Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Sorry 8000 is it faster then a 4000? good point ofcourse they are. I reasoned when i ordered the digital back for the r that 10 mp would be enough with a telelens i wonder if the 16mp Canon will have a lot of succes. my sport pro friends all get one but i wonder if the results look different with fast action we,ll see. Yes i got a Sinar for that reason . But i can carry a Leica with a summicron and a Gitzo around town a lot better tha(e?)n the big one. simon > Mine is an 8000 not a 5000. I think the studios going 22 megapixel are > replacing medium format not 35mm. It is true that a Leica on a tripod > gets more resolution than my digital SLR but if I want high resolution > and am prepared to carry a tripod I use a Rolleiflex! > Frank > > On 23 Nov, 2004, at 21:35, animal wrote: > > > Thanks for your quick reply. > > The reason i asked is that most sources say that 4000 is not enough for > > maximum resolution. > > I believe reading somewhere mr. Puts stated that a 4000 dpi scanner > > is not > > even able to show the difference in resolution between a leica lens or > > anyother big name brand . > > The only film i scanned without a lot of noise on my scanner was > > techpan > > sofar.Going to attempt copex this week. > > I have seen scans from the latest Epson flatbed that look about the > > same as > > mine on the Nikon > > but with 4 strips at once.And 4 large format negs.That should save a > > lot of > > time. > > Is your 5000 a lot faster then the 4000? > > I agree ,again from crude tests that 10 mp should have more or less > > the same > > resolution for handheld shots with longer lenses. > > But on a tripod and with a high end scanner that cannot be so. > > Why else would most studios that have gone digital use 22 Mp backs? > > Best simon jessurun,amsterdam > > > >> Hi Simon, > >> I scan at the native resolution of my Nikon 8000 scanner, 4000dpi. At > >> this scan rate I get pretty hideous grain aliasing on fast print film > >> but nice scans from slides. The 8000 produced noticeably better scans > >> than the 4000 which has nominally the same spec. I have no idea why. > >> The biggest prints I have from digital are A3 plus. > >> Frank > >> > >> On 23 Nov, 2004, at 19:37, animal wrote: > >> > >>> I,m curious what scanner did you use and and at what > >>> resolutions(which?)? > >>> Crude tests i did show that my scanner (nikon) is not able to get all > >>> detail > >>> out of slide or fine grained film. > >>> The detail i can see on a lightbox with a high powered loupe thingy. > >>> The noise i get when scanning at high resolutions is not visible in > >>> the film > >>> . > >>> best,simon jessurun,amsterdam > >>> > >>>> The thing is Rick the fact that you have scanned the film at > >>>> 6144x4096 > >>>> pixels does not mean that there is meaningful data at this > >>>> resolution. > >>>> In absurdam if the frame was a uniform colour a scan of 1 pixel and > >>>> a > >>>> scan of 6144x4096 pixels will contain the same data and would be > >>>> equivalent. > >>>> I have not found 35mm print film to have more data on it than my 6 > >>>> megapixel Canon, whatever scan resolution I chose to use. My scans > >>>> from > >>>> slides have been better but not hugely so. > >>>> I am entirely prepared to believe, based on my own experience of > >>>> prints > >>>> from scanned 35mm film and digital SLRs that the 10megapixel R back > >>>> will equal 35mm film in resolution. I have heard all the pseudo > >>>> technical absurdities about huge sampling rates but none of it > >>>> actually > >>>> agrees with my actual experience of producing my own prints. > >>>> Frank > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 23 Nov, 2004, at 00:16, Rick Dykstra wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Alistair. You've posed exactly the question I've asked of > >>>>> Leica, > >>>>> though no response yet. > >>>>> > >>>>> The lab I use does high end scans (though not the highest - were > >>>>> not > >>>>> talking drum scans here) which are 6144 x 4096 pixels and around 75 > >>>>> to > >>>>> 100 MB in size (depending on the variety of colours I suppose). I > >>>>> get > >>>>> these printed to 20 x 30 inch. The DMR sensor is 3872 x 2576. So > >>>>> how > >>>>> can this sensor make images reproduced at 20 x 30 in of the same > >>>>> clarity as film scanned to 6144 x 4096? And I could get these > >>>>> trannies drum scanned to even higher standards. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not knocking the DMR - I want one or two - but will it be as > >>>>> good > >>>>> as my Velvia? I can't see how. Again, not necessarily a problem, > >>>>> I > >>>>> just need to know before I spend the money. :-) I've also heard > >>>>> it > >>>>> will be upgradeable and that's good. Any comments on this? > >>>>> > >>>>> Rick Dykstra, Australia > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 22/11/2004, at 1:50 PM, firkin wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Feli di Giorgio writes: > >>>>>>> I would be very happy with a 10-12MP full frame camera. > >>>>>>> Manageable file sizes, DOF of a 135, low noise at high ASA, due > >>>>>>> to the large size of individual receptors. I really don't need > >>>>>>> 20MP > >>>>>>> for what I do... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The immediate question is what do you do that requires 10 to 12. I > >>>>>> mean this seriously, not as a jibe or insult. My mind tell me that > >>>>>> 10 > >>>>>> to 12 seems about right, because I suspect (never tried and > >>>>>> therefore > >>>>>> don't know) that you could print 16 x 20 at about this level with > >>>>>> 35mm happiness. Barry Thornton claimed that only really "lucky" > >>>>>> good > >>>>>> 35mm negs could produce "perfect" images larger than about 10 x 14 > >>>>>> (I > >>>>>> think) I remember thinking "I've got larger ones" but then > >>>>>> thinking > >>>>>> but they are not all "perfect", so he may be right. > >>>>>> Like many, I suspect I've been too worried about making big > >>>>>> enlargements, when smaller well crafted images would be "better" > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> store much more easily !!!!! > >>>>>> This brings me back to my nagging question; will todays good film > >>>>>> scanners "match" a 10 mega pixel dedicated digital camera when you > >>>>>> view moderately large images side by side? > >>>>>> Alastair Firkin @ work ;-) > >>>>>> http://www.afirkin.com > >>>>>> http://www.familyofman2.com > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Leica Users Group. > >>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > >>>>>> information > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Leica Users Group. > >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > >>>>> information > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Leica Users Group. > >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Leica Users Group. > >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information