From "How VueScan Works"
"If single-pass multi-scanning is enabled, each line of data from the CCD is read multiple times and combined (averaged) while being stored in the memory buffer. If multi-pass multi-scanning is enabled, the whole scan area is read multiple times and combined (averaged) in the memory buffer."
Unlike the Dimage 5400 film scanner - the Epson 1600 is not capable of "multi-pass scanning" - so what VueScan is set to do is "Single-pass multi-scanning."'
Nor, from what I've read is the 4990 capable of multi-pass scanning. There is an interesting line in the manual for the 4990 where it says: Hardware Resolution: 4800 x 9600 with Microstep Drive Technology
I'm not sure what that means either. I don't even know what the scale of 4.0 means. I see that the Dimage 5400 has a higher optical d-max. I see some very large numbers for high-end drum scanners. Is it a straight linear scale where each decimal point is just a little bit better, or is it like the earthquake scale where you are talking about magnitudes of improvement? I have no idea.
At any rate - I looked through the 4990 manuals and screen shots and don't see anything about multi-pass (or focusing for that matter).
So here's the hub of the question: I have setup VueScan with the 1600 to do single-pass "multi-scanning."
And the results are that more detail in the shadow areas (by far) are picked up using say 4 samples than 1 sample. The results are by far the best I've ever gotten for the MF and large negatives out of the 1600.
So - what does this mean? Does it mean that VueScan has effectively increased the Maximum Tonal Range the 1600 can pull from a negative? The empirical answer to that is - yes.
So if you began with a scanner capable on its' own of picking up higher d-max (the 4990 is listed as 4.0, the 1600 is listed as 3.3) - you would need less sampling to achieve the same results.
And to further confuse you (as well as myself) in several tech. sheets for the 4990, the d-max of 4.0 has next to it the phrase "computed."
This is one of those posts where you just want to say to yourself - oh get the damned thing and see how it works. But I have to admit - I have learned a little bit in the process so maybe that's not such a bad thing - though you know what they say about that, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. But that's a dumb phrase since you always start with a little knowledge at some point and like the aforementioned scanner - you apply micro-stepping to improve on it.
* * *
BILL EMORY EMAILED ME THIS EXCELLENT LINK EXPLAINING DMAX which answers a good deal of my somewhat fuzzy post:
Dynamic Range
By Bob Atkins
"Since the dynamic range of solid state detectors is limited to something like 3.4-3.6, that's all you get. The better the sensor and the better the electronics, the better the dynamic range, so it could be anywhere from 2.8 to 3.6. You just don't know because the manufacturers don't publish measured numbers, just "theoretical maximum" numbers based on a perfect noise free sensor and perfect D/A converter - which of course don't exist!" - Bob Atkins
A lot of fascinating - clarifying info in this article. Explains why, for example the Epson 1600 lists dynamic range at 3.6
Also - explains that without either reading a hands-on-review - or testing it yourself - you can't really know how good (low noise) the sensor is.
4 comments:
hey dave- the dmax scale is logarithmic
Jeff - I'll tell you what confused me. When I switched to using VueScan with the Epson 1600 - I was getting MORE shadow detail than I even wished to show. The TREE with light shot is an example. The negative around the tree is SO thin I didn't think anything would show up - but plenty did and I ended up burning it away.
Same thing today with a 4 x 5 scan of Bethesda Passage - more shadow detail than I was even interested in. So it was very puzzling to me how I could be getting such detail from what was called a 3.6 (12-bit) scanner; until I began to read the Bill article.
(Sounds like your drum scan experience). The post-processing is also a huge factor. With PhotoKit sharpner, I began to make more use of the 2nd piece of the workflow - Creative Sharpner - and bringing out even more detail without any sense of oversharpening.
Yes - could always return the 4990 - they're very good about that. But I'm not sure if I need it unless it is much faster. Even there it's not like I have hundreds of MFs to scan. And I hate setting up a new peripheral. I think (as of this writing) I'll probably pass on it for now.
I stumbled across this MF film holder for the Epson
flatbeds a while ago, but never bothered buying
one... results are said to be pretty good.
Don't know if it will fit the 1600 either, but my
2400 and 3170 are very similar.
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html
Markus I stumbled across it the other day as well. I'll probably pick one up, just to see. Although between VueScan and a better understanding of the sharpening workflow - I'm almost there with the 1600. This might just give me that little extra in terms of sharpness that I need.
Post a Comment