What are the film scanner options in 2017?

[Rich14]

Interesting.

Since I had the transparency, I can say that the D800 scan colors are more faithful. And the relationship between colors and their relative saturation and contrast are the way they looked visually.

I see very little difference in shadow detail between the scans.

I see far better contrast in the D800 image in all areas. It has sparkle that the drum scan is lacking.

The contrast of the dead tree trunks standing at the water's edge against the darker values in the D800 scan is the way the transparency looked visually. They were quite whitish with distinct three dimensional modeling. That doesn't come through as well in the Tango image where they are almost uniformly gray. There are many subtle colors muted in the Tango in the fine detail of the grasses and foliage at the water's edge correctly reproduced in the D800.

The Tango is emphasizing reds a bit and showing contrast of reddish detail against green that isn't in the transparency. The D800 is emphasizing greens a bit and is doing a better job differentiating between different green hues and shades. Those differences exist in the transparency, but a little less distinctly than the D800 is showing them. These kinds of subtle differences are always seen comparing one imaging system to another.

Again, we are talking about extracting data from an exposure that would be trashed and never used for a quality reproduction. These machines are optimized to extract data from normally exposed film.

And the differences I see in the two scans is way less than I have seen in multiple "shoot-outs" over the years between a number of drum scanners all of supposedly excellent reputation.

I do admit to being biased, but I pick the D800 image.

Again, I really hope we get other scans of this 4x5 posted.

Rich

[Pere Casals]

This is from a long time ago now, but it shows using HDR techniques with a dslr film scan: http://peterdesmidt.com/blog/?p=657

The question is whether that would help. It looks like the shadows are completely captured, i.e. the histogram extremes, at least on the shadow side, seem captured by the D800e scan, what's gone is the variation in the dark areas that the Tango captures. Look at the shadowed forest floor, for comparison. This could be due to processing, or a loss of shadow detail due to flare, or, as Pere suggests, simple lack of dynamic range, i.e. the shadows fall on the toe of the camera's response curve. Regarding processing, I would avoid all use of clarity, structure,.....,in raw processing. The negative needs to be very well masked for stray light, the room should be dark, and no bright surfaces should be able to affect the image. The lens needs to be very clean, and the interior of extension tubes, bellows.....should be checked for any shiny surfaces. (This is often a problem with macro photography. The serious macro people often put light absorbing baffles inside extension tubes.) My guess is that flare is causing the most significant loss of shadow detail in this case.

DSLR scans are, in my experience, better suited for scanning negatives than for scanning underexposed Velvia.

Well, the lack of dynamic range it is a concern. Velvia may deliver +3.6D, so contrast can be 1:4000, this is x4000 more light in the transparent areas than in the shadows.

The 14 bits a DSLR may deliver is some 16000 levels of gray, so this will leave 2 bits to describe detail in the shadows, if the adjusted exposure also has to describe higlights...

What I mean is that (in theory, if I'm not mistaken) 14 bits are not enough linear range to catch 3.6D well. Also we have to consider that the least significant bits (describing shadows) may have lots of noise...

So, IMHO, these simple calculations are suggesting that ME can be useful if it is a contrasty slice...


About flare, if image is dark there is less chance that it has a role. I'd suggest a way to test flare importance, just masking all film but a 1cm hole (or 0.5cm) in a very dense area, in this way most of the flare can be cancelled.

[faberryman]

Interesting.

Since I had the transparency, I can say that the D800 scan colors are more faithful. And the relationship between colors and their relative saturation and contrast are the way they looked visually.

I see very little difference in shadow detail between the scans.

I see far better contrast in the D800 image in all areas. It has sparkle that the drum scan is lacking.

The contrast of the dead tree trunks standing at the water's edge against the darker values in the D800 scan is the way the transparency looked visually. They were quite whitish with distinct three dimensional modeling. That doesn't come through as well in the Tango image where they are almost uniformly gray. There are many subtle colors muted in the Tango in the fine detail of the grasses and foliage at the water's edge correctly reproduced in the D800.

The Tango is emphasizing reds a bit and showing contrast of reddish detail against green that isn't in the transparency. The D800 is emphasizing greens a bit and is doing a better job differentiating between different green hues and shades. Those differences exist in the transparency, but a little less distinctly than the D800 is showing them. These kinds of subtle differences are always seen comparing one imaging system to another.

Again, we are talking about extracting data from an exposure that would be trashed and never used for a quality reproduction. These machines are optimized to extract data from normally exposed film.

And the differences I see in the two scans is way less than I have seen in multiple "shoot-outs" over the years between a number of drum scanners all of supposedly excellent reputation.

I do admit to being biased, but I pick the D800 image.

Again, I really hope we get other scans of this 4x5 posted.

Rich

I guess I can't trust my eyes.

[Pali K]

Just so it's clear for everyone, you are looking at an unadjusted file from Tango in my samples. My Tango is calibrated for Velvia 50 so the slight variation are expected and it will take me 5 seconds to fix the red. I am also sure I can make this raw scan shine but that would just show my Photoshop skills not scanner performance.

Rich, correct me if I am wrong but I do believe you needed to perform multiple tests to get the final results. If that is the case, it's important to note that Tango (and drum scanners) in this are are no fuss scans. Meaning that it's painful to setup but once you scan, you know you are getting the best possible file. Regarding your point about drum scans from the 90s, please keep in mind that software evolved well past that at least for main scanners. Tango software that I use is from 2004 and there were many enhancement to USM, shadow, and main scanner firmware at those latest iterations of the software. This is just another FYI statement since you mentioned you were comparings your scans from 90s and such.

I also saw Peter's YouTube on DSLR setup and also the linked one from Daniel. If you can trust me, I am telling you that I can mount negatives on a drum scanner in equal or faster time than what I saw in Daniel's video which is also one frame at a time. The scan time for 2000 DPI 4x5 is quite fast on a Tango. So unlike popular belief, all drum scanners are not really that slow.

I think there is enough in this thread already to at least show a controlled sample between Tango and DSLR. At this point, everyone is free to make their own conclusions.

I know that I will be taking gentle care of my drum scanners for many many years in the future

Pali

[Rich14]

Pali,

Many people will interpret this thread in their own way and with their personal biases. I look on it as a comparison between DSLR scanning, and in this case D800 scanning and Drum scanning. I offered originally to do the D800 scan so that we could have an example of the kind of performance I have been getting. I never wanted this to be a competition. You have been very helpful in all of this. And as I've said, I hope others will join in to establish a data base here of what's possible.

I can practically oil mount and do a 4x5 drum scan in my sleep, the muscle memory is that automatic anymore. But despite the "mickey-mouse" nature of my DSLR scanning setup, I can produce a 4x5 scan at all the useful resolution that can be wrung from it in just a small fraction of the time the drum takes. Less than 5 minutes total after oil mounting. How long does the Tango take to do a 3000 dpi scan? My memory is well more than 30 minutes. (Howtek is 60 min. The scan has to occur at 4000 ppi, no matter what resolution is desired higher than 2000.) My time includes settings in ACR ("scanner settings") which will bring the file into Photoshop essentially finished. Further corrections, if needed are mostly artistic.

I think DSLR scanning is not just a curiosity. If the need to scan film were greater, If that market were still viable for high-end commercial reproduction reasons, I do believe CMOS sensor scanning would completely eclipse PMT technology. And we would look at drum scanner technology with much the same bemusement that we now remember the relative crudeness of process camera pre-press work compared to a digital work flow and imagesetter output or direct to plate technology. It's only the lack of need for large scale film scanning anymore that this hasn't happened.

I can remember very well "old timers" laughing their butts off in the mid 80s about "toy" Postscript desktop work stations and how they never would make the slightest dent in serious production work flow and the huge, refrigerator-sized "mini" computers that ran the industry. I also remember printing house after printing house who couldn't make the transition go belly up. I operated my business with two Amiga computers and a 13" wide imagesetter and it was like driving a motorcycle through a disorganized herd of buffalo as I outmaneuvered those companies with "toy" equipment. Macs then were monochrome SE30s. It wasn't long before we had Macs with color capability and our toy computers suddenly were mainstream and the buffalos were all extinct.

Now those of us who are still nursing drum scanners along and those of us interested in the curiosity of DSLR scanning are simply niche artisans. For those few who are actually still making a living in the film niche, I think the knowledge that there is a viable technology available to do that job, a technology that is not extinct, but instead is expanding and thriving should be a sense of great encouragement and relief that there is a direction to take when their ancient drum machines finally can't be coaxed to do one more scan.

[Rich14]

I guess I can't trust my eyes.

Okay.

[Rich14]

Requested by Kent - my low tech D800E scanning setup:



Gitzo G2220 tripod, ancient Bogen 3262 ball head, quick release, D800E, Micro Nikkor AF 105mm f/2.8D lens, electronic shutter release, 9x12 LED panel with 4x5 mask, dining room table.

For 2600 dpi scans, (four quadrants) the camera sensor plane is 15.75 inches above the light table surface.

[Greg]

Requested by Kent - my low tech D800E scanning setup:



Gitzo G2220 tripod, ancient Bogen 3262 ball head, quick release, D800E, Micro Nikkor AF 105mm f/2.8D lens, electronic shutter release, 9x12 LED panel with 4x5 mask, dining room table.

For 2600 dpi scans, (four quadrants) the camera sensor plane is 15.75 inches above the light table surface.

f/stop used?

[Two23]

Couldn't this also be done by fastening the box to the wall? I'm guessing you shoot four overlapping quadrants here.


Kent in SD

[williaty]

I have a very, very strong recommendation for the guys kind enough to do testing and post the results for the rest of us to pick at:


Stop telling us which file is which. Also, make sure to strip the metadata out so that doesn't betray the origin either.


Post the two images, label them A and B, 1 and 2, or whatever you like. Let everyone look at them for a week or so and post which one they think is superior and why. Only after everyone has gone on record as saying which one they think is technically superior do you reveal which file came from which origin. People here are being crippled by their expectancy bias. Whatever they believe about a DSLR scan or a drum scan, they are convincing themselves they see in the examples posted. It's no different than the guys who claim there's an audible difference between a cable that cost $100/m and one that costs $10,000/m. Stop letting us know which file is which before we all have to go on record with an opinion.