Do Autofocus Scanners Have Trouble Focusing on B&W Film?

[koraks]

I am obtaining a file with sharper native characteristics.

I don't think so, though. You're just performing an operation that makes things look a little better to your eye, but there's no true information gain. In fact, there's an information degradation since you're adding non-image information to the image and you won't be able to take it out again. Besides, I'm sure there's also plenty of info online about the inherent problems of different sharpening actions interacting across different stages of the image editing process; e.g. if you sharpen the full-res scan and then sharpen again after downscaling for the web, the result may be visibly affected because you sharpened twice (e.g. jagged edges and other interference artefacts).

Things might be(come) a little different when/if AI will be applied to scanning, as you'd then be able to actually add image information that has a decent probability of being a substitute for real information. But merely stating it this way, even in this tentative formulation, is sufficient grounds to spark a heated and probably infinite debate. So perhaps let's not go there...yet.

 

[Steven Lee]

I usually treat sharpening as one of the last steps as well, but in my mind, sharpening of a film scan is a little different. Sharpening the effect of the grain (grain clumps, more technically, but you get what I mean) by itself seems like a resolution thing to me, as in, I am obtaining a file with sharper native characteristics. The other kind of sharpening would be somewhere between grain sharpening and contrast enhancement, in other words something that sharpens the larger elements in the image, the things that were actually in the scene and not part of the inherent medium of film. If that makes any sense.

I agree that sharpening plays a big role in how a digital image looks, and I also observed that film scans are far more succeptable to sharpening than smooth(er) images from digital cameras. But to me the effect is devastating. Sharpening does not enhance, but destroys the grain character making it look highly unnatural.

My approach to sharpening is to have it completely off. Zero. For camera scanning this means mandatory down-sampling, i.e. while the native "scan" is 8,000px on the wide size (camera native resolution) but I downsample to about 5,000 because those extra 3,000 wide pixels are wasted by the bayer grid anyway. I shared the results above.

 

[agentlossing]

I don't think so, though. You're just performing an operation that makes things look a little better to your eye, but there's no true information gain. In fact, there's an information degradation since you're adding non-image information to the image and you won't be able to take it out again. Besides, I'm sure there's also plenty of info online about the inherent problems of different sharpening actions interacting across different stages of the image editing process; e.g. if you sharpen the full-res scan and then sharpen again after downscaling for the web, the result may be visibly affected because you sharpened twice (e.g. jagged edges and other interference artefacts).

Things might be(come) a little different when/if AI will be applied to scanning, as you'd then be able to actually add image information that has a decent probability of being a substitute for real information. But merely stating it this way, even in this tentative formulation, is sufficient grounds to spark a heated and probably infinite debate. So perhaps let's not go there...yet.

Yep, I know this. I... don't care.

 

[koraks]

Yep, I know this. I... don't care.

That's fair enough. I can sort of see the appeal of having scans on your hard drive that are already sharpened. They kind of look nice when you open them. I'd personally just run them through a GIMP action for sharpening - and if I really cared, I would read up a bit on sharpening techniques and use what I deemed the most appropriate approach. I'm not sure if that would land me at the black-box behavior of a scanning app. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't, although it does sound easy.

 

[Radost]

Depends on whose consensus you ask for. I wouldn't be part of that particular consensus, I suppose.

Sharpening as part of the scanning workflow makes no sense to me, because in my mind, sharpening is part of the optimization process for a certain output. Scanning is an input activity; it should in my mind yield the most neutral image data that can then be used for whatever purpose intended.

By the time the image is then made up for that specific purposes sharpening can be part of the process and is typically one of the very lasts steps in the chain.

Btw, entire tomes have been written on sharpening and the many ways it can be approached. If you do a Google search in this, I'm sure there's plenty to keep you happy for a week of intensive reading and experimentation.

I don’t think anybody sharpens while scanning with silver fast anymore.
Even If i need a quick turn around I still scan RAW and do post sharpening.

 

[Radost]

iHDR is an upgrade which costs extra, correct? My version is what came with the scanner. Their upgrades are pretty pricey for me.

I don’t agree. They have specials all the time.
This is today upgrade from the SE version
I think I paid more then twice that.
It’s the price of a restaurant meal…

 

[koraks]

It’s the price of a restaurant meal…

I see you like to dine in decent places

 

[Radost]

I see you like to dine in decent places

Decent places are more like $500-700
I have a 4 people in my family. It’s like $30 a person.

 

[koraks]

Oh, right; I was thinking in 'per head' prices. Dinner at a restaurant is usually around €100 a person for us, including drinks. We rarely go far over that, and below that, we generally don't bother going out and rather have a home-cooked meal instead. We don't eat out all too often.

Sorry for off-topic.