I'm pretty confidence that the Nikon 4000ED will give a more details scan
than the Imacon picture he shown to us. The 35mm scan he compared is 1.
slightly overed, 2. lower contrast than the digital picture, 3. highly
compressed with very serious artifacts. If not for the artifacts even with
this scan I think I can do some PS to make it look better or same as the
digital pict. That is another example of what? 3 photography with 75 years
of experience misunderstood about resolution and contrast. Are they don't
know that the file from his DC is sharpened but not the scan? To achieve the
highest display or print quality you always need some adjustment after
scanning, that is a simple rule.
Ok, I just talk about resolution, in other area (like color and grain) a
higher end DC is always the winner. On the other hand even DC is better than
film, I don't think I will enjoy using DC more than film camera, I'm not
just enjoy the result, that is the shooting process, the classic feel of OM
and the film itself I love.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Farrar"
>
> Reichmann's "drum scanner" is an Imacon, which is not, by any
> realistic measure, a drum scanner. Imacon likes to call it a drum
> scanner as marketing hype, and Reichmann likes to call it one to
> pretend he's using the best. The only thing it has in common with
> a real drum scanner is that the film is held in a curved holder.
> Otherwise, it's a midrange flatbed-like scanner with a line array
> sensor. (Amateur film scanners, like the Nikon, Minolta etc. are
> also flatbed-like, just with a small scanning area and high
> magnification.) Real drum scanners, like Heidelbergs, use a single
> pixel, usually with beam splitters for the different colors. This
> means they don't have to contend with the limitations of IC chips.
> The sensors can be optimized for the job, and have large dynamic
> range, low noise, and fine gradation of level. These scanners
> really can see what's on a piece of film. The pictures someone
> mentioned at Mountain Light were probably scanned on a drum
> scanner or a high end flatbed like a Scitex, then printed on a
> LightJet.
>
> Reichmann's resolution comparisons are of little value because he
> doesn't compare film to digital. He scans the film on his "drum
> scanner", then blows up the scan, and compares that. (Sort of like
> the 100x "digital zoom" on my DV camera, which I never use because
> it's totally worthless.) That's backward. CH does it right: you
> blow up the film optically, then digitize the blowup. Even with
> CH's makeshift setup, you can show more resolution on film,
> because a low res scan of a blowup shows more than a digital
> blowup of a mid-fi scan.
>
> Resolution isn't everything, but that's a different topic.
>
> I'm sure the Canon is very good. The new Kodak may knock it for a
> loop, though.
>
> I've been very disappointed by the decline in image quality that
> has accompanied many journalists' switch to digital (for deadline
> reasons). For example, the WTC flag raising photo was mutilated by
> digital artifacts (probably overaggressive in camera jpeg-ing). The
> Kennerly White House transition photos in Newsweek were garbage.
>
> Paul
>
< 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 >
|