Anyone seen the Digital Transitions film scanning setup?

[Jim Andrada]

I saw this in a post on the Scan Hi-End Forum

Looks like it's probably out of my price range (what isn't anymore?!?!?!) but interesting that new stuff is still being developed.

http://dtdch.com/page/film-scanning-kit

[bob carnie]

Looks like an incredible outfit... I would really be interested in seeing where this thread goes and here about how this device compares to current scanners.

thanks for posting I bookmarked the page.

[djdister]

Very interesting. I couldn't tell from the page whether the scanning head moves or just takes a single digital shot of each frame.

[bob carnie]

looks like a phase back taking a single shot with the film being backlight.. kind of like the thread of scanning using a dslr that Peter started a year or two ago.

Very interesting. I couldn't tell from the page whether the scanning head moves or just takes a single digital shot of each frame.

[jb7]

It looks like a copy stand to me, with a backlit base. I don't think it will be too long before the outrigger lamps appear...

I don't think it's correct to call it a scanner, since it looks like it uses a lens and digital back to capture an image of an original in one exposure. Their marketing department has different ideas, of course...

Since the choice of capture device is at the discretion of the user, I don't think it would be unfair to say that the DIY scanners discussed on these pages are altogether more sophisticated, both in their ambition and results. Making a single exposure of a single original would always be an option on any machine, I suppose, should speed of throughput be the overriding consideration.

A drum scan will obviously produce the utmost in fidelity, since flare cannot be introduced. Using the stitching technique, photographing small masked windows of an original transparency, might also go some way towards minimising flare. The copy stand approach, making one exposure, will definitely work, and I'm sure the quality of the specified optics and coatings are as good as it gets-

It will be interesting to see the results of comparison scans...

The machine looks well considered, and nicely put together...

[Daniel Stone]

Drum scanners(and even hi-end flatbeds, such as the Creos/Kodaks/Fujis/Heidelbergs, etc) are SLOW compared to these newer single/multi-shot systems such as the D/T copystand setup.

These can handle glass plates, a drum scanner cannot. These can handle prints/paintings(with the proper accessory copy lights instead of a backlight), most drum scanners cannot, unless they are small originals, or you have a machine with big drums, never mind the need to wrap the print around the drum...

If you're digitizing small amounts of originals(like film), I feel that paying for drum scans will be a better long-term investment.
These single-shot setups are designed for HIGH capture volumes(think libraries, museums, private collectors who want to do things in-house, or individuals doing copy work as a business). They are NOT cheap. But they are very high quality, and when operated correctly, deliver as marketed.

-Dan

[Light Guru]

I haven't used their film unit but I do use their regular capture cradle daily at work.
http://dtdch.com/page/dt-rgc180-capture-cradle

I love it! The images are great, and the company has been really great to work with.

[Light Guru]

These single-shot setups are designed for HIGH capture volumes(think libraries, museums, private collectors who want to do things in-house, or individuals doing copy work as a business). They are NOT cheap. But they are very high quality, and when operated correctly, deliver as marketed.

Exactly. I work at a history library so high volume is important. And yes they are not cheep.

[Peter De Smidt]

It's a neat looking system, although the Capture One Cultural Heritage software alone is $6000. I wonder if they have people telling them that since they're not using a line sensor, that it isn't worth doing? I know some people who like saying that sort of thing. ;)

[wilderness]

Have a pro-photographer friend that is genius at making things.
He had an old cradle off something, built a frame and added one of his cameras to it.
Worked great

[Jim Andrada]

I wonder how the new Canon 53mp 5D would do instead of a Phase One back???

[Peter De Smidt]

When it comes to scanning with a camera sensor, dynamic range and freedom from noise are more important than the resolution characteristics of the system. According to DxO, Nikon has the edge over Canon in those regards. If you're willing to stitch, then you can increase the amount of detail captured by upping the magnification. It's also likely that a system designed around a lens optimized for one magnification will perform better than one designed for a wide range of magnifications.

[koh303]

I wonder if hasselblad will get pissed that they used something that looks awfully similar to the Imaon film holders....

[dougpeterson]

I saw this in a post on the Scan Hi-End Forum

Looks like it's probably out of my price range (what isn't anymore?!?!?!) but interesting that new stuff is still being developed.

http://dtdch.com/page/film-scanning-kit

Hi Jim!

I'm the product manager for the DTDCH Film Scanning Solution. Since your post we've been busy updating and adding more information and doing test comparisons to drum scanners.

The last video on this page (one hour webinar):
http://dtdch.com/page/media#workflow

The videos on the main product page:
http://dtdch.com/page/film-scanning-kit

The pricing is definitely not competitive with a flatbed, and for individual photographers who are currently scanning a few dozen images a week at home with a flatbed, this solution is not a suitable replacement. It's primarily targeted around service bureaus, libraries, archives, and other institutions that have projects to scan thousands or even millions of images. It might also make sense to a very small number of individual photographers that currently use (or are about to buy) a high end drum scanner, especially those who own (or are about to buy) a digital back, as that is a major driver in the total price.

I'll reply to a few of the other questions posted here, and I'm glad to answer any additional questions on this forum or by email (dep@digitaltransitions.com or info@doug-peterson.com depending on if the topic is my professional or personal work).

[dougpeterson]

I wonder if hasselblad will get pissed that they used something that looks awfully similar to the Imaon film holders....

We definitely looked into the current carriers on the market before deciding to manufacture our own in the USA. Imacons are excellent (both in use and quality of construction) but are targeted at a system where the carrier must bend in an arc. When in that arc shape it holds quite flat, but when laying flat (as it would in our case) it does not hold its shape (I'm not dumping on them here, again, they were not designed to be used flat). We also looked at the Epson and third party carriers but they were all made of plastic and our target market for this device is measuring quantity in hundreds of thousands of images (our shutter for instance is warrantied for one million captures), and we were afraid anything plastic would wear/bend/break during the course. Moreover for the higher end work with this system plastic is hard to keep in the tight tolerances required to compete and exceed the resolving power of a drum scanner.

[dougpeterson]

looks like a phase back taking a single shot with the film being backlight.. kind of like the thread of scanning using a dslr that Peter started a year or two ago.

Our system's primary capture method is a single shot.

We also support stitching (see the workflow video linked to a few posts above) which is important on larger format film like 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 film if you want more than 80mp (aka 10k horizontal resolution, aka 480mb file) worth of resolution.

Our solution was inspired by the surprising number of our clients that were doing some form of dSLR or digital back scanning using ad-hoc or DIY holders/lighting. It is meant to address the short comings of the solutions we saw:
- the need for built in light gating which saves considerable per-image time compared to
- the option for no-touch carriers for those institutions that don't want anything to come in contact with the emulsion (to reduce wear/tear on the materials being scanned)
- elevation of the film away from the light source to reduce heat that might curl the film or damage particular historical emulsions
- tight control of all dimensional tolerances to ensure extremely tight planarity between the sensor, lens, and film (not too important for low res scans like 500ppi, pretty important at 1000ppi, very important at 2000ppi, absolutely essential at high-end scan res like 5000ppi)
- the separation of the carrier from the mounting point so that teams of two can more efficiently use the system (one person loads/unloads, the second person scans and QCs the work)
- elimination of vibration from mirror or focal plane shutter (not consequential for low-res scanning, make-or-break for high-res scanning)
- elimination of focus drift present and focus-postition-detent-formation when using general purpose lenses in a vertical orientation for extended times)
- better lens quality (again, more important the higher the res you want to attain)
- better software integration (the C1 CH software which includes negative inversion, good auto-levels tools, focus meter in live view for establishing focus by algorithm)
- greater physical durability

[dougpeterson]

I don't think it's correct to call it a scanner, since it looks like it uses a lens and digital back to capture an image of an original in one exposure. Their marketing department has different ideas, of course...


It's really not accurate to call it a scanner. But for SEO reasons we need to use the word scanning and film in close proximity. In person I refer to this as a transmissive material digitization system (because it is not just for film, and it is not a scanner).



A drum scan will obviously produce the utmost in fidelity, since flare cannot be introduced. Using the stitching technique, photographing small masked windows of an original transparency, might also go some way towards minimizing flare.


I'd invite you to keep an open mind about the infallibility or insurmountability of the image quality provided by drum scanners. We've been running tests for the last two months. I see you're in New York. Our office in mid town has this system set up most days, and we'd be very glad to set up an appointment for you to bring us some of your film that you have previously drum scanned so we can show you the results with our system. I can also email you links to a few gb worth of tests, but then there will always be the question in your mind of whether the drum scan was done as well as could be, or whether the drum scanner was out of calibration, etc etc - so we'd really prefer to have you run your own test with us.

[dougpeterson]

It's a neat looking system, although the Capture One Cultural Heritage software alone is $6000. I wonder if they have people telling them that since they're not using a line sensor, that it isn't worth doing? I know some people who like saying that sort of thing. ;)

Fortunately most of our target market has a "trust but verify" mentality. The advent of objective measurements of image quality when doing reproduction photography (e.g. http://www.dtdch.com/page/fadgi-image-performance-report) has gone a long way to eliminating marketing fluff.

[dougpeterson]

I wonder how the new Canon 53mp 5D would do instead of a Phase One back???

We'd be glad for you to run the test using our system. However, in general the limitations/challenges would be:

- Vibration from the focal plane shutter. I believe (can anyone confirm) that you can eliminate the first curtain when capturing from live view but cannot eliminate the second curtain which is still physical even when capturing from live view. You might also be able to mitagate this somewhat by using strobe with short flash duration instead of continuous light (our stage comes with longer legs you can swap in for just that reason). But the numbers can be quite staggering at high resolutions. If scanning at 5000 ppi for instance the feature size you are capturing is 5 microns across, so if you want 93% sampling efficiency you'd need to reduce vibration during the exposure to that which causes less than a third of a micron movement of the film vs the sensor.
- Color. We provide bespoke color profiles for each of our digital-back:lighting configurations, but do not provide this for the variety of dSLRs out there. This could be overcome by the customer doing a careful creation of a good custom profile, but our experience is this is more time consuming and error prone than generally expected, even if you're quite careful and methodical about it.
- Lenses. Canon does have a good high-magnification macro lens, but you'd need to test how it behaves when mounted vertically. Typically the nylon rings used in the focusing mechanisms exhibit micro-slip when mounted vertically for extended periods and have the tendency to develop moderate detents if used at the same focus setting vertically (e.g. for a particular PPI) over an extended time. There may be appropriate lenses for this for Canon, but it falls outside my area of expertise. The lens we use is the Schneider 120mm ASPH but the Canon 5DsR has a smaller pixel size than our 80mp back (since 53mp are placed onto a considerably smaller sensor) so diffraction would kick in earlier and we are already often using the lens near wide open. We'd have to test what limitations on absolute resolution that pair would be prone to.
- Dynamic Range. Some transmissive materials like color negatives do not have a lot of physical dynamic range (the range of the scene they were capable of capturing was wide, but the density range [DMin to DMax] this was translated into on the physical film was quite narrow). Other materials like B+W negatives and glass plate negatives have very high physical dynamic range. Using a digital back allows the capture of all materials we've tested, in a single shot, and to capture large sets of images without adjusting the capture exposure (as the dynamic range of the back can accommodate both under and overexposed negatives). You may be able to overcome this limitation by bracketing, but you'd need to evaluate whether the film can be kept in registration (within a fraction of a micron) between exposures. For material like color negatives this should not be a problem.
- Mount accuracy. Our camera uses a large steel pin rather than a threaded adapter. Given the need to set and then keep the camera within a fraction of a fraction of a degree of tolerances (depending on how high resolution you want to scan at) this could create a hassle factor. I'm sure it could still be set to the required tolerance, but it would not be as easy or elegant to do.

Depending on the resolution you need to capture, the dynamic range of the physical materials you are shooting, and the volume you'd be doing it could be a viable solution. Every component of our system is available as a modular component, so if all you wanted was the carriers, or stage, or bench, we're glad to help.

[lecarp]

It seems from a conservation standpoint this system provides far more safety to the original.

[Brian Sims]

If the film is held without any contact with glass, how does the system deal with sheet film that isn't flat?

[dougpeterson]

If the film is held without any contact with glass, how does the system deal with sheet film that isn't flat?

The system allows either magnetic "no touch" carriers and glass carriers [ANR or standard].

In our testing 4x5 can be done in the magnetic carriers at low and medium resolution (e.g. 2000ppi); in such a configuration the sag of normal-condition 4x5 film is minimal as the magnetic holder and the way it is loaded provides some minimal tensioning, and fits within the DOF of apertures that aren't significantly diffracted. When doing this style of scanning it's important to set the focus using around half way between the center and corner of the frame. Of course if the film has significant inherent curl this method will not work well. Our experience is that most 4x5 film has minimal curl (at least compared to 35 and 120mm) but of course every collection is different. When curl is moderate and the PPI is not too high you can also use film-safe tape in the corners of the carrier to help gently tension the film down (if whatever stakeholders like the owner of the film or conservation team of an archive agree to it) without touching the imaging area.

At higher resolutions such as 5000ppi it is no longer possible to use the magnetic carriers with most 4x5 film; the amount of sag when supported from four edges, even with tape and/or magnet acting as a mild tensioner, is greater than the DOF we can provide at such resolutions. In such a case you should switch to a glass carrier (we have one coming out in the next quarter, or you can use any high quality glass, especially from 3rd party wet mounting stations). You can either use ANR glass and dry mount (we've tested the ANR glass we're releasing next quarter to 5000ppi with minimal detected texture) or use standard glass and wet mount. The requirement to wet mount is not as strong with our system since the light is diffuse and uncollimated and therefore renders scratches and surface imperfections with less inherent contrast (similar to lighting an older actor with a soft box rather than a 10 degree grid spot and looking at the way their skin renders). But wet mounting is still the best way to get the film completely flat without introducing any texture at very high PPIs (in theory our system could shoot at nearly any resolution with the appropriate lens selection, but at decreasing areas of view per capture).

For 8x10 film and oddball sheet film sizes we always suggest the glass carrier route, though if you just need a reference image (not a high res archival scan) you could do it with a four-edge-holding carrier.

Our system is, like most photographic devices, a tool. It can be used to solve a variety of photographic/scanning problems many of which are extraordinarily difficult to solve without our system (e.g. high res archival scanning of a glass plate in poor condition, at high resolution, without touching the delicate emulsion, or scanning collections of hundreds of thousands of images in a reasonable time table). It is, in my highly biased opinion, one of the most flexible scanning solutions as each component can be swapped out as needed for unusual problems, and a variety of workflows are possible to do the actual scanning. We also make all of the handling elements ourselves in the US, which means we can provide one off options and customizations for unusual projects (i.e. right now we're looking into a reel-to-reel holder). But it is just a tool. It's not the second coming or the best option for every application (e.g. individual photographers scanning only a few images per week at home would not benefit from this system IMO).

A lot of this is covered in the videos at the bottom of these two links:
http://dtdch.com/page/film-positioning-system
http://dtdch.com/page/media

[Alan Klein]

The big issue with flat bed scanners are the dMax spec. The ability to see through the shadow and darker areas are problematic. What is the dMax for this unit? How does it deal with these shadow areas?

[keith schreiber]

Hi Jim,

I see that you are in Tucson. The Center for Creative Photography at the U of A has one of these systems. I saw it when visiting back in early 2014, so it may be an early version. (I worked there in the Rights & Reproductions department back in the 90s when we did this sort of thing the old fashioned way. Seems like so long ago!) Joey Rheaume, who runs the digital imaging department (or whatever they call it) is a friend. Maybe he would give you a tour or even a demonstration. PM me if you would like his email.

Keith

PS to Doug: Tucson is misspelled on the client page of your website.

[dougpeterson]

The big issue with flat bed scanners are the dMax spec. The ability to see through the shadow and darker areas are problematic. What is the dMax for this unit? How does it deal with these shadow areas?

Short answer: Not a problem.

Long answer: The sensors used in a Phase One digital back are significantly more recent technology than those used in flat bed scanners. We've done a variety of comparisons as individuals test the system and so far I've not run into any materials which did not fit within the dynamic range of a single exposure. You can't prove a negative; that is, I can't say definitively there are no transmissive materials which exceed the dynamic range of the digital back (because I haven't tested every single material in the world), but I can say that we've tested a large variety of material and not seen any that do. Let's speculate and say that some scientific-application scientific material we've not tested yet had too large a range (dMin to dMax) for a single exposure; it would still be a simple matter to capture two raw files a few stops apart and use HDR Merge to combine them - the total time to create the final HDR composite would still be a minute or two.

As far as a specification go, because the technology is fundamentally different there is no absolute dMax spec; our backs can expose up to one hour, and the normal exposure time required to capture a standard piece of slide film is in the 1/15th of a second range (0.07 seconds; shorter than the blink of an eye). So if you found some exotic material that had incredibly dense, near opaque dMax you might have to increase to, say, eight times as long which would still only be a half second (quite a bit under the one hour maximum exposure time of our system). So the limit is only on range, not absolute value, and so far as I can tell from practical testing this isn't a limit at all.

If anyone has some exotic transmissive material that has unusually large range that would be willing to submit it to our testing we'd love to have the opportunity. We're always looking for new applications for our gear (for obvious self interested sales reasons as well as intellectual curiosity). The other day I tested the system for scanning biological specimen slides (in this case dead monkey brain cross sections) and it beat out a dedicated high-res medical slide scanner that took 30 minutes to complete a scan (and only succeeded to complete the scan without errors about half the time).

[dougpeterson]

I see that you are in Tucson. The Center for Creative Photography at the U of A has one of these systems. I saw it when visiting back in early 2014, so it may be an early version.

Indeed the CCP had our first generation kit (same image quality, slower workflow) at the time.

They recently upgraded to the new/current system.

They are one of my favorite clients. They house the life work of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and several other larger-than-life names in American photography.


PS to Doug: Tucson is misspelled on the client page (http://dtdch.com/page/clients) of your website.

Not anymore, thanks!

[Alan Klein]

I may have missed it. But are there visual comparisons between this unit and the better drum scanners that we can look at?

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree with Doug regarding dynamic range. Even with an older Nikon Dslr, the dynamic range is at least 1 stop more than an Epson scanner, as measured with a step wedge, and the ability to easily change exposure is a benefit. The Phase One back should be even better. The tremendous advances in camera style sensors is what makes this a viable option. Line sensors haven't seen anywhere near the same development. I doubt, for example, that a sensor in a current Epson scanner is much different from ones from the 1990s.

[dougpeterson]

I may have missed it. But are there visual comparisons between this unit and the better drum scanners that we can look at?

Alan,

I'd be glad to send them to you, but they are several GB of data so hard to post as a public link. Also we've found that anytime we show comparison images to someone they question whether the drum scan was done correctly, or whether the drum scanner was out of calibration, or whether they could have used better settings (all valid concerns of course). I understand that, as I myself rarely trust a comparison done by someone who is interested in the outcome, and in this case it's even harder because the aesthetics of how you want the film grain rendered are a huge component; if we all posted our "ideally sharpened" scans here I'm sure there would be a wide variety of what individuals consider ideal. So it's really more effective for everyone that we do a test scan of your film on our system which you can then compare to whatever system you'd like, with whatever settings you'd like.

I see you're in New Jersey; if you ever get into the city it may be easier for you to come to the city and I'll show you file comparisons, the system itself, and you can bring some film to do a test scan of. You're welcome to email me at dep@digitaltransitions.com

Doug

[timparkin]

Alan,

I'd be glad to send them to you, but they are several GB of data so hard to post as a public link. Also we've found that anytime we show comparison images to someone they question whether the drum scan was done correctly, or whether the drum scanner was out of calibration, or whether they could have used better settings (all valid concerns of course). I understand that, as I myself rarely trust a comparison done by someone who is interested in the outcome, and in this case it's even harder because the aesthetics of how you want the film grain rendered are a huge component; if we all posted our "ideally sharpened" scans here I'm sure there would be a wide variety of what individuals consider ideal. So it's really more effective for everyone that we do a test scan of your film on our system which you can then compare to whatever system you'd like, with whatever settings you'd like.

I see you're in New Jersey; if you ever get into the city it may be easier for you to come to the city and I'll show you file comparisons, the system itself, and you can bring some film to do a test scan of. You're welcome to email me at dep@digitaltransitions.com

Doug


Hi,

I'd be very interested in the comparisons of flare on very dense film like velvia 50. I've noticed that all flatbed scanners have problems with this. I have a particularly problematic 5x4 if you're interested in testing? I can provide a drum scan and flatbed scan for comparison?

Tim

[dougpeterson]

Hi,

I'd be very interested in the comparisons of flare on very dense film like velvia 50. I've noticed that all flatbed scanners have problems with this. I have a particularly problematic 5x4 if you're interested in testing? I can provide a drum scan and flatbed scan for comparison?

Tim

Sounds great. Shoot me an email at dep@digitaltransitions.com and we'll get it set up.