Digital BW, The Print

I am thinking about getting a Microtek 2500 scanner for black and
white 4x5.  I can get a used scanner with 12bit output somewhat
cheaper than a new scanner with 16 bit output.  

I know that there is a quality difference between 8 and 16 bit for
black and white.  Also I have read that Photoshop allows you to
manipulate the 12 bit as a 16 bit file.  So is there a perceptible
quality difference between 12 and 16 bit output from the scanner?

What advantage do you see in the Microtek 2500 Vs Epson 4990?

Microtek is far lower resolution (even if you cut Epson's dubious
numbers in half). And Epson's Dmax can (reportedly) be raised
significantly with wet mounting. And there's the money..

?  

Djon

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "thomkrahn"
<krahn@f...> wrote:

> I am thinking about getting a Microtek 2500 scanner for black and
> white 4x5.  I can get a used scanner with 12bit output somewhat
> cheaper than a new scanner with 16 bit output.  
> 
> I know that there is a quality difference between 8 and 16 bit for
> black and white.  Also I have read that Photoshop allows you to
> manipulate the 12 bit as a 16 bit file.  So is there a perceptible
> quality difference between 12 and 16 bit output from the scanner?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "thomkrahn"
<krahn@f...> wrote:
> I am thinking about getting a Microtek 2500 scanner for black and
> white 4x5.  I can get a used scanner with 12bit output somewhat
> cheaper than a new scanner with 16 bit output.  
> 
The Microtek 2500T may have been an 8 bits only scanner, but it was a
capable scanner for b&w negatives. It may be surpassed by newer
dedicated mf scanner but I'm not sure that the prosumer level scanners
are better.

Check out this website, were the images were scanned on a Microtek
2500T scanner. That's the Jerry Olson website, whom is no longer with us.

http://www.westernechoes.com/

Cheers,
André Moreau

thomkrahn <krahn@...>

You might gain some comfort on the bit depth issue by remembering that high
end DSLR cameras are still only 12bit (the digital backs have moved to true
16).  I was asking the question on another forum as to whether 12bits was
enough if I wanted to edit in a very large gamut space like ProPhoto RGB
rather than the narrower Adobe RGB (which excludes and hence clips many
inkjet printable colours). In short, the view was that while 16 would be
better, 12 was ok.  I think you can likely take the bit depth issue off the
table and assess the scanner on the other merits/demerits.

Steve

> From: Andre <am1000@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 13:41:31 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: scanner bits question
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "thomkrahn"
> <krahn@f...> wrote:
>> I am thinking about getting a Microtek 2500 scanner for black and
>> white 4x5.  I can get a used scanner with 12bit output somewhat
>> cheaper than a new scanner with 16 bit output.
>> 
> The Microtek 2500T may have been an 8 bits only scanner, but it was a
> capable scanner for b&w negatives. It may be surpassed by newer
> dedicated mf scanner but I'm not sure that the prosumer level scanners
> are better.
> 
> Check out this website, were the images were scanned on a Microtek
> 2500T scanner. That's the Jerry Olson website, whom is no longer with us.
> 
> http://www.westernechoes.com/
> 
> Cheers,
> André Moreau
>

I can't vouch for the superiority of "prosumer" scanners (I've not
seen that term applied to a scanner before), but Microtek surely
doesn't qualify as maker of genuinely "professional" level
scanners...presumably the price is right...

Worthwhile Yahoo Group (just forming) ...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/?yguid=96117688

Luis Fernandez, the host, is deeply experienced technically...the site
generally revolves around wet mounting and flatbeds, with the goal of
increasing sharpness and Dmax, reducing dust...the same way it'd be
done in a much more expensive camera.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Andre"
<am1000@v...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "thomkrahn"
> <krahn@f...> wrote:
> > I am thinking about getting a Microtek 2500 scanner for black and
> > white 4x5.  I can get a used scanner with 12bit output somewhat
> > cheaper than a new scanner with 16 bit output.  
> > 
> The Microtek 2500T may have been an 8 bits only scanner, but it was a
> capable scanner for b&w negatives. It may be surpassed by newer
> dedicated mf scanner but I'm not sure that the prosumer level scanners
> are better.
> 
> Check out this website, were the images were scanned on a Microtek
> 2500T scanner. That's the Jerry Olson website, whom is no longer
with us.

> 
> http://www.westernechoes.com/
> 
> Cheers,
> André Moreau

The current lesser Nikon (V) is 14 bit, its big brother (5000) is
16...hard to imagine 2 bits making a difference in 35mm scans, but
somewhere I did see a demonstration of significant differences between
 8 and 16 re: Silverfast. 

If B&W film was a digital phenomenon, I wonder what its bit depth
would be? 

Djon

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> thomkrahn <krahn@f...>
> 
> You might gain some comfort on the bit depth issue by remembering
that high
> end DSLR cameras are still only 12bit (the digital backs have moved
to true
> 16).  I was asking the question on another forum as to whether
12bits was
> enough if I wanted to edit in a very large gamut space like ProPhoto RGB
> rather than the narrower Adobe RGB (which excludes and hence clips many
> inkjet printable colours). In short, the view was that while 16 would be
> better, 12 was ok.  I think you can likely take the bit depth issue
off the
> table and assess the scanner on the other merits/demerits.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> > From: Andre <am1000@v...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 13:41:31 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: scanner bits question
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "thomkrahn"
> > <krahn@f...> wrote:
> >> I am thinking about getting a Microtek 2500 scanner for black and
> >> white 4x5.  I can get a used scanner with 12bit output somewhat
> >> cheaper than a new scanner with 16 bit output.
> >> 
> > The Microtek 2500T may have been an 8 bits only scanner, but it was a
> > capable scanner for b&w negatives. It may be surpassed by newer
> > dedicated mf scanner but I'm not sure that the prosumer level scanners
> > are better.
> > 
> > Check out this website, were the images were scanned on a Microtek
> > 2500T scanner. That's the Jerry Olson website, whom is no longer
with us.

> > 
> > http://www.westernechoes.com/
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > André Moreau
> >

At 15:02 +0100 24.5.2005, Steve Kale wrote:
*******************************************

>I know that there is a quality difference between 8 and 16 bit for
>black and white.

Humans recognize about 150 different greys. But problem is, they 
recognize them on full picture and on small detail too. So 8 bits 
(256 greys) is not enough for smooth BW picture.

> In short, the view was that while 16 would be
>better, 12 was ok.

Check www.hutchcolor.com -> Cool -> HDR Cameras. You will see that 32 
bits is optimal - compare with new CS2 Photoshop. :)

Martin
--

I have been meaning to go back to the HDR issue ever since Paul Roark
highlighted the feature in CS2.  But capturing dynamic range and having an
image that will withstand editing curves etc are I believe different issues.
The assumption I was making with the scanner question at hand was that there
was no change to the dynamic range of the scanner.

> From: Martin Sluka <martin.sluka@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 16:17:55 +0200
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: scanner bits question
> 
> At 15:02 +0100 24.5.2005, Steve Kale wrote:
> *******************************************
> 
>> I know that there is a quality difference between 8 and 16 bit for
>> black and white.
> 
> Humans recognize about 150 different greys. But problem is, they
> recognize them on full picture and on small detail too. So 8 bits
> (256 greys) is not enough for smooth BW picture.
> 
>> In short, the view was that while 16 would be
>> better, 12 was ok.
> 
> Check www.hutchcolor.com -> Cool -> HDR Cameras. You will see that 32
> bits is optimal - compare with new CS2 Photoshop. :)
> 
> Martin

I really must differ on that.

Since B&W film printing is based on the premise that there are 128 shades of
grey plus black and white (and your 150 shades certainly fits there), 256
shades is certainly adequate.

If we stay away from those that want to use a loupe, or look at a 16x20 from
6" away, we surely accomplish with 256 what was done by the old masters with
130 shades.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==Behalf Of Martin Sluka
==
==Humans recognize about 150 different greys. But problem is, 
==they recognize them on full picture and on small detail too. So 8 bits
==(256 greys) is not enough for smooth BW picture.
==
==> In short, the view was that while 16 would be better, 12 was ok.

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005

How many shades of gray is a religious issue, so I'm not going to 
address that.

I will say that how many shades of gray you have to print isn't the most 
interesting thing. What is most interesting is how many you have to 
manipulate in an image editor. If you do much editing at all, such as 
applying a contrast adjustment curve, having more bits gives the 
software more to work with, and often results in smoother tones, and 
less chance of posterization.

With most manipulations, you end up with fewer individual shades of gray 
than you started with. If you start with exacly the number you need, 
then you end with less than you need. And *that* is why more shades of 
gray is better than fewer shades of gray, IMHO.
--
Bruce Watson



Seth wrote:

> I really must differ on that.
>
>Since B&W film printing is based on the premise that there are 128 shades of
>grey plus black and white (and your 150 shades certainly fits there), 256
>shades is certainly adequate.
>
>If we stay away from those that want to use a loupe, or look at a 16x20 from
>6" away, we surely accomplish with 256 what was done by the old masters with
>130 shades.
>
>Seth
>
>==-----Original Message-----
>==Behalf Of Martin Sluka
>==
>==Humans recognize about 150 different greys. But problem is, 
>==they recognize them on full picture and on small detail too. So 8 bits
>==(256 greys) is not enough for smooth BW picture.
>==
>==> In short, the view was that while 16 would be better, 12 was ok.
>
>  
>

Microtek supports scanners for a twelve month warranty period only.  After
then, you need to send the entire scanner and exchange it.  For my $1400
Artixscan 1800, that cost is $830 plus round trip shipping.  So even for
minor problems like a scratch in the glass or a little dirt on the mirrors,
you have to pay for the whole scanner.  Microtek's parts department was
dismantled last January.  Parts and service are not available anymore for
any model.

My scanner had a problem with a line in the scan.  So I took it apart and
found a spider web in the mirrors.  It took hours, but I was able to clean
each mirror with denatured alcohol, now it works better than when it was
new.  I have not had to sharpen any scan since then.  You would not believe
how much haze forms on the mirrors and glass, and it is cumulative since the
image is seen through five optical surfaces.

You can get a good result off almost any scanner if you maintain it, and
clean the lens, mirrors, and glass.  But a scanner that is several years old
and has not been dismantled and cleaned is probably not going to give you a
result anywhere near what it is capable of.

As to eight bits, your scans are unlikely to be of publication quality but
would be ok for web hosting.
-- 
Thomas Robinson
http://www.historicphotoarchive.com

Bruce hit the heart of the matter.  Higher bit depth means a better
result after editing.  When you affect the pixel values in the image
by applying Curves, Levels or other adjustments, the more information
the computer has to work with the better the result will be.  Working
with an 8 bit file, if you make adjustments and look at the histogram,
you're quite likey to see the "comb effect".  The spaces between the
histogram values represent missing information.  Make the same
adjustments on a 16 bit file and the histogram will remain smooth and
continuous.  What this means in the end result is more continuous
tone, better gradation and an overall better print.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... wrote:
> How many shades of gray is a religious issue, so I'm not going to 
> address that.
> 
> I will say that how many shades of gray you have to print isn't the
most 
> interesting thing. What is most interesting is how many you have to 
> manipulate in an image editor. If you do much editing at all, such as 
> applying a contrast adjustment curve, having more bits gives the 
> software more to work with, and often results in smoother tones, and 
> less chance of posterization.
> 
> With most manipulations, you end up with fewer individual shades of
gray 
> than you started with. If you start with exacly the number you need, 
> then you end with less than you need. And *that* is why more shades of 
> gray is better than fewer shades of gray, IMHO.
> --
> Bruce Watson
> 
> 
> 
> Seth wrote:
> 
> > I really must differ on that.
> >
> >Since B&W film printing is based on the premise that there are 128
shades of
> >grey plus black and white (and your 150 shades certainly fits
there), 256
> >shades is certainly adequate.
> >
> >If we stay away from those that want to use a loupe, or look at a
16x20 from
> >6" away, we surely accomplish with 256 what was done by the old
masters with
> >130 shades.
> >
> >Seth
> >
> >==-----Original Message-----
> >==Behalf Of Martin Sluka
> >==
> >==Humans recognize about 150 different greys. But problem is, 
> >==they recognize them on full picture and on small detail too. So 8
bits

> >==(256 greys) is not enough for smooth BW picture.
> >==
> >==> In short, the view was that while 16 would be better, 12 was ok.
> >
> >  
> >