High end scanner options - What's out there?

[Theodoros]

You don't need MF backs to do this, which isn't to say that there wouldn't be benefits (and costs) to going this way.

The big advantage of a scanner is that it's setup and ready to use. Unless you can dedicated a camera body and lens to leave setup, alignment and achieving the best focus is non-trivial. This is speaking from practical experience. I have both a semi-automated DSLR scanner optimized for 1x magnification captures at f/4 (Apo Rodagon D 75mm), as well as a Screen Cezanne.

Hi Peter,

Setting up isn't a problem... one can use his view camera and mount the lightbox on the extension rail of it... Focusing is no problem either if one uses LV... With Sinarback 54H & view camera, LV is really easy if one adds Sinar's LC shutter. He can then use a macro lens and stitching becomes a piece of cake by just shift the lens and the image area around the negative... The thing is that (as I said before) its got to be a multishot back, you won't gain much (if any) by using a single shot back... A multishot MFDB though, will make a night to day difference one has to try it as to believe it.

Sinar (who only makes multishot backs the later years) even came up with a set up dedicated for the job http://www.sinar.ch/en/category/products/cameras/repro/ so that museums can digitize their old films of paintings without need to redo them in digital... But it won't make a difference if one uses his own camera and lens and an older multishot MFDB instead... Its really difficult to describe with words how impressive the results can be if one uses a multishot back... The back being multishot, is the key factor.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm glad to hear that works well. With my Nikon Dslr, live view is not accurate enough to focus precisely. No, I don't know why. For best results with FX, everything needs to be aligned within about 6 thousands of an inch at 1x magnification. I use a Velmex 4000 series linear slide for focusing.

[Will Frostmill]

It's worth noting that both Olympus and Pentax now make multi shot cameras in m43, APS-C, and full frame formats. I'd be interested to hear if anyone on here has used one of these for scanning.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Theodoros]

I'm glad to hear that works well. With my Nikon Dslr, live view is not accurate enough to focus precisely. No, I don't know why. For best results with FX, everything needs to be aligned within about 6 thousands of an inch at 1x magnification. I use a Velmex 4000 series linear slide for focusing.

I've tried a Nikon DSLR too (just for testing purposes), the problem with the D800E I've tried, is that -like with MFDBs- the pixels are too small for one to get the magnification needed as to nail focus to the accuracy needed for copying film. But even if you do nail focus, the fact that it is a single shot device (just like most of the MFDBs) remains... Ideally, one has to use a macro bellows with the lens set to infinity and then LV as to nail focus. Of course, if a view camera is used instead it can replace the bellows even better, but the limitations of the technology (the presence of the Bayer pattern, the cross talking between pixels, the processor used for interpolation, the presence of microlenses on the sensor) will remain... Then there is the Nyquist limit that restricts the lens/sensor combination. I'm affraid there is no other way to avoid all these shortcomings but to ....avoid them! ...and using a multishot MFDB is the only way as to avoid them!

[Peter De Smidt]

It's worth noting that both Olympus and Pentax now make multi shot cameras in m43, APS-C, and full frame formats. I'd be interested to hear if anyone on here has used one of these for scanning.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Will, the issue is controlling the camera via an Arduino, which is what my Dslr scanner uses to automate the scanning process. I simply don't know whether that's practical with those brand cameras. Electronic First Curtain Shutters are also very beneficial. Lack of vibration, light source quality, alignment....all are important to maximize image quality.

[Argentum]

The use of a multishot MFDB for the job, makes a "night to day" difference for this particular job... No Phase-One or other single shot MFDB can even come close to a multishot MFDB for copy work. There's complete abscence of artefacts, no color intrepolation, no Bayer Pattern errors and significantly more color depth and DR with a multishot back.. (Visible) Resolution is a world apart also... This is because the Niquist frequency is quadrabled, but also because the human eye/brain understands as resolution the difference in colour between pixels. The single shot backs use software to create color and this leads in common color used especially within neighbouring pixels... Multishot backs have color depth of 48bit (3x16) and they capture "what they see" for color without any interpolation method used. There is no way you can beat the resolution of an 88mp Sinarback 54H (or imacon 528c) no matter if one uses a ...400mp single shot back (or other device that uses interpolation as to create color). The difference applies for B&W captures too (there you can see that the single shot image is full of (hidden) artefacts - just like scanners are).

Thanks for the enlightenment. I'm obviously not upto speed on what is available in the digital reproduction area.
Out of curiosity what camera and lenses are you using for repro of negs of all sizes and also capture of original artwork inlucing large paintings of say 6ft on the long side.

[Theodoros]

It's worth noting that both Olympus and Pentax now make multi shot cameras in m43, APS-C, and full frame formats. I'd be interested to hear if anyone on here has used one of these for scanning.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hi Will,

I haven't use it yet, but I'm sure that the K1 will be better than using a single-shot MFDB. (no question about it) but I'm sure it will be much inferior to the sinarback 54H or the Imacon 528c for the particular application. Reasons are: 1. The size of pixels (too small) 2. The niquist limit (it can't do 16x as to quadraple it and the sensor is half the size), 3. The existance of microlenses (causes cross talking) and 4. the absence of dedicated software to ensure color accuracy and correct tonality... There are other applications though (like still life studio work or product photography) that I'm sure the K1 will shine... I wouldn't bother at all considering even smaller size sensors, the pixel size is totally inappropriate for resolving a negative.

Just think of that, Rodenstock claims for the HR series of lenses, that they are good for sensors that have down to 6μm pixel size... and those are certainly among the sharpest lenses ever made... I thus believe that what Peter thinks as being "not properly focused" is because the sensor/lens combination can't resolve down to the resolution required for scanning film... IMO it is softening due to the limited Niquist frequency of the lens/sensor combination... not poor focusing. More than that, the artifacts due to the Bayer pattern and the interpolation process are magnified. I'm sure the improvement will be considerable if Peter uses the K-1 instead of a Nikon, but it is still going to be far behind a 16x multishot MFDB with (huge) 9μm pixels and complete abscence of any interpolation or artifacts involved... Shooting in 16x mode with a Sinarback 54H is directly equivalent as if one would use an 100x75mm sensor (almost the size of 4x5 sheet film) with 9μm size pixels of true color (like foveon)... Surely the difference is evident only by one looking at the specs...

[Peter De Smidt]

I can move the camera a few thousdandths of an inch at a time. If I start by using live view magnified all the way, back off a bit, and run a series of photos, a couple of them will be clearly sharper than the distance indicated by live view. It has nothing to do with "the sensor/lens combination can't resolve down to the resolution required for scanning film..." I have a Edmund Scientific chrome on glass high resolution test slide. In my system, a D800E achieves over 4000 spi. Grain is clearly resolved. If that's not enough, I can use a Nikon Measuring Microcope at 5x magnification, but my tests show that any gain, even with 35mm Technical Pan, is not worth the added effort.

I appreciate your views, but sometimes you come across as being dismissive of what others are doing.

[B.S.Kumar]

...a Kaiser lightbox to lay film on....

The Kaiser is your light source? How are you doing multi-shot? If you aren't using flash, how long is each exposure, and the total time for each scan?

Kumar

[Marco Annaratone]

I scanned my 6x17 film by inserting it in one of the plastic frames of an Epson flatbed scanner. The frame is attached to one of the standards of my sinar P2 with duct tape. It sounds ugly but in fact it works pretty well. Then I took about 20 shots of each film with a Sony A6000 with a Nikon 55mm Macro lens (and bellows). Finally, I put together the 20 frames with PTGui. Once the correct alignment between camera and standard+frame is achieved the capturing process is tedious but no biggie.

My findings are:
1. PTGui has been thought as a tool to put together images from a rotating camera, not from a camera sliding parallel to the subject (i.e., the film being photographed). Lots of work to adjust all the parameters. PS Photomerge is not better than PTGui in this respect.
2. Achieved resolution is out of this world. One realizes how much information a good film (helped by a good lens and a steady tripod!) can capture. It is still pretty impressive even today with 100Mpix sensors coming.
3. Scanning color negatives is even more work. When I do not need a state-of-the-art scan I use Silverfast on my Epson V850 for MF and LF film because I do mostly color negative scans and Silverfast has an excellent library of profiles for color negative film (better than Vuescan in my opinion). With the "DSLR-based scanner" you are on your own.
4. The scan out of the camera has much higher contrast than that coming from a standard film scanner or flatbed scanner. Easily fixed in PS, though.

(My very personal) bottom line.
I do only fine-art work, so (1) I shoot relatively little and (2) I have no customers pressing me to deliver photos within a deadline. So, film scanning with a DSLR-based set up makes a lot of sense even if it is a lot of work. Right now, as long as my Minolta Elite Dimage II works for 135 film and the lab that scans my 6x17 and 8x10 films with its Creo iQsmart3 survives I will not switch to the DSLR-based scanner. But it is definitely - for me - a good "plan B."