Can someone give me some options for scanning my 4x5 negatives? I am very new to LF, I have got the camera, I am gearing up to process my black and white. What I am now looking at is a way to convert to digital. I have been going over recent and past post and I am on overload. What scanner would give me the same file size as say my canon 5D or can you not compare a 4x5 scan with a 35mm?
Rick
Almost any flatbed scanner with a transparency head will give you the same quality as a DSLR. But, there is so much more detail in a 4x5 image that you can get far better quality than that.Originally Posted by victornoir
If you take a 13-14Mp digital image, you get around 4500pixels x 3000pixels.
If you take a 4"x5" neg or tranny and scan it at 2400ppi, you get : 4 x 2400 x 5 x 2400 = 115.2Mp !!!
Kind of blows away the DSLR, doesn't it ?
As to what kind of scanner; the commonly accepted model is the Epson V700.
Or look for a complete (all the stuff that came in a original box-film holders, CDs with software, etc.) clean, low mileage, lightly used, 100% working perfectly Epson 4990. $250 seems to be about right today.
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the North Carolina rainforest.
Wayne's Blog
FlickrMyBookFaceTwitSpacei
I use a 5D with Canon L lenses and have also been scanning 4x5 (and 8x10) negatives for years. Up to about 11x14 prints you won't see any major difference in the quality of prints from it and your 4x5 scans with normal viewing. Beyond that you'll see a difference though not a huge one up to about 13x17. Larger than that and the difference will be fairly obvious even from a normal viewing distance. At least that's been my experience after quite a few years.
Unless you're talking about spending something in the $10,000 and up range for a scanner, there aren't a whole lot of choices. I'd suggest the Epson 700/750 or if you're on a tight budget a good used or refurbished Epson 4990. The 4990 was the predecessor to the 700/750 series and has basically the same resolving power. But unless money is tight I think you'd be better off with a new 700/750 just because one is new and the other will be used.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Even a 4990 scan of a 4x5 will be better than a DSLR not only by the resolution, but because of the depth of the film's tonal range and the way film resolves mirco-contrast, i.e. edge sharpness. Plus the depth of field relationships are often more pleasing with a larger format image.
The next step up is a Hasselblad/Imacon scanner, they have been around for 12-13 years now and there are a lot on the used market from $3-4K up to the mid-teens.
From there you can buy a used "desktop" drum scanner or even a big hulking drum, or a big professional flatbed -- all of which cost over $10K and probably closer to $50-80K new a few years ago. Now they sell for fire-sale prices -- a few grand -- but you have to do your homework on them.
But an Epson is still the best way to start -- low investment and decent quality for what it is -- a good way to learn and perfectly acceptable for moderate prints and online work.
One should note that the definition of "moderate" is different when you start with 4x5. For me, 16x20 is a moderate print, and looks quite good scanned using an Epson. 13x19 can be stunning. Is it the best that is possible? No, but then each significant (i.e., clearly noticeable) improvement beyond that usually requires adding a digit to the price.
"Moderate" for images from my 5D goes up to about 12x18 at the most. The images are sharp enough with high-end lenses, but the tones don't show the same smooth separation. While there are many arguments around how much information the flatbed starts with, to get down to a printing resolution at 13x19, you'll be combining a lot of scanned pixels. I get about 10,000 pixels from 4x5 in the long dimension at close to the limit of the scanner. I know that the scanner is still close to its limits (and not beyond them) because I can sharpen at a radius of 1 pixel and still see a significant effect. But to reach the potential of any affordable printer, I need at most 5700 pixels for the 19" dimension (and less if I crop down to the 4x5 aspect ratio). That provides 300 pixels per inch in the final print, compared to 240 possible with the 5D. In that downsampling process, pixels get averaged, which improves their accuracy. And that averaged pixel, when compared at the same pixel density in the final print, has about 16 times the area at the image plane when the exposure was made. So, even if the consumer scanner drops half of that information on the floor, it's still substantially more scene information.
And lens flaws from a 5D get enlarged by a factor of 12 to make that 12x18 print, and a factor of 3 or so (depending on how one addresses the different aspect ratio) for the same print from 4x5. So, the larger format doesn't depend on high end glass to nearly the same extent. And the lenses are not only cheaper, but they can be stopped down more without noticeable diffraction effects.
Reason after reason, plus experience, suggests that even with a consumer flatbed scanner, prints from 4x5 will fairly blow away prints from a 5D. The 5D is a remarkable producer of 12x18 prints, for a small-format camera. But that "for a small-format camera" qualifier always has to be added.
For me, "moderate" from small format is 8x10. 13x19 pushes the extremes for that format, and the digital cameras and lenses required to achieve excellence at that size are not at all cheap. At 13x19, 4x5 from a $250 Speed Graphic with a Wollensak lens isn't even breathing hard, even when scanned in a consumer flatbed like a V700/750 or 4990.
Rick "reminding a fresh face why he should be glad he's going down this path" Denney
thanks to everyone for their advice. As a newbie I mentioned the 5d because I am familiar with it, unlike this wonderful world of LR. Asking for some sort of comparison with the canon was my attempt of a base line I could understand. It would seem that the epson 700 would give me a very useful file to work with. This is an incredible forum. So helpful. Thanks again. Rick
Just one more thing to consider; the Epson scanners are notorious for being superb scanners - apart from the 4x5 film holder. The one supplied is cheap and naff and is not guaranteed to be on the best plane of focus for the sharpest of scans. You can, however, get a superb, adjustable height, multi-format scanning support from Doug Fisher at www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html. You don't necessarily need this to start getting reasonable scans, but when you get the bug and want higher quality, large scans, it really can make a difference.
thanks Joanna.
Another option might be to use a scan service instead of trying to do it yourself. Although I have an Epson V700, I find that I am not skilled (or patient) enough to get the best out of it. I have my 4x5 slides scanned professionally on a Hasselblad X5 at a decent price. It saves me a lot of time and the job is well done. Since I don't have hundreds of slides worth scanning, the cost is not an issue.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks