>
> "...I'm afraid that film has definitively lost the battle. The (Canon)1Ds's
> full-frame 11MP CMOS
> sensor produces a 32MB file - as big as a typical scan. But this file is
> sharper and more noise
> free than any scan I have ever seen, including drum scans. There simply
> isn't a contest any longer..."
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field-5.shtml
>
> -Tim
Reichmann's "drum scanner" is an Imacon, which is not, by any
realistic measure, a drum scanner. Imacon likes to call it a drum
scanner as marketing hype, and Reichmann likes to call it one to
pretend he's using the best. The only thing it has in common with
a real drum scanner is that the film is held in a curved holder.
Otherwise, it's a midrange flatbed-like scanner with a line array
sensor. (Amateur film scanners, like the Nikon, Minolta etc. are
also flatbed-like, just with a small scanning area and high
magnification.) Real drum scanners, like Heidelbergs, use a single
pixel, usually with beam splitters for the different colors. This
means they don't have to contend with the limitations of IC chips.
The sensors can be optimized for the job, and have large dynamic
range, low noise, and fine gradation of level. These scanners
really can see what's on a piece of film. The pictures someone
mentioned at Mountain Light were probably scanned on a drum
scanner or a high end flatbed like a Scitex, then printed on a
LightJet.
Reichmann's resolution comparisons are of little value because he
doesn't compare film to digital. He scans the film on his "drum
scanner", then blows up the scan, and compares that. (Sort of like
the 100x "digital zoom" on my DV camera, which I never use because
it's totally worthless.) That's backward. CH does it right: you
blow up the film optically, then digitize the blowup. Even with
CH's makeshift setup, you can show more resolution on film,
because a low res scan of a blowup shows more than a digital
blowup of a mid-fi scan.
Resolution isn't everything, but that's a different topic.
I'm sure the Canon is very good. The new Kodak may knock it for a
loop, though.
I've been very disappointed by the decline in image quality that
has accompanied many journalists' switch to digital (for deadline
reasons). For example, the WTC flag raising photo was mutilated by
digital artifacts (probably overaggressive in camera jpeg-ing). The
Kennerly White House transition photos in Newsweek were garbage.
Paul
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|