k__43
Registered Film User
now I have a headache !
k__43
Registered Film User
What is the XA's model number for reflecta?
for the 10T see here:
https://reflecta.de/en/products/detail/~id.734/reflecta-ProScan-10T.html
under technical data --> fixed focus. i.e. large depth of field requirement, i.e. diffraction, i.e. no efficient use of their huge resolution, i.e. lots of garbage pixels on my HDD
The datasheet also states "white LED + infrared" .. no discrete RGB.
A Y
Member
I'm not going to continue this discussion, because I don't think you are conducting it in good faith. I will just leave this piece of information for others who may want to follow up on their own and make up their own minds.
The formula Fuji and I use is also used (albeit without a derivation or citation) in Photographic Materials and Processes on page 268 (for the mid-90s edition that I have) in the film resolution section. This is the textbook used at RIT for their photography science classes.
I'm starting to think that the Higgins equation has a different set of assumptions than the formula I used. Perhaps the resolution it uses as input is different than what the Fuji equation uses.
And thank you for the link.
The formula Fuji and I use is also used (albeit without a derivation or citation) in Photographic Materials and Processes on page 268 (for the mid-90s edition that I have) in the film resolution section. This is the textbook used at RIT for their photography science classes.
I'm starting to think that the Higgins equation has a different set of assumptions than the formula I used. Perhaps the resolution it uses as input is different than what the Fuji equation uses.
And thank you for the link.
Joosep
Well-known
Wburgess
Established
I wanted a fight to the death!
Very interesting reading on both accounts though.
As for the "new" scanner. I hope it works out to be something great. But i'm sure it will be a repackaged scanner with unrealistic specs
Back to the dark room where to don't have to worry about dpi and such...
Joosep
Well-known
Its most likely gonna resolve around that 3000 range while doing that 10k.
So you will definately need a good computer for this guy.
So you will definately need a good computer for this guy.
Wburgess
Established
Surely you would just set it to 3k and scan with that?
Either that or buy a FS4000US for around a 1/4 of the price...
Joosep
Well-known
Thats not how these scanners work. It will not acheive the same resolution at 3000. Sorry to break it to you.
Ofcourse you can buy the Canon
I am not stopping you.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
The Plustek scanner can capture all the dynamic range of a negative if you use the HDR function in Silverfast and it will be sharper than a flatbed.
I found the Plustek units to be not quite as good as my Nikon 5000ED / 9000ED, but for the money they are hard to beat.
mdarnton
Well-known
Fernando2
Well-known
And once more I read too many inaccuracies about scanning resolution.
I can't re-explain everything again and again.
The short summary: yes it's not impossible to really get 100-105 lp/mm on real-world slide film using real-world lenses on real-world cameras.
It's even easier if you switch to hi-res BW film (you can actually reach 120 lp/mm and beyond).
Real-world lenses can actually reach an aerial resolution of 250-300 lp/mm; the best lenses can go as high as 400, being diffraction-limited at f/4, as already showed by Zeiss time ago.
And yes, Fuji resolution quotes for their own films have always been very conservative, it's a known fact since the Eighties.
I personally have a couple of Provia 100 and Velvia 100 slides with a measurable resolution of 100 lp/mm (used an optical microscope for the measure), obtained by photographing a paper resolution chart. People got even 120 lp/mm on Velvia under optimal conditions.
So even using the easy formula 1/Rtot = 1/Rfilm + 1/Rlens, you can get that > 100 lp/mm figure.
Also, I already published actual scans of resolution charts, showing that many scanners are actually capable of real > 100 lp/mm resolving power.
To name a few:
Minolta Scan Elite 5400
Hasselblad X5
Kodak IQSmart3
Scanview ScanMate 11000 (drum)
Of course there will always be people who just wouldn't believe anything.
If all people would have been like them, we would be still living in caves.
Fernando
I can't re-explain everything again and again.
The short summary: yes it's not impossible to really get 100-105 lp/mm on real-world slide film using real-world lenses on real-world cameras.
It's even easier if you switch to hi-res BW film (you can actually reach 120 lp/mm and beyond).
Real-world lenses can actually reach an aerial resolution of 250-300 lp/mm; the best lenses can go as high as 400, being diffraction-limited at f/4, as already showed by Zeiss time ago.
And yes, Fuji resolution quotes for their own films have always been very conservative, it's a known fact since the Eighties.
I personally have a couple of Provia 100 and Velvia 100 slides with a measurable resolution of 100 lp/mm (used an optical microscope for the measure), obtained by photographing a paper resolution chart. People got even 120 lp/mm on Velvia under optimal conditions.
So even using the easy formula 1/Rtot = 1/Rfilm + 1/Rlens, you can get that > 100 lp/mm figure.
Also, I already published actual scans of resolution charts, showing that many scanners are actually capable of real > 100 lp/mm resolving power.
To name a few:
Minolta Scan Elite 5400
Hasselblad X5
Kodak IQSmart3
Scanview ScanMate 11000 (drum)
Of course there will always be people who just wouldn't believe anything.
If all people would have been like them, we would be still living in caves.
Fernando
Steve M.
Veteran
I recommend the inexpensive Minolta Scan Dual scanners.They only go to 2820 PPI, but in comparisons to my much more expensive Nikon Cool Scan that ran to 4000, the only difference I could see in the scans was in file size. The Nikon has ICE, but that will not work for true B&W films. Good scanners, and usually under $200.
m1ckDELTA
Newbie
Oh yes. I have been meaning to do a review, but time is just so very limited.
I used to work in a lab for 5 years, so Frontiers, Noritsus and Epsons were bread and butter.
It took me about a week to test Silverfast vs Vuescan.
After that it took another week to get what I wanted from the scanner.
I have not yet done a more "scientific" test.
But I have to say, it wins a Frontier in every aspect, especially dMax. I am planning to write something up one day, I have many different scanners close to me. (I am right now finishing my masters degree and working at the same time, so time is not something I can spend carelessly
And yes. I need a new computer...
Which scanner software did you prefer with the XA?
tajart
ancien
Pacific Image XA/XE
Pacific Image XA/XE
I had high hopes for the PI-XE, knowing full well that the 10K would mean interpolated. The price is really decent. I ordered one, and my first scan at 5000 was exciting, from a Kodachrome image that would be a challenge. I've scanned this image on a Coolscan V. First look, I was amazed, as it pulled out something I hadn't seen before; oh exciting, more detail (Ithought). Then I noticed banding in the left section, which was also very dark. I inverted the slide and rescanned...the banding was in the same area of the image. I selected another image; banding wasn't noticeable as the image was less dense on the left side. In the area where I thought I was getting more detail in the previous scan, the same kind of uneven light, which I describe as flare.
I returned the unit, thinking I had just received a faulty one, and I would order another one. Now, I don't know.
Does anyone know from experience if the XA is better than the XE, or should I just look for a used Nikon?
Pacific Image XA/XE
I had high hopes for the PI-XE, knowing full well that the 10K would mean interpolated. The price is really decent. I ordered one, and my first scan at 5000 was exciting, from a Kodachrome image that would be a challenge. I've scanned this image on a Coolscan V. First look, I was amazed, as it pulled out something I hadn't seen before; oh exciting, more detail (Ithought). Then I noticed banding in the left section, which was also very dark. I inverted the slide and rescanned...the banding was in the same area of the image. I selected another image; banding wasn't noticeable as the image was less dense on the left side. In the area where I thought I was getting more detail in the previous scan, the same kind of uneven light, which I describe as flare.
I returned the unit, thinking I had just received a faulty one, and I would order another one. Now, I don't know.
Does anyone know from experience if the XA is better than the XE, or should I just look for a used Nikon?