| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film - Sample Image |
|
|
Scott W wrote:
| Quote: | It kind of sounds like you are using a flat bed scanner to scan the
film, where as some do well at this most do not.
|
I use an Epson Perfection 3200 Photo flatbed scanner. It does well at
scanning.
| Quote: | Also the really high ppi numbers like 12800 are almost always interpolated and have little
if any meaning meaning.
|
I am certain that anything over 6400 on this machine is interpolated.
However, I wondered what the maximum setting would do. Here is the
proof.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131581990.573904.12700@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
| Quote: | In fact I have seen you photo, and have down sampled it to
2000 ppi and back to 5400.
I then split the photo in half, one half being the down and up
sampled half and the other the original half.
Looking at this composite you can't tell which half is which,
I would be glad to post it for you if you would like.
|
I'd suggest you see an optometrist, or whatever they're called in your
hemisphere. Admitted, the difference is not staggering, but the
difference is still visible (assuming a decent down-sampling algorithm
was used) on screen and quite different from the average example you
posted as a sample of what you found. In print the visible differences
depend on output size.
Bart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131584826.257503.144670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Bart van der Wolf wrote:
In that case, even consumer quality 5400ppi scanners can pull more
detail from the same film image than a 4000ppi scanner can...
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400-5.htm>.
Quality gear and good technique are assumed to be used in capturing
the image.
Bart
Yours is a good example of the problem with film. Yes you can get
some
detail when scanned at 5400, but only when the scene in very high
contrast and want you capture is very low contrast. But there is an
over all softness to the photo that by the time you have printed it
large enough to see this extra detail the whole thing look very
soft. I
put the 5400 scan next to the 4000 scan and printed them out at 300
ppi, you have to look fairly close to see the extra detail in the
5400
scan, but at this scale the print look very soft. To get a sharp
looking print from the scan you would have to print at something
closer
to 600 dpi, which I did. The photo still looks a bit soft even at
600
ppi, but now there is no real difference between the two scans, when
looking at the print.
|
The issue with film is that the modulation, as the (lens+film+scanner)
signal approaches the limiting resolution, is lower than achievable
with a digital camera although film does produce a higher resolution
than with most sensors.
As always, it's a trade-off which is tipping the balance depending on
the output requirements (I always print at 600+ppi if the printer
allows). Large prints from (graininess reduced) film scans are still
an alternative to most DSLR images due to higher film resolution. Once
you get in the 35mm Full-Frame sensor category for large output sizes,
there's no contest with 35mm film.
Bart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:dktr07$jor$1@nnrp.gol.com...
SNIP
| Quote: | All the comparisons I've seen show there being no significant
differences. Whatever the format.
|
That ("no significant") is more or less correct. We're in the
"diminishing returns" arena.
Drum-scanner results depend as much on operator quality as on hardware
quality. However, there is still some additional potential in
balancing resolution versus graininess, and dynamic range capability,
depending on the media quality.
Bart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
"Lorem Ipsum" <Lorem@ipsum.xxx> wrote in message
news:11n49atss0g4mf9@news.supernews.com...
| Quote: |
"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131553276.094984.239890@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
35mm does not come even close to 20 MP, I have not seen a scan of
color film yet that has any significant detail past 2000 ppi,
which puts it just a bit past 5 mp.
|
Again, use a better benchmark.
| Quote: | Scott, I am not arguing, just clarifying so that our metrics are
clear - are you referring to drum-scanned 35mm color negative at
8-bits? Honest, I am not going to get into arithmetic, but like you
I am interested in real-world outcomes.
|
In that case, even consumer quality 5400ppi scanners can pull more
detail from the same film image than a 4000ppi scanner can...
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400-5.htm>.
Quality gear and good technique are assumed to be used in capturing
the image.
Bart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:dku69b$mpf$1@nnrp.gol.com...
SNIP
| Quote: | FWIW, it looks to me that 645 ought to slightly edge out 12MP, but I
suspect that the cleanliness of ISO 100 digital would tip the
scales. Watch this space for some 6x7 vs. 12MP comparisons.
|
Congratulations on your choice for the 5D (to be yours soon?) ;-)
I can tell you from my experiences with the 1Ds Mark II, you're in for
some interesting (affirmation of expected) findings. DoF is (as
predicted by physics) indeed more shallow than you'd like, and lens
performance is pushed to its capabilities (when pixel peeping).
Fortunately, output magnification is less than with sub full-frame
sensors, and noise is (presumably for the 5D as it is with the 1DS
Mark II) mostly a non-issue at ISOs below 800).
Post-Processing is critical, You'll appreciate the capabilities of (an
upgrade to) Photoshop CS2's Smart sharpening. There's an incredible
amount of detail waiting to be revived.
Bart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film - Sample Image |
|
|
Last month, I took a photo of a strange animal in a vacant field. I
took the animal's photo using my Canon Rebel G film camera with a 28 -
135 IS zoom lens set to max zoom; and with my Minolta Dimage G500 at
max 3x (117 mm) zoom. The film that happened to be in my camera was
1600 ISO, probably not the best for this shot, but it's what was loaded
in my camera right then.
I scanned one frame of the film at 2 different resolutions, which I
combined in this collection. One scan was at 3200 ppi; the other scan
was at 12800 ppi, the maximum setting on my scanner. I resized the 3200
ppi image so that it was close to the same size as the image from my
digital camera.
The image crops are (CCW from upper right): my digital camera; the
resized 3200 ppi image; the full-size 3200 ppi image; the 12800 ppi
image.
http://members.aol.com/rekgallery/PupCollage/PupCollage.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott W
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
Bart van der Wolf wrote:
| Quote: | "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131517978.751380.238950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
The problem I have is that I have yet to see any of these great
results from film, when I go looking this is typical of what I find.
http://www.pbase.com/rerobbins/image/22425757/original
Maybe you'll get a more balanced impression when looking at some of
the results from
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/>. My (windmill) contribution
there <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/SE5400-Wbd-Crop.jpg> (when
printed at 300ppi, the full uncropped image would measure 26.0 x
17.4in or 66 x 44cm,
|
BTW try a test, down sample the cropped image to half, 2700 ppi and
then print it at 150
ppi and the orginal at 300 ppi.
Both will print out at 4.5 x 4.5 inches
I did just that, I am looking at both of them right now.
If I got them mixed up I would not be able to tell you which was which,
try it.
And as I would expect for a 150 ppi print they both look pretty soft.
More then 3/4 of your pixels are not needed, at all.
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:53:51 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote:
Here's a trick; Go find some Kodak Tech Pan,
Rather difficult, since it's been discontinued.
and borrow a fixed focal
length Canon lens of about 50-100mm. Take some close-up shots of
things with it and the digital. Then compare them.
In my experience, it's nowhere near as much better than Provia 100F as
people would have you believe.
From this _simulation_ (raw 4000 dpi scan of Tech Pan vs. 300D image taken
at the scale you'd get out of a 16.7MP dSLR and upsampled to match the
scan), I'd much rather have the 1Dsmk2.
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473670/original
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
|
I agree, looking at that image, but I wonder how they got Tech Pan
grain to look like that? Very mushy and poorly defined. Tech Pan
had twice the resolving power of Kodakchrome 25.
-Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Shaffer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film - Sample Image |
|
|
On 9 Nov 2005 17:37:07 -0800, pooua@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | Last month, I took a photo of a strange animal in a vacant field. I
took the animal's photo using my Canon Rebel G film camera with a 28 -
135 IS zoom lens set to max zoom; and with my Minolta Dimage G500 at
max 3x (117 mm) zoom. The film that happened to be in my camera was
1600 ISO, probably not the best for this shot, but it's what was loaded
in my camera right then.
I scanned one frame of the film at 2 different resolutions, which I
combined in this collection. One scan was at 3200 ppi; the other scan
was at 12800 ppi, the maximum setting on my scanner. I resized the 3200
ppi image so that it was close to the same size as the image from my
digital camera.
The image crops are (CCW from upper right): my digital camera; the
resized 3200 ppi image; the full-size 3200 ppi image; the 12800 ppi
image.
http://members.aol.com/rekgallery/PupCollage/PupCollage.html
|
Out of curiosity, did you find out what the animal was? It looks to
me like a coyote suffering from mange. For some reason, people will
occasionally see these and mistake them for chupacabras. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
Chris Brown wrote:
[snip]
| Quote: | This is at 100 ISO, of course. At high ISO, all bets on 6x7 are off.
|
That's a good point. It is important to me, because I like to take
low-light shots. If I'm not trying to take a picture of a building that
has dramatic lighting and color in the night, then I am trying to
photograph stars and planets, the inside of caves or buildings or under
a canopy of leaves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David J. Littleboy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
In my experience, it's nowhere near as much better than Provia 100F as
people would have you believe.
From this _simulation_ (raw 4000 dpi scan of Tech Pan vs. 300D image taken
at the scale you'd get out of a 16.7MP dSLR and upsampled to match the
scan), I'd much rather have the 1Dsmk2.
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473670/original
I agree, looking at that image, but I wonder how they got Tech Pan
grain to look like that? Very mushy and poorly defined. Tech Pan
had twice the resolving power of Kodakchrome 25.
|
"They" was me, and "they" scanned it with a Nikon 8000. Have you ever looked
at Tech Pan under a microscope? That's about what it looks like. And that's
the best 4000 ppi scan I've ever seen from a B&W film.
Film fans just don't get it how really really bad film is.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David J. Littleboy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
<pooua@aol.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Chris Brown wrote:
[snip]
This is at 100 ISO, of course. At high ISO, all bets on 6x7 are off.
That's a good point. It is important to me, because I like to take
low-light shots. If I'm not trying to take a picture of a building that
has dramatic lighting and color in the night, then I am trying to
photograph stars and planets, the inside of caves or buildings or under
a canopy of leaves.
|
For much of that, though, shooting at ISO 100 with a dSLR is almost as
important as shooting at ISO 100 with film. Night scenes tend to have a wide
dynamic range, and the lower noise at ISO 100 means you can set your
exposure to limit how badly the highlights blow and still retain shadow
detail that can be brought up to useful levels with curves.
High ISOs in dSLRs work best for subjects with even lighting.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott W
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
David J. Littleboy wrote:
| Quote: | "Rich" <none@none.com> wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
In my experience, it's nowhere near as much better than Provia 100F as
people would have you believe.
From this _simulation_ (raw 4000 dpi scan of Tech Pan vs. 300D image taken
at the scale you'd get out of a 16.7MP dSLR and upsampled to match the
scan), I'd much rather have the 1Dsmk2.
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473670/original
I agree, looking at that image, but I wonder how they got Tech Pan
grain to look like that? Very mushy and poorly defined. Tech Pan
had twice the resolving power of Kodakchrome 25.
"They" was me, and "they" scanned it with a Nikon 8000. Have you ever looked
at Tech Pan under a microscope? That's about what it looks like. And that's
the best 4000 ppi scan I've ever seen from a B&W film.
Film fans just don't get it how really really bad film is.
|
Well film is ok, you just need to use enough of it, sadly 35mm format
is not nearly enough for anything larger then around an 8 x 10, not if
you want to sharp looking print.
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film - Sample Image |
|
|
Jim Shaffer wrote:
That has been the most common opinion expressed by members of my local
blog.
| Quote: | For some reason, people will occasionally see these and mistake them for chupacabras.
|
There is one guy on the board who said it is a Thylacine... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in