Moving content over from Film scanning
Do not use verbs for article titles if there is a more appropriate noun title.
Since it appears to be mostly duplicate info, there's not really much to merge. I'll just redirect here.
Imroy 19:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
POV statements in both articles
As a photographer still using film, I find these two statements by User:Stiv (who created both these articles) rather POV.
From this article:
- With the advent of better digital SLR cameras, however, film scanners have become a niche market - often the domain of medium format photographers.
Since when have film scanners not been niche devices? A lot of people have flatbed scanners, but not film scanners.
And from Film scanning:
- With the improvement of digital photography and the cheapening of digital cameras and ccds, however, film scanning is a market limited usually to medium format photography or film photographers who either cannot invest in a digital photo kit or do not want to.
Pretty much the same thing. Imroy 19:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Besides the fact that it is not film that is limiting the scanning quality but the scanners themselves. By the grain of a 100 ASA film could be scanned at 24.000 dpi if such a scanner existed giving a 8964 megapixel image. Compare that to the best medium format digital back (*Phase one P45) that at a cost of almost $30.000 only gives you 39 megapixels... and the amount of film you could buy for that money! P.S I have a P45 because some customers evidently read your article...
Alf photoman 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about how this filter actually works. It's either talking about a Gaussian filter or a median filter, but I'm not sure which. Can someone clarify? If it's a median filter, than it's not going to have the same edge-blurring problems as a Gaussian filter. --Alynna 22:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, what I was describing is mostly a median filter. My understanding of the operation is that there is a threshold, and the median value is only used if the centre pixel differs from the median/mean by too much. The median filter article says that the median value is always used, nothing selective about it. Maybe I'm mixed up and have an old, simpler description stuck in my head. I've changed the text slightly anyway. Imroy 08:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to say, but the image in this article is not a film scanner. Someone should try to get one like LS 45 or even the cheap HP photosmart.
Alf photoman 00:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's a flat-bed scanner and shouldn't be here. -- Ralph Corderoy 14:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, it is a flat bed scanner but a very high res. one that copes well with negatives, etc. In which case is there an adapter required and if so it would be nice to have it in the photo. Also, the caption should be altered to point out it's both to avoid further confusion. And do we really need two photos, one lid up, one lid down? -- Ralph Corderoy 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
"Commercial" film scanners - Fuji, Kodak, Noritsu?
What about the type of film scanners used most - in photo labs?
We'd like a common reference where we can compare manufacturer offering and then know what we can ask for when at any local photo lab depending on the gear they have.
Dust, dust, everywhere
I think this articule is almost entirely about the 'dust issue' and therefore gives it too much promance. Dust can be a problem though, weather you are scanning or printing. I'll see if I can manage to write something to add (don't know if it'll be any good though!). I'll have to do some research, inc. for references.
One thing to note is that the dust that the scanner has to deal with might very well be there when the print is made, and any dust on the film is enlarged as much as the print. So while a print scanner can work at a lower resolution, dust and scratch marks are already much bigger. Also, when scanning a print the texture of the paper can be picked up. Plus any faults in the printing. One lab I know of consistantly printed films slightly too light and unsharp.