AlexMax
Established
Hi
I am considering to buy a high spec scanner, so scan my negatives ( most scanning services charge a lot for scanning at high res... )
I wonder.. How much of a scanner will I need to capture what my lenses see..
What is the expectable lpmm of lenses at sharpest aperture?
Summicron 50mm f2
Summicron 90mm f2
Nokton 50mm f1.1
Nokton 50mm f1.5
Elmar 135mm f2.8
Super Elmarit 135mm f2.8
Zeiss planar 50mm f2
Zeiss biogon 35mm f2
Zeiss distagon 18mm f4
Nokton 35mm f1.2
Ultron 35mm f1.7
Super wide heliar 15mm
Ultra wide heliar 12mm
Afaik,some Summicrons, and Planars out resolve the capability of camera and scanner sensors, but, just by how much... ??
Is it expectable to get a 100 Mp digital negative scan out of a negative of Portra, or Ektra, or Neopan Acros 100 in a scanner with 10000 dpi resolution... ?
Best regards
Alex
I am considering to buy a high spec scanner, so scan my negatives ( most scanning services charge a lot for scanning at high res... )
I wonder.. How much of a scanner will I need to capture what my lenses see..
What is the expectable lpmm of lenses at sharpest aperture?
Summicron 50mm f2
Summicron 90mm f2
Nokton 50mm f1.1
Nokton 50mm f1.5
Elmar 135mm f2.8
Super Elmarit 135mm f2.8
Zeiss planar 50mm f2
Zeiss biogon 35mm f2
Zeiss distagon 18mm f4
Nokton 35mm f1.2
Ultron 35mm f1.7
Super wide heliar 15mm
Ultra wide heliar 12mm
Afaik,some Summicrons, and Planars out resolve the capability of camera and scanner sensors, but, just by how much... ??
Is it expectable to get a 100 Mp digital negative scan out of a negative of Portra, or Ektra, or Neopan Acros 100 in a scanner with 10000 dpi resolution... ?
Best regards
Alex
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I can't answer the questions you asked but will offer one or two in response.
Firstly, negatives mean prints to me and beyond 8" x 12" (or A4 in practice) people don't look closely at prints. At 300dpi that's about 8 megapixels. You can get that by scanning at 2400dpi. So does a higher scanning rate matter?
FWIW, the hype we got when digital started made me experiment. I did prints up to 24" x 18" and smaller (A3) ones at various resolutions (100, 200, 300dpi). I also did some as posters, meaning printing 4 or so sheets and gluing them together. All people commented on was the subject matter. I never got any comments about the technical aspects. and often had to point out the joins in the posters to get them mentioned.
Since then printers and digital cameras have improved a lot and I dare say my conclusions will apply to a scan of a negative. It might save you a bit of cash if I add that I've never seen any one looking at a billboard from a few inches away, but if you do you wonder how they get away with it...
Regards, David
PS What baffles me is the people using and insisting upon, 18 megapixel cameras to make pictures for their 1 or even 2 megapixel monitors. Why do they bother?
I can't answer the questions you asked but will offer one or two in response.
Firstly, negatives mean prints to me and beyond 8" x 12" (or A4 in practice) people don't look closely at prints. At 300dpi that's about 8 megapixels. You can get that by scanning at 2400dpi. So does a higher scanning rate matter?
FWIW, the hype we got when digital started made me experiment. I did prints up to 24" x 18" and smaller (A3) ones at various resolutions (100, 200, 300dpi). I also did some as posters, meaning printing 4 or so sheets and gluing them together. All people commented on was the subject matter. I never got any comments about the technical aspects. and often had to point out the joins in the posters to get them mentioned.
Since then printers and digital cameras have improved a lot and I dare say my conclusions will apply to a scan of a negative. It might save you a bit of cash if I add that I've never seen any one looking at a billboard from a few inches away, but if you do you wonder how they get away with it...
Regards, David
PS What baffles me is the people using and insisting upon, 18 megapixel cameras to make pictures for their 1 or even 2 megapixel monitors. Why do they bother?
AlexMax
Established
What baffles me EVEN MORE, is ppl buying 18+ MPix full frames, knowing that :
1. Within 3 or less years, they will be Digital Junk.
2. The image capture medium is entangled with the image capturing hardware.
3. The dynamic range of Digital is still years light back to what one gets in film.
4. The digital noise, makes it unsuitable for long exposures.
In short, within 10 years, i will be scanning a negative taken with my M6 , or with my Bessa R2a, or my Leicaflex SL, TODAY with a technology that no DSLR sensor or scanner sensor offers as of TODAY.
My M6 and my Summicron will still take outstanding pics with some Portra, or Adox, or Ektra, with more resolution, DR, IQ... than a 3000$ USD Nikon d810 of 2014... and ... BTW : where will that nikon d810 be...?? will it work without a battery...??
This is what really baffles me...
David Hughes
David Hughes
We'll have to start a club...
Regards, David
PS (Edit) I recently sold a very serious dSLR and lens and then calculated that every file I made with it cost 67pennies (UK version of pennies, btw). That's the equivalent of a strip of 36 negatives costing me UKP 23-50 But my scanned film neg's cost me just under 21p each...
Regards, David
PS (Edit) I recently sold a very serious dSLR and lens and then calculated that every file I made with it cost 67pennies (UK version of pennies, btw). That's the equivalent of a strip of 36 negatives costing me UKP 23-50 But my scanned film neg's cost me just under 21p each...
Last edited:
AlexMax
Established
I mean... Digital Hipsters hate to admit it :
The rate of devaluation of their gear, is insane, when compared to good old quality Glass and bodies.
That would even be mildly acceptable IF : The image quality would be much higher, but it isn´t.
They will argue that a full featured DSLr can take one gazillion pictures per second... yeah, so what...??
Have you ever seen a sniper using a machine gun..?? one shot, one kill, period.
It is pretty much like the japanese discipline of Kyudo : the emphasis is not placed in "firepower", but in precision, instead. Freezing a moment in a frame, that is what photography is.
Of course that in some situations ( journalism, sports, action coverage in war scenarios ) one must really take one gazillion pictures per second, and hope to retain a few keepers,... but these are some very specific niches of photography... IMO
The rate of devaluation of their gear, is insane, when compared to good old quality Glass and bodies.
That would even be mildly acceptable IF : The image quality would be much higher, but it isn´t.
They will argue that a full featured DSLr can take one gazillion pictures per second... yeah, so what...??
Have you ever seen a sniper using a machine gun..?? one shot, one kill, period.
It is pretty much like the japanese discipline of Kyudo : the emphasis is not placed in "firepower", but in precision, instead. Freezing a moment in a frame, that is what photography is.
Of course that in some situations ( journalism, sports, action coverage in war scenarios ) one must really take one gazillion pictures per second, and hope to retain a few keepers,... but these are some very specific niches of photography... IMO
NJH
Member
Sadly I have pixel peeped 5400 dpi scans done on Velvia and Acros to compare some of my CV lenses like the 25/4 to the two Leica lenses I have the 28 Elmarit ASPH and the 50 Elmar-M. There is a difference but its basically a difference between crisply resolved detail and slightly soft detail. Of course in the odd areas in an image where the contrast means detail is only just resolved will mean in an A to B comparison one would expect to see a clear gap between the expensive Leica glass and the CV glass but that would be a somewhat sad science project rather than a good use of ones time. In summary what I am saying is that there is a difference but it is very small, as an example I have played with displaying files on my macbook retina at print resolution at sizes such as 20" long and really struggle to see a difference from say a foot and half from the screen, go for 24"+ and its more obvious but its still only a slight difference and then only when shooting at F8 high shutter speed and films like Velvia or Acros. Honestly I think people waste a tremendous amount of money chasing tiny differences in lens performance.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Look here and you might find what you want, although it's not in lpmm:
http://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Leica-M-Lenses-Their-Soul-and-Secrets_en.pdf
I hope it's some use to you.
Regards, David
Look here and you might find what you want, although it's not in lpmm:
http://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Leica-M-Lenses-Their-Soul-and-Secrets_en.pdf
I hope it's some use to you.
Regards, David
AlexMax
Established
Hi
Thanks for the link...
Best regards,
Alex
Thanks for the link...
Best regards,
Alex
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Another post reminded me of something and I spent last night looking through some old magazines from the 70's and 80's. FWIW, they did lpmm tests then and all the decent ones did more than 96, which seemed to me to be the limit of their equipment rather than the lens. Usually the Summicrons hit 96 at about f/5.6 (even f/4) and stayed there to f/8 or f/11.
I also saw a test of the Summicron against the Zeiss but a graph (poor to excellent type) and not figures and the CZ was better in the middle from memory but the Leica was better at the edges. Don't ask me to find again as the heap was too high and took too long to go through (and so will the recycling bin).
Regards, David
Another post reminded me of something and I spent last night looking through some old magazines from the 70's and 80's. FWIW, they did lpmm tests then and all the decent ones did more than 96, which seemed to me to be the limit of their equipment rather than the lens. Usually the Summicrons hit 96 at about f/5.6 (even f/4) and stayed there to f/8 or f/11.
I also saw a test of the Summicron against the Zeiss but a graph (poor to excellent type) and not figures and the CZ was better in the middle from memory but the Leica was better at the edges. Don't ask me to find again as the heap was too high and took too long to go through (and so will the recycling bin).
Regards, David