More on scanning 126 negative strips and slides.

[RSD99]

HeHeHeHe ...

Perverting the language, again?

HeHeHeHe ...

You stated:
"...
Even using the median figures of all of the scanner results for
each type of scanner produces a result for the Epson as being equivalent
to almost double the range you quoted it in.
...."

FWIW:
Resolving 3200 samples per inch is *not* the same as "performing equivalent
to a 3200 sample-per-inch film scanner."

Oh ... and "hiding behind specmanship" ... doesn't count either.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

HeHeHeHe ...

Perverting the language, again?

HeHeHeHe ...

Grow up, child!

You stated:
"...
Even using the median figures of all of the scanner results for
each type of scanner produces a result for the Epson as being equivalent
to almost double the range you quoted it in.
..."

Which it is.

FWIW:
Resolving 3200 samples per inch is *not* the same as "performing equivalent
to a 3200 sample-per-inch film scanner."

And I didn't suggest it was, you fool!

Neither is the Epson only capable of resolving 1000-1600 samples per
inch, a capability that would result, at the top end of that range, in
an MTF cut-off of less than 0.17cy/pixel, which even the worst of the
MTF charts you referenced don't fall into, the median being
approximately *double* your assessment, and the best being almost 2.3x
the resolution that you quote! Hence, no matter how you look at it,
whether a limiting resolution or an equivalent one, the data that you
cited suggest a true resolution that is at least double what you claim.

The fact that you don't even understand the issues you are discussing
(as you have already stated in a response to this thread) is only one of
your many problems!

 

[Bruce Graham]

"Kennedy McEwen" posted:
"...
I think *you* need to consider the implications of that last sentence
before using your "experience" to comment on relative performance of
certain devices to others.
..."

Then I think you really *need* to review the results of the Scanner
Bake-Off
http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html
Where the results were

Owner MTF 10% - 90%

Mike Engles 15.4 5.66 pixels ** The "sample"
you picked **

Mike Schlanker 12.69 6.98 pixels

Jeff Cable 11.5 7.52 pixels

Doug Fisher 11.1 8.31 pixels

Chris Thomas 8.995 9.97 pixels

Just a reminder ... my statement was

"... as the effective resolution actually is more like 1000 to 1600 samples
per inch. ..."

Which I believe is born out by the above data. Unfortunately, not all Epson
Perfection 4870 owners are achieving the absolute best performance level,
as experienced by Mike Engles [the example you erroneously used]... some of
us are seeing performance more like that experienced by "Chris Thomas" ...
and the "average" performance of an Epson 4870 would probably be pretty
close to the midpoint of the test data (MTF = 12.2, 10% - 90% 7.8 pixels).

Note that there's roughly a 75% spread in the data.

The software used was in order as above (of decreasing MTF):

Epson
Epson
Silverfast
Vuescan
Vuescan

 

[John Corliss]

RSD99 wrote:

Hey Kennedy and RSD99, I really appreciate how you both got involved
in this thread and have tried to help me out. However, it wasn't my
intention to provoke an argument between the two of you. Please, why
don't the both of you calm down. There's no reason to be using such
hostile tones in your communications. I'm sure you're both nice people
and would never talk to each other IRL as you are doing in this thread.

Remember, "when emotion is interjected into a conversation, logic
flies out the window."

Also please remember that you're both on the same team!

80)>

Also, thanks again to the both of you for all the information I've
gleaned out of your posts.

 

[RSD99]

)

 

[RSD99]

Interesting ... I wonder if there is any significance?

 

[Bruce Graham]

Interesting ... I wonder if there is any significance?

It is said that Vuescan leaves (necessary) sharpening to the user. It
may be that the Epson software is doing that internally??

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

It is said that Vuescan leaves (necessary) sharpening to the user. It
may be that the Epson software is doing that internally??

That is, IMO, an error in Vuescan. The whole concept of the HyperCCD is
that the undersampled pixels *require* a specific level of post
sharpening to achieve equivalent results in the response band as the
smaller conventional linear CCDs. Being larger sensors, relative to the
pitch, the HyperCCD has a lower noise floor and the sharpening simply
increases this to the same level at Nyquist as the simple in-line CCD.
By not applying any sharpening at all, Vuescan effectively ignores part
of the image creation stage of the HyperCCD and, when compared to other
sensors, biases the results against it.

Even so, AIUI, the test used in the "burn-off" compensated for excess
sharpening in any case, so this shouldn't be the cause of the
discrepancy, unless it is a residual effect after the compensation.

 

[Matthew Dranchak]

I used a light box to illuminate my slides way back in 1995 to capture
images of my slides for use on my computer.
See my web site at:
http://www.mdnpd.com/md/page3.htm
This method might be applicable for your purpose if you substituted a
digital camera in place of the video camera (plus a video capture board) I
had to use at that time.
I had reasonably good results with this method since scanners were new and
expensive in 1995.


snip..................................................>

 

[John Corliss]

I used a light box to illuminate my slides way back in 1995 to capture
images of my slides for use on my computer.
See my web site at:
http://www.mdnpd.com/md/page3.htm
This method might be applicable for your purpose if you substituted a
digital camera in place of the video camera (plus a video capture board) I
had to use at that time.
I had reasonably good results with this method since scanners were new and
expensive in 1995.

Thanks! I'll check out the page.

 

[John Corliss]

Thanks! I'll check out the page.

Well, I checked it out. It's a nice hack and you might want to contact
this site:

http://www.hackaday.com/

with it, but I'm afraid that the resolution of the resulting images
would actually be worse than what I've been getting on my old Microtec
E6 via the transparency adapter.

Thanks anyway.