06-06-2010, 04:10 PM
[quote name='Comte' date='06 June 2010 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1275833005' post='272']
Dear all,
thank you for your help!
I didn't think about the low light intensity coming from the enlarger. In fact this would never be enough for a proper scan. Although this way supposed to deliver the highest resolution possible.
I also had the idea to use a macro lens, but the highest magnification is 1:1 and therefore the quality of the film slide would be lost.[/quote]
This is actually a general misconception. You use another system for recording which consists of multiple elements, thereby by definition lowering the resolution. The resulting resolution is always equal to the inverse of the sum of the inverse resolutions of the individual components of the system used for recording.
Yes, you eliminate at least 1 step of possible resolution loss this way.
Partly yes. The Nikon system is more convenient, or rather was more convenient, as you can't get any drivers for it anymore, for the newer OSes, and it isn't manufactured anymore.
The Canon 8900 and 9000 are considered professional line scanners by many, and certainly are at least semi-pro when it comes to capabilities, for smaller quantities anyway, and the pros I know who use it say they get better results from these scanners than they did from the Nikon models you mention, with a lot less work (automatic scratch fixing for example, and better colour balance).
Yes, they can. The question is whether your negatives have anything close to this resolution. The short answer is a definite no. But that doesn't matter, because it means you lose as little as possible this way.
It means you get jpeg quality, I assume. The 8900 and 9000 AFAIK have true 48 bit capability. I just tried to find some info for the 4200F, and it does look like it should be capable of scanning with proper 16bit/channel output, however. Of course, I can be mistaken, I don't have all the specs. Alternatively you could consider the 5600F.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
Dear all,
thank you for your help!
I didn't think about the low light intensity coming from the enlarger. In fact this would never be enough for a proper scan. Although this way supposed to deliver the highest resolution possible.
I also had the idea to use a macro lens, but the highest magnification is 1:1 and therefore the quality of the film slide would be lost.[/quote]
This is actually a general misconception. You use another system for recording which consists of multiple elements, thereby by definition lowering the resolution. The resulting resolution is always equal to the inverse of the sum of the inverse resolutions of the individual components of the system used for recording.
Quote:So scanners seem to be the first choice?!
Yes, you eliminate at least 1 step of possible resolution loss this way.
Quote:My Canoscan 4200F only scans 35mm films and calibrating it properly is not an easy task.
The Canon models you propose are rather cheap compared to these professional scanners (there is a Nikon beast for many hundreds of euros and the Epson professional line).
Do you know the difference?
Partly yes. The Nikon system is more convenient, or rather was more convenient, as you can't get any drivers for it anymore, for the newer OSes, and it isn't manufactured anymore.
The Canon 8900 and 9000 are considered professional line scanners by many, and certainly are at least semi-pro when it comes to capabilities, for smaller quantities anyway, and the pros I know who use it say they get better results from these scanners than they did from the Nikon models you mention, with a lot less work (automatic scratch fixing for example, and better colour balance).
Quote:I wonder if these scanners can reach the resolution and dynamic range that manufactures promise.
Yes, they can. The question is whether your negatives have anything close to this resolution. The short answer is a definite no. But that doesn't matter, because it means you lose as little as possible this way.
Quote:My Canoscan 4200F supposed to reach 16bits per colour channel. What it really does is 8bits. The software then multiplies the values by 256 and that's what they call 16bit!
It means you get jpeg quality, I assume. The 8900 and 9000 AFAIK have true 48 bit capability. I just tried to find some info for the 4200F, and it does look like it should be capable of scanning with proper 16bit/channel output, however. Of course, I can be mistaken, I don't have all the specs. Alternatively you could consider the 5600F.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....