Digital BW, The Print

I thought I'd add my 2 cents worth regarding Genuine Fractals.

I use it, and it is better than trying to increase resolution in Photoshop
with it's algorithms.  However, GF is no substitute for a good scanner.  It
is very good at preserving sharp edges.  However, it can't manufacture the
fine detail.  So, between the sharp edges, the image still suffers if the
original scan does not have enough information to look sharp.

So, I anxiously await the day I have a really good scanner for film as
opposed to using a flatbed, whose alleged 1600/3200 resolution is only
really top notch at 800 dpi.   My Epson Expression 1600 -- like, I suspect,
all desktop flatbeds that are aimed to individual users -- is simply not up
to doing a top notch medium format scan.

So, for people who have not yet purchased a scanner, I'm not sure but what
it wouldn't make sense to save the money you'd spend on GF and buy a scanner
that is up to the job -- read 4000 dpi for 35mm or medium format.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

on 8/20/01 4:39 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

> I thought I'd add my 2 cents worth regarding Genuine Fractals.
> 
> I use it, and it is better than trying to increase resolution in Photoshop
> with it's algorithms.  However, GF is no substitute for a good scanner.  It
> is very good at preserving sharp edges.  However, it can't manufacture the
> fine detail.  So, between the sharp edges, the image still suffers if the
> original scan does not have enough information to look sharp.

I haven't done the comparisons myself, but here's my understanding based
upon lurking some lists. Anyone is welcome to correct me based upon first
hand knowledge.

GF is supposed to perform better on sharp lined objects, while PS bicubic
does better with smooth tones. Thus for text, and perhaps landscapes, one
should expect GF to be the superior method. However, skintones/portraits
would be better served by bicubic interpolation.

If such is accurate, it seems there is not a one-size-fits-all tool for the
job, and it might be wise to use different methods on different images.

Todd

At 01:39 PM 8/20/2001 -0700, Paul Roark wrote:

>So, for people who have not yet purchased a scanner, I'm not sure but what
>it wouldn't make sense to save the money you'd spend on GF and buy a scanner
>that is up to the job -- read 4000 dpi for 35mm or medium format.


Is there such an animal that's not gold plated?

****************
James E. Martz
Milan, OH
jemartz@...
*****************

James,

It depends upon your "gold plate point." For 35mm I believe that the 
Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 is down to $930 now, the Microtek Artixscan 
4000 is as low as $730, the new Nikon 4000ED is at $1517. For medium 
format there is the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 for $2,600 and the Nikon 
8000ED at about $3,000 when available. There is the Kodak at 3600 
dpi, which is pretty close to 4000dpi.

While none of this is exactly cheap, compared to what was available 
and the prices even 6 months ago the drop change is pretty amazing.

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "James E. Martz" 
<jemartz@e...> wrote:
> At 01:39 PM 8/20/2001 -0700, Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> >So, for people who have not yet purchased a scanner, I'm not sure 
but what
> >it wouldn't make sense to save the money you'd spend on GF and buy 
a scanner

> >that is up to the job -- read 4000 dpi for 35mm or medium format.
> 
> 
> Is there such an animal that's not gold plated?
> 
> ****************
> James E. Martz
> Milan, OH
> jemartz@e...
> *****************

At 03:29 AM 8/21/2001 +0000, Martin Wesley wrote:
>James,
>
>It depends upon your "gold plate point." For 35mm I believe that the
>Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 is down to $930 now, the Microtek Artixscan
>4000 is as low as $730, the new Nikon 4000ED is at $1517. For medium
>format there is the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 for $2,600 and the Nikon
>8000ED at about $3,000 when available. There is the Kodak at 3600
>dpi, which is pretty close to 4000dpi.
>
>While none of this is exactly cheap, compared to what was available
>and the prices even 6 months ago the drop change is pretty amazing.
>
>Martin


Looks like some of the shine is wearing off, but still a tad pricey.  I'd 
have to think about it a bit (Maybe while the price comes down a bit 
further.  I'd like to stay under $1,000.  And I'd like to be able to scan 
some BW negatives (3" x 4") of my and my brother's and sister's weddings of 
about 50 yrs ago, but I can't justify a huge expenditure for about 150 
negatives.

****************
James E. Martz
Milan, OH
jemartz@...
*****************

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "James E. Martz" 
<jemartz@e...> wrote:

(snip)
> 
> Looks like some of the shine is wearing off, but still a tad 
pricey.  I'd 
> have to think about it a bit (Maybe while the price comes down a 
bit 
> further.  I'd like to stay under $1,000.  And I'd like to be able 
to scan 
> some BW negatives (3" x 4") of my and my brother's and sister's 
weddings of 
> about 50 yrs ago, but I can't justify a huge expenditure for about 
150 
> negatives.
> 
James,

3x4 is tough in a true film scanner. You would have to go up to the 
$4,000+ range with a glass film carrier. Say a Polaroid 45u at $4,200.

What is the final print size you want for these 150 negatives? If you 
are planing prints in the 8x10 range or even 11x14, a flatbed scanner 
might do the job for you.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., 
"James E. Martz" wrote . . . 
> I'd like to stay under $1,000.  And I'd like to be able to scan 
> some BW negatives (3" x 4") of my and my brother's and sister's 
> weddings of about 50 yrs ago, but I can't justify a huge            
> expenditure for about 150 negatives.

Dear James,
Look at Wire Moore's review in the Scan Group:
>>

From:  Wire Moore <wirem@h...>
Date:  Wed Aug 15, 2001  4:33 am
Subject:  HP Scanjet 7400C output compared with Nikon LS-2000

For anyone interested, I've prepared a report of the output of the HP 
7400C as compared with the LS-2000.

Note that a variety of examples images will make this a slow page to 
load for dialup users (about 800K bytes).

http://members.home.net/wirem/Imaging/NikonLS2000vsHP7400C/index.html

Wire
>>

I was very surprised at how well the HP 7400C did on 35mm and one 
would guess that results on 3"x4"BW negatives might be equally 
surprising for a $500 scanner.  I love my Polaroid SS4000 with 
TechPan 35mm BW and am wondering and hoping that the HP 7400C might 
handle my BW 120 size . . . particularly if it would allow scanning
in "proof sheets" of 12 frames at a time . . . I do not think this is 
what HP had in mind, but it's what I HAVE in mind.  Even 4 frames 
ought to be possible straight out with the transparency adapter at 
5"x5".  Moreover, you might find the 35mm results acceptable for the 
present.  I realize this is probably OT but BW digital scans 
certainly underlie BW digital prints.

Bill Reeves
wjreeves@...