At 09:44 PM 10/20/99 -0700, George M. Andersen wrote:
>Dylan, Mike and Zuiks;
>
>I originally asked folks to reply privately because I remember this
>discussion not long ago and didn't want to flood the list with [OT]
>stuff. But there are others who want to know, as you've said. I've
>learned a lot in the past 36 hours. I'll try to summarize.
>
>First, let me state here that a lot of what I learned came from e-mails
>from list members and from the site which Tobias pointed me to
>yesterday. I don't have the URL here, it's at work. I *think* his msg
>was to the list, if not I'll post the URL tomorrow as it is a fantastic
>resource.
You're probably thinking of the following URL:
http://www.scantips.com/
If not, it's still a great resource.
>What to look for: color bit depth; resolution in ppi; DMax (density
>dynamic range) and, of course, scan speed, but that is less a concern
>for me so I won't address it. Gold standard: drum scanners used by
>service bureaus are: 36 bits; 4000 x 4000 ppi; 4.0 DMax
Yes. A friend of mine who is a professional commercial photographer owns one
of these babies (a $50,000.00 U.S. machine that he got at an auction for
$1,200.00 CDN because no-one else knew what it was or how to use it!).
Interestingly enough, the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 I recently acquired has the
same pixel-per-inch rating, though with a DMax of "only" 3.6. He and I still
have to put the output from our respective machines together in a head-to-head
contest. Another tidbit: even though the drum scanner he has does a DMax range
(also known as "OD," for "optical density") of 4.0, he rarely runs across
chromes with a DMax above 3.6. Seems like Polaroid optimized their new machine
for this range.
[snip]
>Some scanner comparisons: prices from B&H
[snip]
>High end:
>
>There seem to be 2 choices here: Nikon and Polaroid.
[snip]
>Polaroid Sprintscan 4000: Numbers: 36 bits; 4000 x 4000; 3.4 This one
>comes closest to the gold standard. Same resolution, which means print
>size could be the same as from the drum scanner. That's my highest
>priority. The DMax is lower than the Nikon and since the scale is
>logarithmic, there's a big difference between 3.4 and 3.6 But loss of
>some shadow detail is part of the game for a Cibachrome printer ! So, I
>can live with this easier than the lower resolution. It lacks the H/W
>dust removal system of the Nikon, but it has a S/W version which works
>almost as well, according to reviews, which also say the Polaroid is
>less susceptible to dust anyway, due to the different light sources
>used. For what I want, all the reviews and all the "experts" I spoke to
>say this is the way to go. $1500 after rebate.
See above. I've been hugely impressed with this machine, and its standard
"no-brainer" output (auto everything) does an amazing job 950f the time. The
software allows you to extensively tweak the scanner's output for those 50f
slides or negatives which don't integrate to 18 0rey.
>A PS for those interested in scanning medium format as well as 35mm:
>There are a few scanners which do both. An example is the Minolta
>Dimage Scan Multi $? But they all have less resolution when scanning
>120 film. The Minolta is 2800 for 35mm and 1100 for 120.
>
>A PPS for those looking to scan up to 4x5: Both Nikon and Polaroid sell
>scanners that'll do this. Again, resolution down as size up. Nikon ?$
>Polaroid $6999.
Medium format is where the drum scanners shine, of course -- the friend I
mentioned above does medium format and 4"x5" technical view camera format as
well as 35mm, and the drum scanner does a superb job on both (produces
unbelieveably huge output files, though!). Default output file size at 4000
dpi for the Polaroid is around 65 MBytes if you capture the full area of the
slide/negative image. Of course, you always end up downsampling the image in
Photoshop (or whatever) for Web use.
I've heard rumours that Polaroid is "upping the ante" by producing a Sprintscan
*8000*! Now, if it's truly the hardware resolution, and not just software
interpolation, *that* would be astonishing.
Garth
"A bad day doing photography is better
than a good day doing just about
anything else."
The Unofficial Olympus Web Photo Gallery at:
http://www.taiga.ca/~gallery/
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|