I was calling myself illiterate (in scanners)
Erwin Puts had some pics of what grain looks like at magnification and as Helge noted it would take a lot of pixels to effectively duplicate the larger magnifications:
Projection magnification may be better than present day scanners at duplicating silver grains.
The ship Amateur Photographer used is still there, it was more readable in those days.
I hope I haven’t inadvertently caused offence somewhere?
Join the club, this article is from 2000:What I haven’t completely grasped is how a scanner operating at low resolution creates a noise pattern that is irregular like graininess, and presumably founded on the same grain clumping, but coarser and less distinct than what you see optically.
Yeah, it was in the context of my previous post, therefore easy to misunderstand.The formulation of your post didn't make that explicit, so I think that was why it was binned
You haven't, all is good. It's just that my tests (of physical prints side-by-side) show what they show - don't know why Plustek claims otherwise.I hope I haven’t inadvertently caused offence somewhere?
It's just that my tests (of physical prints side-by-side) show what they show - don't know why Plustek claims otherwise.
Despite being inconclusive, that's a really helpful article. Thanks!Join the club, this article is from 2000:
Despite being inconclusive, that's a really helpful article. Thanks!
In some ways that describes a lot of Photrio threads!
Here's a comparison of 7200 vs 3600 DPI on a Plustek 8200. Left to right respectively.
Adox HR-50, HR-DEV, Olympus 35 RC
View attachment 350345
Not the sharpest camera around, but I can see some details missing. For example, in the "4" in 142 I can almost make out the space inside.
I used the "Less Auto Sharpening" setting under Unsharp Mask.
Full text reads "142 ST SW, DEAD END -->".
For my work, it's not quite enough gain in detail to scan everything at 7200 DPI (with 4x file sizes). But I feel more detail is to be had. The "4200" or so DPI guess made by others bears some consideration.
Somehow, all I see is huge pixels. I can't read any text in any of the images. Am I the only one?
... and by an act of faith I can believe that the blob group at the top left of each reads 142...
For example, in the "4" in 142 I can almost make out the space inside.
What would be interesting is if you had a third sample that took the 3600 original, and uprezed it to 7200 by an editing program.
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?