A good way to compare res with film scanners.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

I think it was Dan Baxter that had posted a sample scan from a Retroscan and a Lasergraphics scanner on another film forum. It was hard to see that much difference just looking at the image. He had also scanned the optical soundtracks. If you looked at the smallest details of the optical tracks, you could see some difference and the Lasergraphics was sharper. So, if you are comparing scanner for res, look to scans of the optical track if you are having trouble with comparisons.

With flatbed scanners we got res targets we can use. But they (good ones) are made of glass. So, they can't be used on drum scanners. And making a dupe of the res target on film won't reproduce the finest details in the chart.

None of the flatbed scanners I've tried can reproduce the finest or even the next to the finest or the next to that finest detail that needs to be viewed in a microscope.

6400 dpi scan of red box above is at glass level using a Epson V500 scanner.

I've also done extensive tests with scanner focus. Every scanner is different. But the V500 seems to do best at glass level. B&H sells res targets, but they are the low-grade ones. They seem to be repros of the glass targets with poor center details. Good glass targets are a few hundred $$ each. Same with cine' film scanning.

 

Fashion shoot on Wall Street (Candid) - D.D.Teoli Jr.

I'm not much of a pixel peeper. But you have to have confidence in your gear and know its limitations. So, I do a little pixel peeping to get my proverbial bearings. 

 

 

For me, pixel peeping is more important in archival work than with shooting photos. If your gear is good, you spend your time producing images and not in peeping for pixels. But that presupposes you can produce quality material to start with.

 

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

Got timed out...

Disregard 'Same with cine' film scanning' above.