Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-13-2012, 09:59 AM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 867
Scanned 6x7 film does take up a lot of computer space, so I store mine on flash drives.

09-13-2012, 10:51 AM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
Large capacity hard drives do make me lazy about my scanned file management. In my case, each scanned file I process chews up twice the size of the original scan.

I scan to a DNG file that's typically ~250MB or 125MB for 6x7 depending on if apply a size reduction on the scan. I open it in a RAW editor, make a few initial adjustments and then export to Photoshop to do the dust removal and possibly more adjustmets. I save that and return to the RAW editor to finish it off. Now I have two files with the photoshop file often larger than the scan. Yikes.
09-13-2012, 03:55 PM   #18
Senior Member
paulusje's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 135
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
I scan to a DNG file that's typically ~250MB or 125MB for 6x7 depending on if apply a size reduction on the scan. I open it in a RAW editor, make a few initial adjustments and then export to Photoshop to do the dust removal and possibly more adjustmets. I save that and return to the RAW editor to finish it off. Now I have two files with the photoshop file often larger than the scan. Yikes.
I was just wondering about the size reduction feature in VueScan, do you know what it does under the hood?
09-13-2012, 04:45 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
QuoteOriginally posted by paulusje Quote
I was just wondering about the size reduction feature in VueScan, do you know what it does under the hood?
From the VueScan User's Guide:
"Another useful way of getting multiple image samples is to scan at a higher resolution
and then average adjacent blocks of pixels. For instance, scanning at 2700 dpi and
averaging every 2x2 block of pixels will result in a higher-quality 1350 dpi scan than just
scanning at 1350 dpi. In this example Scanning at 1350 dpi throws away every other
pixel and every other scan line, while scanning at 2700 dpi and settingOutput | TIFF size
reduction (p. 90) to "2" will result in averaging 2x2 blocks of pixels and increasing the
number of effective bits of resolution by 2 bits.

Note that multi-scanning is the only way to increase the quality at the highest resolution,
and that using Output | TIFF size reduction (p. 90)or Output | JPEG size reduction (p.
92) is a better way of producing quality scans at lower resolutions.
"
I set my scans to my scanner's max resolution of 4000dpi (which is pretty much its true optical resolution) and with a size reduction of 2 yields a file size of a scan of 2000dpi but averaged with 4000dpi.

09-13-2012, 11:22 PM   #20
Senior Member
paulusje's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 135
thanks a lot tuco, I will read the manual when I get home tonight so I don't have to bother you with these questions anymore! That size reduction feature looks like the way to go for me.
Thanks again!
09-15-2012, 12:35 AM   #21
Veteran Member
Silent Street's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Snobsville & Hipsterville, Vic AUS
Posts: 445
On the advice of my lab, input scans from my Epson V700 are 4200dpi, downsampled to 300dpi, despeckled at 300 to 400% then sent for RIP and proofing. Resulting file size is about 68Mb. We're printing up to 46cm width (or height) at this and works beautifully.
10-13-2012, 11:13 AM   #22
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 12
A few years back, i ended up with a 465 with 50 and 150mm lenses, and a 67 with 90 and ( I think) 55mm lens. The 645 format was new to me, always having been a bigger is better sort of guy who over the decades shot tons of 6x6, 6x9, 4x5, and 8x10. Anyway, I did extensive testing of my two cameras/lenses, using acros in pmk pyro. Imagine my surprise when the 645 turned in images that were sharper, and at enlargements as big as my D2 will make, made better prints than the 6x7. I posted my results on another forum, and some folks got really mad. My thought is that modern films are good enough that to see any real advantage in the final print, the jump from 645 to 67 is just not enough. Other things become limiting factors- shake, how flat the film is held, the quality of the lenses, etc. i just could not justify using the 67 over the 645, even though i liked its ergonomics better.
10-13-2012, 04:30 PM   #23
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Northants, England
Posts: 97
What's all this talk about scanning, files, megabytes? Isn't that connected to computers? Aren't we talking about a film cameras where the thing to do is to develop the film which stores the info in a massive neg file which can store all 16 negs ( 100s of MBs) on one A4 neg file and then can be printed onto archivally sound silver gelatin paper via an incredible machine called an enlarger and then using simple chemicals make the pictures appear as if by magic

OK end of humorous rant but seriously I think the OP only needs to look at his list of PROs and CONS for each camera to see that he has already made the decision which is that the P645N wins.

The only factor where the 67 might win is in very big prints. I concede that with most films the 67 wins with prints bigger than about 16 x 20 inches and in very fast film such as Ilford 3200 this might be as small as 11x14. So unless you want prints on a regular basis bigger than 16x20 then the 645N wins.

Have a look at Ken Rockwell's site. Yes I know that many have reservations about his reviews but I feel that on the 645N he produces a balanced review.

I should add for the sake of balance that if you like the feel of 35mm SLR cameras and this is a major benefit for you then the 67 will meet your needs better than the 645N. It truly is like a 35mm on steroids and looks and feels great to hold but a camera is only a tool and a means to an end which is prints.

Let the finished article which is the quality of the print to be the final arbiter

asahijock

10-13-2012, 08:14 PM   #24
Veteran Member
Silent Street's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Snobsville & Hipsterville, Vic AUS
Posts: 445
help me decide between a 67 and a 645n
My head is going to explode. Let's see 67 advantanges:

Potentially cheaper lenses (lol yeah right)
*** True; they hold their value well, and some can be pricey.
Larger negative space used
*** 400% bigger than 35mm, if figures matter
Looks totally badass
*** irrelevant Americanism
Mirror lockup
*** very useful, but also a threat to battery.

Disatvantages: not as modern
*** Why do you need a modern camera for effective, creative photography!?
...no af....
*** Don't need it at all.
incredible mirror slap
*** And—?
...spotmatic era controls
*** So you're not a creative photographer but one relies on the camera to make decisions for you? Buy a spot meter: learn additive/subtractive/split and average metering, stepped metering, basal calibrated metering... and let the camera be a camera for capturing the image, rather than doing the exposure work for you.
...service life?
*** It's true the 6x7 (especially) and the later 67 bodies are getting on now. But excellent specimens can be found and they do exist; you must have your wits about you when sussing one out. Treat it well and it will deliver. Treat it like shit and you'll cop it.
....can only use one lens series
*** And you'll find they are a lot cheaper than AF versions.
...heavy!
*** Not a problem. Many people here on PF use it as a street machine. I use mine tripod-mounted. Other cameras fill in for e.g. bushwalking trips.

645n pros:

Excellently dampened mirror rendering lockup uncecessary on a tripod
*** irrelevant
Much more modern automatic controls with multimetering and af
*** Learn metering basics with a spot/incident/reflected meter. Fancy metering patterns are all OK, but you're letting the camera do the thinking for you!?
(BTW, all multipattern/evaluative/matrix metering systems are designed on the Zone System: that's why they work so well! It's only a computer sifting through thousands of 'matrice comparisons' that gives you the speed. Take away the computer and you have the good ol' Zone System.)
Can use 645 and 67 lenses
*** true. But false economy.
Provides a gateway to eventual 645d
*** Why?
Smaller lighter...still looks badass
*** Why do you want to look "badass"? Can't you blend in or must you be noticed?
Film advance
*** wind...wind...wind. It's there. Much more reliable than autowind.
More portable as a system...can probably also use a lighter tripod....
*** Be manly and carry a 15kg tripod.
Newer, potentially more reliably built
*** In God I trust, but the rest of you,bring evidence.


As a working photographer I am perplexed by the questions people pose when they attempt to go from one system to the next but find themselves in a technology mire about the direction. If you are serious about photography start at the basics and work your way up, rather than attempt to stand out in the crowd with a "badass" camera (whatever that means?). A camera is just a tool, no more than a dummy without a capable photographer to exctact the image he/she envisages through skill, by working with the camera, not through it. Go and have a look at the 67s and put to bed the spurious, misplaced and largely irrlevant theories.

My production print / exhibition scans, averaging about 60Mb for 28x36cm scanned Velvia trannies, are stored at the lab on there 60Tb server (along without many other analogue photographers' work). The original trannies are archivally (mask) mounted and stored in dry boxes.

You might want to research the narrow colour gamut of digital as opposed to that in film, and the contraction of gamut that occurs during scanning of film (but not a lot). This stuff (colourimetrics) is labour-intensive at lab level but delivers beautiful scans and subsequent exhibition quality prints for gallery showing. I have never, ever been satisfied, convinced, impressed, effusive or happy with digital cameras in any shape or form.

Last edited by Silent Street; 10-13-2012 at 08:20 PM.
10-14-2012, 12:36 AM   #25
Senior Member
henkvanzuylen's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Netherlands, 's-Hertogenbosch
Posts: 224
I understand that you like the 'bad-ass' look from the 6x7...it looks more impressive as a 645, but...
If that's you're only consideration then you should buy a Fuji GX680

I own a Pentax67 and it's great to work with....all manual, but who cares? When you're out with a 67 you're not in a hurry i suppose, you just want to take nice pictures and doing that takes time.
For me that is just the fact what gives me the ease and makes this hobby so great

I shoot more on film as i do digital, and shooting on film is the most relaxing thing for me I can imagine, so I don't need AF or build in light metering...I take my time for each picture
With my 67 I've a 45mm, 55mm, 105mm and a 165mm....that's a luxery of course, but with the prices of these older cameras and lenses it's payable.



Good luck with your decision

Henk
10-14-2012, 07:11 AM   #26
Senior Member
klaus123's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 205
Hello

I use a 67 and a 645 - I think one key for a decision is your scanner equipment. I use a Canoscan 9000F and the usual resolution I use is 2400 dpi (because this scanner can only do up to app. 1800 dpi) - with this resolution the quality advantage of the final files is significant better for the 67. If you have access to a better Scanner than availabel lenses may drive the decision.
Further the decision dependas on what you take photos of. Long telephoto-lenses is realy no domain of the 67 - The crop factor 3 compared to K5 reduces the length of all lenses dramaticaly. So for teleshots the 645(N) might be the better choice.
Personally I love the 67 much more :-)
10-14-2012, 12:27 PM   #27
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,182
For the OP. All considerations regarding cost of lenses, scanning and such are easily resolved. A little time with either camera and the decision should be easy for you. Work with the negatives from either and the decision should be even easier. Much depends on your intended use and style of photography.

BTW...if you truly want "badass", perhaps something like this might be more along the lines of what you are looking for...




Hand-holdable, accurate rangefinder focus with option of ground-glass, huge 4x5 negative, readily available, and hugely macho (especially with the flash bracket attached)!


Steve
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
645n, badass, camera, comments, film, lenses, lockup, medium format, mirror, tripod
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Decide between DA*55 or FA 77... repaap Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 06-05-2012 06:17 AM
Help me decide Barron Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 07-29-2011 04:28 PM
Can't decide on which f/1.4 Ragnar Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 15 06-02-2011 08:28 PM
Nature You Decide BigDave Photo Critique 6 12-19-2010 07:34 PM
Nature You Decide BigDave Photo Critique 4 12-19-2010 08:31 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top