Anybody done scanning of LF Negs with a dslr?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexn

I have done this using my D3X and Nikkor 105mm F/2.8 Macro at minimum focus distance (1:1 magnification) and 6x17 slide film. (3x6 35mm frames to cover the slide giving fairly generous overlap) My tripod allowed me to hang my camera underneith it so I set it up over my light table and moved the slide around..

The results were neither great nor bad... Not as good as my Epson 4990 and total price of the setup is about 20x that of the 4990 too... The biggest issue was compiling the stitched image. My computer is very current, its a quad core Intel i7 with 16gb of RAM and it still struggled aligning, stitching and blending 18, 24.4mp images together.

All up it took about an hour to setup and shoot the slide, and about 3~4 hours of processing to get it aligned, stitched, blended and looking like one image rather than a stitch-up...

My advise, Buy a V750. Or, sell your LF gear and buy a D800E, 16-35 F/4 VR, 24-70 F/2.8 VR, 70-200 F/2.8 VR and pray that your $8500+ purchase produces better images.. (which it probably wont.)

---

I have a V750. The results are rather murky and have less DR compared to a drum scan but drum scanning costs so much it isn't feasible (about 100 euro per image).

Currently, my plan is to get my really good pictures drum scanned and use the V750 for the not so good pictures. This'll work out fine as long as I don't shoot too many good pictures! :confused:

Anyway, I'll probably find a good use for a D800E too! :)
I shoot both digital and film. I don't see it as an either or proposition.

Adrian

Adrian

Trust Walker.
He knows his shit.
Really knows his shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by false_Aesthetic

Trust Walker.
He knows his shit.
Really knows his shit.

---

I've corresponded with him through email. He's very excited about our dlsr scanner project.

I think Walker is on the right track and any DSLR with nominally 5 um pixel resolution can capture 5 um image detail at 1:1 given a high quality macro lens. The larger question from the hardware end is how does the contrast and purity of color from the DSLR capture compare with that at equal resolution from a drum scan. The answer rests in large part on the nature of the light source from the film and the angular dependence of capture. The DSLR will suffer from serious light scattering problems if a diffusion source is used so image contrast will be greatly reduced and cannot be recovered in PS without contrast expansion techniques. Scans will appear muddy with diminished tonal values.

I think one needs to use a highly collimated light source to preserve tonal values. This will lead to maybe too much increase in contrast but that is more easily adjusted in post processing than too little contrast. Proper light baffling is essential in early tests to maximize the captured color purity and density values really represented in the film emulsion. A high degree of collimation also reduces scattering from silver and dye in the emulsion, an exceedingly important aspect in the replication process.

I've been thinking a bit about this from the hardware POV and hence a sketch of a concept is inserted below. An obvious change would be to place the condenser pair right under the stage - sort of an upside/down D2 arrangement. For collimation a point source could be employed (shown).

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7045/6...4fbc3ebd_z.jpg
SCANNER-3jpg by hypolimnas, on Flickr

Nathan, you should post this sketch in the build thread, and we should probably discuss it there to avoid to much fragmentation of discussion.

I agree about the importance of the type of light source. I'm using a diffusion source with my prototype simply because I have all of the parts on hand. I don't have condensers or a halogen point source for a collimated source. (I do have a very nice 45" front surface mirror arrangement from Kodak.) If the stitching issues are resolved, then this would certainly be a good area of investigation.

Regarding the support structure, a multi-column approach might be preferable to a single column.

Yes Peter, I should be better organized. I'll drop this in the build thread.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

VERY good read!
Thanks for the link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Langham

In this article, Walter Blackwell talks about it and suggests it is more than viable.

http://theagnosticprint.org/future-of-scanning/

---

Does anyone have a setup to do this with 4x5 negatives/positives?
Is it better than scanning with an Epson V750-M Pro?
I am thinking of getting this Epson scanner, just don't know how effective this would work with 4x5.
I have a 5DMkII, I would LOVE to do this "alternative" method, if it is better than the Epson V750-M Pro output.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buggz

Does anyone have a setup to do this with 4x5 negatives/positives?
Is it better than scanning with an Epson V750-M Pro?
I am thinking of getting this Epson scanner, just don't know how effective this would work with 4x5.
I have a 5DMkII, I would LOVE to do this "alternative" method, if it is better than the Epson V750-M Pro output.

---

Please, go to this thread. Much discussion and all your questions are at least addressed. It's a long thread but it's really digging into the possibilities here.

Making a scanner with a DSLR

Rick "trying to avoid crossing threads" Denney

Thanks!