Old 08-02-2014   #41
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,347
Fernando, thanks again for posting the scan tests.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nothing.
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2014   #42
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColSebastianMoran View Post
Fernando, thanks again for posting the scan tests.
You're welcome, Colonel.

Back to the topic, while (consumer/prosumer-level) flatbeds usually resolve much less than dedicated filmscanners, they do have an interesting quality: no aliasing, thus no "grain amplification".

Example (click for full-size):



So, for certain kind of works, where maybe microcontrast and resolving power are not that important (certain portraits, for example) and grain may be annoying, a flatbed is not bad at all, with its smooth rendition.

Last edited by Fernando2 : 08-02-2014 at 10:15. Reason: Added "click for full size"
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2014   #43
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
For reference, this was the whole frame (previously I posted 100% crops)

  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2014   #44
Kamph
Registered User
 
Kamph is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 183
If you're looking for something less than a drumscanner, why not go for a Plustek 120? I find it odd that people would recommend a Nikon 8000 or 9000, which does not have warranty, when the Plustek actually is capable of 5000 dpi, which is more than the Nikons. It seems that the Plustek is been judged by the first batch of scanners which supposedly had focus problems. I had the opputinty to test my P120 next to a Nikon and my scanner did indeed resolve more than the Nikon. My only issue with the Plustek is that extremly curly negatives tend to be harder to deal with without AF, but the negatives have to be really curly before it's a problem.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2014   #45
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
Put the sharpening on 'low' in epson scan, rather than 'off'.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...9&postcount=49
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2014   #46
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
 
Juan Valdenebro's Avatar
 
Juan Valdenebro is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Barcelona and Colombia
Age: 47
Posts: 4,354
What I've found is scanning at 4800 dpi can show grain relatively well if it's big (say Tri-X in Rodinal), although sharpenning is required and grain won't be as crisp and clean as on a wet print... Now, if we talk about fine grain, scanning can't easily get there to show the grain structure. But I guess when we scan we aren't showing the original photograph (I mean its smallest structure) but a new photograph we make with the scanner and indeed we re-expose twice, once with the scanner and a second time with software. Anyway, the bigger the print must be, the best scanning is really necessary, because film structure will be present...
Cheers,
Juan
__________________
F i l m means fun!
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2014   #47
rolfe
Registered User
 
rolfe's Avatar
 
rolfe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Egremont, MA
Posts: 391
The OP wanted to know about the Imacon 848 versus the X1, X5.

AFAIK, the 848 basically equals the X1 and the 949 basically equals the X5. The main difference was the name change between Imacon and Hasselblad. As far as the 848 versus the 949, the main difference is speed and I understand that the X versions speeded things up a bit more, but only a bit.

So, if the lab is charging more for the higher end scanner, it is not for resolution -- it is simply for their time, which is less. Of course, they have a higher investment in the newer model, but if it actually scans faster, then it should be a wash...
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2014   #48
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
The X1 is a faster 848, the X5 is a faster 949.
949/X5 has active sensor cooling (should improve shadow noise after prolonged scanning sessions) and light diffuser (smoother grain rendition), plus when scanning 35mm it goes up to 8000 ppi (the 848/X1 is firmware-locked to 6900).

Fernando
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2014   #49
jzagaja
My website www.horns.pl
 
jzagaja is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 348
Another grain structure example - Kodak Tmax100, sharp lens at (Fuji GW690III), 3200 dpi:

__________________
Jack
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2014   #50
rolfe
Registered User
 
rolfe's Avatar
 
rolfe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Egremont, MA
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fernando2 View Post
The X1 is a faster 848, the X5 is a faster 949.
949/X5 has active sensor cooling (should improve shadow noise after prolonged scanning sessions) and light diffuser (smoother grain rendition), plus when scanning 35mm it goes up to 8000 ppi (the 848/X1 is firmware-locked to 6900).

Fernando
I think this is excactly right. But in 35mm, it only goes up to 8000ppi if you are willing to clip a frame out and scan it individually. In a negative strip, the max resolution on a 35mm frame is 6300, and I assume it might be the same on an X5 (I own a 949). That is normally more than enough, unless unusual circumstances apply.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2014   #51
marameo
Registered User
 
marameo's Avatar
 
marameo is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: The Eternal City
Age: 39
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by rolfe View Post
I think this is excactly right. But in 35mm, it only goes up to 8000ppi if you are willing to clip a frame out and scan it individually.

For the medium formats, there are 3200ppi available, is that correct? Does that mean I can only print x10.66 times the MF negative size at 300 DPI ?

Is a true PMT scanner the only way to scan for x16 prints from medium format?

I am talking about a 12900x10500px file (no interpolating or upscaling) from a 6x7 negative to print 43x35" at 300 DPI.

Thanks
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2014   #52
marameo
Registered User
 
marameo's Avatar
 
marameo is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: The Eternal City
Age: 39
Posts: 99
I do think this is where inkjet process, CCD scanners and medium format cannot get yet.

Large format (8x10 or 12x20 inches), drum scanner and LightJet c-prints from a couple of my favorite italian photographers!

(Continuous-tone: 200, 300 dpi, apparent half-tone resolution is 4,000 dpi!)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/14302633231/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/14330513482/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/6143400955/

That is just amazing
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2014   #53
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
(Imacon 949/X5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rolfe View Post
in 35mm, it only goes up to 8000ppi if you are willing to clip a frame out and scan it individually. In a negative strip, the max resolution on a 35mm frame is 6300, and I assume it might be the same on an X5 (I own a 949)
On the X5, I had a strip scanned at 8000 (the resolution chart I posted is a "3x1 24x36 strip", sort of), without having it cut.
I wasn't aware the 949 had this limit of 6300 for a 135 strip.
But yes, more than enough in most cases (anyway I prefer over-sampling to under-sampling the lens, because of grain aliasing).

Fernando
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2014   #54
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by marameo View Post
For the medium formats, there are 3200ppi available, is that correct? Does that mean I can only print x10.66 times the MF negative size at 300 DPI ?
Without interpolation, yes.
9.9x if you print on Epson plotters (native printhead resolution = 360 ppi, or multiple of).

Actually, if one cuts a single 645 frame out of a strip, the best Imacons (848/949/X1/X5) can be set to 4000 ppi.

Quote:
Is a true PMT scanner the only way to scan for x16 prints from medium format?
Strictly speaking, it's not really a matter of PMT, it's more about how a drum scanner works as a whole.
The best drum scanners can do that:

Quote:
12900x10500px file (no interpolating or upscaling) from a 6x7 negative to print 43x35" at 300 DPI.
But so can the Creo IQSmart3.

Fernando
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-05-2014   #55
mfogiel
Registered User
 
mfogiel's Avatar
 
mfogiel is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 4,658
Fernando,
I've just left my CS 9000 at LTR Service (Nital) for a CLA, as it started showing signs of aging. The guy there told me, they are running out or replacement parts, so it is not clear if they can make it "as new" again.
What would be according to you the best practical alternative today, for an up to 6x9 scanner, without the hassle of wet mounting? ( I shoot silver B&W film only )?
Thanks
Marek
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-05-2014   #56
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
I'm afraid the only viable option is the Plustek OpticFilm 120.
I sincerely hope they've sorted out the focus issues (focus plane variability) once and for all...!

Fernando
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-05-2014   #57
mfogiel
Registered User
 
mfogiel's Avatar
 
mfogiel is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 4,658
I think Plustek is ridiculous for lack of focusing and unbelievable slowness. At this point I am expecting some kickstarter guy to come up with a way to use one of these digital cameras of late in a quick and reliable way, to get photos of negatives. Hasselblad has just come up with a 50MP back for EUR 11.000, in two or three years we will have a 100MP for the same price or less. If you stitch, you can get there already. Perhaps I've sold my S Planar 135/5.6 too early.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-05-2014   #58
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
This is what I got with DSLR + stitching.
Resolution in line pairs/mm



I used a X-Y micrometric carrier for the film.

Issues:

Parallelism between sensor and film carrier
Frame uniformity (light, sharpness, distorsion)
References for X-Y stitching (think of originals with large sky portion, sea, etc.)

Fernando
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-05-2014   #59
rolfe
Registered User
 
rolfe's Avatar
 
rolfe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Egremont, MA
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfogiel View Post
I think Plustek is ridiculous for lack of focusing and unbelievable slowness. At this point I am expecting some kickstarter guy to come up with a way to use one of these digital cameras of late in a quick and reliable way, to get photos of negatives. Hasselblad has just come up with a 50MP back for EUR 11.000, in two or three years we will have a 100MP for the same price or less. If you stitch, you can get there already. Perhaps I've sold my S Planar 135/5.6 too early.
You should get a Pakon for 35mm and resort to an Epson 700 for MF, unless you are willing to spring for an Imacon/Hasselblad or a used drum scanner. I have all of the above, and I have to admit the drum scanner doesn't get used much.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-05-2014   #60
Kamph
Registered User
 
Kamph is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfogiel View Post
I think Plustek is ridiculous for lack of focusing and unbelievable slowness.
Slowness? The Plustek isen't slow, unless you think the same thing about the Coolscan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-05-2014   #61
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
The Coolscan is slow.
Unless you disable ICE, multisampling and "SuperFine mode" (thus getting banding in the shadows. Yes, even with the 9000).
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2014   #62
Kamph
Registered User
 
Kamph is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 183
Well, I just timed a 6x7 negative scanned at 5300 dpi and 48bit. It took 1 minut and 52 seconds. That's hardly "unbelievable slowness" But I guess we are a bit off topic now. OP asked for quality not speed. Will a Plustek 120 compete with a drumscanner? Absolutely not. No CCD scanner will, I'd figure. Will it perform as good as a Coolscan? Yes most definitely, it will even outperform it IF you manage to get one where the focus is perfect (stay away from scanners from the first batch).
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2014   #63
Merlijn53
Registered User
 
Merlijn53 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 180
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamph View Post
Well, I just timed a 6x7 negative scanned at 5300 dpi and 48bit. It took 1 minut and 52 seconds. That's hardly "unbelievable slowness" But I guess we are a bit off topic now. OP asked for quality not speed. Will a Plustek 120 compete with a drumscanner? Absolutely not. No CCD scanner will, I'd figure. Will it perform as good as a Coolscan? Yes most definitely, it will even outperform it IF you manage to get one where the focus is perfect (stay away from scanners from the first batch).
I think it's a bit odd to compare a Coolscan with an overpriced scanner with a nameless fix focus lens. You can only hope it's sharp sometimes.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2014   #64
Kamph
Registered User
 
Kamph is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlijn53 View Post
I think it's a bit odd to compare a Coolscan with an overpriced scanner with a nameless fix focus lens. You can only hope it's sharp sometimes.
As if the Coolscan isen't overpriced?
I take it you speak from experience having compared the two? I have.
I believe the Imacon 343 had a fixed focus lens as well, did that make it a bad scanner?
If the lens is focused correctly why should it ever be a problem, unless you were dealing with extremely curly negatives? Besides the option to focus stack, a curly negative still is a problem for scanners with AF.
I don't care what name the lens have as long as it performs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2014   #65
Merlijn53
Registered User
 
Merlijn53 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamph View Post
As if the Coolscan isen't overpriced?
I take it you speak from experience having compared the two? I have.
I believe the Imacon 343 had a fixed focus lens as well, did that make it a bad scanner?
If the lens is focused correctly why should it ever be a problem, unless you were dealing with extremely curly negatives? Besides the option to focus stack, a curly negative still is a problem for scanners with AF.
I don't care what name the lens have as long as it performs.
That's quite a lot of if's. You must hope it is focussed correctly, which may be different with the next film. The film may not be to curly and than there is still the questionable quality of the optics. You don't have these problems with a Nikon or Minolta. For less I bought an older Imacon Flextight II. The film is always flat.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2014   #66
Kamph
Registered User
 
Kamph is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlijn53 View Post
That's quite a lot of if's. You must hope it is focussed correctly, which may be different with the next film. The film may not be to curly and than there is still the questionable quality of the optics. You don't have these problems with a Nikon or Minolta. For less I bought an older Imacon Flextight II. The film is always flat.
That's not a lot of if's, and you didn't answear my question. Did you test the Nikon against the Plustek?
I have tried both, and found the Plustek better, so did my friend who owned a Nikon 9000, but now owns the Plustek. If you don't belive me then read Tim Parkin's review of the Plustek.
I respect that you have high opinions of the Nikon, and I fully agree that it's a great scanner, but if you haven't operated the Plustek yourself you shouldn't dismiss it as easily as you do. As matter in fact, before I bought the Plustek I had the opportunity to try the flextight II which was very good indeed, but not much better than the Plustek. The Imacon was limited by SCSI and suffered from distortion.
Judging a scanner by brand is so naive. The Imacons are very good indeed, but not the best CCD scanners out there. I was actually offered an Imacon Flextight II for half the price of the Plustek, but guess what I went with in the end. The difference was insignificant as far as I could tell, perhaps the Imacon had a small advantage in shadow detail, but the Plustek had warranty and a higher MF resolution to boot. I can't comment about the Minolta as I haven't tried one myself but I have heard it's fantastic.
I wouldn't trade my Plustek for an Imacon flextight II, but maybe a Cezanne if it wasen't so big
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2014   #67
Merlijn53
Registered User
 
Merlijn53 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 180
Well, you need a lot of words to justify your choice. If yours is focussed correctly most of the time, just enjoy it!
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2014   #68
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
My 2 cents:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamph View Post
As if the Coolscan isen't overpriced?
At the time, it was not.
Now, used Coolscans are overpriced for sure; for lack of competition.

Quote:
If the lens is focused correctly why should it ever be a problem, unless you were dealing with extremely curly negatives?
Because scanners are subject to wear and ageing.
Your lens/filmcarrier distance may be perfect now, but after a few years and many carriage travels, who knows?
A lens unit with variable focus can always be refocused to compensate.
Then there's the issue of temperature variations (materials change their size with temperature), so your focus may be perfect at 18 Celsius but not at 35 Celsius.
Or maybe those Plustek are so well designed and built, and the materials used are so top-notch, that they'll never have any departure from perfect focus distance year after year. That would be great.

Still, the OpticFilm 120 has no adjustable focus, no adjustable RGB exposure, no single-pass multisampling, and it costs Eur 2000.
I won't call it overpriced, but not really a bargain.
Again, lack of competition.

Fernando
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2014   #69
mob81
Registered User
 
mob81 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfogiel View Post
Fernando,
I've just left my CS 9000 at LTR Service (Nital) for a CLA, as it started showing signs of aging. The guy there told me, they are running out or replacement parts, so it is not clear if they can make it "as new" again.
What would be according to you the best practical alternative today, for an up to 6x9 scanner, without the hassle of wet mounting? ( I shoot silver B&W film only )?
Thanks
Marek
The iQsmart2 usually show up in good price and doesn't require wet mounting (you can but not required) and for Medium Format, just lay the negative on the bed of the scanner and scan away full roll or two (I cut them to 6 frames 6x6 and scan two roll at a time) come back later and adjust. it's a bit slow but let it scan while you do something else. it's ca[able of 4300DPI
__________________
Mohammed

My Flickr

My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2014   #70
Merlijn53
Registered User
 
Merlijn53 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fernando2 View Post
My 2 cents:



At the time, it was not.
Now, used Coolscans are overpriced for sure; for lack of competition.



Because scanners are subject to wear and ageing.
Your lens/filmcarrier distance may be perfect now, but after a few years and many carriage travels, who knows?
A lens unit with variable focus can always be refocused to compensate.
Then there's the issue of temperature variations (materials change their size with temperature), so your focus may be perfect at 18 Celsius but not at 35 Celsius.
Or maybe those Plustek are so well designed and built, and the materials used are so top-notch, that they'll never have any departure from perfect focus distance year after year. That would be great.

Still, the OpticFilm 120 has no adjustable focus, no adjustable RGB exposure, no single-pass multisampling, and it costs Eur 2000.
I won't call it overpriced, but not really a bargain.
Again, lack of competition.

Fernando
True, every now and then I have to adjust the height of the filmholder in my v700. At least with the Epson scanners it is possible to make those adjustments.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2014   #71
Kamph
Registered User
 
Kamph is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlijn53 View Post
Well, you need a lot of words to justify your choice. If yours is focussed correctly most of the time, just enjoy it!
Well, you call it a lot of words I call it arguments, how about you back up some of your statements as well? Surely you must have some kind of expericence with these scanners before you comment as you do?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2014   #72
Kamph
Registered User
 
Kamph is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fernando2 View Post

Because scanners are subject to wear and ageing.
Your lens/filmcarrier distance may be perfect now, but after a few years and many carriage travels, who knows?
A lens unit with variable focus can always be refocused to compensate.
Then there's the issue of temperature variations (materials change their size with temperature), so your focus may be perfect at 18 Celsius but not at 35 Celsius.
Or maybe those Plustek are so well designed and built, and the materials used are so top-notch, that they'll never have any departure from perfect focus distance year after year. That would be great.

Still, the OpticFilm 120 has no adjustable focus, no adjustable RGB exposure, no single-pass multisampling, and it costs Eur 2000.
I won't call it overpriced, but not really a bargain.
Again, lack of competition.

Fernando
These are some very good points, Fernando.
I haven't noticed focus change due to temperature, but then again the room it's staying at is more or less a constant 22 Celsius.
I have no idea if the Plustek will stand the test of time, I can only hope, but it certainly dosen't feel low budget.
By no means is it a bargain, I too found it rather expensive, but so far the results have been great, and with the added bonus of warranty, I'm not complaining too much
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2014   #73
jzagaja
My website www.horns.pl
 
jzagaja is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 348
Scanner resolution exceeds lens/film combo? Also a lot depends on operator experience.
__________________
Jack
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2014   #74
jzagaja
My website www.horns.pl
 
jzagaja is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 348
Will post some 35mm examples ;-)
__________________
Jack
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2014   #75
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikne View Post
Now can anyone explain those excellent results?
The original is not sharp enough to justify the vastly superior resolving power of the drumscanner.
Plus, we don't know the sampling resolution. At 1600 ppi, for example, there's hardly much difference between a V700 and a top-notch scanner.

I already showed many real-world examples where a superior scanner blows away the V700 (a scanner I own and like).

Re-posting the same examples again and again becomes frustrating.

Fernando
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2014   #76
jzagaja
My website www.horns.pl
 
jzagaja is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 348
For MF I'm using rather good lens - Fuji GW690III

On 35mm Provia the difference is of course visible but V700 is amateur flatbed - try with e.g SM F8

__________________
Jack
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2014   #77
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikne View Post
for every folk that can prove how poor a flatbed is compared to a drum, there is another one that can prove the opposite.
No, this is absolutely false.
Nobody ever said, even less proved, that a drum is poor vs. a consumer flatbed.
Jzagaja just showed that with not really sharp originals and low sampling resolution, a V700 can hold its own; something everybody agrees to.
That said, I will no re-explain everything for the 100th time: if you are genuinely interested on the matter, just do a search across my posts and the posts of Tsiklonaut.
You will find so many examples, charts and explanations, you would have enough material for a weekend's read.

Fernando
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2014   #78
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzagaja View Post
For MF I'm using rather good lens - Fuji GW690III
Well, unfortunately it doesn't show.
Many, many, too many Fuji 690s have issues with precise focusing. Ever tried a focus chart (one appropriately set up for a rangefinder, of course)?

Quote:
On 35mm Provia the difference is of course visible but V700 is amateur flatbed
That's the whole point, in fact.

Fernando
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2014   #79
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
645 original.
100% crops.

The drum scanner still had a broken motor at the time; now it's been replaced, but did not have time to rescan.

Click to view at full size!







  Reply With Quote

Old 08-07-2014   #80
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
Same here, both at 6400 etc.

This was quite dark in the original (shadow zone on slide film).
The V700 struggles to recover colors and details from the dark.

Click to view full size.

  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:17.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.