Slide Scanners.... WHY ??

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k87r32pkj3hv8jbvthcjlojourraa8phat@4ax.com...
> Skip M writes:
>
>> Which is why scanning backs held on so long. They do produce better
>> results, but the inconvenience trumps that.
>
> Rather like film: it produces better results, but most people can't
> stand the inconvenience.
>

Actually, sometimes film is more convenient. I know some wedding
photographers who have gone back to film because digital is too much work.
They can drop off the rolls of film from a wedding, go home, come back in a
day or so and have the proofs all done for the client. Easy. Even though
high resolution digital images produce better large (read: VERY large)
prints, at proof size, the difference is insignificant, or even at 8x10.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xirpeqltd.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher.RemoveThis@cox.net> writes:
>> They can drop off the rolls of film from a wedding, go home, come back in
>> a
>> day or so and have the proofs all done for the client.
>
> What stops them from doing that with digital??

Not sure, really, now that you mention it. I guess they feel like we do, if
we can control the image post camera, we should. If you shoot print film,
you're in the hands of the lab, not your own copy of Photoshop...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

Skip M wrote:
> "Väinö Louekari" <vaino.louekari RemoveThis @pp.inet.fi> wrote in message
> news:NEa%f.251$Y03.14@read3.inet.fi...
>
>>timeOday wrote:
>>
>>>Paul Rubin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"<RJ>" <baranick RemoveThis @localnet.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Does "scanning" produce better resolution than
>>>>>the image produced by digicam electronics ?
>>
>>Actually ordinary consumer digital cameras do not capture as much detail
>>as 35 mm slide film. Far from it. For example see
>>http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
>>According to Clark "The 11 megapixel canon 1Ds comes close to 35mm
>>Velvia". And 1D is hardly a camera for everyone but a film SLR and slide
>>film are. So shooting slide and scanning the results wtih a slide scanner
>>makes a lot of sense if it is image quality you want.
>>
>>Väinö Louekari
>
>
> Don't forget, when Roger wrote that, the 1Ds, at $7000 and 11 mp, was the ne
> plus ultra of digital cameras. Now, the Nikon D200 ($1600) checks in at
> nearly 11 mp, the D2X ($4000) at better than 12, both with 1.5x crop APS
> sensors, the Canon 5D weighs in with a 35mm sized sensor and nearly 13mp
> ($3000) and the 1Ds mkII, at the same $7000 that its predecessor cost,
> checks in at 16mp.
> But if you're speaking of P&S type cameras, you are totally correct...
>
You are quite right. We have different options for getting good quality
images.

Väinö Louekari
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

Skip M writes:

> Even though high resolution digital images produce better large
> (read: VERY large) prints ...

Since when?

If I want very large prints, I shoot MF.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

Scott W writes:

> The trap people who use film fall into time and again is assuming that
> because that are scanning at 4000 ppi their image is the same as what a
> 20 MP digit camera would produce, in fact it fall far short of this.

The results I get are far better.

> Just as a referance if you were getting 4000 ppi or real pixels it
> would look something like this.
> http://www.sewcon.com/temp/4000ppi.jpg
>
> Have you ever seen one of your scans even come close to that?

Yes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

<RJ> wrote:
> Like many older photogs, I've got a ton of slides to save.
>
> The accepted solution seems to be a "slide scanner".
> But WHY ?
>
> Does "scanning" produce better resolution than
> the image produced by digicam electronics ?
>
> We certainly don't see even high-end cameras "scanning" their shots.
>
> So why are slide copiers based on an old, and sloooow
> scanning technology ?
> When will we see a "slide shooter" ??
>
>
>
> <rj>

Yes. A good slide scanner can give higher resolution than anything
other than a very high end, multi-thousand buck digicam. You can get as
much as a 16 Mp file from a good film scanner.
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

Dennis Pogson wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>>"<RJ>" <baranick RemoveThis @localnet.com> writes:
>>
>>>Does "scanning" produce better resolution than
>>>the image produced by digicam electronics ?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>When will we see a "slide shooter" ??
>>
>>That's pretty easy to do with a light table and a digicam that can
>>shoot from close-up. The results are ok, but scanners are better.
>
>
> I think the guy is asking for a digital camers that shoots slides. Somebody
> tell him!
>
>

Ahh! Okay, the reason is that linear detector arrays can be created to a
high density more easily than 2D arrays. Micro mechanics and stepping
motors, along with optical lever arrangement can get super res in other
direction.

Some early high end pro digital cameras DID use mechanical scanning.
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

Dennis Pogson wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>>"<RJ>" <baranick RemoveThis @localnet.com> writes:
>>
>>>Does "scanning" produce better resolution than
>>>the image produced by digicam electronics ?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>When will we see a "slide shooter" ??
>>
>>That's pretty easy to do with a light table and a digicam that can
>>shoot from close-up. The results are ok, but scanners are better.
>
>
> I think the guy is asking for a digital camers that shoots slides. Somebody
> tell him!
>
>

Ahh! Okay, the reason is that linear detector arrays can be created to a
high density more easily than 2D arrays. Micro mechanics and stepping
motors, along with optical lever arrangement can get super res in other
direction.

Some early high end pro digital cameras DID use mechanical scanning.
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t6qr3259695bhjej4mdiapvppt1i7fsc5c@4ax.com...
> Skip M writes:
>
>> Even though high resolution digital images produce better large
>> (read: VERY large) prints ...
>
> Since when?
>
> If I want very large prints, I shoot MF.
>

If you're shooting 6x9, maybe, 6x7, maybe, but you're getting 10-12 images
per roll. If you are shooting 6x4.5, you are fudging. 12mp or 16mp digital
resolves more than that. Medium format covers a lot of ground.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

Skip M wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:t6qr3259695bhjej4mdiapvppt1i7fsc5c@4ax.com...
> > Skip M writes:
> >
> >> Even though high resolution digital images produce better large
> >> (read: VERY large) prints ...
> >
> > Since when?
> >
> > If I want very large prints, I shoot MF.
> >
>
> If you're shooting 6x9, maybe, 6x7, maybe, but you're getting 10-12 images
> per roll. If you are shooting 6x4.5, you are fudging. 12mp or 16mp digital
> resolves more than that. Medium format covers a lot of ground.

When it comes to resolution I think that even 6x4, when using a slow
film, good lens, processed well and scanned well, beat out even a 16MP
digital. If I am doing my math right the 6x4.5 has about 2.7 times
more area then 35mm, so comparing it to a 16MP camera would be the same
as comparing a 5.9 MP digital to 35mm.

For overall image quaility the 16MP may well win out and a larger print
from a 1Ds Mark II could look better then one from a 6x4.5 but it would
be a close call. But the 6x4.5 should revolve more detail.

Given all the other limitation of a film camera, like low ISO, I would
see little point in shooting 6x4.5 if I have a 1Ds Mark II, just as
there would be little point in shooting 35mm if one has a 10D.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

Skip M writes:

> If you're shooting 6x9, maybe, 6x7, maybe, but you're getting 10-12 images
> per roll. If you are shooting 6x4.5, you are fudging. 12mp or 16mp digital
> resolves more than that.

It seems that the bandwagon effect and media hype often manage to
trump reality.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

baranick.DeleteThis@localnet.com writes:

>Like many older photogs, I've got a ton of slides to save.

>The accepted solution seems to be a "slide scanner".
>But WHY ?

>Does "scanning" produce better resolution than
>the image produced by digicam electronics ?

For a given price, a linear array film scanner gives better results than
a digital camera with a slide copier attachment. There are a bunch of
reasons related to optics and illumination and bit depth as well as the
higher resolution. This isn't likely to change any time soon - linear
sensors have advantages over area sensors when you don't need to capture
the entire image at one time.

It seems like only a month or two since the last time we discussed this
subject in this group, and I wrote a longer explanation at that time.
I'm sure Google Groups would find you the discussion if you wanted to
know more.

On the other hand, if you already have a high-resolution DSLR, buying a
slide copier and suitable light source is definitely cheaper than buying
a whole film scanner, so that can be attractive - it just won't work as
well.

>We certainly don't see even high-end cameras "scanning" their shots.

Actually, there are a number of high-end scanning backs for larger
formats. They just aren't usable for most subjects.

>So why are slide copiers based on an old, and sloooow
>scanning technology ?

Maybe because it works and gives high quality?

>When will we see a "slide shooter" ??

A "slide shooter" as a standalone device would have to cost *more* than
either a DSLR alone or existing slide scanners, and still give inferior
results unless it cost a lot more. Who would buy it?

Dave
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ??