On 18/11/2012 00:59, Paul wrote: > But scanner specs don't show that, they show Dmax in the negative. Like > you say, Dmax is Dmax. And so the scanner specs give me information on how > my highlights might look like in the print - and of course I'd like some > detail there too, I don't want them blown out. But it looks like typical > scanner specs can't help me with detail in the print's shadow areas. The DMax does, as you say, correspond to the darkest area within which the scanner is able to capture tonal detail. This is highlights in transmissive mode with negs, shadows in tranparencies, and shadows in prints in reflective mode. This limiting factor is very much complicated by sensor noise. Ability of sensors to record detail at minimum signal is invariably compromised by this - there will always be a shading of detail into noise which will obliterate detail. Stated DMax that is unaccompanied by a qualifying statement of the noise level present (at the measured DMax) is meaningless, a bullsh*t marketing claim. What matters here is signal to noise ratio. Manufacturers almost never state this anywhere. The same applies to ODR (optical density range), since it takes DMax as its lower bound. Without qualification regarding noise level, it means nothing. There is no valid or useful way to compare scanner abilities from published DMax or ODR, you can only tell by using them. Optical system abilities are also never specified in any useful way, but lens systems are as crucial as in enlarging. You just don't get excellent lenses in cheap scanners, because a fine macro costs too much to manufacture. There is also OE software to contend with - eg scanners with 10,12 or 14 bit ADC's with OE software that works at 8 bit throughout, then merely upsamples to produce 16bit output if selected. For years HP, Epson and Polaroid OE sofware was hobbled like this. This has severe bad effects at the dark end where bit values are small and rounding errors are very significant. End to end 16 bit working was one of the great advantages of Vuescan, and the improvement in noise was dramatic, on some models gaining almost a full stop more usable shadow detail. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk
Message
Re: [Digital BW] When is DMax not Dmax?
2012-11-18 by Tony Sleep
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.