Exactly.
There's another variable not being discussed: appearance of grain. It is a much higher bar to reach. Because even at smallish sizes the grain quality impacts the appearance of an image. Scanning is tough on grain. It either gets smeared or exaggerated, and there's an inverse correlation between grain quality and sharpening. For this reason I am in a "minimal sharpening while scanning" camp.
Regarding 35mm, I suppose the v850 cannot provide sharpening as good as a drum scanner. But it does a pretty good job certainly acceptable for the web.
Here's 35mm with Tmax 400.
Removing ground brush with fire - 35mm Tmax 400
New Jersey Forest Fire Department clears bush by burning. Near Craig House, Monmouth Battlefield.www.flickr.com
Sorry, you misunderstood me. I'm not saying there's no difference when adjusting height. Of course there is! What i mean is that it will not enable you to go beyond the optical limitation of the machine (around 2700dpi).
And what makes "little different" is to use a glass holder vs a non-glass holder, assuming both have their height optimized.
Yes, I can see the difference, moreover if you click on the link and see the above mage at full size.
And, as I hinted above, here due to the film being large format, the impact of grain will be minimal. But apply sharpening to a 35mm frame or 6x6 frame scanned with drum scan vs V850 and the difference will be dramatic.
Digital sharpening changes the image, based on statistical data and relatively reliable algorithms.
It doesn't reveal detail that is hard to see but otherwise there. It interprets what is there, and adds more based on statistical assumptions.
It certainly makes a lot of scans look better. But it can make the file a less accurate copy of the original.
Here is a scan of a pinhole negative, with relatively little sharpening - it looks reasonably similar to the negative.
View attachment 309439
And here is a sharpened image of the same digital file, with a little bit of contrast tweaking.
View attachment 309440
And finally, here is a nice and pretty positive of the scan, sharpened and adjusted to taste.
View attachment 309441
A carefully made darkroom print will usually appear less "sharp" than the last version, although unsharp masking techniques can be used to add apparent sharpness.
But in all cases, sharpening adds something that isn't already there.
FWIW, every single method used to digitize film will disrupt the acutance of the original - it is inevitable in any duplication process. Some digitization processes are less disruptive than others. It is appropriate to do some sharpening, to help offset that disruption.
In my sample, the Howtek was not sharpened but the V850 was sharpened a lot. So I understand your point. But if the end results due to required sharpening is not noticed, what difference does that make? After all, isn't that what all sharpening is doing even on digital photos? MAking things that are blurrier into something that's sharper to the eye?
Depends on whether it matters to you how faithful to the original your scans are.
If you don't mind the fact that scanning loses detail and sharpening adds different detail, not otherwise present in the film original, then go for it.
But if you look at my samples between the Howtek and the sharpened Epson, you can't see any difference in the final details.
"most" 135 film seems to range from 50 to 100 lp/mm, with high resolution films like t-max 400 peaking at 200 lp/mm. I realize there's not a hard and fast rule for translating to PPI-- even those numbers are based on contrast ratios, which are going to vary from section to section, but 100 lp/mm is translated by SilverFast, for example, to about 3250 PPI
[sharpening] interprets what is there, and adds more based on statistical assumptions.
No, you're just choosing to ignore the evidence.
Check out this carefully done test of Epson V850 with film height adjustment, still no more than 2600dpi possible.
There are also other tests of glass carrier vs no-glass carrier (all with height adjustment). The difference is minimal. Which is something people who have been using enlargers for decades already knew.
Well, to each its own, i already provided enough info.
100 lp/mm is 5000+ dpi.
Hm... I wouldn't put it this way. There are several sharpening techniques. Your statement describes "smart sharpening/upsampling" in Photoshp. But the good ol unsharp mask is basically just contrast adjustment. It's quite literally takes what's already there and makes it more visible without adding anything at all.
Source?
Math. A 35mm negative is 36mm long. 100lp/mm means you need 7,200 pixels for 36mm AKA 1.42 inches.
7,200/1.42=5070
I will say that 100lp/mm is firmly outside of the realm of real world benefits. Combination of lens quality, grain, shake and low contrast detail, plus the fact that 95% of photos I take are crap anyway result in... let's just say I'm not sure I have a single negative which can benefit from scanning at this resolution. It only works for staged shots like this, but even that one is HP5+ and, therefore, downsampled to 6,400px on the wide side.
"most" 135 film seems to range from 50 to 100 lp/mm, with high resolution films like t-max 400 peaking at 200 lp/mm. I realize there's not a hard and fast rule for translating to PPI-- even those numbers are based on contrast ratios, which are going to vary from section to section, but 100 lp/mm is translated by SilverFast, for example, to about 3250 PPI
This is photrio. There are no dead horses that can't be beaten just a bit more.
Yeah, I've read those "reviews". And I have an Epson v800. Their results are, for lack of a better word, poor. They're using a glass target, and they're not focusing at the 3mm height that the Epson sensors are calibrated for for high resolution work (or if they are, they completely failed to mention it in their methodology). Garbage in, garbage out.
Prove me wrong.....literally.....but it seems to me that Epson scanners have a focusing problem. You gotta do "this" to get best results. I've never seen anything about Canon scanners needing focusing.
Maybe I'm naive. Mi dos centavos.
Math. A 35mm negative is 36mm long. 100lp/mm means you need 7,200 pixels for 36mm AKA 1.42 inches.
7,200/1.42=5070
I will say that 100lp/mm is firmly outside of the realm of real world benefits. Combination of lens quality, grain, shake and low contrast detail, plus the fact that 95% of photos I take are crap anyway result in... let's just say I'm not sure I have a single negative which can benefit from scanning at this resolution. It only works for staged shots like this, but even that one is HP5+ and, therefore, downsampled to 6,400px on the wide side.
Flavio81 is completely right in that any photo will benefit in sharpness with better scanning. Contrasty high frequency tonal chances happens everywhere. Almost any transition between an object and background for example.
Sure I can - they look different.
The Howtek is likely to be more faithful to the original film, while the sharpening on the Epson adds a pleasing facsimile of detail that looks nice in the scan.
Whether the differences matter to you depends on what you are looking for.
Hm... I wouldn't put it this way. There are several sharpening techniques. Your statement describes "smart sharpening/upsampling" in Photoshp. But the good ol unsharp mask is basically just contrast adjustment. It's quite literally takes what's already there and makes it more visible without adding anything at all.
Much of what we actually see is the contrast between adjacent details of an image - in many cases very small, very adjacent details.The sharpening technique I prefer for film is frequency separation. It allows me to separate out the level of detail I want to sharpen, and apply as much sharpening as I like to that detail, without over-sharpening anything else. You're right that it's just altering the contrast between areas, but at least I have more detailed (ha) control over the process.
But Matt, does it really matter? It's all illusion manufactured in our brains. So the sharpening is really adding contrast to the edges (acutance). It's not really adding more resolution. That's fixed by the sensor or film.Much of what we actually see is the contrast between adjacent details of an image - in many cases very small, very adjacent details.
All of the sharpening techniques increase that contrast - sometimes accentuating differences that we can already perceive, and in some cases creating such differences, where there were no perceivable differences before.
It is the latter situation that I reference when I talk about sharpening "adding" detail.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?