Re: Film scanner question

Don't tell other people how to post. It's insufferably ruder. And contrary to what you might think, you are neither the God nor the Chief of Police of the Internet.


Alan Browne wrote:
Happy Traveler wrote:
I hate to reopen that old can of worms, but it's so hard to resist...



Your throwing '1.5 bits to analog noise' may be a good guess for the quality
of the A/D, though some new designs are doing better these days. In general,
without knowing the specific component and how it's used, one cannot really
tell. Bits are chip, good performance is not, goes the saying... But you are
taking this too far, assuming that the A/D is the limiting component. I
don't know enough about scanner design to tell that. Seems to me that CCD
noise is a major, if not the dominant factor. That's why fancy drum scanners
still use photomultiplier sensors. And there are many other noise sources to
consider, especially if one is looking for high performance.

Regardless, take 1.5 bits as a starting point. Make it 2, make it 3. Regardless of what you throw away it is always on the same end so a 16 bit scanner has those two bits in its favour for otherwise similar machines (5000 v. V).

The point, which flew over your head in your eagerness to top post is that for slide film you need as much dyncamic range as possible to get information out of the shaddow areas (or detail out of the light areas in a negative).



A simple way of reducing noise, useful for slide film, is to average
multiple passes. The LS-5000 can do it directly, and programs like Vuescan
can pull this trick out of scanners that don't provide the feature, with
success depending on the mechanical repeatability of the instrument design.
Ideally, dynamic range will improve by the square root of the number of
passes, so you get a Dmax improvement of 0.3 for four passes, 0.45 for eight
passes, etc. Ultimately other factors (like pattern noise, nonlinearity,
stability over time, etc) take over, so more than 16 is not practical.

Anything beyond 4, maybe 8, is long into the diminishing returns.

Don't top post. It's insufferably rude.




----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Typically, throw 1.5 bits to analog noise, so the dmax are:

16 bit 14 bit

log(2^14.5) v. log(2^12.5)

= =

Dmax 4.36 3.76





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Film scanner question
    ... assuming that the A/D is the limiting component. ... noise is a major, ... Regardless of what you throw away it is always on the same end so a 16 bit scanner has those two bits in its favour for otherwise similar machines. ... success depending on the mechanical repeatability of the instrument design. ...
    (comp.periphs.scanners)
  • Re: NOT scanning negatives as positives
    ... >to happen if the scanner were doing something obscure, ... >> use the same exposure and simple apply the curve afterwards. ... When you edit a short exposure scan in software, ... do is *show* the noise. ...
    (comp.periphs.scanners)
  • Re: Scanning vs digital image
    ... But true grain itself is not noise: ... No matter how good your non-drum film scanner is, ... due to the very little diffusion of the light sources used. ...
    (comp.periphs.scanners)
  • Re: istD questions
    ... the film scanner. ... scanner is a Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400, so isn't a cheap and nasty ... lately I have needed to get rid of noise, ... is that a low quality JPEG will display distinct ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Yippee!
    ... > (characteristic film curve, scanner response, etc), but in a nutshell, ... don't think noise could be reduced - if anything, ... Blower brush and micro fiber cloth both bought at the camera store. ...
    (comp.periphs.scanners)