Re: Epson 10000XL scanner and i1 profiler
On 31 Aug 2014, at 17:52, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
And that's all assuming you're limiting yourself to the Canon 5DIII. If you're doing oversized high-resolution art reproduction for commercial work, you're going to be using much higher resolution gear, and at least in medium format. There're many off-the-shelf offerings of at least 80 megapickles, and your budget is the only limit past that.
See my previous post for the *requirements*. I’ll add that I think that high resolution capture using medium format is also seriously deficient because of moiré issues. An example that comes to mind is photographing bird feathers. If you stick them in front of a studio back that can capture <250MB RGB files and take close up shots, take a detailed look at the individual barbs. I’ve found the weirdest artefacts generated by the cameras — bands of in- and out-of-focus image (in a sharp shot) or patterning like tiny little swastikas instead of real detail. Stick them on the Lanovia’s scanner bed and you get exactly what you’re expecting — sharp detail without moiré issues. Artwork for me includes stuff like etchings, engravings, woodcut and linocut etc. 300 dpi capture and funky anti-moiré issues aren’t good enough. -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
On Aug 31, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Martin Orpen <martin@idea-digital.com> wrote:
Artwork for me includes stuff like etchings, engravings, woodcut and linocut etc.
Ah -- yes, that would have its own peculiar requirements. Paintings (and sculptures), not so much. Still, it might be worth taking a step back and examining the actual output requirements. If it's going to be printed at reduced size in a four-color book or magazine, a 300 ppi photograph may still be more than adequate so long as the moiré doesn't show up in the print. Pixel peeping reveals an amazing panoply of sins that don't actually appear on paper. I recently made a book of abstract wood sculptures that included some fold-out pages of 1:1 reproductions of works up to 20" x 70". The highlight recovery and some other post-processing left some gnarly edge artifacts when viewed at 100% pixels, but those literally don't show up at all in the prints. I could have cleaned them up, but it would have been an utter waste, as nobody other than me will ever see them. ...and, again, this is from a two-foot-by-seven-foot panorama shot with a 5DIII, printed actual size. It was a single row of, I think, four exposures. b&
I'd guess you wouldn't get de-mosaic artifacts if you used something like a three shot DB? I'd think there are still modern variants of that around? Although that might present other issues... René Damkot www.damkot.com www.getcolormanaged.com Verzonden vanaf mobiel
On 31 aug. 2014, at 19:48, Martin Orpen <martin@idea-digital.com> wrote:
On 31 Aug 2014, at 17:52, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
And that's all assuming you're limiting yourself to the Canon 5DIII. If you're doing oversized high-resolution art reproduction for commercial work, you're going to be using much higher resolution gear, and at least in medium format. There're many off-the-shelf offerings of at least 80 megapickles, and your budget is the only limit past that.
See my previous post for the *requirements*.
I’ll add that I think that high resolution capture using medium format is also seriously deficient because of moiré issues.
An example that comes to mind is photographing bird feathers. If you stick them in front of a studio back that can capture <250MB RGB files and take close up shots, take a detailed look at the individual barbs. I’ve found the weirdest artefacts generated by the cameras — bands of in- and out-of-focus image (in a sharp shot) or patterning like tiny little swastikas instead of real detail.
Stick them on the Lanovia’s scanner bed and you get exactly what you’re expecting — sharp detail without moiré issues.
Artwork for me includes stuff like etchings, engravings, woodcut and linocut etc. 300 dpi capture and funky anti-moiré issues aren’t good enough.
-- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/rene%40damkot.com
This email sent to rene@damkot.com
On 31 Aug 2014, at 22:28, Rene Damkot <rene@damkot.com> wrote:
I'd guess you wouldn't get de-mosaic artifacts if you used something like a three shot DB? I'd think there are still modern variants of that around?
Although that might present other issues...
I’ve got one of those too in my reprographic museum :-) A 6MP Leaf Volare, attached to a SinarCam and Nikon lens mount — all in perfect working order. The pics from this old 3 shot back do have a quality and feel that you can’t get on a modern, single shot camera. Anybody else still got one of these gathering dust? -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
On 31 Aug 2014, at 23:49, Martin Orpen wrote:
Anybody else still got one of these gathering dust?
I have an Imacon Flexframe 3020 with SCSI controller box which I think was an iteration of the Leaf...and yes, in multi-shot mode, it was amazing for a 6MP device. kind regards Nick __________ dUNMUR | photographer info<at>nickdunmur.com
A scanning back using a tri-linear array sensor, e.g a Betterlight scan back, would yield the same result in a single pass. -----Original Message----- From: Rene Damkot Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:28 PM To: Martin Orpen Cc: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List Subject: Re: Epson 10000XL scanner and i1 profiler I'd guess you wouldn't get de-mosaic artifacts if you used something like a three shot DB? I'd think there are still modern variants of that around? Although that might present other issues... René Damkot www.damkot.com www.getcolormanaged.com Verzonden vanaf mobiel
On 31 aug. 2014, at 19:48, Martin Orpen <martin@idea-digital.com> wrote:
On 31 Aug 2014, at 17:52, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
And that's all assuming you're limiting yourself to the Canon 5DIII. If you're doing oversized high-resolution art reproduction for commercial work, you're going to be using much higher resolution gear, and at least in medium format. There're many off-the-shelf offerings of at least 80 megapickles, and your budget is the only limit past that.
See my previous post for the *requirements*.
I’ll add that I think that high resolution capture using medium format is also seriously deficient because of moiré issues.
An example that comes to mind is photographing bird feathers. If you stick them in front of a studio back that can capture <250MB RGB files and take close up shots, take a detailed look at the individual barbs. I’ve found the weirdest artefacts generated by the cameras — bands of in- and out-of-focus image (in a sharp shot) or patterning like tiny little swastikas instead of real detail.
Stick them on the Lanovia’s scanner bed and you get exactly what you’re expecting — sharp detail without moiré issues.
Artwork for me includes stuff like etchings, engravings, woodcut and linocut etc. 300 dpi capture and funky anti-moiré issues aren’t good enough.
-- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/rene%40damkot.com
This email sent to rene@damkot.com
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/jc%40technicalphoto.... This email sent to jc@technicalphoto.com
Hmmm. Still got one of those in the attic. And the ancient Mac that came with it. System 8 and SCSI. Oh joy. ;) René Damkot www.damkot.com www.getcolormanaged.com Verzonden vanaf mobiel
On 1 sep. 2014, at 16:36, John Castronovo <jc@technicalphoto.com> wrote:
A scanning back using a tri-linear array sensor, e.g a Betterlight scan back, would yield the same result in a single pass.
-----Original Message----- From: Rene Damkot Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:28 PM To: Martin Orpen Cc: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List Subject: Re: Epson 10000XL scanner and i1 profiler
I'd guess you wouldn't get de-mosaic artifacts if you used something like a three shot DB? I'd think there are still modern variants of that around?
Although that might present other issues...
René Damkot www.damkot.com www.getcolormanaged.com
Verzonden vanaf mobiel
On 31 aug. 2014, at 19:48, Martin Orpen <martin@idea-digital.com> wrote:
On 31 Aug 2014, at 17:52, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
And that's all assuming you're limiting yourself to the Canon 5DIII. If you're doing oversized high-resolution art reproduction for commercial work, you're going to be using much higher resolution gear, and at least in medium format. There're many off-the-shelf offerings of at least 80 megapickles, and your budget is the only limit past that.
See my previous post for the *requirements*.
I’ll add that I think that high resolution capture using medium format is also seriously deficient because of moiré issues.
An example that comes to mind is photographing bird feathers. If you stick them in front of a studio back that can capture <250MB RGB files and take close up shots, take a detailed look at the individual barbs. I’ve found the weirdest artefacts generated by the cameras — bands of in- and out-of-focus image (in a sharp shot) or patterning like tiny little swastikas instead of real detail.
Stick them on the Lanovia’s scanner bed and you get exactly what you’re expecting — sharp detail without moiré issues.
Artwork for me includes stuff like etchings, engravings, woodcut and linocut etc. 300 dpi capture and funky anti-moiré issues aren’t good enough.
-- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/rene%40damkot.com
This email sent to rene@damkot.com
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/jc%40technicalphoto....
This email sent to jc@technicalphoto.com _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/rene%40damkot.com
This email sent to rene@damkot.com
The dpi numbers in scanner manufacturer's documents should be interpreted as SPI numbers, samples per inch and not as PPI pixels per inch or any other unit that suggests information content per inch. In practice the best information per inch in the image can still be the result of using the highest SPI setting. Epson's oversampling in film scanning does help on noise reduction/dynamic range, the user can still resample to a lower PPI resolution afterwards with the right resampling algorithms. Not comparable with drum scanners the prosumer flatbed models like the V700-V750 can deliver nice scans of MF to 4x5 film sizes. If used with wet mounting, film clinged to the underside of for example the Betterscanning wet mount holder, image emulsion towards the sensor, the holder tweaked for best focus and the scanner driven by Vuescan with appropriate settings. "RAW"export, ACR deconvolution sharpening etc helps too. For that matter I think that the lens design in this type of flatbed scanners is actually hitting diffraction on purpose to create a more equal sharpness over the scan width. It asks for some devotion but I often prefer that scanner above the Nikon 8000 that I tweaked in similar ways but tends to exaggerate film grain and overexpose shadow detail in B&W negatives. These days I only use its green LEDS when scanning B&W negatives. The Nikon's SPI versus usable PPI is more correct though, Image Engineering thinks it can deliver 3800 PPI resolution and they used it as intended :-) Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
participants (6)
-
Ben Goren
-
Ernst Dinkla
-
John Castronovo
-
Martin Orpen
-
Nick Dunmur
-
Rene Damkot