At first, my results were very soft because I was pressing the shutter on the camera, but after I switched to using a 2 second time delay for the shutter release, sharpness was good. Before I switched to a copy stand (for convenience), I used a tripod with inverted column, and I tested it for sharpness. So I don't think it's my lens.Īny ideas? I don't have the light issue totally surrounded (so to speak), so as I said, there's what I consider a mild lack of contrast, but I wouldn't think that would rob detail as much as I'm seeing.Īs for using a tripod as a camera support when copying film - they are fussy to set up, but it is possible to get sharp results. Just a scan of my proof sheet, but the detail is pretty good- you can even see the yellow anti-counterfeit dots if you look closely. Still, I did drop my macro lens a couple months ago, so I thought I should check it: I'm focusing using 10x zoom ('micro focus') and I'm focusing on the grain itself. I considered a possible sensor or lens issue- I'm using an inverted tripod with a horizontal beam, leveled with a 2 way spirit level in the hot shoe, and a very nice, heavy, level, workbench. Next is a processed image (28 MP) from the 90D + 100mm f/2.8 macro f/5.6 (Shot RAW, processed with Canon's DPP 4, inverted via Darktable+negadoctor, dust removal and sharpening applied via Affinity Photo):Īnd then just to be paranoid, here's a 90D RAW f/8 shot, inverted only, no color correction: My personal opinion, there is more apparent detail in the eye on this photo, than anything I've been able to manage on the DSLR. Or perhaps, it's a lack of contrast (the inverted images do initially seem to be lacking in contrast).įirst, a 100% crop from the Epson V800, scanned with Silverfast SE+ at 3200 PPI (~ 14 megapixels). What I'm having problem with, oddly, is a lack of detail when using the DSLR. Also, there's a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that DPP4 (Canon's software) does a very good job of compensating for possible diffraction limits.Īfter some experimenting, I've come up with a couple processes that produce good color- so that's not an issue. As far as I know, based on some basic math, diffraction shouldn't be an issue until f/11, and only then at one end of the red spectrum.
s.jpg "dslr test chart")
I don't want to hear from the Sony fanboys that Canon sensors suck. I have two options for scanning- An Epson v800, and an EOS 90D APS-C DSLR. I thought I'd start a new thread on this one, rather than continue an existing thread.
0 kommentar(er)
