>>3999332>Beating lab scanners really isn't setting the bar high at all.It is when the scanners are operated correctly.
>Their machines never had the best quality, they were optimized so they were decent and fast. This is simply false. At their best settings Noritsu scanners were competitive with consumer dedicated film scanners.
>People doing high end important work or art had their shit drum scanned if they needed to digitize it, because lab scanners are simply inferior.At the start of the DSLR revolution people digitizing 35mm either had dedicated scanners at home, or a pro lab they trusted. Drum scans were very, very rare due to cost.
Off hand I don't remember all the Noritsu (or Fuji or Kodak) models/variations. In general a CoolScan 4000 dpi model could edge out a best quality lab scan, but it wasn't night and day. It was only night and day IF the scanner operator fucked up or if the scanner was set to its highest speed (lower resolution) mode.
>These days we've got plenty of advancements in tech and optics and labs are still using machines from the 90s because film is mostly dead. The tech and optics hasn't moved on dedicated film scanners at all. Why would it? Single line CCDs were a solved problem 20 years ago. Dedicated optics like those in film scanners could have been made to the same quality in the 1970s. Plustek, about the only option remaining, isn't any better than a CoolScan or a Minolta 5400.
>It's not uncommon for labs to give you lower res images than what their machines are even capable ofTHIS was the problem with lab scans. You had to use a lab you trusted which offered the highest settings.
>but most people shilling camera scanning are comparing their camera RAWs to shitty lab JPEGs Did you even read the link?
>but you'll need some serious equipment to surpass dedicated single-frame film scanners like a Coolscan No you won't. The 5D IV scans at that link are as good as or better than anything I've seen off a CoolScan.
