H
Hans-Georg Michna
Kennedy,
of course. I thought so. It was an obvious typo.
Hans-Georg
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Kennedy,
of course. I thought so. It was an obvious typo.
Hans-Georg
H
Hans-Georg Michna
I have used many different drum scanners, flat scanners, and film scanners
over the last ten years. One reality is that there was rarely any value in
scanning beyond 8000 ppi. Not that there may have been more information on
the film, but that the final printing output may have defined a more finite
limit to useful detail information. In other words, your chosen printing
output might only be able to use up to a certain amount of detail, and that
might be less than your scanner is capable of giving, and certainly could be
less than is actually on the film.
Gordon,
thanks for the info!
While we're at it, do you use special software for upscaling
before printing?
I have pxlSmartScale here, but haven't tested it yet.
Hans-Georg
K
Kennedy McEwen
More disinformation from the group's resident liar, I'm afraid - you can
crop and print at any scale you choose, so the limitations of the output
media have no effect whatsoever in driving the resolution capabilities
of the input system. The native resolution of any of the large format
printers would exceed the capabilities of 8000ppi from a 35mm frame at a
size of around 20x30" - without any cropping. If there was information
on the film at that resolution then people could and would certainly use
it. For colour film that simply isn't the case, it just isn't there,
for slow monochrome films it may be. It is the information available on
the source material that sets the resolution limitations of scanners,
not the output criteria - especially if you are archiving your material:
who knows what size and resolution of output you will ultimately want to
print at.
crop and print at any scale you choose, so the limitations of the output
media have no effect whatsoever in driving the resolution capabilities
of the input system. The native resolution of any of the large format
printers would exceed the capabilities of 8000ppi from a 35mm frame at a
size of around 20x30" - without any cropping. If there was information
on the film at that resolution then people could and would certainly use
it. For colour film that simply isn't the case, it just isn't there,
for slow monochrome films it may be. It is the information available on
the source material that sets the resolution limitations of scanners,
not the output criteria - especially if you are archiving your material:
who knows what size and resolution of output you will ultimately want to
print at.
G
Gordon Moat
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
Did I ask for your opinion? Did I reply to you?
You know when I quote someone else and give outside references, you are calling
them liars, and not me. Maybe I should quote you so you can call yourself a liar.
Did I state that . . . again your reading comprehension sucks, or you are just
being an ass on purpose. Bet you got poor grades in logic class as well . . .
care to compare GPAs (perhaps not fair to you, since you graduated in the dark
ages).
I would enjoy reading anything that you actually think you know about commercial
printing. This is my line of work, and I can provide lots of links, and lots of
references. All you can do is spout opinions.
I apologize to everyone else that this small man cannot bother to type anything
in reply to me with any decency. If he could bother to get off his high horse, he
might learn a bit, though it too often seems he thinks he knows it all. If others
would rather I not reply to him at all, please let me know and I will ignore him.
Did I ask for your opinion? Did I reply to you?
More disinformation from the group's resident liar, I'm afraid
You know when I quote someone else and give outside references, you are calling
them liars, and not me. Maybe I should quote you so you can call yourself a liar.
- you can
crop and print at any scale you choose, so the limitations of the output
media have no effect whatsoever in driving the resolution capabilities
of the input system.
Did I state that . . . again your reading comprehension sucks, or you are just
being an ass on purpose. Bet you got poor grades in logic class as well . . .
care to compare GPAs (perhaps not fair to you, since you graduated in the dark
ages).
The native resolution of any of the large format
printers would exceed the capabilities of 8000ppi from a 35mm frame at a
size of around 20x30" - without any cropping. If there was information
on the film at that resolution then people could and would certainly use
it. For colour film that simply isn't the case, it just isn't there,
for slow monochrome films it may be. It is the information available on
the source material that sets the resolution limitations of scanners,
not the output criteria - especially if you are archiving your material:
who knows what size and resolution of output you will ultimately want to
print at.
I would enjoy reading anything that you actually think you know about commercial
printing. This is my line of work, and I can provide lots of links, and lots of
references. All you can do is spout opinions.
I apologize to everyone else that this small man cannot bother to type anything
in reply to me with any decency. If he could bother to get off his high horse, he
might learn a bit, though it too often seems he thinks he knows it all. If others
would rather I not reply to him at all, please let me know and I will ignore him.
G
Gordon Moat
Hans-Georg Michna said:Gordon,
thanks for the info!
While we're at it, do you use special software for upscaling
before printing?
I had a couple projects for Sony that involved upscaled images, because those
were the source images they supplied. I generally try to avoid needing to
upsize, but if that is the only option, or meets the deadline, then that is what
you work on.
I have pxlSmartScale here, but haven't tested it yet.
Hans-Georg
I have not tried pxlSmarScale. I have used Genuine Fractels. Lots of pro
photographers seem to like GF, but I am not a big fan of that software. I used a
multi-step procedure for the Sony stuff, but it was all done in PhotoShop.
I should point out that I use to have more items drum scanned in the past than I
do currently. There are some really good high end flat scanners out in the last
few years, and those produce quite nice images in a fast enough turnaround so I
can make deadlines. The high end flat scans also tend to be lower expense to
pass on to the clients.
Anyway, hope you find something useful in the links I listed, or maybe just
something interesting.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
H
Hans-Georg Michna
I have not tried pxlSmarScale. I have used Genuine Fractels. Lots of pro
photographers seem to like GF, but I am not a big fan of that software. I used a
multi-step procedure for the Sony stuff, but it was all done in PhotoShop.
Gordon,
thanks. Will try pxl SmartScale. It is a program that smoothes
high-contrast edges while upscaling. Some pictures react well to
that, others perhaps don't.
Hans-Georg
B
Bart van der Wolf
message SNIP
<http://www.americaswonderlands.com/digital_photo_interpolation.htm>
compares several products (although there are some more recent/better
versions of some of them available).
Personally, I don't like the look of GF or SmartScale because they
tend to over-emphasize edges and smooth-out gradients which looks
unnatural/posterized and loses a more subtle 3D look (which may still
be acceptable when seen from a distance). Of course it also comes down
to taste, and we tend to inspect the result at much higher
magnification than the final output.
My preference is Qimage (http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/), also
because it improves the output workflow, and there is *no* need for
special resizing/sharpening prior to each different sized output. All
processing is done on-the-fly when producing the print spool file.
Non-destructive filtering/scaling/sharpening is applied on the
original file without saving (multiple) end results (unless instructed
to for off-line printing in a different location). It is also fully
color managed.
Another good/flexible resampler is Photozoom
<http://www.trulyphotomagic.com/shor...=ourproducts§ion=product_serie_info&cat=3>
but that is just limited to scaling, unlike Qimage which also improves
output workflow.
Bart
Will try pxl SmartScale. It is a program that smoothes
high-contrast edges while upscaling. Some pictures react
well to that, others perhaps don't.
<http://www.americaswonderlands.com/digital_photo_interpolation.htm>
compares several products (although there are some more recent/better
versions of some of them available).
Personally, I don't like the look of GF or SmartScale because they
tend to over-emphasize edges and smooth-out gradients which looks
unnatural/posterized and loses a more subtle 3D look (which may still
be acceptable when seen from a distance). Of course it also comes down
to taste, and we tend to inspect the result at much higher
magnification than the final output.
My preference is Qimage (http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/), also
because it improves the output workflow, and there is *no* need for
special resizing/sharpening prior to each different sized output. All
processing is done on-the-fly when producing the print spool file.
Non-destructive filtering/scaling/sharpening is applied on the
original file without saving (multiple) end results (unless instructed
to for off-line printing in a different location). It is also fully
color managed.
Another good/flexible resampler is Photozoom
<http://www.trulyphotomagic.com/shor...=ourproducts§ion=product_serie_info&cat=3>
but that is just limited to scaling, unlike Qimage which also improves
output workflow.
Bart
H
Hans-Georg Michna
Bart,
thanks for the good info! I'll do some testing and see whether
my impressions are similar.
Hans-Georg
thanks for the good info! I'll do some testing and see whether
my impressions are similar.
Hans-Georg
P
Philip Homburg
Another useful drum scanning resource is Kai Hammann. While the article is a
little old, there is a nice article is at:
<http://fb42.s6.domainkunden.de/kund...ht_Trommelscannen_Sinn/EN_Scans_vergleich.htm>
I really hate it when 'a CCD filmscanner at nearly 2900 ppi' is supposed to
be representative for all CCD scanners.
G
Gordon Moat
Philip said:I really hate it when 'a CCD filmscanner at nearly 2900 ppi' is supposed to
be representative for all CCD scanners.
I did state that the article was "a little old", so of course technology has progressed since that article was
written. Herr Hammann has written a few recent articles about scanning that have appeared in LFI, and those have
included more modern film scanners. Unfortunately, he has not posted any of those on his site.
I still think the principles discussed in that article are valid. Indeed film scanners, flat scanners, and even
drum scanners have all improved in capabilities since that article was written. The basic idea that a skilled
operator can nearly achieve a good image quality with a lesser scanner that a less skilled operator could
achieve with a better scanner still holds true. Also, the latest in drum scanners is still the top of
capabilities, and the other implied idea in that article about not needing drum scans for all image uses is a
good suggestion. Even if someone always had a choice of drum scanning, there are good reasons to use lesser
scanning systems for some outputs.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
P
Philip Homburg
I did state that the article was "a little old", so of course technology has progressed since that article was
written. Herr Hammann has written a few recent articles about scanning that have appeared in LFI, and those have
included more modern film scanners. Unfortunately, he has not posted any of those on his site.
I still think the principles discussed in that article are valid. Indeed film scanners, flat scanners, and even
drum scanners have all improved in capabilities since that article was written.
What worries me is not so much the resolution (probably the area that has
seen most improvements) but the treatment of color accuracy.
CCD scanners use different techniques for color separation: narrow band LEDs
(in Nikon scanners) or wide band cold cathode (in many other scanners).
Starting out with a slide that is not correctly exposed, using an undisclosed
scanner, undisclosed software for color correction, there is no way of
telling whether his results have anything to do with CCD scanners in
general.
Maybe he just used a scanner that can't handle badly exposed Provia, or maybe
didn't use the right techniques to correct the colors (a few minutes in gimp
seemed to result in a image than he showed).
G
Gordon Moat
Philip said:What worries me is not so much the resolution (probably the area that has
seen most improvements) but the treatment of color accuracy.
CCD scanners use different techniques for color separation: narrow band LEDs
(in Nikon scanners) or wide band cold cathode (in many other scanners).
Well, that is definitely one aspect. It can sometimes be difficult to discuss colour, since many subjective aspects
could enter the conversation. Bruce Lindbloom has some very nice articles on colour, perhaps I should have provided
some links to him.
Starting out with a slide that is not correctly exposed, using an undisclosed
scanner, undisclosed software for color correction, there is no way of
telling whether his results have anything to do with CCD scanners in
general.
It definitely could have more to do with the software. The default included software in many CCD film scanners is
not that great. Imacon include some very nice software, and then there is SilverFast, which seems to wake-up many
low end systems. As many have noted on this group, even switching to a relatively low cost VueScan software can give
improved results over the factory software.
Maybe he just used a scanner that can't handle badly exposed Provia, or maybe
didn't use the right techniques to correct the colors (a few minutes in gimp
seemed to result in a image than he showed).
He is fairly good about answering e-mails. I suggest sending him a message and asking him.
I think the perfect article on scanning is something we will never see posted to the internet. There are easily
enough variables and aspects to comprise a book or two. If we were to just discuss colour, then there are a set of
variables and conditions just for that.
Standardizing on a Q-13 or Q-60 target might help with colour analysis, though we would still need to consider the
output limitations. SWOP is one standard, though nearly every printing place I know of strives to do better than
that. There is a new emerging proposed set of standards called GraCOL, which might be something you would find
interesting.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>