Re: Scanning Hardware
Re: Scanning Hardware
- Subject: Re: Scanning Hardware
- From: Jan Steinman <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:31:38 -0800
From: G BALLARD <email@hidden>
Question: Is an older Scitex flatbed scanner comparable, in overall
quality,
to a newer drum scanner for 4-color, fine-art poster?
Without knowing specifics, I'd say no. Flatbeds tend to suffer from
flare -- highlights bleeding into nearby shadows -- and lack of
dynamic range. I don't want to get into the Dmax thing again, but if
you just look at their specs, which you'd think either camp would
push to the limit, drums are always rated higher.
I asked for a drum scan, but later found out they used a flatbed (@ $110
a pop).
You got screwed. Flatbed scans are typically inferior to drum scans,
but are faster to set up, and therefore more profitable. They charged
you for a Cadilac and delivered a Chevy. The Chevy might have been
"good enough," but it should have only cost you a quarter or third of
what you paid.
This scan has to be the best it can. Can an older Scitex flatbed handle
it
in your experience? Or should I drum scan it? I can use it 16 inches
if
22 inches is over interpolating a 35mm film.
You need some 5,000 samples per inch. A very few late-model high-end
flatbeds claim to do that, but many drum scanners, even older models,
can do it.
A bigger question is, what are you sampling? Unless you've got Velvia
shot on a tripod, you're probably blowing up a lot of grain. I like
to sample at just below the grain level, then use Genuine Fractals to
make it bigger. This ends up synthesizing some detail, but it's a
heck of a lot easier -- and more pleasing to the eye -- than screwing
around with masks and Gaussian Blur and Unsharp Mask, trying to make
it look good.
--
: Jan Steinman <
mailto:email@hidden>
: Bytesmiths <
http://www.bytesmiths.com>