Uploading DNG of same negative as above, this time 16 passes + autofocus on scan on (instead of autofocus on the prescan, converted to DNG and synchronized settings in LR:
Heinz, wouldn't multiple passes reduce the resolution? I thought multipass scanning was to reduce the noise/grain and that it softens the image overall.
This is what I get with 4x passes vs one pass:
(I scanned it at 6400 dpi to see if I could squeeze any more detail out of it - I could not as it turned out)
Regarding the comparison of two images we posted - there is a question of focus as well. If I recall correctly, my shot was around f/2.8 meaning that the DOF was different.
KL, interesting comparison. There is a big difference though - that's ISO 400 film stock while we are comparing fine grained Ektar 100 scans.
---
To ease my conscience over posting so much film stuff, here are a couple of assorted but fully digital shots
Yes, Luka, multipass softens on the one hand, but on the other hand removes noise and grain. Why am I doing this then? Because I am interested in the ideal scan for PP. Maybe the multipass sharpens much better and nicer. I don't know yet, but will find out.
I am just scanning 16x ICE off. Next will be single pass ICE off and then manual focus.
That's interesting KL, but the V700 he is using is clearly not focused correctly. Unlike more advanced scanners the V700 has a fixed focus distance and you may have to experiment a bit first with the holder setting to get it correct.
The crop shown is severely out of focus, so I don't think that test can be taken too seriously.
rsolti13 wrote:
Luka, Heinz...thanks for doing all that work. Great discussion
thanks a lot. But can you imagine how I feel with my limited photographic talent and my Leica crap from 1961 competing with the master of sharpness and master-of-I-can-photograph-everything-and-it-looks-great?
carstenw wrote:
The best scanners for quick strip scanning are probably the Imacon/Hasselblad scanners, which have very low-hassle holders. They are very expensive though, around the price of an M9 for some models, and more for others. Second-hand they still remain expensive. They are generally considered to be better than anything short of a drum scanner.
Carsten, I wanted to reply to this yesterday, but didn't have a specific link at hand.
The Imacon/Hasselblad are not real drum scanners, but so called "virtual drum scanners". If you ask me, they are not worth the 10 to 15000 Euros they cost. And, yes, I made the comparison, as a friend of mine owns one.
As a realtity check for all of us, there is one scanner shootout that I really trust. Unfortunately the website is only available in German, but you can just select one scanner on the left with the links and compare it by clicking on the other scanner on one of the links on the right. Also, you can compare it to a file taken with a Canon 5DII.
Yes, I know That's why I wrote "short of a drum scanner", in other words the Hasselblad is the best quality you will get without jumping to a drum scanner.
I agree about the price and the small differences in quality, but the whole scanner industry is plagued by this. IMO the Nikon 9000 is not worth the huge price differential to the V750, which with a good third-party holder with ANR glass and a bit of care can give very nice results for medium and large format.
The buildings in the distance are at Surfers Paradise.
