The minimum dMax is also very important. The higher the number, the better the scanner can "see" through the denser parts of the film. That's important to see shadow details better.
The minimum dMax is also very important. The higher the number, the better the scanner can "see" through the denser parts of the film. That's important to see shadow details better.OK thank you very much for your answers.
One question again: How do you judge the quality of a scanner besides resolution and bit depth?
Is there any parameter that matters besides that when it is about telling how much quality loss you will have?
Or can you generally say that the more resolution the negative is scanned with the lower the quality loss is?
I know there is also the MTF of the scanners that would be important but you rarely find those online, you would have to figure that out yourself.
Are you sure it wasn't Epson ScanSmart or Epson Scan software?I 'invested' I an Epson V850 Pro a few years ago..It came with Viewscan software..
Thank you so much for all your interesting posts!
What do you think about using the Nikon LS-5000 to scan 35 mm negatives? I know it's not 8K, but it is still over 4K.
Do you think it is enough to scan 35mm negatives without quality loss? Do you think 16 Bit is enough?
OK thank you very much for your answers.
One question again: How do you judge the quality of a scanner besides resolution and bit depth?
Is there any parameter that matters besides that when it is about telling how much quality loss you will have?
Or can you generally say that the more resolution the negative is scanned with the lower the quality loss is?
I know there is also the MTF of the scanners that would be important but you rarely find those online, you would have to figure that out yourself.
Boy now I'm really confused. I've got a little Nikon Coolscan V, I picked it up used. I use Vuescan no troubles. I was using to scan my Dad's early Kodachrome work. I made some prints on a Canon inkjet, maybe a bit bigger than 11x14, came out beautiful.
I wish I could take a course on how to do all the computer Voodoo. I use Lightroom for my Digital cameras, Photoshop is too much.
I've switched to Affinity, which has most of the features of Photoshop, but has simplified the interface by breaking it into "personas". It's photo-healing tools are good enough I've given up on ICE.
You forgot the 3600 for the other direction. It's 1.41" x 3600 x 1" x 3600 = 18.3MB (Note: 25.4mm = 1" and 36mm = 1.41")Much of the confusion in this thread is related to the terms "4K" and "8K". These are generally terms related to the number of pixels in the horizontal plane only of a digital image (the vertical resolution varies with aspect ratio). These terms have little applicability to still film use. Even a low quality flatbed can produce a 8K scan if the original is large enough. My Plustek OpticFilm can produce a scan from 35mm film at its 3600 dpi setting of ( 3600 dpi * 36 mm / 25.4 mm/inch) or 5K. At its 7200 dpi setting, I can get a 10K file, but it doesn't look a lot different from the 3600 dpi file.
I have always found it interesting how the movie and still film industries have always described things by different incompatible definitions.
Thanks for the analysis and suggestions. At this time I don't do any printing and planned to have it professionally scanned when I do for wall-mounted prints. So I'm pretty satisfied with the V850. It seems a little better than my V600. The only printing I might also do is for a personal photobook that will use medium format and 4x5's. So the print size won't be larger than maybe a double spread in the book. Most probably just on one page. I think the V850 should suffice for medium format film scans for the book. What do you think?
Thank you so much for all your interesting posts!
What do you think about using the Nikon LS-5000 to scan 35 mm negatives? I know it's not 8K, but it is still over 4K.
Do you think it is enough to scan 35mm negatives without quality loss?
Thanks for your input, that's a good suggestion.Alan, you are welcome.
Concerning your last question: I don't know which quality level you personally consider as "good enough" for you. The quality requirements / standards of different photographers vary very much due to their individual preferences. Therefore I would suggest: Just try it. Maybe make at first a smaller book to test it (and your lab / book supplier).
For me personally the quality of an Epson flatbed scanner is not good enough for most of my personal applications. I own an Epson flatbed, too, but I am using it very rarely for negatives and transparencies, mostly for written documents and office applications, and sometimes for prints.
Everytime when I look at a flatbed scan of one of my medium format transparencies and compare them to the original on a lighttable, viewed through my Schneider-Kreuznach 3x medium format loupe, I am so disappointed by the the flatbed scan, and so excited by the outstanding quality of the orginal under this excellent loupe (and of course when projected with my Rollei medium format slide projector with the AV-Xenotar lens).
Best regards,
Henning
You forgot the 3600 for the other direction. It's 1.41" x 3600 x 1" x 3600 = 18.3MB (Note: 25.4mm = 1" and 36mm = 1.41")
If you use 2400dpi, which is what I use to scan 35mm on my V600 and V850, you get 1.4" x 2400 x1" x 2400 = 8.1mb which may be what the teacher wants. The student should ask.
What scanner/software do you use?
Oh boy. I'm glad somebody said it.I think we're getting well beyond information actually useful to the OP, and worse it's stuff that has been stated again and again on this forum. If you've been itching to show off everything you know about image resolution in the form of math formulas and graphs, maybe now is the time to ease off the trigger there, cowboy.
I think the OP stated his purpose hereOh boy. I'm glad somebody said it.
Did we ever get an answer as to what the OP was going to use the scans for
That's vague do you not think?to compare analog and digital photography.
I don't think it's that vague. I think I know that the OP wants to get the best of film (in digital form, it's kind of oxymoron) and see how it fares with the digital. They are evaluated in the digital domain so it's kind of not fair at all.That's vague do you not think?
Hello
Does anyone know Filmscanners with a resolution of 8K?
If not, which scanners have a resolution of 4K?
I need the best resolution for a project.
Best regards and thanks in advance
Thank you all for your answers and your interesting input!
To be more specific about my project, it is about figuring out if shooting analogue is still viable.
Actually it is about literally films (moving pictures) but I can not compare analogue and digital moving pictures since I have no chance to get the equipment for that so I compare photos.
If moving picutres are shot analogue, it is common to digitalize, for postproduction but also for distribution. This is why I compare them in digital form.
The question of my project so far is how I can compare them on a fair level since it would be unfair to compare a great digital Sensors quality with poor quality scan to come to the conclusion that digital is as good as analogue. So I have to find a comparision basis. I still have to think about that. When I posted the question I thought it would be best to compare the sensor to the analogue quality so that I need a scanner which is capturing this quality on the best level. But now I know that this is not possible so I need to take a step down and include the problem with quality loss in digitalization in my project somehow.
You have given me a lot of input and actually I don't have further questions at this point. Maybe I will have some in time again. So there is no need in giving me further answers but of course I am happy and thankful if you have further advices, but as mentioned, no need for it at this point.
Have a nice day and thanks again.
You forgot the 3600 for the other direction. It's 1.41" x 3600 x 1" x 3600 = 18.3MB (Note: 25.4mm = 1" and 36mm = 1.41")
If you use 2400dpi, which is what I use to scan 35mm on my V600 and V850, you get 1.4" x 2400 x1" x 2400 = 8.1mb which may be what the teacher wants. The student should ask.
If you are multiplying pixels times pixels, I believe the correct units would be "MP" (MegaPixels), and not MB (MegaBytes), right?
Knowing the megabyte file size tells us how much space a file will take up in storage, but I believe megabytes are much less useful for estimating the resolution of an image.
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?