Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re:[OM] lens discussion - N*k*n etc

Subject: Re:[OM] lens discussion - N*k*n etc
From: "Tim Chakravorty" <suchismit@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 18:10:19 -0700
Brian,

Dreammoose is right. Both CH and I use film scanners. Mine is the Nikon 
coolscan IVED (LS-40) and
CH's,  its more expensive sibling, the Nikon LS 4000ED. If you want high 
quality pics for the web (and even
prints) you are much better off purchasing a film scanner ( far cheaper option 
) than something like the 35-80/2.8.
A scan made from a slide, shot with a tripod mounted 50/1.8  will totally blow 
away a scan made from a print, shot
with a 35-80/2.8. Avoid scanners that scan both film and prints..they basically 
scan prints only. Instead go
with a dedicated film scanner. They are quite a few of them on the market and 
are much cheaper now than they
used to be.

Again , its important that for best quality you shoot from a sturdy tripod. 
Here is an extract from John B. Williams's
'Image Clarity' pg 191.
"
 ....handholding is strictly for dead photographers: a human pulse beat will 
cause 200 microns (about 0.008 inch) displacement for
1/10th second. Assuming a shutter speed of 1/250th sec., this movement alone 
will cause a 220ss of resolution with a system that
is otherwise capable of reproducing 100 lines-per-mm (lpm). And at a shutter 
speed of 1/125th sec., this performance would degrade
to only 53 lpm-a 47% waste of what you purchased ....

"
To which I can safely add, that the handholding photographer should be dead for 
at least an hour, for best results.


-Tim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Swale" <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx>; <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] ( OM ) re: lens discussion - N*k*n etc


> Dreammoose wrote:
>
> > Brian, I know you love the Fuji Frontier, with which I have no
> > experience. But have you checked out my experiment yesterday? Even if
> > the Frontier is a lot better than Kodak Royal process/print, it may be
> > way short of film scanning. Maybe some of your dissatisfaction is not
> > 35mm per se, but the method of reproduction? A film scanner may be
> > cheaper and improve things more than a 35-80/2.8, which is not an order
> > of magnitude better than other Zuikos. CH's web pics are all from film
> > scanners. Tim's may be also. He doesn't say, but I'll bet they are. Do
> > you have the same problem with slides?
>
> Actually, its Agfa Prestige digital on their Crystal Archive paper. Suppose 
> it's
> more or less equivalent. They scan at 400 dpi.  They still have their analogue
> machine.
>
> I'm getting to the point where I don't know what to think.  I just had some
> enlargements made for my son to hang on his room wall in College (Otago
> University).
>
> Prints made on their analogue machine are actually sharper. With the digital
> output I can see (if I look closely) the separate ?pixels, and it is not as 
> fine a
> print. Close, but different. And not as sharp.
>
> Slides. I confess to not doing as many as I should / want to. Part of the
> problem is that I do not have a slide scanner, and I need to be able to
> produce digital images to put in files I am making.  A couple of years ago I
> had the use of a Microtek slide scanner which I thought was the next best
> thing since sliced bread, but now that I'm a little wiser, I find that many 
> of the
> 150 images I scanned are not all that crash-hot after all. For some, far from
> it. I can in many cases get a sharper image from print. (But not always -
> some few of the slide scans are brilliant)  But certainly I can get a
> reasonable image from print for screen with a file of 100 - 200 kb. But not as
> sharp and small as those from digital cameras though, nor as sharp and
> small as those Tim showed us.
>
> Also, I would like to get a better lens for my projector. I've had advice from
> several people, and I just don't know what / who to believe, especially when
> the person advising also is offering a lens to sell ...  And the archives of 
> best
> lenses don't seem to include one that fits my machine. Even that's difficult 
> to
> find out. And I don't have the spare cash to buy and try - (suck and see) and
> sell probably at a loss if the darned thing doesn't work. Most of the very 
> good
> lenses that might fit my machine go for about USD100.
>
> Some time ago, Moose suggested I try a microscope to evaluate my lens
> test slide. I haven't had the cheek to ask a friend from away back if I can
> invade his lab for this purpose, though he might well say yes.
>
> But in Norman Koren's page he mentions Edmund Scientific pocket
> microscopes of 20x and 50x. On the face of it they look attractive, and the
> landed cost in New Zealand for the 50x would be about $NZ 60.  270f the
> cost of a different projector lens.
>
> http://www.edmundoptics.com/IOD/DisplayProduct.cfm?productid=1746
>
> Do any of you have experience of these little beasts?
>
> Different lens? 35-80? You are probably right. But an enlarger, scanner etc
> can do no better than the image it has to start off with.
>
> And in addition to the matter of lens resolving power, is the matter of film
> flatness. Most film does not sit flat in the camera, thus making it much more
> difficult for the lens to do its job. Robert Monaghan has a huge page devoted
> to this issue. Aerial survey cameras all use vacuum backs to overcome this
> problem, and Sinarbron uses some kind of sticky septum to keep the film
> where it should be ...
>
> 10 am.  I'd better go and do some chores. Or something.
>
> Brian
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz