Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] GH2 specs

Subject: Re: [OM] GH2 specs
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:54:52 -0400
  On 9/19/2010 12:38 AM, David Irisarri wrote:
> I have tried almost everything to scan the slides perfectly sharp. :) but the 
> best results were dividing the slides in cells and stitching all of them.

I've done some crazy, time eating things with images, but you've got me beat, 
hands down.

You are throwing around a lot of claims here. Do you have personal experience 
or references?

> Nikon LS-4000 gives you drum scan quality.

Jan has already addressed this with his personal, detailed testing experience 
with both. He disagrees.

> DOF is extremelly narrow but is sharper than Canon FS4000.

Here I disagree. I have not personally ever used a Nikon film scanner. I did 
spend way too much time trolling the web, 
looking at reviews and comparisons, before choosing a film scanner.  One need 
really go no farther than the reviews at 
photo-i  (although other comparisons generally agree) to see that this isn't 
true. Vincent's reviews include direct 
comparisons at the pixel level of scans of the same pieces of film.

Perhaps the most obvious thing his tests show is how subtle and difficult 
absolute answers are in this area. Slight 
differences in contrast and sharpening can make a big difference in apparent 
sharpness. Still, my experience was that 
it's possible to convince oneself that either the Canon or the Nikon is just 
subtly capable of rendering more detail. I 
had myself convinced in favor of Nikon at one point. Then I downloaded the 
samples and played a little in PS.

I've also found that multiple passes on the Canon can slightly increase the 
resolution. I don't know why. I only 
discovered it when comparing single vs. multi. for dynamic range.

I just don't think there is a difference great enough to ever be noticed in any 
practical use. With most films, I can 
clearly see the grain clumps, so there would simply be no more image detail 
from greater scanner resolution.

I do believe that Nikon has just the slightest edge in shadow detail tonal 
differentiation. Then again, it also has 
flare I didn't know about at the time that the Canon doesn't.

> I would never use negative if I had to come back to analog photography. I got 
> the best results with Velvia 50 and Ektachrome T-grain slides.

Interesting. As CH just said, slides have less dynamic range than digital, 
while negative film has a slight edge over 
digital, so far. I stopped using slide film as soon as I started scanning.

So I must assume "best results with Velvia 50 and Ektachrome T-grain slides." 
does not include dynamic range. Reversal 
films have a color reference in simply viewing the slide, so if one is happy 
with the vision of the world of a 
particular film, it's easy to reproduce that in scanning the slide. Neg film 
has no such reference, so no given film has 
an inherent "look" across all scanners and scanner operators.

On the other hand, for those of us who never liked all the differences in color 
rendition between slide films, using ICC 
color profiles provides a means of getting highly consistent, technically 
accurate color across different films.

Moose
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz