Looking for link to Epson 4990 scanned film to one shot with Nikon D100

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk,

I used a Canon 5D with 24-105mm zoom. Would have used a fixed focal length lens had one been available, but this was a loan camera and the zoom was the only one I could get.

Sandy

I bought a 135 f2 L Canon as a resolution standard. It is one of those few really superlative current Canon L lenses. All are good but a few are amazing. But it was a focal length that I am very fond of also for architectural details. Even on a 12mp camera and L lenses the limiting factor is oftentimes the lens quality (good centers and soft edges for instance). Which is why I am not all that interested in the new 24MP camera, they don't have a full set of lenses that can take advantage of the MP. IMO a 16 MP camera is the realistic limit right now. My in house Canon sources say BTW that in Feb. Canon will upgrade the 5D to 16MP and 14 bit processing, which I will buy.

[Ron Marshall]

My in house Canon sources say BTW that in Feb. Canon will upgrade the 5D to 16MP and 14 bit processing, which I will buy.

Any word on pricing?

[Marko]

If they keep to their usual practice, it should be close to what the original 5D cost when it came out, around $3200-3500.

[Kirk Gittings]

That would be my guess too.

[sanking]

Reichmann said that the 1Ds outresolved 6X7 but when he did his big comparison he admitted that the 645 scan outresolved the 1Ds mkII. When I asked him about the disparity he said that his original comparison took into consideration the whole image and that he said the 1Ds image as a whole beat the 6X7 (noise, etc). Needless to say that wasn't true, he specifically compared resolved detail and wouldn't admit what was written in black and white. Any respect for his opinions that I had had dissolved at that point. I had an original 1Ds and have two 5D's and I think that my 5D with exotic primes can match an imacon scanned 645 but not more than that. The 1Ds couldn't come close.

I agree that for a full blown comparison of 12.8 DSLR with MF it would be best to compare apples to apples, in this case fixed focal length lenses of the same covering angle. However, given the fact that the absolute theoretical maximum of the 5D is about 60 lppm, I doubt very much that results would have been much different in my limited study where only a very small part of the center of the image was compared. Most high quality Canon lenses, even zooms, are capable of delivering 60 lppm, or even more, at the very center of the field at an aperture of f/8, so I strongly suspect that in my study the limitation was the sensor, not the lens.

Any truly objective comparison of a 12.8 Canon 5d full sensor camera and a high quality 6X7 or 6X9 MF camera could not come to any conclusion other than that film gives about the same detail/ resolution as the 5D in sizes up to 12X18". And this is true even with a scan with an Epson prosumer scanner like the V700 or V750. Beyond 12X18" print size the comparison depends on the quality of the scan.

The potential is fairly well determined by theoretical limits. A full sensor 35.8 X 23.9 Canon 5D gives 4368 X 2912 pixels, and this requires a magnification factor of 12.7 for a 12X18 print. The original 61 lppm maximum resolution at the sensor size becomes a maximum of 4.8 lppm at the print size.

By contrast, if we assume that an Epson V700 is capable of *effective resolution* of 2000 ppi (which amounts to about 40 lppm), a scan of a 6X7 negatives gives a file of approximately 5500 X 4500 pixels, which is more than 24mp. This would give about 10 lppm at print size of 12X18”. Detail from the film is greater, but so is grain, which makes them about equal in overall quality IMO.

Scanning the 6X7 film at an "effective resolution" of 4000 ppi, possible with Imacon, professional flatbed or drum scanner, would result in a file size of 11000 X 9000 pixels, or about 100 mp. This would in fact result in a larger file than if you were to scan 4X5 film with an Epson V700 (rather common practice I believe) at "effective resolution" of 2000 ppi, which would give you 10000 X 8000 pixels, or 80 mp.

My take on this is that if you like the work flow of film and don't need the immediacy of digital, there are reasons why a good case can still be made for MF. The case can be made compared to digital anytime image size is 12X18 or larger, and to 4X5 when mobility and portability is important.


Sandy Kinig

[audioexcels]

All of the studies noted are interesting, though it is impossible to draw hard conclusions since they use different methodologies and each appears to have an agenda.

There is no question in my mind but that 12mp DSLR easily beats 35mm film when the scan is made with a prosumer scanner. With a drum scan and the right film, 35mm might hold up. And there is no question but that 12mp - 16mp DSLR is capable of outstanding professional results, and that there are many valid reasons why professionals prefer the DSLR work flow to scanning film.

However, if the question is whether 12mp DSLR beats 6X7 and 6X9 formats when the film is scanned with a prosumer scanner like the Epsons 4990 or V700, my experience is that the DSLR has an advantage in grain when compared at the same ASA, but film appears to win in detail.

Attached are two small jpeg images. They represent a small crop from a 12mp DSLR and a scan of a 6X7 film shot on Mamiya 7 with 65mm lens, both shot on a tripod. The field of view with the DSLR was adjusted to match that of the Mamiya 7 at the shooting location. The center of the image, which is about 16 feet away from the camera, contained a resolution target. The film was Fuji Across developed in Pyrocat-MC 1:1:100.

If you examine the film with a microscope it is possible to separate the resolution bars down to Group 0 - Element 3, which indicates resolution of about 85 lppm on the film. I am able to capture about 60 lppm of the potential 85 lppm with the EverSmart Pro scanner, but even this high end scanner still leaves on the table 25 lppm of resolution. To pull all the detail out of this negative would require a very high end scanner capable of at least *effective* 4500 ppi.

How does the 12mp DSLR compare to the scan of the film with the Epson 4990? Well, neither come anywhere close to the actual detail on the film, and nowhere close to the scan made with the EverSmart Pro.

As for the rest, judge for yourself from the attached images. Bear in mind that the crop represents a very small part of the original frame, and in practice it would be possible to make very nice looking 13X19" prints from either the DSLR or the prosumer scan of the 6X7cm negative.

Sandy

Are you using the Eversmart Pro original or II version? Has there been a comparison done between these two scanners?? I'm curious how the original Pro does by comparison to the II. I know neither are at the level of the IQsmart or Supreme.

[sanking]

Are you using the Eversmart Pro original or II version? Has there been a comparison done between these two scanners?? I'm curious how the original Pro does by comparison to the II. I know neither are at the level of the IQsmart or Supreme.

I have the EverSmart Pro. Scan quality is same as with the the Pro II, but the latter has a faster processor and allows one to save RGB files in 16 bit. Both the Pro and Pro II have maximum resolution of 3175 ppi optical, and effective resolution is very high.

Current IQSmart3 and EverSmart Supreme and Select scanners have optical resolution of 5300pp - 5600ppi.

Sandy King

[Ted Harris]

For most purposes that folks here are concerned with the differences between generations of Creo scanners will be much less important than differences in operator skill.

[Dick Hilker]

I get the impression that your comparisons of scanners are limited to an inexpensive flatbed vs. a very expensive drum scanner. Have you considered that a dedicated multi-format film scanner such as the Coolscan 9000 is quite capable of producing high-resolution scans without a huge investment?

Comparing resolution with a magnifyiong glass seems to ignore the reality that a very sharp, high-quality 24 X 36 inkjet print can be made from a 35mm format film when the print is viewed at normal viewing distance. Isn't that why we're making prints? Why spend so much time debating "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"?

If photography is to be reduced to the tired old film vs. digital debate, let's not forget that beyond resolving power, the ability of the media to capture color is also important. For an artist using a camera, this is probably more so than it is to the techy using photography as his venue, but it deserves consideration when deciding which tool will best do the job.

I've recently met a fine photographer with outstanding educational credentials who exclusively uses a pinhole, Holga and old Polaroid cameras for her splendidly ethereal work. Resolution? What's that?

[sanking]

At a cost of around $2k some people might find the purchase of a Nikon 9000 a significant investment. That is just a bit less than what I have invested in my EverSmart Pro.

As for what constitutes the *reality* of photography I make that decision for my own work and try not to tell others what it should be for them. I have personally made photographs with both pinhole and zone plate cameras and there is no question but that such work can be very creative, and that it does not depend on resolution. On the other hand, I also enjoy very much a photograph that has a wealth of detail when viewed at the optimum viewing distance of ten inches or so.

My understanding was that this particular thread was about comparing systems, i.e. digital versus scanned film, not aesthetics, and when you compare systems the question of resolution and sharpness is important to some people.

Sandy King