If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
MF Scanner Questions.
I am sure some may find fault with me asking the
following questions here, never the less here goes: A few weeks back if some recall I was deliberating having higher end scans done for a client versus doing them myself from a 6x6 transparency with my Epson 2450. I've been contemplating the purchase of a dedicated MF scanner since that time. This morning I looked at the scans I initially did on the 2450 versus scans I did on a Nikon 8000 cool scan. Thinking I would see some vast or at least apparent difference on screen between the two in terms of apparent sharpness I must say on my humble LCD screen it is almost non existent. The Cool Scan 8000 did produce cleaner dust free scans but thats about all. The Cool scans were done in 16 bit mode the 2450 scans eight bit. There still is very little difference. Would down sampling to 300 dpi make them appear relatively similar? The initial CS 8000 scans were at 4000 dpi. I just wonder whether its worth spending 1700 for and Artix scanner or 2000 for the Cool scan? Thx Greg -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory Blank wrote:
I am sure some may find fault with me asking the following questions here, never the less here goes: A few weeks back if some recall I was deliberating having higher end scans done for a client versus doing them myself from a 6x6 transparency with my Epson 2450. I've been contemplating the purchase of a dedicated MF scanner since that time. This morning I looked at the scans I initially did on the 2450 versus scans I did on a Nikon 8000 cool scan. Thinking I would see some vast or at least apparent difference on screen between the two in terms of apparent sharpness I must say on my humble LCD screen it is almost non existent. The Cool Scan 8000 did produce cleaner dust free scans but thats about all. The Cool scans were done in 16 bit mode the 2450 scans eight bit. There still is very little difference. Would down sampling to 300 dpi make them appear relatively similar? The initial CS 8000 scans were at 4000 dpi. I just wonder whether its worth spending 1700 for and Artix scanner or 2000 for the Cool scan? Thx Greg In general, I think you would be better off matching your final printing requirements to your resolution needs for scanning. If you predominantly need only smaller printed dimensions, then a less capable scanner makes more economic sense. When you have an occasional need for larger dimension printing capability, then you can pay to outsource scans. The rule of thumb I use is to calculate how many scans at maximum quality you would need to pay to get, and compare that to the cost of the scanner. If the scanner costs more than 200 high quality scans (for example), then the choice might be tougher. While I would imagine you already know this, you should not judge scan quality on a computer monitor. You could use a sampling tool, or look at the numerical data of the scans, but just viewing on a monitor is not a good choice for judgement, unless you only want to use those scans on a monitor. A better method is to compare printed outputs of those scans. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory Blank wrote:
I am sure some may find fault with me asking the following questions here, never the less here goes: A few weeks back if some recall I was deliberating having higher end scans done for a client versus doing them myself from a 6x6 transparency with my Epson 2450. I've been contemplating the purchase of a dedicated MF scanner since that time. This morning I looked at the scans I initially did on the 2450 versus scans I did on a Nikon 8000 cool scan. Thinking I would see some vast or at least apparent difference on screen between the two in terms of apparent sharpness I must say on my humble LCD screen it is almost non existent. The Cool Scan 8000 did produce cleaner dust free scans but thats about all. The Cool scans were done in 16 bit mode the 2450 scans eight bit. There still is very little difference. Would down sampling to 300 dpi make them appear relatively similar? The initial CS 8000 scans were at 4000 dpi. I just wonder whether its worth spending 1700 for and Artix scanner or 2000 for the Cool scan? Thx Greg In general, I think you would be better off matching your final printing requirements to your resolution needs for scanning. If you predominantly need only smaller printed dimensions, then a less capable scanner makes more economic sense. When you have an occasional need for larger dimension printing capability, then you can pay to outsource scans. The rule of thumb I use is to calculate how many scans at maximum quality you would need to pay to get, and compare that to the cost of the scanner. If the scanner costs more than 200 high quality scans (for example), then the choice might be tougher. While I would imagine you already know this, you should not judge scan quality on a computer monitor. You could use a sampling tool, or look at the numerical data of the scans, but just viewing on a monitor is not a good choice for judgement, unless you only want to use those scans on a monitor. A better method is to compare printed outputs of those scans. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote: In general, I think you would be better off matching your final printing requirements to your resolution needs for scanning. If you predominantly need only smaller printed dimensions, then a less capable scanner makes more economic sense. When you have an occasional need for larger dimension printing capability, then you can pay to outsource scans. The rule of thumb I use is to calculate how many scans at maximum quality you would need to pay to get, and compare that to the cost of the scanner. If the scanner costs more than 200 high quality scans (for example), then the choice might be tougher. While I would imagine you already know this, you should not judge scan quality on a computer monitor. You could use a sampling tool, or look at the numerical data of the scans, but just viewing on a monitor is not a good choice for judgement, unless you only want to use those scans on a monitor. A better method is to compare printed outputs of those scans. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com Its appreciated insight, realistically what my needs a decent capability, to give the client something they can have offset printed probably 8.1/2x11 max 300 to 600 dpi. I figure at 45.00 USD per scan the 1700 USD Artix scanner would pay for itself after 37 scans, then there's the time factor of me running 50 miles one way to get a scan when I have a rather full schedule all ready. What kind of numeric data should I look at? -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote: In general, I think you would be better off matching your final printing requirements to your resolution needs for scanning. If you predominantly need only smaller printed dimensions, then a less capable scanner makes more economic sense. When you have an occasional need for larger dimension printing capability, then you can pay to outsource scans. The rule of thumb I use is to calculate how many scans at maximum quality you would need to pay to get, and compare that to the cost of the scanner. If the scanner costs more than 200 high quality scans (for example), then the choice might be tougher. While I would imagine you already know this, you should not judge scan quality on a computer monitor. You could use a sampling tool, or look at the numerical data of the scans, but just viewing on a monitor is not a good choice for judgement, unless you only want to use those scans on a monitor. A better method is to compare printed outputs of those scans. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com Its appreciated insight, realistically what my needs a decent capability, to give the client something they can have offset printed probably 8.1/2x11 max 300 to 600 dpi. I figure at 45.00 USD per scan the 1700 USD Artix scanner would pay for itself after 37 scans, then there's the time factor of me running 50 miles one way to get a scan when I have a rather full schedule all ready. What kind of numeric data should I look at? -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory Blank wrote:
In article , Gordon Moat wrote: In general, I think you would be better off matching your final printing requirements to your resolution needs for scanning. If you predominantly need only smaller printed dimensions, then a less capable scanner makes more economic sense. When you have an occasional need for larger dimension printing capability, then you can pay to outsource scans. The rule of thumb I use is to calculate how many scans at maximum quality you would need to pay to get, and compare that to the cost of the scanner. If the scanner costs more than 200 high quality scans (for example), then the choice might be tougher. While I would imagine you already know this, you should not judge scan quality on a computer monitor. You could use a sampling tool, or look at the numerical data of the scans, but just viewing on a monitor is not a good choice for judgement, unless you only want to use those scans on a monitor. A better method is to compare printed outputs of those scans. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com Its appreciated insight, realistically what my needs a decent capability, to give the client something they can have offset printed probably 8.1/2x11 max 300 to 600 dpi. I figure at 45.00 USD per scan the 1700 USD Artix scanner would pay for itself after 37 scans, then there's the time factor of me running 50 miles one way to get a scan when I have a rather full schedule all ready. I think at that level, the economics point more towards getting the scanner. The Artix is actually the older Polaroid. It is not a bad scanner, but would be much better with the full version of SilverFast. If you also budget for the scanning software, I still think it would be a good deal. One thing about SilverFast is that it minimizes the amount of post processing needed in PhotoShop, which means it would save you time. What kind of numeric data should I look at? The Histogram information is one area, with the total numerical information being a good comparison tool between scans. I will assume you are mostly using PhotoShop, so the other main tool of use is the eyedropper tool. If you hold down the shift key, and click on a spot, the information will show on the info palette, and stay there through changes. This is true of every version since PhotoShop 3.0, so it should cover which one you use now. The information palette can show you total ink level (very important in press printed images), and colour levels in CMYK. If you want to save time, and not switch to total ink % measurements, you can add the CMYK % values of a spot to get an idea of total ink. Most modern papers can handle 300% total ink, which is a good number to approach. There are colours that print, but cannot be displayed on a computer monitor. The eyedropper tool in PhotoShop allows you to see those values. Anything near Cyan, some greens, Yellow, and some of the deeper red hues can be measured, but will not display as they can print, when viewed on any monitor. An example of this was a music CD package I recently did, in which a green hue was used on the insert pages, and it could not be viewed on any computer monitor. We did soft proofs on PDF files for approval, but warned the clients they would not see the true colour on screen. One of the band members wanted to view an actual print proof, and then understood how the colour should appear in print. The band were very happy with the end results. While this is only one recent example, this is the sort of thing I run into often. I also use some other colour sampling tools in software, though they are just more refined versions of the eyedropper tool from PhotoShop. Some other editing software allows for similar tools, and information. The Histogram is also valuable in that it can indicate smoothness of tonality, and colour range transitions. Gaps or more jagged edges could indicate later problems with printed outputs. Most actions in PhotoShop are destructive, so limiting post processing can minimize increasing problems. Please feel free to ask more questions, if there is something that did not make sense, or something I did not cover adequately. If you are worried about this being too specific, or too off topic, you can contact me by e-mail. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory Blank wrote:
In article , Gordon Moat wrote: In general, I think you would be better off matching your final printing requirements to your resolution needs for scanning. If you predominantly need only smaller printed dimensions, then a less capable scanner makes more economic sense. When you have an occasional need for larger dimension printing capability, then you can pay to outsource scans. The rule of thumb I use is to calculate how many scans at maximum quality you would need to pay to get, and compare that to the cost of the scanner. If the scanner costs more than 200 high quality scans (for example), then the choice might be tougher. While I would imagine you already know this, you should not judge scan quality on a computer monitor. You could use a sampling tool, or look at the numerical data of the scans, but just viewing on a monitor is not a good choice for judgement, unless you only want to use those scans on a monitor. A better method is to compare printed outputs of those scans. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com Its appreciated insight, realistically what my needs a decent capability, to give the client something they can have offset printed probably 8.1/2x11 max 300 to 600 dpi. I figure at 45.00 USD per scan the 1700 USD Artix scanner would pay for itself after 37 scans, then there's the time factor of me running 50 miles one way to get a scan when I have a rather full schedule all ready. I think at that level, the economics point more towards getting the scanner. The Artix is actually the older Polaroid. It is not a bad scanner, but would be much better with the full version of SilverFast. If you also budget for the scanning software, I still think it would be a good deal. One thing about SilverFast is that it minimizes the amount of post processing needed in PhotoShop, which means it would save you time. What kind of numeric data should I look at? The Histogram information is one area, with the total numerical information being a good comparison tool between scans. I will assume you are mostly using PhotoShop, so the other main tool of use is the eyedropper tool. If you hold down the shift key, and click on a spot, the information will show on the info palette, and stay there through changes. This is true of every version since PhotoShop 3.0, so it should cover which one you use now. The information palette can show you total ink level (very important in press printed images), and colour levels in CMYK. If you want to save time, and not switch to total ink % measurements, you can add the CMYK % values of a spot to get an idea of total ink. Most modern papers can handle 300% total ink, which is a good number to approach. There are colours that print, but cannot be displayed on a computer monitor. The eyedropper tool in PhotoShop allows you to see those values. Anything near Cyan, some greens, Yellow, and some of the deeper red hues can be measured, but will not display as they can print, when viewed on any monitor. An example of this was a music CD package I recently did, in which a green hue was used on the insert pages, and it could not be viewed on any computer monitor. We did soft proofs on PDF files for approval, but warned the clients they would not see the true colour on screen. One of the band members wanted to view an actual print proof, and then understood how the colour should appear in print. The band were very happy with the end results. While this is only one recent example, this is the sort of thing I run into often. I also use some other colour sampling tools in software, though they are just more refined versions of the eyedropper tool from PhotoShop. Some other editing software allows for similar tools, and information. The Histogram is also valuable in that it can indicate smoothness of tonality, and colour range transitions. Gaps or more jagged edges could indicate later problems with printed outputs. Most actions in PhotoShop are destructive, so limiting post processing can minimize increasing problems. Please feel free to ask more questions, if there is something that did not make sense, or something I did not cover adequately. If you are worried about this being too specific, or too off topic, you can contact me by e-mail. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory Blank wrote:
Its appreciated insight, realistically what my needs a decent capability, to give the client something they can have offset printed probably 8.1/2x11 max 300 to 600 dpi. I figure at 45.00 USD per scan the 1700 USD Artix scanner would pay for itself after 37 scans, then there's the time factor of me running 50 miles one way to get a scan when I have a rather full schedule all ready. What kind of numeric data should I look at? The pixel size you're talking about (8.5x11 inches, 300 to 600 ppi) would be between 12 and 48 megapixels. My old (1996 vintage) Agfa Arcus 1200 can get almost 1.5 MP from a 35 mm frame, scanning at 2400 ppi. I can get about 5.5 megapixel from 6x4.5, and it'll scan up to 4x5 in a glassless carrier (with homemade adapters, in some cases), which produces a bit more than 90 MP. Most modern scanners that handle 35 mm film natively will easily beat these figures, giving between 14 and 22 MP from a 35 mm frame, though some flatbeds with adapters on the glass give much less actual resolution than their advertised figure. Few people can see the difference without magnification, in color, between 300 ppi and 600 ppi, which means nearly all dedicated film scanners would produce files adquate for your needs from 35 mm, and pretty much anything current that will scan medium format glassless will do the job. If your clients are shooting in 4x5 but only need to print to magazine page size, you could give them what they need with a scanner for which I paid $135 including shipping (well, plus another $35 for the SCSI card and cable). -- I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote: Gregory Blank wrote: What kind of numeric data should I look at? The Histogram information is one area, with the total numerical information being a good comparison tool between scans. I will assume you are mostly using PhotoShop, so the other main tool of use is the eyedropper tool. If you hold down the shift key, and click on a spot, the information will show on the info palette, and stay there through changes. This is true of every version since PhotoShop 3.0, so it should cover which one you use now. The information palette can show you total ink level (very important in press printed images), and colour levels in CMYK. If you want to save time, and not switch to total ink % measurements, you can add the CMYK % values of a spot to get an idea of total ink. Most modern papers can handle 300% total ink, which is a good number to approach. There are colours that print, but cannot be displayed on a computer monitor. The eyedropper tool in PhotoShop allows you to see those values. Anything near Cyan, some greens, Yellow, and some of the deeper red hues can be measured, but will not display as they can print, when viewed on any monitor. An example of this was a music CD package I recently did, in which a green hue was used on the insert pages, and it could not be viewed on any computer monitor. We did soft proofs on PDF files for approval, but warned the clients they would not see the true colour on screen. One of the band members wanted to view an actual print proof, and then understood how the colour should appear in print. The band were very happy with the end results. While this is only one recent example, this is the sort of thing I run into often. I also use some other colour sampling tools in software, though they are just more refined versions of the eyedropper tool from PhotoShop. Some other editing software allows for similar tools, and information. The Histogram is also valuable in that it can indicate smoothness of tonality, and colour range transitions. Gaps or more jagged edges could indicate later problems with printed outputs. Most actions in PhotoShop are destructive, so limiting post processing can minimize increasing problems. Please feel free to ask more questions, if there is something that did not make sense, or something I did not cover adequately. If you are worried about this being too specific, or too off topic, you can contact me by e-mail. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com Its really a good lot of information and its appreciated. I printed it out for reference but I understand everything you have wrote. Thanks! -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote: Gregory Blank wrote: What kind of numeric data should I look at? The Histogram information is one area, with the total numerical information being a good comparison tool between scans. I will assume you are mostly using PhotoShop, so the other main tool of use is the eyedropper tool. If you hold down the shift key, and click on a spot, the information will show on the info palette, and stay there through changes. This is true of every version since PhotoShop 3.0, so it should cover which one you use now. The information palette can show you total ink level (very important in press printed images), and colour levels in CMYK. If you want to save time, and not switch to total ink % measurements, you can add the CMYK % values of a spot to get an idea of total ink. Most modern papers can handle 300% total ink, which is a good number to approach. There are colours that print, but cannot be displayed on a computer monitor. The eyedropper tool in PhotoShop allows you to see those values. Anything near Cyan, some greens, Yellow, and some of the deeper red hues can be measured, but will not display as they can print, when viewed on any monitor. An example of this was a music CD package I recently did, in which a green hue was used on the insert pages, and it could not be viewed on any computer monitor. We did soft proofs on PDF files for approval, but warned the clients they would not see the true colour on screen. One of the band members wanted to view an actual print proof, and then understood how the colour should appear in print. The band were very happy with the end results. While this is only one recent example, this is the sort of thing I run into often. I also use some other colour sampling tools in software, though they are just more refined versions of the eyedropper tool from PhotoShop. Some other editing software allows for similar tools, and information. The Histogram is also valuable in that it can indicate smoothness of tonality, and colour range transitions. Gaps or more jagged edges could indicate later problems with printed outputs. Most actions in PhotoShop are destructive, so limiting post processing can minimize increasing problems. Please feel free to ask more questions, if there is something that did not make sense, or something I did not cover adequately. If you are worried about this being too specific, or too off topic, you can contact me by e-mail. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com Its really a good lot of information and its appreciated. I printed it out for reference but I understand everything you have wrote. Thanks! -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon LS 50 scanner problem | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 1 | August 7th 04 06:25 PM |
Nikon LS 50 scanner problem | Alfred Molon | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | August 7th 04 06:25 PM |
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner | bleanne | APS Photographic Equipment | 1 | November 27th 03 07:34 AM |
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner | bleanne | Other Photographic Equipment | 1 | November 27th 03 07:34 AM |