what is the ideal scanning of 6x9 slide for equal a 35mm digital full frame RAW similar a Canon 5d mark II 21 megas ?
What scanner for medium format film model is your recommendation?
what is the ideal scanning of 6x9 slide for equal a 35mm digital full frame RAW similar a Canon 5d mark II 21 megas ?
What scanner for medium format film model is your recommendation?
Find a used Nikon LS-8000ED or LS-9000ED. The 8000 will be cheaper, but it will be just as good. Both use the same holders. The 8000 requires a Firewire interface so you may need to get a Firewire card for your computer (less than $20). You'll need Vuescan (www.hamrick.com) to operate it--the Nikon software will work on Windows XP but not Windows 7.
These scanners operate at 4000 spi and will scan up to 6x9 in one go. They support ICE, an infrared cleaning channel, manual focus, single-pass multi-scanning, and other features, except for wet mounting. The price on these has been going up lately, because Nikon has discontinued them. They are more expensive than a consumer flatbed (though perhaps not by that much), but much less expensive than an Imacon.
I am able to make 16x20 prints from 6x7 that look better than 16x20 prints from a Canon 5D (Mk I) going and coming (the limitation on the 5D is not pixel density but rather lens quality--and I have good lenses).
There are other vintage film scanners of the same type as the Nikon, including the Minolta Multi Pro, the Polaroid Sprintscan 120, and a few others. But to my eye the Nikon was the best of these, and the easiest to keep in operation, closely followed by the Minolta (except that the Minolta software is dreadful--use Vuescan). There is nothing currently made that is as good in that price range.
I don't think a scan of 6x9 in a consumer flatbed will be any better than what you might get from a 5D. I use an Epson V750 with 4x5, and have experimented with 6x12, but the 6x12 results were such that I do all my scans of that format with the Nikon in two passes and then stitch.
If you have more to spend than $1500-2000, an Imacon is the next step up (not a huge step in results, in my opinion). The next (bigger) step up from there is a PMT drum scan.
Rick "maybe some high-end flatbeds fill in one of those gaps, but not cheaply" Denney
Probably first test of new 120 film Reflecta MF5000 scanner (Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120):
http://blog.livedoor.jp/deepstop/arc...at_141403.html
Plustek is going to show its new 120 scanner this year too.
For best results scanning a 6X9 cm slide you need a drum scan at 4000 dpi or more. Neither Imacon nor LS-8000 or LS-9000 can get the shadow detail that a good drum scan will give you. Epson V700/V750 won't come close to a drum scanner in either resolution or shadow detail, and loses to the Imacon in resolution (though not by as much as price differential would suggest).
Sandy
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
Explain it please: if you want to have 20x28" (50x70cm) enlargement from 6x9 b&w film scanned on drum in 4000dpi (its highest resolution), you will get much bigger enlargement, will you? For 50x70cm size a sufficient ans appropriate resolution is 2300dpi. Is it better to scan it in 4000dpi and to scale the file later to 50x70cm size (with some lost resolution and details) than to scan the film in 2300dpi without scaling? Which scanning method is better and why?
With a drum scan it isn't quite so important... this is really a much bigger issue with flatbed scanning. Because of the sensors they use, flatbeds introduce a good bit of sensor noise into the scans, and so it is common practice to 'oversample' i.e. to multiscan and to scan at highest possible resolution and then reduce the size of the scanned file to suit the print. This has the effect of averaging out the noise and producing a cleaner result.
In contrast, a [true] drum scanner has a very low-noise photomultiplier sensor and this isn't so much an issue. It also has no imaging lens (it's only there to collect light, not to image it), so you also don't get lens artifacts with a drum.
That said, with a drum, you can scan down to the grain/dye clumps etc and tune the aperture so that graininess is minimized, so for that reason you may want to scan to the max and reduce the size afterwards.
I'm not an expert but that's my quick 5 cent explanation
Scanning takes a lot of time so I don't want to find myself in a situation where I have to scan a negative again to make a larger print. So I scan it the first time at as high a resolution in spi as practical, determined by computer processor speed, disk storage space, etc. so that all (or as much as possible) of the detail is captured. With medium format negatives of 6X7 cm or 6X9 cm one generally has plenty of speed and storage space to scan at the highest optical resolution. What I then do is make all of the corrections on this master file and archive it. I can then downsize it to whatever I want for printing.
As has been mentioned before, some of the high quality medium format optics can resolve 100 lp/pm so even a scan at 4000 dpi will not necessarily capture all of the detail in a negative made on high resolution film like Tmax-100 or Acros.
Sandy King
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
Scanning takes a lot of time so I don't want to find myself in a situation where I have to scan a negative again to make a larger. So I scan it the first time at as high a resolution in spi as practical, determined by computer processor speed, disk storage space, etc. so that all (or as much as possible) of the detail is captured. With medium format negatives of 6X7 cm or 6X9 cm one generally has plenty of speed and storage space to scan at the highest optical resolution. What I then do is make all of the corrections on this master file and archive it. I can then downsize it to whatever I want for printing.
As has been mentioned before, some of the high quality medium format optics can resolve 100 lppm so even a scan at 4000 dpi will not necessarily capture all of the detail in a negative made on high resolution film like Tmax-100 or Acros.
Sandy King
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
I scan 6x7's at 8000. I get a 2.2 Gig file. It is better to not scale files at all. I'll keep this all in inches, as dpi is in inches... 2300 dpi x 2.75 inches (7cm) is 6325 pixels. 6325 divided by 28 yields a dpi of 225. This is not sufficient for full quality.
28 in print * 300 dpi would be a total of 8400 pixels. 2300 (6325) is not enough. I agree with Sandy that you don't want to scan again when you decide you want a 37in print, you want to archive it... My file (2.75 * 8000) yields a total of 22,000 pixels. Divide that by 300 and you can make a 73 inch print, or a 36 inch one at 600 dpi. I like more than 300 dpi to the print, for b&w especially.
Scaling up is not a good idea. Scaling down can be, when one is sharpening smaller images. However, for printing a decent sized print it is not usually necessary. I refuse to believe that the printer prints any better at 300 or 363 than it does at 422.5, for example.
I have a Mamiya 7 II and I agree, the lenses are phenomenal....
I hope this helps explain a few things.
Lenny
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
Bookmarks