Canon 90D/M6II + Sigma 70mm Macro ART Lens Resolution

[Adrian Bacon]

Haha, that's hilarious!

Yes, but true. Many of my clients have come to the realization that getting large scans isn't for them because they don't have enough storage space. The large scans are close to 2GB per roll for the DNG files (this is after compression). If you're a serious amateur and average a roll or more a week, that's a 100GB+ a year of storage growth. If most of your shots are snaps that you could have easily taken with your phone, but you did it with film because you wanted to, is that worth it? For many, the medium scans at 8MP and jpegs are much smaller, and easier to store, and for how they use them, more than enough resolution.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

It is only lately that I started to play with Lightroom which appears to have "Adobe Color" profile for all supported cameras, seemingly negating their unique color characteristics, no?

The "Adobe Color" is actually new. Before that, the profile was "Adobe Standard", and yes, LR does largely negate the color differences between cameras, but that is because Adobe basically has a color profile for each camera. If you convert the raw files to DNG, ACR/LR actually embeds all the color operations it does as metadata in the file that you can inspect with exiftool. Once you get a few cameras through your system, you'll find that there's a pretty significant amount of hoop jumping that happens to get them all to look so similar. This is why when a new camera gets released, unless Adobe had access to it ahead of time, it takes a while for ACR/LR to support the raw files. Adobe basically has to go figure out which profile they already have is a best match for that sensor and/or tweak/build a profile for it and put it into the code. This is on top of looking to see if they can even parse the file with existing code or if they need to write a parser for it. This is not a trivial amount of effort.

 

[ced]

Adrian which chart (source) were you using in this test please? I ask because many charts as the USAF are dodgy to say the least.
There was a time because of that I ended up making my own, the only downside was the output medium that had it's limitations.
Some idea here from a reputed expert: https://jimdoty.com/learn/lenses/usaf_test/usaf_chart/usaf_chart.html
Here the info is available to make your own: https://www.appliedimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/USAF-1951-Test-Target-T-20_v1-04.pdf
Thanks for that informing post!

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Adrian which chart (source) were you using in this test please? I ask because many charts as the USAF are dodgy to say the least.
There was a time because of that I ended up making my own, the only downside was the output medium that had it's limitations.
Some idea here from a reputed expert: https://jimdoty.com/learn/lenses/usaf_test/usaf_chart/usaf_chart.html
Here the info is available to make your own: https://www.appliedimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/USAF-1951-Test-Target-T-20_v1-04.pdf
Thanks for that informing post!

i purchased my chart from Edmund Optics. https://www.edmundoptics.com/f/1951-usaf-glass-slide-resolution-targets/12064/
https://www.edmundoptics.com/f/1951-usaf-glass-slide-resolution-targets/12064/
not dodgy.

 

[ced]

Adrian, Thanks! Some of their charts printed are dodgy but the one on glass is perfect.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Adrian, Thanks! Some of their charts printed are dodgy but the one on glass is perfect.

I would never use a printed test target to measure the performance of a film scanning setup for the same reason I'd not likely use film. All you'd be doing is measuring the performance of the medium, not the scanner. The articles you linked maybe might have been fine back in the early 2000s (I think the one from jimdoty.com actually is from then), but systems have gained a significant amount of resolution since then, whereas the medium hasn't really changed much.