What I meant is: you would expect that Epson would have changed the CCD selection at some point in the 20 years between the 4990 and the v850, but for some reason, they haven't, and their newer scanners offer only marginally better optical performance than my old and beaten 4990. So it's not unheard of that a seemingly outdated CCD remains in regular use despite upgrades to other parts of the machine throughout consecutive models. All sings point towards Plustek doing exactly the same.
How do we know that Epson didn't change sensor from 4990 to V850?
Effective resolution as proven in tests.What are all the signs pointing to Plustek using 3600dpi sensors?
(The various negations in that sentence make it hard to follow.)Where are the arguments that speak against the stated signs that Plustek is not using software interpolation at 7200dpi mode?
If someone thinks they’re scans look better at 7200dpi it doesn’t much matter whether the resolution is being achieved through interpolation or if there’s any additional detail to be found in test targets.
And maybe they’re right; maybe on their unit there is some improvement to be had and to them it might be worth it to increase scan time and file size to get it. We wouldn’t be able to know ourselves without the particular unit and frame in hand to test.
Lack of increase in effective resolution. They may have changed the sensor, but they apparently never upgraded it. More like a sidegrade, if one happened in the first place, which I doubt.
Effective resolution as proven in tests.
What signs?
Anyway, how relevant is all this? I've done my share of second handed guessing whether or not a scanner manufacturer may have upgraded a sensor or an ADC. My academic interest in this particular issue seems to run out at this point.
Just a practical observation:What are all the signs pointing to Plustek using 3600dpi sensors? Where are the arguments that speak against the stated signs that Plustek is not using software interpolation at 7200dpi mode?
Or your frame simply isn’t sharp enough.Both prints are practically identical, meaning that the 7200 number is a joke from Plustek 7600i Ai.
No problem. Maybe someone else can come up with reasonable answers to my above questions. Now I just want to send my resolution target to Helge to scan it on this fascinating scanner...
There can be no reasonable answers to unreasonable questions. You've fallen for a marketing trick of thinking optical resolution equals sensor resolving power.
and the extra scanning time is the software working out where to put them and not mining for better information from the negative.
Exactly what I read at the XP/Windows 7 times, so I always scan that way - although I don't know for sure if downsampling of interpolated image yields the better result, but I do it anyways and have scans like these: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ivo_stunga/but only to be obtained by scanning at higher resolution 7200 dpi.
IMO there is little incentive to improve the sensor in the Plustek 8100 as the resolution of fine detail is limited by the grain of the film. Only microfilm can improve fine detail much further, and the size of prints at 300 dpi would be of a size rarely used.
CD4-LC low contrast developer for scanning
Since my pile of silver gelatin prints got too big I have been storing my "prints" on Flickr , more recently on Flickr Pro which allows a maximum of 6144 pixels in the long direction. This gives about 85 lppm to the viewer. My film is 35mm CMS 20 II Pro scanned at 7200 [true~3600] setting on a...www.photrio.com
It’s not!
How are we going to get this persistent misunderstanding eradicated‽
Any ideas?
Also what seen as fuzzy grain in a scan is often not. It’s a mix of grain aliasing and sensor noise creating interference patterns.
Surely the more recent thread here is source enough? The OP of that thread concluded from his negative scan that FP4+ had fuzzy grain. Others (including myself) pointed out that what appears to be coarse grain in scans from budget scanners is not matched in darkroom prints from the same negatives. It's evidently a common observation among those who do both, but perhaps impossible to demonstrate online. What is your reason to question it?What is the source of your information that this is a misunderstanding?
And it can scan slide sandwiches too, meaning that it has hyperfocal thing going on or something (am quite illiterate about this).
Exactly what I read at the XP/Windows 7 times, so I always scan that way - although I don't know for sure if downsampling of interpolated image yields the better result, but I do it anyways and have scans like these:
Surely the more recent thread here is source enough? The OP of that thread concluded from his negative scan that FP4+ had fuzzy grain. Others (including myself) pointed out that what appears to be coarse grain in scans from budget scanners is not matched in darkroom prints from the same negatives. It's evidently a common observation among those who do both, but perhaps impossible to demonstrate online. What is your reason to question it?
What is the source of your information that this is a misunderstanding?
I accept your point about your Plustek scanner not being the limiting factor. That scan from CMS 20 II Pro is astonishing.That thread refers to the Epson 850 which resolves about 2400 lppm.
The Plustek 8100 resolves about 3800 lppm.
As illustrated in the link in post 117 there is a clear difference between scans of "ordinary" film and microfilm with the 8100.
Both the scans in post 117 came from files of about 30mb. Granted it should be possible to better show the grain structure as per a silver gelatin print with a lot more mb file size.
So I rephrase my claim to:
The resolution of fine detail [in scan files of about 30mb] is limited by the [apparent] grain of the film.
I accept your point about your Plustek scanner not being the limiting factor. That scan from CMS 20 II Pro is astonishing.
But I'm left puzzling over the difference in apparent grain between scanning 'ordinary' film at that sort of resolution and projection enlargement. How does it arise?
BTW, it was funny to see the bow portholes of HMS Belfast in one of your photos. It reminded me of the way Amateur Photographer used to 'test' films and lenses by photographing a ship moored on the Embankment (HMS Wellington?) from the other side of the river. If you could count all the portholes, centre and edge of the image at maximum aperture, the lens/film was considered pretty good.
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?