Yay - new scanner

[Josh66]

Just placed my order for a new film scanner.

From everything I've read, it looks to be a pretty good scanner.

Is it really 7200 DPI though (not interpolated)? (not too clear on that)

(It's a Plustek OpticFilm 7300, in case you don't want to (or can't) click the link)

 

[Joves]

Well congrats on the new toy.

 

[Ls3D]

7200 x 7200 dpi Hardware Resolution

Sounds like the optical resolution is 7200, but since they use the term Hardware Resolution who is to say it is not hardware interpolated? Won't matter - you can grab plenty of data with 48 bits behind you!

-Shea

 

[Josh66]

...but since they use the term Hardware Resolution who is to say it is not hardware interpolated?

That's what I was wondering - "What is 'hardware' resolution?"


Should be loads of fun regardless of that.

Can't wait... Should be here Tuesday or Wednesday next week.

 

[Helen B]

This test suggests that it has a true resolution of about 3000 ppi, which is extremely good for a scanner of that price. Scanners like the Epson V-700 and 750, and Microtek M-1 have a true resolution of around 2000 ppi. You would have to go up to something like the Nikon Coolscan 5000 or (recently discontinued) V to get higher true resolution.

Good luck with it, it looks like excellent value.

Best,
Helen

Edit:
Broadly speaking there are three resolution figures that can be considered:

The native or hardware resolution, or how many pixels the scanner creates without interpolation. This is a combination of the number of photosites on the sensor and the minimum movement of the stepping motor.

The interpolated resolution, or what can be done with the native/hardware resolution by upsampling.

The true resolution, or the result of the degradation of the native resolution by the optics failing to perform well enough and the imprecision of the mechanics. High end scanners achieve true resolutions that are very close to their native resolutions.

The names of these are not used consistently.

 

[Josh66]

A scan with 7200 dpi produces a file of approximately 210 megabytes in the uncompressed TIF format. If one sets the colour depth to 48 bit, the data volume even doubles to approximately 420 megabytes!

Wow, I hope the 4 GB of RAM I have is enough to deal with that.

I don't think I'll be using it on the 7200 dpi setting all the time, but I will at least try it out.

Helen, would it be accurate to say that the hardware/native resolution is the maximum possible resolution of the sensor (assuming perfect glass), and the true resolution is what you get after filtering that through the imperfect glass used in the scanner? (Just double checking to make sure I understood that.)

 

[Josh66]

On the specs sheet (on newegg) it lists multiple exposure as a feature. Does this mean that I could scan two negatives and it would create a multiple exposure out of them?

That's the only thing I can think of that they might be talking about, but I don't really see the point of it since I could do it in photoshop. Might be fun to play around with though.

 

[Helen B]

Yes, the hardware resolution is the maximum possible resolution based on the number of pixels the linear sensor can create, and the tinyness of the physical steps it takes. How close the scanner gets to that resolution depends on the resolution of the lens, how flat the film is held, how well the lens is focused and the precision of the scanner mechanics.

It sounds like the multiexposure feature in Silverfast which helps with dynamic range. Recent versions of Silverfast do two types of multi-thing with suitable scanners. Multiscan to reduce noise, and multiexposure to increase dynamic range. The density range of slides can be challenging for scanners, and doing either a true multi-exposure passes (not always possible) or multiple passes with different analogue gain settings helps. Registration must be spot on, however, and that can be a problem - resolution can suffer.

Does all that make sense?

Best,
Helen

 

[Josh66]

It sounds like the multiexposure feature in Silverfast which helps with dynamic range. Recent versions of Silverfast do two types of multi-thing with suitable scanners. Multiscan to reduce noise, and multiexposure to increase dynamic range. The density range of slides can be challenging for scanners, and doing either a true multi-exposure passes (not always possible) or multiple passes with different analogue gain settings helps. Registration must be spot on, however, and that can be a problem - resolution can suffer.

Does all that make sense?

Best,
Helen

I think I understand. It's kind of like a HDR scan. It makes multiple passes, each exposing for a different density range. That sounds a lot more useful than just making a multiple exposure image.

This will be my first film scanner, so I don't know all of the terminology yet.
I should pick it up pretty quick though.


I re-read that review you posted, they talk about it in there (in the "Included Software" section).

 

[Josh66]

It's all hooked up and working fine.

It looks like I'm going to need to also buy SilverFast HDR to use the 48 Bit HDR scan.
I can scan that now, but according to the link Helen posted (and appears so from my quick fooling around with the software) that setting produces a file similar to a dSLR RAW, and SilverFast HDR is the only software that can process it - and it must be processed before you can use it for anything.

Looks like that will be my next purchase, I would hate to have this capability and never use it.

edit-
And yes, the multiscan feature is pretty cool - you can make 1, 4, 8, or 16 scans of a negative (that's just for the 'regular' scans, I'm not sure how many the HDR scan does). Hard to tell how much of a difference it makes though. Later, when I have more time to play with it, I'll scan a photo with one pass, then do the same one with sixteen passes and see what's different (it's supposed to reduce grain and scanner induced noise).