what I will require for demonstrative purposes. Two, full bit depth, straight from the scanner at target and oversampled resolutions (1600 & 3200 dpi, 48-bit colour). The subject image should be a good, properly focussed, illuminated and exposed, exampe. It should have clean neutrals and a reasonable palette of colours. Critically, it needs to be of a subject where fine details (both subtle and obvious) are present.
This specification means whatever is done cannot be heavy-handed nor can it be narrowly applied. In other words needs a broader application and cannot excessively borrow from one part of an image for another. Furthermore, any unreasonable deficiencies in the image can degrade the result and either obscure or confuse evaluation of results.
Finally, two more images will be helpful. First, your own attempt at reveailing potential details within the image, therefore a final, 48-bin, 3200 dpi scan sub-sampled to 1600 dpi, 24-bit RGB version. This will re-confirm your present skills and isolate where I may be helpful. Ass well this image answer any potential questions regarding what you think the image should look like -- the exercise is about objective detail contrast after all. Second, and final, an 8-bit monochrome conversion of the image should be included. This has some close paralels to the 'detail' subject at hand.
I'm rather busy in my regular work at the moment, so don't rush. On the other hand, the subject is current and is likely more benneficial if done in the reasonable near future. The image you choose, and the results would be best if they can be posted -- but that will be your decision. I won't even retain any copies, not my image, not my copyright.
As for transfer, it will depend upon your resources and the image (whatever copyright concerns you may have). While I don't wish to download a 300MB image, it needs to be large enough to work with. I am privileged to have two high-speed Internet connections in my office, and equally privileged to pay for them regardless of reasonably low usage.
I look forward to a meaningful discussion.
Scott
PS. Pro, or other terms, are often meaningless as I know 'amateurs' that have greater talent and skill than many wearing the hat (advertising title, not necessarily owning it). While I have walked a few places, picked up a few boxes of t-shirts along the way, I really don't like hats (or suits) much.
... also, I decided just to answer this now instead of coming back to it again.
brbo
Well-known
Scott, I rescanned the same frames (as I don't have my negatives catalogued it would be a MAJOR chore to try to find the most suitable negatives for your demonstration; this was the first strip I found of Ektar 100 (as good as it gets negative film) and I know that I used good shutter speed, large enough dof and my sharpest lens). RAW scans (not even rotated) directly from Canon 9900f:
http://ubuntuone.com/2dOuuIzzRffQ5oZ9vazs2U
http://ubuntuone.com/4ebCKB7kU6tXDt7jJLroeI
http://ubuntuone.com/6LM2E8ZEuHFs8sWY8qgspA
http://ubuntuone.com/6FfTorAGmpgX4EMoPZwXQa
http://ubuntuone.com/0w9CT3GfSQhfIDfpY1qOQc
http://ubuntuone.com/4AtZFRbSKBPjdbAbOwfgLe
http://ubuntuone.com/5V1wh7jBxkLQuyfg2swEtR
http://ubuntuone.com/01vCAz76dUfcyn2dDiswi1
Although, those are not the same scans I posted before (those were deleted), I think they should be pretty close. Rescans were done in the same way as originally posted examples. Scott, you can do whatever you want/need with the files, post them anywhere for everyone to see etc.
As this thread was originally home consumer scanner vs. minilab scans I will also take this strip of Ektar 100 to my local minilab for scanning. I haven't used a minilab for quite a while as I do all my film developing and scanning at home, but I remember that I quite liked minilab scans when I started using film. Yes, they were (over)sharpened, too contrasty and colours were not really as I saw them when I took the picture, but the overall feel of the scan was, I don't really know how to describe it, erm, good/attractive/interesting...
I will post the scans from minilab, so we will have a side by side comparison of home user scans with a 'as-low-as-it-gets' quality flatbed scanner vs. minilab scans (I hope to have them scanned on fuji and agfa machines to show differences between different minilab equipment).
http://ubuntuone.com/2dOuuIzzRffQ5oZ9vazs2U
http://ubuntuone.com/4ebCKB7kU6tXDt7jJLroeI
http://ubuntuone.com/6LM2E8ZEuHFs8sWY8qgspA
http://ubuntuone.com/6FfTorAGmpgX4EMoPZwXQa
http://ubuntuone.com/0w9CT3GfSQhfIDfpY1qOQc
http://ubuntuone.com/4AtZFRbSKBPjdbAbOwfgLe
http://ubuntuone.com/5V1wh7jBxkLQuyfg2swEtR
http://ubuntuone.com/01vCAz76dUfcyn2dDiswi1
Although, those are not the same scans I posted before (those were deleted), I think they should be pretty close. Rescans were done in the same way as originally posted examples. Scott, you can do whatever you want/need with the files, post them anywhere for everyone to see etc.
As this thread was originally home consumer scanner vs. minilab scans I will also take this strip of Ektar 100 to my local minilab for scanning. I haven't used a minilab for quite a while as I do all my film developing and scanning at home, but I remember that I quite liked minilab scans when I started using film. Yes, they were (over)sharpened, too contrasty and colours were not really as I saw them when I took the picture, but the overall feel of the scan was, I don't really know how to describe it, erm, good/attractive/interesting...
I will post the scans from minilab, so we will have a side by side comparison of home user scans with a 'as-low-as-it-gets' quality flatbed scanner vs. minilab scans (I hope to have them scanned on fuji and agfa machines to show differences between different minilab equipment).