Digital BW, The Print

I have a slightly off-topic question but this group has been so helpful with all my 
other questions that I would appreciate any views from here.  I currently use 2 camera 
systems - the Contax 645 and the Canon 1N and have relatively recently stepped into 
the world of digital printing.  At the moment I have a relatively cheap scanner, the 
Epson 2450 Photo.  I have not been that impressed with the sharpness/focus of the 
scans and while they have been "ok" for my recent learning curve I can't believe that 
this is anywhere near the state of the art.  I have learnt quite a lot about sharpening 
and have been using Photokit Sharpener by Pixel Genius for a few weeks now.  
However, I still don't think the raw scans are up to scratch.  For example, I have also 
used a Phase H10 digital back in a studio setting and seen how crisp and detailed the 
images are that can be produced from a good digital capture source.

So my question now is should I upgrade my scanner to, say, a Nikon 8000 or should I 
find an interim solution (such as outsourcing the scans to a lab) and save for a digital 
capture source - for example, the 1Ds.  The Nikon 8000 costs $2,500 vs  the 1Ds at 
$8000 but can a scanner get close to a high end digital camera these days?  Or will I 
find that if I buy a Nikon 8000 it will be worth little used in a year's time and I will 
wish I had applied the money to the more expensive option in the first place, albeit 
that it might take longer to obtain?

As for digital 645, all except the newest top-of-the-line and stratosphere priced 645 
backs have a sensor size equal to full frame 35mm.  Eg the H10 has an 11 megapixel 
CCD chip with an imaging area of 36.9x24.6.  The 1Ds has about the same pixel/
image size stats yet costs about 1/3 as much.  Why does anyone not needing 22 
megapixel full frame 645 buy a 645 back when they can use the 1Ds (and even 
PhaseOne's software, CaptureOne DSLR) ?

Any thoughts would be appreciated...

Cheers

Steve

Steve,

>...I currently use 2 camera systems - the Contax 645 and
>the Canon 1N ...
> At the moment I have a relatively cheap scanner, the
>Epson 2450 Photo.  I have not been that impressed ...

>So my question now is should I upgrade my scanner to, say,
>a Nikon 8000 ...

Yes.  The Nikon 8000 made a huge difference in my overall workflow.  With
medium format Tech Pan I print at 22 x 28 inches in my 7500 with Ultra Tone
inks and get essentially perfect images.  The sharpness holds up even when
people get their noses into the print, and the image is virtually grainless.

So, if those are your goals, the Nikon 8000 -- or an equivalent scanner with
a grain reduction option -- will be much better than the alternative
solutions that I lived with until the 8000 was available.


>... can a scanner get close to a high end digital camera these days?

For B&W work, I think the question should be reversed.

Recall that the digital cameras use RGGB sensors, typically.  Each one of
those colors is called a "pixel" in the ads/resolution ratings.  With a
scanner, however, each pixel is a full RGB pixel (or grayscale pixel).  So,
the B&W resolution of digital cameras is not as high as the scanners' rated
resolution.  If, for example, I applied a "red filter" in the computer to a
digital camera's "pixel," I'd have, effectively, 1/4 the rated pixels.

The color image quality of the digital cameras is great, but for B&W, I
think we have a few years to wait before the portable digital cameras will
be able to match medium format B&W film.  In fact, the B&W, high resolution
market may be so small that digital cameras for that market may never be in
my budget category.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

I also have a Nikon 8000.  It's a GREAT piece of equipment (there are also other good 4000 dpi scanners).  If you calculate the equivilant pixel count when you scan a 6x9cm piece of film with a 4000 dpi scanner, you end up with about the equivilant of a 96 megapixel sensor (I'm sure someone will get the correct number on this.)  Neverthess, it's an impressive number.  I've seen the color out of the 11mp Leaf, but they don't seem to show the b&w.  The color is excellent, but the b&w may have some issues.  Get a dealer to let you scan one of your b&w negs, and you can compare for yourself.
 
Tom Baker

Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
Steve,

>...I currently use 2 camera systems - the Contax 645 and
>the Canon 1N ...
> At the moment I have a relatively cheap scanner, the
>Epson 2450 Photo.  I have not been that impressed ...

>So my question now is should I upgrade my scanner to, say,
>a Nikon 8000 ...

Yes.  The Nikon 8000 made a huge difference in my overall workflow.  With
medium format Tech Pan I print at 22 x 28 inches in my 7500 with Ultra Tone
inks and get essentially perfect images.  The sharpness holds up even when
people get their noses into the print, and the image is virtually grainless.

So, if those are your goals, the Nikon 8000 -- or an equivalent scanner with
a grain reduction option -- will be much better than the alternative
solutions that I lived with until the 8000 was available.


>... can a scanner get close to a high end digital camera these days?

For B&W work, I think the question should be reversed.

Recall that the digital cameras use RGGB sensors, typically.  Each one of
those colors is called a "pixel" in the ads/resolution ratings.  With a
scanner, however, each pixel is a full RGB pixel (or grayscale pixel).  So,
the B&W resolution of digital cameras is not as high as the scanners' rated
resolution.  If, for example, I applied a "red filter" in the computer to a
digital camera's "pixel," I'd have, effectively, 1/4 the rated pixels.

The color image quality of the digital cameras is great, but for B&W, I
think we have a few years to wait before the portable digital cameras will
be able to match medium format B&W film.  In fact, the B&W, high resolution
market may be so small that digital cameras for that market may never be in
my budget category.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> I also have a Nikon 8000.  It's a GREAT piece of equipment (there 
are also other good 4000 dpi scanners).  If you calculate the 
equivilant pixel count when you scan a 6x9cm piece of film with a 
4000 dpi scanner, you end up with about the equivilant of a 96 
megapixel sensor (I'm sure someone will get the correct number on 
this.)  Neverthess, it's an impressive number.  I've seen the color 
out of the 11mp Leaf, but they don't seem to show the b&w.  The color 
is excellent, but the b&w may have some issues.  Get a dealer to let 
you scan one of your b&w negs, and you can compare for yourself.
>  
> Tom Baker
> 
> Paul Roark <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> >...I currently use 2 camera systems - the Contax 645 and
> >the Canon 1N ...
> > At the moment I have a relatively cheap scanner, the
> >Epson 2450 Photo.  I have not been that impressed ...
> 
> >So my question now is should I upgrade my scanner to, say,
> >a Nikon 8000 ...
> 
> Yes.  The Nikon 8000 made a huge difference in my overall 
workflow.  With
> medium format Tech Pan I print at 22 x 28 inches in my 7500 with 
Ultra Tone
> inks and get essentially perfect images.  The sharpness holds up 
even when
> people get their noses into the print, and the image is virtually 
grainless.
> 
> So, if those are your goals, the Nikon 8000 -- or an equivalent 
scanner with
> a grain reduction option -- will be much better than the alternative
> solutions that I lived with until the 8000 was available.
> 
> 
> >... can a scanner get close to a high end digital camera these 
days?
> 
> For B&W work, I think the question should be reversed.
> 
> Recall that the digital cameras use RGGB sensors, typically.  Each 
one of
> those colors is called a "pixel" in the ads/resolution ratings.  
With a
> scanner, however, each pixel is a full RGB pixel (or grayscale 
pixel).  So,
> the B&W resolution of digital cameras is not as high as the 
scanners' rated
> resolution.  If, for example, I applied a "red filter" in the 
computer to a
> digital camera's "pixel," I'd have, effectively, 1/4 the rated 
pixels.
> 
> The color image quality of the digital cameras is great, but for 
B&W, I
> think we have a few years to wait before the portable digital 
cameras will
> be able to match medium format B&W film.  In fact, the B&W, high 
resolution
> market may be so small that digital cameras for that market may 
never be in
> my budget category.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> Wilfred Smith>   wrote:
>Steve
> I also have the Nikon 8000 scanner. I agree with the privious 
>posters. However the grain in the film you are planning to use has 
>much impact on image quality. I shoot 35mm wildlife and my film of 
>choice was Fuji 800. I can make beautiful 16 x20 with it in the wet 
>darkroom, however the Nikon scanner gets into grain too much. The 
>GEM setting on the scanner really minimized grain but sofened the  
>subject too much for my taste. Had I been able to use a 100 asa film 
>I would not be thinking about a Canon 1Ds. (but I am)
 
>  Wilfred
>  wilfredm@...



> 
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page 
is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service. 

> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Unless I am missing something, my cameras are rated in RGB pixels 
just as my scanners are and after mixing down to gray scale I have 
the same amount of pixels as I started with... of course they are now 
scalar values instead of colorspace vectors.  The real way to look at 
this is that the sensors are throwing away a lot of b&w resolution to 
interpolate to RGB in the camera and *if* someone were to make a 
dedicated b&w digital camera using current sensors it would have much 
higher resolution than current color models.  I worked on a "special 
purpose" b&w digital camera which was amazing... ie. it would be easy 
for anyone to make one right now.  The biggest draw back to a 
dedicated b&w camera is that, just like film, it would have only one 
response to a full spectrum of visible light and filters would have 
to be used etc. etc.  Mixing RGB down to b&w gives you a lot of 
freedom when you are "processing" your images at the cost of 
resolution... of course, soon you will have more resolution than you 
will ever need and it won't matter if you are shooting a color 
sensor...

Sure, if you shoot Techpan you will get great scans... you will get 
great results even with a 2880ppi film scanner and 35mm... but even 
at 80 asa in TD-3 that is too slow for lots of stuff.  

mark

...
> > Yes.  The Nikon 8000 made a huge difference in my overall 
> workflow.  With
> > medium format Tech Pan I print at 22 x 28 inches in my 7500 with 
> Ultra Tone
> > inks and get essentially perfect images.  The sharpness holds up 
> even when
> > people get their noses into the print, and the image is virtually 
> grainless.
...
> > >... can a scanner get close to a high end digital camera these 
> days?
> > 
> > For B&W work, I think the question should be reversed.
> > 
> > Recall that the digital cameras use RGGB sensors, typically.  
Each 
> one of
> > those colors is called a "pixel" in the ads/resolution ratings.  
> With a
> > scanner, however, each pixel is a full RGB pixel (or grayscale 
> pixel).  So,
> > the B&W resolution of digital cameras is not as high as the 
> scanners' rated
> > resolution.  If, for example, I applied a "red filter" in the 
> computer to a
> > digital camera's "pixel," I'd have, effectively, 1/4 the rated 
> pixels.
...