-
What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Howdo,
Looking through the Collaborative Large Format Scanner Comparison http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/ I see that many of the film scanners are no longer made, available, or supported although most of the high-end scanners (Imacon [now Hasselblad], ICG, Heidelberg, Creo, etc.) are either still produced or have a relatively strong refurbishment market.
As it's been several years since the last scans were posted, what is the general concensus on the quality of those scanners that are still available compared with what's available today, if indeed there has been any significant advance in the technology and consequent output quality of scanners?
Cheers,
Duff.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
I'm not aware of anything new that would be an improvement (or even be equivalent!) to the good old stuff. I suspect that DSLR "scanning", either stitched or one-shot is where it's all heading. For now it seems that parts etc are relatively available for my IQsmart and I have no complaint about how well it scans - only about how SLOWLY it scans thanks to really old internal compute capability. On the other hand, no big deal to load it up in the evening and let it scan away until morning.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jim Andrada
I'm not aware of anything new that would be an improvement (or even be equivalent!) to the good old stuff. I suspect that DSLR "scanning", either stitched or one-shot is where it's all heading. For now it seems that parts etc are relatively available for my IQsmart and I have no complaint about how well it scans - only about how SLOWLY it scans thanks to really old internal compute capability. On the other hand, no big deal to load it up in the evening and let it scan away until morning.
Thanks Jim,
Interesting. I know a couple of pro printers who now use DSLR's to 'scan' film and I can't fault the quality of the final image for it's intended purpose.
Duff
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
See post 42 in this thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...-Scanner/page5
Dslr scanners can be very good, but building a good system is non-trivial.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
I have a number of negatives and transparencies in 35mm, MF, and LF which needed scanning. I know that scanners like the flat bed models will be a compromise, but I also have to consider costs. Drum scanners are outrageously expensive unless you can justify sufficient volume, say for business.
I bought an Epson V850 earlier this year, and I'm very happy with the results. I've started shooting film again, so it will get ongoing use. I also just bought a couple of 4x5 cameras, and I'm gearing up for them. One of the additional items I've purchased is a film holder from www.BetterScanning.com. These are outstanding additions to the Epson and work much better than those supplied.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
For several years I had access to an Imacon Flextight Precision II at an educational institution just a 30 minute drive way. Scanned many of my B&W negatives and color transparencies but not all of them. Hoping to try to approach or even replicate the quality of the Imacon's scans at home, so put together the following set up:
Image capture: Nikon D4 FX body. True a series D800 Nikon would give me a lot more pixels, but the image files of the D4 by far exceed the resolution of my Platinum/Palladium final prints.
Equipment: a Nikon Multiphot. Probably the ultimate apparatus for photomacrography. Alignment of stage, lens, and camera back probably the best one could ever wish for.
Lens: 65mm Macro-Nikkor for 35mm and the 120mm Macro-Nikkor for larger formats. Shooting at #3 aperture in both cases. For larger than 4x5 negatives, I use a LED (lightbox) panel. Mine is a 13x16 inch "LED COPY BOARD Model: A3" and I have found its illumination to be completely even.
Illumination: For 4x5 and smaller formats, 1/2 of the exposure made with the collimated Multiphot's condenser light source and the other 1/2 of the exposure with a 100% diffused substituted LED light box. The condenser illumination caused an over-sharpening effect and it produced a slightly distorted reproduction of a step wedge. Using the 100% diffused light source produced a great range of tonalities but apparent sharpness of the image suffered a bit. Fred Picker, up there, is probably saying "I told you so". For large than 4x5 formats, I use a LED light panel and do ever so little sharpening in Photoshop using an Action which I've tweaked over the years.
Results... I actually preferred the images captured with the Multiphot over the images captured with the Imacon. I am not enlarging the images all that much in making the digital negatives and then contact printing Platinum/Palladium prints. With greater enlargements of the scans, the ones made with the Imacon, I would think that they should be a bit better, but I haven't experienced this so far.
To be fair, depending on the subject matter, shoot some film negatives with only using the collimated Multiphot's condenser light source, some with 1/2 of the exposure made with the collimated Multiphot's condenser light source and 1/2 of the exposure with a 100% diffused substituted LED light box, and then finally some with using only the 100% diffused LED light box.
Comparing scanning the negatives with my Epson V750 Pro with the final output being an 8x10 print... with 4x5 or larger negatives I couldn't see any difference. With 120 was a toss up. With 35mm the Epson scans were (subjectively) inferior.
Some points to consider:
Films shot with the Multiphot were laid flat on glass, emulsion side down, and held in place using painters masking tape to tension the film.
In the end, for producing digital image files from 8x10 and 11x14 negatives (4 scans with photo merge for 11x14), the Epson was just a whole lot easier to use.
comments welcome
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
I use the single shot DSLR scanning method for 35mm work. I tried stitching them together from multiple shots, but in practice there isn't a noticeable different in quality, and a huge noticeable difference in the time and energy it takes to go that route. Though every once in a long while I'll still go that route (and only for E6 emulsions with super fine grain where it actually makes a difference). I use my ancient Epson 4990 for LF stuff. If I have a LF shot that I particularly love and want to blow it up huge, I'll send it off for a drum scan, but generally speaking my flatbed works well enough for 99% of the stuff I do. I've found the flatbed isn't sharp enough for the small 35mm format. And the DSLR is too hard to stitch together for LF. I usually wind up getting errors somewhere if I let the software stitch the image, or it takes forever and a day for me to do it by myself. I'd rather just ship it off for a drum scan at that point, rather than spend that a day or more trying to get one decent super high resolution file. I've thought about building an automated DSLR scanning rig, but it always seemed like a ton of work, time, and money that was just too hard to justify the gamble on. Maybe if I had a friend who built one or some other way to get my hands on one first and see if it's worth the investment before heading down that road, I might change my mind. But for now, I can't say I have any issues using a single shot DSLR (for 35mm), a flatbed scanner for general LF work, and a postage stamp for the LF stuff I want to blow up big.
I don't do MF stuff very often, so I don't have a set procedure for them. But one thing I will say is that getting a good process down is more important than getting the best gear. And it's not just in the physical scanning portion that's important, but also in the PS manipulation realm. Color correction, dust removal, and sharpening are all more art than science.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
If you have a repeatable positioning system, setting up a stitching template in PTGui works beautifully.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
I am considering the phase one repro system for my future scanning needs of old photographs, Unique prints that I make, and possible film reproduction but I would have to test the final one against my Eversmart Supreme and Imocan
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
That would be an interesting test, Bob!
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
I am thinking if I have the right lens the setup could be quite good, really expensive but over 20 years I can do enough scans to pay for the setup, the phase would be tethered to a workstation , probably capture one then on to storage drives.
What I like about this is the ability to sit down at a workstation like my big scanner and work. In my past life I was a photo comp specialist which required many hours doing copy work and we used a Linhoff camera copy stand with polarized light and it was a dream to use.
I am looking for a device that can measure LAB numbers on prints where the readout is immediate, I think this would be killer for dead nuts repro.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greg
For several years I had access... ...comments welcome
Interesting read Greg - thanks.
...and thanks everyone else (and for the link Peter).
I've been considering a DSLR set-up. I have a spare Leitz Diaplan that can be converted into a copy stand although I've started making plans for a set-up that will accomodate larger film size (up to 8x10) using a pro' light box, X and Y stage, and a few other odds and sods cobbled together with the aid of a lathe and milling machine.
Otherwise, seeing little advance in flatbed scanners the last 10 years, I have been considering a drum scanner such as the ICG but only if I'm able to also do some business with it, but with people adapting DSLR's this may be a non-starter. I'm sure a properly calibrated drum scanner will produce the ultimate in quality scans, not least due to the wet mounting but I wonder how far off a decent DSLR set-up with, say, a betterscanning wet mount station properly set up, would be.
Duff.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
I wet mount my serious dslr and Cezanne scans, but for high max density slides, nothing beats a Tango. I wish I could afford one!
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Peter,
My D4000 and Tango produce equivalent results concerning high density slides. Using my Nikon D800E with a Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D (at f/8) to "scan" 35mm, MF or LF (4 scans, stitched) is significantly better in deep shadow detail (as well as all other image parameters).
And much faster
Rich
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Seeing as how you can resolve down to the grain and beyond with a good lens on a DSLR, and the dynamic range of the newer bodies, I don't think even a drum scanner could give you better results. But like I said before, there's a process that you have to get down. I've yet to come up with a reliable stitching method. I can do 4, no problem. But 9 is sometimes dicey, and 16 almost always gives me fits to the point of being useless to attempt. That's why I still occasionally use drum scanning services. I need an automated system. I also need new tires on my car and other life expenses, so that's on hold for now.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rich14
Peter,
My D4000 and Tango produce equivalent results concerning high density slides. Using my Nikon D800E with a Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D (at f/8) to "scan" 35mm, MF or LF (4 scans, stitched) is significantly better in deep shadow detail (as well as all other image parameters).
And much faster
Rich
Using the DSLR, I assume one would be able to make an exposure for highlights and another for shadows and 'HDR' merge the two digital images produced to pull out all the available information from the slide.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rich14
Peter,
My D4000 and Tango produce equivalent results concerning high density slides. Using my Nikon D800E with a Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D (at f/8) to "scan" 35mm, MF or LF (4 scans, stitched) is significantly better in deep shadow detail (as well as all other image parameters).
And much faster
Rich
Rich,
I am curious to see any samples you have to share. My tango can see through the velvia 50 film rebate with extended range profile with no contamination of color. I don't know how anything can be better but I would love to see what others are doing and seeing.
I might have to try this test myself too. I do have a 5D MK II and macro lenses.
Pali
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
duff photographer
Using the DSLR, I assume one would be able to make an exposure for highlights and another for shadows and 'HDR' merge the two digital images produced to pull out all the available information from the slide.
You can do that, and it works, but it's not usually needed. A D600/800 class camera has about 1 stop more dynamic range than an Epson scanner, as tested with a Stouffer calibrated step wedge. Some newer cameras will be even better.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter De Smidt
You can do that, and it works, but it's not usually needed. A D600/800 class camera has about 1 stop more dynamic range than an Epson scanner, as tested with a Stouffer calibrated step wedge. Some newer cameras will be even better.
Is this comparison made with Epson using Multiexposure ?
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
So I did a test and I am going to take a strong position and say that NO, DSLR cannot outdo a Tango for shadow detail. I took multiple photos of a severely underexposed slide using Canon 5D MKII and even exposed it so the highlight of the slide were completely blown away and still, shadow detail is no match for Tango. Tango scan was a no fuss setup and made at 2000 DPI.
Here is a cell phone photo showing how severely this slide is underexposed compared to a properly exposed photo.
http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/...ide%20Test.jpg
Here are the DSLR vs. Tango comparisons and I picked the best for the DSLR out of multiple tests. Tango is literally the 1st test scan I made with auto settings and not even attempting to pull shadow detail to it's max ability.
http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/...0TANGO%20B.jpg
http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/...vs%20TANGO.jpg
Unless someone is willing to post apples to apples comparison scans and show how a higher end DSLR can do more, I have a hard time believing that something can beat the PMTs and the 12 BIT Log AD convertors combo on a Tango. Its not just about the resolution or the spots of detail, the purity in the color and quality of the scan is just no match. If your Tango doesn't do this, I highly suggest having Karl tune it.
Pali
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Pali, I agree, Although a 5d mk ii is not a great camera for dynamic range.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter De Smidt
... a 5d mk ii is not a great camera for dynamic range.
Also in full agreement here :)
Pali
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
This test made me scan an image that I never thought would be useful. Tango proved me wrong :)
Pali
-
3 Attachment(s)
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pali K
So I did a test and I am going to take a strong position and say that NO, DSLR cannot outdo a Tango for shadow detail...
Hello Pali,
I don't doubt that the Tango is a way better scanning system than a DSLR.
Anyway your test shows a very good result fron the DSLR source. It is true that the DSLR has way more stray light (Tango has near zero stray light...), but this signal level can be removed with PS.
IMHO the DSLR performed much better than I would guess:
With stray light:
Attachment 167200
Just removing stray light level:
Attachment 167201
With a quick color balance:
Attachment 167202
IMHO a better match can be done with a proper LUT.
Regards
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pali K
Rich,
I am curious to see any samples you have to share. My tango can see through the velvia 50 film rebate with extended range profile with no contamination of color. I don't know how anything can be better but I would love to see what others are doing and seeing.
I might have to try this test myself too. I do have a 5D MK II and macro lenses.
Pali
Pali,
I posted messages about using a D800E for scanning a number of months ago and wondered when someone was going to ask for a comparison between such scans and a drum scanner.
I've though about this quite a bit. I am confident that I am seeing better scans with the D800E than with scans that were made over the years with a wide variety of scanners, including Tango, my current D4000 and other assorted machines. I have scanned the same Kodachromes, Velvia and Ektachromes with the D800E.
I no longer have access to the Tango. But I still fire up the D4000 from time to time.
While I know that my results are valid, I don't think that my posting my results will be proof to anybody. My drum scan technique could be faulted. There could be any number of criticisms that I'm not showing the drum scans at their best.
So here's what I suggest - send me a difficult chrome (or a number of chromes) that you have scanned on a Tango, or any other drum scanner. Post the image(s) here. I'll scan them with my D800E and post my results. (Of course I'll send your film back). We'll be able to compare the D800E to not only a Tango other than the one I used, but the capabilities of different operators.
It should be interesting, and will be done openly on the forum.
I'm not particularly interested in sending my film out as my collection now is all personal stuff, and I have no question about the ability of the D800E.
Rich
PM me if you want to get in touch.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
That's a great idea Rich!
I'll send you a PM and will plan to send you this very exact 4x5 Velvia sheet. I'll also make some proper scans from a Epson V700, Eversmart Pro, Scanmate 11000, and Tango that I have access to for comparative purposes.
Pali
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Hey guys, do you think 600USD is a reasonable price for a Fuji Lanovia C-550? I am thinking about an upgrade from V700. Also I was curious in terms of speed in Fuji will be an upgrade on this regard.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rich14
While I know that my results are valid, I don't think that my posting my results will be proof to anybody...
Why not ?
Just scan a USAF 1951 resolution target slide and post the scan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_U...ion_test_chart
If group 6 element 2 bars are seen then your system is outresolving LF lenses, so enough for LF sheets. If you see Group 7 elements then you have a first class system...
Here you have the result from an X5 (Not a drum, but close, This is scanning 35mm):
http://www.filmscanner.info/Bilder/U...lextightX5.gif
You can compare to that.
Other practical tests can be done with an IT8 slide target, for density, etc, Also you can measure stray light.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timpar...125592977@N05/
IMHO numeric tests do not explain all but a lot is explained...
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pali K
That's a great idea Rich!
I'll send you a PM and will plan to send you this very exact 4x5 Velvia sheet. I'll also make some proper scans from a Epson V700, Eversmart Pro, Scanmate 11000, and Tango that I have access to for comparative purposes.
Pali
I would contribute by scanning on a Eversmart Supreme and a Imocan if someone handles the dynamics of sending the original around.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bob carnie
I would contribute by scanning on a Eversmart Supreme and a Imocan if someone handles the dynamics of sending the original around.
Bob, I can certainly send you this particular 4x5 Velvia image but does it make sense for us to better organize this effort? Does anyone have access to the original images that were used for the scanner comparison here for a more meaningful 2017 update to these tests that were done many years ago?
Pali
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pere Casals
Fair enough. The last AF test target scans I made on several D4000s and a Tango resulted in a resolution figure a little better than about 4300 dpi. I forget the formula for translating between the Air Force target and DPI. Anyone have that?
I'll do a D800E scan of my AF target this weekend and post the results.
I'll also scan an IT8 target. I'm not sure how much that would satisfy the question. It's a reference target and using its calibration file will certainly produce a color reference frame for a particular machine, but I don't think individual machines can be compared to each other by looking at their images of different IT8 targets. Someone set me straight if my logic is off here.
FWIW, producing scanner ICC profiles from an IT8 target never really helped me with any scanner I've used. It always resulted in crushed blacks, despite the Don Hutchinson "trick" of covering the darkest patches on the target with metal foil tape to make them absolutely opaque. Scanning without a scanner profile and subsequent color correcting on a calibrated monitor, using the original transparency transilluminated by daylight/calibrated light source, or by comparing to known reference images on screen was always much better.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rich14
Fair enough. the formula for translating between the Air Force target and DPI. Anyone have that?
Here http://www.filmscanner.info/en/Aufloesung.html you have these tables, no conversion needed, bottom table says dpi from Group and Element:
Attachment 167247
This is the common (I'd say controversial) way to tell "scanner optical dpi" an scanner resolves. Here we can have some controversy because we can say we need 2 points to resolve a line or we can say we need way less than 2 points, depending on the modulation transfer % we consider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rich14
I'll do a D800E scan of my AF target this weekend and post the results.
I'll also scan an IT8 target. I'm not sure how much that would satisfy the question. It's a reference target and using its calibration file will certainly produce a color reference frame for a particular machine, but I don't think individual machines can be compared to each other by looking at their images of different IT8 targets. Someone set me straight if my logic is off here.
FWIW, producing scanner ICC profiles from an IT8 target never really helped me with any scanner I've used. It always resulted in crushed blacks, despite the Don Hutchinson "trick" of covering the darkest patches on the target with metal foil tape to make them absolutely opaque. Scanning without a scanner profile and subsequent color correcting on a calibrated monitor, using the original transparency transilluminated by daylight/calibrated light source, or by comparing to known reference images on screen was always much better.
One important thing is measuring the amount of stray light, this is a transparent slide with a little black patch, compared with a totally black slide.
I about color... scanner and DSLR sensors may have different spectral responses, but difference can be narrow after using a conversion LUT.
I'd like to see your tests, thanks in advance.
-
2 Attachment(s)
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Here is the detail of the USAF resolution chart (sorry for the dirt in the scan - I didn't clean the film):
Attachment 167307
The full size, original file is here for viewing or downloading.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wu9354fcu1k3lnp/USAF.jpg?dl=0
This is a jpeg processed from the RAW NEF file in ACR and Photoshop. No adjustments or sharpening of any kind. The D800E's white balance was probably set to that of the LED tablet on which the target was scanned.
I can read to Group 5, element 6, maybe a partial read of element 7. That puts the resolution in the neighborhood of 5000 ppi. Since the camera is focused at 1:1 and the pixel density is 4900 across the 1 inch dimension, resolution can, of course be no higher than that. Suffice to say the camera and lens are are delivering well above 4000 ppi, and in the neighborhood of a 5000 ppi "scan." I have never seen any usable image data from commercially available film stocks above about 3500 - 4000 ppi no matter what users of machines with so-called scan resolutions of 8000 ppi or 11,000 ppi claim. So the D800E/Micro Nikkor f/2.8 AF D (shooting aperture 3 stops down from wide open) is pulling everything that can be seen on film at this reproduction ratio as far as resolution in concerned. The shooting aperture was set 3 stops down from wide open. That's usually f/8. At the 1:1 reproduction ratio, that is actually f/13, which the camera reported. I call it f/8 for simplicity as that's where I set the lens for all reproduction ratios as that's where it performs best, whatever the f/ratio truly is mathematically.
Here's a Kodak IT8 target scan.
Attachment 167308
And here's the link to the full-sized jpeg for viewing or downloading.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rbsuh2w0krkjyth/IT8.jpg?dl=0
This is a scan of the full 4x5 transparency as one shot with the D800E. I usually scan 4x5s in four slightly overlapping quadrants and stitch them together via ACR and Photoshop. I did scan the IT6 target that way, but the resulting files gave Photoshop's stitching algorithm fits in putting the four pieces together. This is the first time I have run into this kind of problem. It really surprised me, but the problem became obvious after a few retries at large and smaller scan sizes, trying to change the overlap which is what I first thought was the issue. It has nothing at all to do with the D800E's capability for scanning.
First, Photoshop completely removed the gray border around the central area of color patches, cropping the image to just the color patch region.
Second it assembled the four images out of order.
My take is that the algorithm saw the uniform border as being superfluous overscan outside the desired "image." Then it couldn't make heads nor tails out of the four quadrants as there is no unifying "image theme" like there is in images of the "natural world." I assume some other kind of test chart might have fared better, but the semi-random color patch data is not something the algorithm is made for. I have never experienced difficulty stitching the quadrants of a 4x5 image of the natural world. I doubt I ever will.
If anyone wants to see the individual quadrants, I'll give links to them, but they give no more information than the image I've posted as far as the use of the IT8.
The posted image is about 1250 ppi. If I could have correctly assembled the quadrants, the resulting image would have been 2500 ppi. I've never had occasion to scan a 4x5 at higher resolution. There is no additional resolution in a 4x5 image above about 2000 ppi. If super large prints are needed (above about 50 inches in the short dimension) upscaling a 2000 ppi scan gives identical results to scanning a 4x5 at 4000 ppi (which takes a long time on any drum scanner).
The D800E's white balance was set to that of the LED tablet. I adjusted camera exposure until I got flashing "blinkies" in the white patches. No adjustments of any kind have been made in ACR or Photoshop. No sharpening. The NEF file was simply sampled from 16 bit to 8 bit and saved as a JPEG.
When I get the test image in the mail I'll post my scan.
Please let me know if there are any problems with the links. I will leave the files up for the foreseeable future.
Response to this will be interesting.
Rich
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rich14
I can read to Group 5, element 6,
You have to read the table in the other direction... 5/6 is the column that has the "5" header in the top, so it is around 2900 dpi (instead 5000), not bad anyway !!!!
Thanks for posting this interesting test.
The IT8 test shows an amount of stray light, as lighter colors (pastel) have more white. This can be solved in part in post process, calibration wont solve it because different scenes will deliver diferent amounts of stray light.
My interpretation of the test is that it is a viable system for LF, in special for BW, the single issue, IMHO, is that one has to remove the stray light level in PS, and perhaps it won't work very vell for the case of high densities present in some slides, and in few negatives.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Sorry for misreading the chart. The Lasersoft target is labeled differently. I should have realized there is no way the lens and sensor working together could give a result of close to 5000 ppi since the sensor's pixel density is itself 4900 photo sites per inch. Theoretically the system should produce about half of that figure. But resolution is not an issue since it could be increased simply by using a higher magnification ratio. I can't do that with the Micro Nikkor 105 without adding an extension tube. Easy enough. Then there would be a stitching step for 35mm scans as well as for larger formats. Also trivial.
As it is, the 1:1 set up is sufficient for all but gargantuan prints from the format. Using a Pentax 645Z, Hasselblad X1D or Fujifilm GFX all of which contain the 50mp Sony sensor of equal or better performance than their 36mp D800 sensor would remedy that in a single step.
I'm not sure what you're referring to as "stray light" in the shot of the IT8 target. The only light entering the camera is that passing through the transparency which is completely masked all around on the LED light table. The scan was done in a relatively dim room. The image does look lighter in the highlights (less contrast) than the target looks visually. But that's the point of using a calibrated target to generate an (ICC) profile of an image system. We expect nonlinearity. That's what the profile corrects (mostly).
Do you mean that the image is being "self-contaminated" by light because the camera sees the entire area of the transparency at once, while a drum scanner sees only an individual scan spot at a time?
The real test is going to be comparing a (corrected) scan from my D800E against that done on a Tango by someone else.
Rich
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rich14
Do you mean that the image is being "self-contaminated" by light because the camera sees the entire area of the transparency at once, while a drum scanner sees only an individual scan spot at a time?
Rich
Yes, this is. A lens self-generates parasite (stray) light. This depends a lot on the number of optical groups and on the coating performance.
The amount of parasite light also depends on the particular negative (or slide) you scan. A very "transparent" slide will trow a lot of light to the lens, and a little share of it will be dispersed. If you have also deep shadows in the slide this contamination will make a difference, and you'll need to manage that in the digital processing.
A flatbed only illuminates a row at a time, so there is less chance that a lot of stray light arrives to the sensor, also the Micro 105 is a good lens generating limited amounts of stray light, but as you see a big area this worsens the thing in front of a flatbed.
...and a drum is near free from stray light, as a single point is illuminated and read.
You can measure the stray light amount by placing an small opaque patch in the middle of the negative, that reading in the opaque patch is the amount of the stray light, you can compare with a reading made with illumination closed.
Of course to measure that you have to take completely raw images, without any in-camera correction.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Understood. Yes that's an issue. Both theoretical and practical.
But in my completely unscientific testing, the path through the camera's exposure compensation, inherent in-camera RAW settings and ACR/Photoshop "post" processing produce results equal to or better than my own D4000 or Tango scans on screen or printed on an Epson 7890.
I originally tried using some old 150mm and 300mm repro process lenses. As well as my 50mm f/2.8 EL Nikkors (both original and "newer" designs). I expected the process lenses to give excellent 1:1 performance. But nothing works as well as the Micro Nikkor. I believe a big part of the problem with the others was flare in the extension tube and bellows setups. I may be able to improve on that but the Micro Nikkor is just so easy to use.
I imagine there are better lenses for this purpose, but this one is hard to beat.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
A 75mm Rodagon D, the 1x version, works very well for this.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rich14
But in my completely unscientific testing, the path through the camera's exposure compensation, inherent in-camera RAW settings and ACR/Photoshop "post" processing produce results equal to or better than my own D4000 or Tango scans on screen or printed on an Epson 7890.
I agree a lot that accurate post processing may be very important, IMHO sometimes it is more important than the pure scanner performance.
Sometimes drums deliver better results simply beacuse a good operator is on-board.
Real shooting conditions are field conditions, not lab conditions, this means that the "on film" actually resolved lp/mm are far from lens maker specifications: those are ultimate performance in ideal conditions, with perfect alignment, perfect focus, optimal aperture, no vibration and a contrasty subject.
TMX, a sharp film, resolves 200 lp/mm for 1:1000 (micro)contrast, but for common contrast you can find in textures it may resolve just 50 lp/mm at extintion. What I'm suggesting is that at the end most times a very good scanner will make not a great difference, simply because the inferior machine is able to extract most of on film information yet.
IMHO there are some shots that deserve a good scanning machine, but a number of factors are required: A technically perfect shot, with a very sharp lens, at optimal aperture, with a sharp film, and lots of microcontrast, and a big print.
If it is not the case the most important part is edition, using the rĄght sharpening and the right PS downsizing algorithms. A perfectly sharp image can look bad simply because web browser resizing.
This is what I personally concluded... but I'm still a learner, and sharpness is a really complex concept, more complex than it looks, IMHO.
For MF and 35mm a very good scanner may also help to depict film grain more naturally... but this is also a complex thing :)
Pere
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Rodagon D 75mm f/4 at 1x magnification with a D600. Raw developed with Capture One with no sharpening. Image cropped at 100% view in Photoshop.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ysiy8zg6en...ning.jpg?raw=1
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
That's very clean Peter - thanks for posting. Out of curiosity, is your DSLR able to see through the lines? On my tests, the lines are light grey as the scanner sees right through them.
Does anyone wish to see similar tests from Drum Scanners? I ask because the resolution is far greater and the test is silly to compare in my opinion.
Pali
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pali K
That's very clean Peter - thanks for posting. Out of curiosity, is your DSLR able to see through the lines? On my tests, the lines are light grey as the scanner sees right through them.
Does anyone wish to see similar tests from Drum Scanners? I ask because the resolution is far greater and the test is silly to compare in my opinion.
Pali
Yes... it would be interesting. X5 flex can see Group 7 if doing 35mm, but a lot less with larger formats. It would be interesting to see where drums arrive...
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pali K
That's very clean Peter - thanks for posting. Out of curiosity, is your DSLR able to see through the lines? On my tests, the lines are light grey as the scanner sees right through them.
Pali
Hi Pali, I used Capture One's 'auto' tone curve and no exposure adjustment. Looking at the raw file, when the whites are at 250 the dark bars are at 33 with the linear tone curve. This is with Edmund's chrome on glass high resolution target.
-
2 Attachment(s)
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
I've rescanned the USAF target after realizing my camera was not focusing accurately. I have been using Autofocus and the D800E's autofocus fine tune is on -20, the end of its range. Even at this setting, the image was not in focus. If there were a -25, that would probably be spot on.
I manually focused the following image which is a slight improvement over my previous. In my version of the USAF target, group 5 corresponds to group 7 in Pere's and Peter's. Here I can read all of that group and perhaps the first element of the next group.
Peter's Rodagon image certainly looks good.
It looks like I will need to send my camera and lens together to Nikon for them to adjust the autofocus fine tune for this lens. It can be done for newer lenses, don't know about this one. Which leaves me to using manual focus for scanning. Not really a problem.
Here's the full image:
Attachment 167353
And the detail showing group 5:
Attachment 167354
Rich
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Hey Rich,
At 1x magnification, using the lens to 'focus' changes the magnification instead. It's better to set the lens for 1x magnification, and then moving the whole camera + Lens system forward and back until the target is in perfect focus. I use a quality mm ruler to set the lens focus. Match the ruler reading to the size of your sensor, which'll give you 1x, and then don't change it.
Same thing as before, except this is with a reversed 50mm Componon-S at 2x magnification:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7qmow9nrlh...s_2x.jpg?raw=1
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter De Smidt
Hey Rich,
At 1x magnification, using the lens to 'focus' changes the magnification instead. It's better to set the lens for 1x magnification, and then moving the whole camera + Lens system forward and back until the target is in perfect focus. I use a quality mm ruler to set the lens focus. Match the ruler reading to the size of your sensor, which'll give you 1x, and then don't change it.
Peter, the exact magnification ratio is seldom important (at least to me). Focusing the lens itself is the only smooth focusing mechanism I have with my current set up. I don't have the camera on a focusing rail.
I know magnification changes slightly with the way I'm doing it. I had thought of adapting my view camera to hold the D800E body and making a lens board for the Micro Nikkor. But even my Sinar P back can't focus as smoothly as the helical focusing collar of the Nikkor.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
My Z-axis: https://www.dropbox.com/s/t3jwny820r...axis.jpg?raw=1
I'd be surprised if any auto focus has the precision and accuracy to focus ideally at these magnifications. But I'd love to be wrong.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Wow I think I have to have one of those!
That and a usable live image. (D800E leaves a bit to be desired in the live focus department).
Does the Radagon have a focusing collar? I do have a helicoid adapter for F mount which I got for testing the various lenses I mentioned previously.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
The camera and extension tubes are bolted to an Arca slide. Thus there is no helical in the system. The lens extension is set to focus exactly at 1x, which is ideal for my lens. With my D600, live view is not accurate enough to find perfect focus. I have no idea why. During setup, I do a series of exposures at different distances from the target, find the best one in my raw processor, and then fix everything at that point. The vertical stage is a Velmex 4000 series Unislide. A D800e should be able to get about 800 dpi more with the same lens setup than with my D600. (Daniel had a D800e and ran tests with it in a similar setup.) How much test slide resolution is practically helpful is a difficult question to answer. My guess is that many people overestimate how much detail they are actually getting one film. I scanned a purposely shot and highly detailed 35mm tech pan negative. Shot on a very heavy tripod with mirror lockup at my lens's best aperture. Such a setup should resolve significantly more detail than any LF negative. Doing test scans, I found that going up i, magnification (with lenses optimized for that) lead to better test slide results, but I couldn't see any advantage with the 35mm Technical Pan negative, which means that going after better results than I get with 1x with the Rodagon doesn't appear worth the effort, especially with larger film. My point is that since you're getting such great results with your current system, don't let test slide scans push you to spend more time and money chasing a dubiously useful improvement.
-
Re: What are the film scanner options in 2017?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter De Smidt
Same thing as before, except this is with a reversed 50mm Componon-S at 2x magnification...
This is some 5000 or 6000 dpi, impressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter De Smidt
I scanned a purposely shot and highly detailed 35mm tech pan negative. Shot on a very heavy tripod with mirror lockup at my lens's best aperture. Such a setup should resolve significantly more detail than any LF negative. Doing test scans, I found that going up i, magnification (with lenses optimized for that) lead to better test slide results, but I couldn't see any advantage with the 35mm Technical Pan negative, which means that going after better results than I get with 1x with the Rodagon doesn't appear worth the effort, especially with larger film. My point is that since you're getting such great results with your current system, don't let test slide scans push you to spend more time and money chasing a dubiously useful improvement.
I also think this is a very good way to know what performance is needed or not, a good TP shot with a good 35mm glass is a safe reference...