digital 21 megas shot versus 6x9 cm slide film scanned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdenney

I don't think the OP defined "ideal" the way you and Sandy do. Nobody would argue with your conclusions, of course, but they are based on the definition of "ideal" as "state of the art". The OP defined "ideal" as "achieving quality better than from a Canon 5DII."

---

I took ideal to mean the best quality. Drum scanners get cheaper ever day, altho the higher end ones have kept their value.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdenney

As to shadow detail, a color transparency is the biggest challenge there is for a scanner, it seems to me. But I just don't think I'm missing much shadow detail in my Nikon scans of Velvia. Those scans are certainly not as crisp as drum scans, and the drum scan might get a bit more out of the shadows, but it's just not a problem I've noticed. Color negatives are less of a problem--they compress a greater subject brightness range into a narrower density range.
Rick "not seeing much on the light table that can't be seen on the Nikon scan" Denney

---

Rick, you have to see it yourself to now the difference. In some cases, up against a film scanner, the biggest difference was the the Premier pulled a lot more color out of the chrome. There were subtle color shifts that the other scanners didn't pick up. You don't know what you're missing until you try it...

P.S. I agree with Ivan that some of the med format lenses are unbelievable. I have a Mamiya 7 II and its razor sharp...

Lenny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger

Rick, you have to see it yourself to now the difference. In some cases, up against a film scanner, the biggest difference was the the Premier pulled a lot more color out of the chrome. There were subtle color shifts that the other scanners didn't pick up. You don't know what you're missing until you try it...

---

I don't doubt it. But owning and knowing how to use a drum scanner, even an old one that is as cheap as a used Nikon 8000, is still a lot more expensive and difficult. The older and cheaper the drum scanner, the scarcer and more expensive the pieces that come with it, and the more challenging it is to maintain the computer that runs it. The Nikon is recently discontinued, but a lot were sold for a long time, and the 8000 and 9000 use the same bits. It runs on any PC and does not require any special software or hardware. It also does not take up a big chunk of floor space. I'm biased, of course--I already own one.

Rick "who hasn't seen any drum scanners in immediately usable condition that could be bought for $1500 like a Nikon 8000" Denney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdenney

Rick "who hasn't seen any drum scanners in immediately usable condition that could be bought for $1500 like a Nikon 8000" Denney

---

I have. Plenty of them on EvilBay...

They aren't hard to learn. 4500's have a good source of parts. I think some of the better film scanners are better than 'just ok' including the 8000 and the Flextight, as long as the Nikon has something to flatten the film and some liquid preferably.

However, when you find the neg that want want everything out of, then a drum scan is in order.... just my 2 cents.

Lenny

$1500 is most definitely possible, though the pickings seem to be slimmer these days as the commercial shift away from film is pretty advanced. The problem is you have to know what you are looking for. In the best-case scenario, you have to be lucky (or patient) enough to stumble upon an honest, local seller who will show you the equipment before you buy it, rather than these warehouse-based, "It powers on so it must be mint," electronics resellers. For a few thousand more, you can buy a fully-functional scanner, ready-to-go, up to the manufacturer's specifications, from a prepress company like Genesis.

I do not own a drum scanner, but I was lucky enough to find a Screen Cezanne for about $1500, with Apple G4. It is far more versatile than a Nikon 8000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger

I have. Plenty of them on EvilBay...

They aren't hard to learn. 4500's have a good source of parts. I think some of the better film scanners are better than 'just ok' including the 8000 and the Flextight, as long as the Nikon has something to flatten the film and some liquid preferably.

However, when you find the neg that want want everything out of, then a drum scan is in order.... just my 2 cents.

---

No argument. I never said the drum scanner was not better. I just said it was more expensive and difficult. And I said the Nikon was good enough to make it worth doing 6x9 on film instead of using a Canon.

I switched from the glassless carrier to the glass carrier, and got Newton rings that I could not overcome. I've switched back to the glassless carrier after fiddling with it a bit to hold the film as tight as is needed to keep it flat. With that bit of extra care, my scans are well-focused edge to edge. But it does take some care. Liquid isn't really needed when there's no glass.

I think I'd be a little cautious about buying a Howtek 4500 on eBay, but that's me.

Rick "who might be forced to, someday" Denney

I used to think MF film would always win hands down if compared to 5D2 for medium to large prints. A couple of months ago used a borrowed Canon for a project for a week or two and ended up buying one shortly after. The zooming in the LV makes for a very accurate focus and the files are just too easy to process and upsample. Almost every MF color landscape photographer I know or followed on the web went to digital for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NicolasArg

I used to think MF film would always win hands down if compared to 5D2 for medium to large prints. A couple of months ago used a borrowed Canon for a project for a week or two and ended up buying one shortly after. The zooming in the LV makes for a very accurate focus and the files are just too easy to process and upsample. Almost every MF color landscape photographer I know or followed on the web went to digital for a reason.

---

6x9 and 645 ain't the same thing, of course. But a lot of medium-format photographers make rectangular prints from 6x6, which means 645 or even 6x4. It's tough to beat a 5DII with 645.

But the 5DII has a bigger challenge with 6x9, it seems to me. 6x9 is a bigger leap from 6x4, than 6x4 is over 24x36.

Ease of work flow is another matter, and subject to facts not provided by the OP.

By the way, I have excellent L-series lenses for my 5D old version, and it's a pretty rare shot where I can't see the imperfections in the lens at the pixel level.

Rick "whose Nikon scans of roll film blow away the 5D at least" Denney

Well, I sold my 5D1 about a month ago after buying the mark ii. Before selling it, I tested them both from the same tripod and using the same lenses with different subjects. The mark ii has a huge advantage with the live view focusing. It was almost impossible for me to match with the 5d the precise focus I got with the mark II. It's like using a ground glass and a x10 loupe vs looking at the GG from 60cm. But even precisely focused, the mark ii resolves far more on the practical level. I have a couple of shots where I just left two cards with fine writing on them on the table and snapped a shot or two with each camera from tripod using a WA manual lens. The writing on the 5d file is almost illegible and no sharpening can solve it. On the 5d2 file even the smallest letters are perfectly defined. In real world shots it translates into finer textures, perfectly defined leaves and organic patterns and overall volume and sharpness that leads to the elusive MF look I could never pull out of 5d.
I'm by no means saying that 5d2 is BETTER than 6x7 or 6x9 frames, it just happens for ME at least that my epson v700 could pretty easily beat the 5d files with well exposed negs and now, I feel that MF scanned on a coolscan (a friend has a Nikon 8000) looks just like 5d2 but with dust, more chromatic noise, film flatness problems and grain and to feel a REAL advantage of the MF film over the 5d2 I'd need a drum scanner.
MF film of course has a lot of other aesthetic features, but if someone is thinking about spending 2-3k on a scanner and a MF camera just to match 5d2, PERHAPS it'd be wiser just to buy a 5d2.
Nicolas "my Toyo 4x5 still beats the 5d2" Belokurov :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NicolasArg

...but if someone is thinking about spending 2-3k on a scanner and a MF camera just to match 5d2, PERHAPS it'd be wiser just to buy a 5d2.
Nicolas "my Toyo 4x5 still beats the 5d2" Belokurov :)

---

Completely agree here. I still contend that my Nikon D700 shots with top-tier lenses generally were as good or better than my Pentax 67 negs/trannies scanned on an LS-8000. But if I got them drum scanned, maybe it would be a different story. I am considering getting back into 120 but only using a novel panoramic format, otherwise I'd still not bother with anything smaller than 4x5 (well, except for my 35mm Nikon RF which I just love to death and has more character than anything else I own, including all my Schneider glass).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

Completely agree here. I still contend that my Nikon D700 shots with top-tier lenses generally were as good or better than my Pentax 67 negs/trannies scanned on an LS-8000. But if I got them drum scanned, maybe it would be a different story. I am considering getting back into 120 but only using a novel panoramic format, otherwise I'd still not bother with anything smaller than 4x5 (well, except for my 35mm Nikon RF which I just love to death and has more character than anything else I own, including all my Schneider glass).

---

It would be a different story. I just blew some from my Mamiya up to 40 inches and the sharpness is beyond belief... way better than I anticipated.

Digital is getting better, of course. Some day it will actually get better enough. And then years after might even get to a reasonable cost.

However, I don't think it will be in the 35mm size. Generally speaking, the difference between 4x5 and 8x10 (or even med format with lenses as good as the Mamiya's) is not in sharpness and resolution but tonality, which is a factor of film real estate. More film to describe a series of tonal shifts results in better (and smoother) rendition of them. Until the sensor sizes get to be full size they won't be able to match their film counterparts.

Lenny