Scanners

Smitty wrote:

 > Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200?
 > Smitty
 >

I looked at the 'spec' (so to speak) at
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.plustek.com/products/film.htm" target="_blank">http://www.plustek.com/products/film.htm</a>


1- dynamic range is ambiguous (says 48 bits/pixel, implying full 16 bit per
color, but does not state the dmax).

2- does not have ICE

so looks pretty good, but ICE is an essential, IMO.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm</a>
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Scanners 

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:57:14 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne RemoveThis @FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

 >Smitty wrote:
 >
  >> Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200?
  >> Smitty
  >>
 >
 >I looked at the 'spec' (so to speak) at
 >http://www.plustek.com/products/film.htm
 >
 >
 >1- dynamic range is ambiguous (says 48 bits/pixel, implying full 16 bit per
 >color, but does not state the dmax).
 >
 >2- does not have ICE
 >
 >so looks pretty good, but ICE is an essential, IMO.
 >

States the dmax as 3.3, although I have heard those figures are always
arbitrary.

Specs here....
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.plustek.com/products/film_spec.htm" target="_blank">http://www.plustek.com/products/film_spec.htm</a>

RP©<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Scanners 

I just bought one but I can't get the software to launch. I was hopping
someone here owned of these things.
Smitty
"Chris Street" <chris RemoveThis @street56.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:59148c18.0410230129.56db6441@posting.google.com...
 > "Smitty" <nospam> wrote in message
 > news:<10niur5f6fo2f29 RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com>...
  >> Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200?
  >> Smitty
  >>
  >> --
 >
 > plenty of magazine journalists have used the 'worlds highest
<font color=purple> > resolution 35mm film scanner'. <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://tinyurl.com/6k76b</font" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/6k76b</font</a>>
 >
 > Chris Street<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Scanners 

Rich Pos wrote:

 > On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:57:14 -0400, Alan Browne
 > <alan.browne.TakeThisOut@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
 >
 >
  >>Smitty wrote:
  >>
  >>
   >>>Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200?
   >>>Smitty
   >>>
  >>
  >>I looked at the 'spec' (so to speak) at
  >>http://www.plustek.com/products/film.htm
  >>
  >>
  >>1- dynamic range is ambiguous (says 48 bits/pixel, implying full 16 bit per
  >>color, but does not state the dmax).
  >>
  >>2- does not have ICE
  >>
  >>so looks pretty good, but ICE is an essential, IMO.
  >>
 >
 >
 > States the dmax as 3.3, although I have heard those figures are always
 > arbitrary.

Yes, Nikon and Minolta usually quote dmax w/o considering noise.
eg: Often a 16 bit/color dmax is quoted as log 2^16 which does not account for
system noise. CW says lower 1.5 bits are system noise so the theoretical dmax
should be log 2^(16-1.5) = 4.36 ...which is a bit more than a slide has...

So, if the claimed dmax of the opticfilm 7200 is 3.3, it suggests that each
color channel is only 12 bits and that the rest of the "color depth" is padded,
and at that, they may not be accounting for noise (unless they have 14 bits per
channel, but then the Dmax would be 3.7, not 3.3).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm</a>
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Scanners 

Chris Street wrote:

 > "Smitty" <nospam> wrote in message news:<10niur5f6fo2f29.RemoveThis@corp.supernews.com>...
 >
  >>Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200?
  >>Smitty
  >>
  >>--
 >
 >
 > plenty of magazine journalists have used the 'worlds highest
<font color=purple> > resolution 35mm film scanner'. <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://tinyurl.com/6k76b</font" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/6k76b</font</a>>

Hmm, please quote sources showing all these pj's using a scanner that has
seemingly sub-par dmax and much too much resolution for any magazine.

For even large format magazines a scan res of 3000 dpi is more than sufficient.

Better to have dmax than a lot of pixels.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm</a>
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Scanners 

Chris Street wrote:

 > "Smitty" <nospam> wrote in message news:<10niur5f6fo2f29.DeleteThis@corp.supernews.com>...
 >
  >>Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200?
  >>Smitty
  >>
  >>--
 >
 >
 > plenty of magazine journalists have used the 'worlds highest
<font color=purple> > resolution 35mm film scanner'. <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://tinyurl.com/6k76b</font" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/6k76b</font</a>>

....these days you will find very few pj's using film.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm</a>
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Scanners 

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:28:38 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne DeleteThis @FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

 >Rich Pos wrote:
 >
  >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:57:14 -0400, Alan Browne
  >> <alan.browne DeleteThis @FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
  >>
  >>
   >>>Smitty wrote:
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>>Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200?
   >>>>Smitty
   >>>>
   >>>
   >>>I looked at the 'spec' (so to speak) at
   >>>http://www.plustek.com/products/film.htm
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>1- dynamic range is ambiguous (says 48 bits/pixel, implying full 16 bit per
   >>>color, but does not state the dmax).
   >>>
   >>>2- does not have ICE
   >>>
   >>>so looks pretty good, but ICE is an essential, IMO.
   >>>
  >>
  >>
  >> States the dmax as 3.3, although I have heard those figures are always
  >> arbitrary.
 >
 >Yes, Nikon and Minolta usually quote dmax w/o considering noise.
 >eg: Often a 16 bit/color dmax is quoted as log 2^16 which does not account for
 >system noise. CW says lower 1.5 bits are system noise so the theoretical dmax
 >should be log 2^(16-1.5) = 4.36 ...which is a bit more than a slide has...
 >
 >So, if the claimed dmax of the opticfilm 7200 is 3.3, it suggests that each
 >color channel is only 12 bits and that the rest of the "color depth" is padded,
 >and at that, they may not be accounting for noise (unless they have 14 bits per
 >channel, but then the Dmax would be 3.7, not 3.3).
 >

Just a few years ago different calculations must have been used to
calculate dmax. IIRC, 4.0 was the limit and only achieved by drum
scanners.

RP©<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Scanners 

Rich Pos wrote:

 >
 >
 > Just a few years ago different calculations must have been used to
 > calculate dmax. IIRC, 4.0 was the limit and only achieved by drum
 > scanners.

I know what you're referring to, but I have no idea how that number was derived.
It could correspond to the maximum density of slide film, in which case the
ability of a scanner to go deeper is useless ...eg: once you're at 15 bits, even
accounting for noise, you are not going to get more info off of the film than
what the film can give... 10^4 = 10,000 corresponds to 13..14 bits without the
noise, 15 bits would do it and cover the noise ... 16 bits is what is available
available in A/D converters...

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm</a>
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Scanners 

The Plustek OpticFilm 7200 comes with SilverFast SE which includes
Dust & Scratch removal software. However from what I've read I don't
think this software is as effective as Kodaks' ICE at removing dust &
scratches.

Chris Street, DataMind
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.datamind.co.uk" target="_blank">www.datamind.co.uk</a>

Alan Browne <alan.browne RemoveThis @FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:<JAzed.66296$J61.1669030@wagner.videotron.net>...
 > Smitty wrote:
 >
  > > Is anyone using the Plustek Opticfilm 7200?
  > > Smitty
  > >
 >
 > I looked at the 'spec' (so to speak) at
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.plustek.com/products/film.htm</font" target="_blank">http://www.plustek.com/products/film.htm</font</a>>
 >
 >
 > 1- dynamic range is ambiguous (says 48 bits/pixel, implying full 16 bit per
 > color, but does not state the dmax).
 >
 > 2- does not have ICE
 >
 > so looks pretty good, but ICE is an essential, IMO.
 >
 > Cheers,
 > Alan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Scanners