Should I Drum Scan, X1 Flextight Scan, or use the Epson V850 w/Aztek Wet Mount Kit?

[manfrominternet]

I have a large number of 4x5 Fuji Provia 100 transparencies and 4x5 Kodak Ektar 100 negatives, as well as a large number of 6x17/6x12 medium format Fuji Velvia 50 transparencies and 6x17/6x12 Kodak Ektar 100 negatives that I’ve been taking and had processed over the past year. They’ve been sitting in my cabinet for a while now, so I’d like to finally move on with them and get them scanned, edited, and printed.

Since I’m a relatively impecunious MFA photography student, I’m trying to get the very best quality scan for the dollar, so that I have the option to print large Gursky/Struth/Jeff Wall-like prints, hopefully with as little loss of resolution as possible. Unfortunately, my school doesn’t offer much in terms of scanning. :/

I have the option to use the X1 Flextight Imacon scanner for $30 per hour, or borrow an Epson V850 flatbed scanner, but have to purchase the Epson wet plate mount and a Aztek wet mount kit. I can also sink basically all of what little money I have into drum scanning at about $60 per 4x5 negative/transparency and $50 per 6x12/6x17 medium format negative/transparency.

The final goal in to have (hopefully) amazing large scale prints on the order 6’ x 8’, very roughly speaking.

Right now, I’m leaning towards the Epson V850 w/Epson wet plate mount and Aztek wet mount kit, especially since I’ve heard it’s relatively close (but I suppose not quite that close) to drum scanning, but I’m not yet sure.

What have you guys tried and/or recommend?

Many thanks!

[interneg]

Right now, I’m leaning towards the Epson V850 w/Epson wet plate mount and Aztek wet mount kit, especially since I’ve heard it’s relatively close (but I suppose not quite that close) to drum scanning, but I’m not yet sure.



I'll keep things simple: it isn't. Nowhere near in fact. You will get obfuscation and dishonesty from some desperate defenders of the Epson but the reality is that any 2000ppi scan from a high end CCD/ Imacon/ drum scanner blows the results from a consumer flatbed out of the water.

If truly skilfully operated, some drum scans might be better than you can achieve with the Imacon, however, a bad operator can make things look far worse than a competently operated Hasselblad/ Imacon. The massive advantage of the Imacon/ Hasselblad is that you have control over it & thus can get the best possible scan it can deliver. I can send a summary of squeezing the best possible results out from one - & how to scan 120 at the 6300ppi resolution - it isn't difficult to do. Just bear in mind that Gursky etc often don't care as much about seemingly unpleasant digital artefacts in their images as you might assume.

[Pere Casals]

Make a side by side... and decide.

Resolving Power:

For 4x5" the Epson has a well higher resolving power, for MF The X1 is slightly better, for 35mm the X1 is much better.

This happens because the EPSON has a much better sensor +40,000 Pix, while the X1 has a sensor with only 8,000Pix. But the epson takes 5.9" with the lens, while the X1 can optically Zoom In to take only 1" with the 8000 Pix. The larger the format the better situation for the Epson.

When you scan a 4x5" with the X1 those 8000Pix spreaded in 4" deliver 2,000 pixels per inch, with effective optical resolving power of perhaps 1800dpi in the horizontal axis and 1600 in the vertical axis, while the Epson scans true 6400dpi delivering 2900dpi effective in the horizontal axis and 2300 in the vertical axis.

As the format is smaller the X1 has the advantage from the zoom-in, in MF is slightly better: https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/


Sharpening:

The X1 has a very good digital sharpenig, with the Epson you have to do it in Photoshop, I prefer a raw scan and sharpening manually in Ps, but YMMV.


DMax


If you have very, very dense areas in the slidesand want to recover detail there (not always the case) then the X1 is superior, but with the Epson you may use Multi-Exposure in the bundled SilverFast software (Epson Scan software lacks it) which make a very good job with dense areas that IMHO it's enough for most of the situations. https://www.silverfast.com/highlights/multi-exposure/en.html

Negative color film (Ektar) and BW have no problems with high densities, only slides have densities that are challenging.


Color

Both machines are IT8 calibrated, so color has to be very close, all patches in the IT8 target deliver the same calibrated RGB values.

If you want to control color use 3D LUT Creator software.


Other

A choice you have is borrowing the Epson and reserving some budget for 4000dpi drum scans for some 4x5" sheets deserving it.

Not all shots will be equally sharp, use a x40 loupe to see what's in the negative, those shots that are "technically perfect" and have very high densities may deserve a 4000 dpi drum scan, if the print is large enough.



_______________

1) So make side by side comparisons,

2) Scan some with the Epson, some with the X1 and some with a 4000dpi drum service.

[Pere Casals]

I'll keep things simple: it isn't. Nowhere near in fact. You will get obfuscation and dishonesty from some desperate defenders of the Epson but the reality is that any 2000ppi scan from a high end CCD/ Imacon/ drum scanner blows the results from a consumer flatbed out of the water.

We may ask that the OP posts his side by side when he can. It can be really interesting.

BTW you may review that: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners

In particular this post: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178


A V700 side by side of a Epson V700 with:

>> Scanmate 11000
>> Creo/Scitex Eversmart Supreme
>> Creo/Scitex Eversmart Pro


Not necessary to say that Scanmate 11000 is a drum.



desperate defenders of

X1/X5 owners can feel desperate. Hasselblad has been purchased by chinese Drone manufacturer DJI, and those expensive scanners are now discontiued, will see what happens with service quality... beyond traditional service cost...


______________________


OP, get something like this, an HEPA purifier to remove dust:


196957

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Pere

I get it - we all get it. You like the Epson. Good. If it works for you that's great. I don't think it's a bad scanner. I've sold a bunch of prints made from Epson scans and if I didn't think they were good prints I wouldn't have sold them.

Nowadays I'm using a Creo IQsmart 2. I picked it over a drum scanner because the drum workflow isn't something that suits me.

The Creo is a better scanner. A much better scanner. I find it easier to get satisfactory prints from Creo scans than I ever did from Epson scans. I made my first prints in 1944. I've studied with a lot of top notch photographers including St Ansel. I know what a good print (silver or ink jet) looks like. I've made good prints from just about anything with a lens. The question isn't whether or not one makes good prints with camera X or scanner Y or whatever. They're all just tools and if you understand your tools, their advantages, and their shortcomings, then you can make good prints from most of them. Better tools make your work easier. The Creo is a better tool than the Epson. I'm old and tired enough that doing things more easily outweighs doing things more cheaply and with more difficulty. YMMV

[Pere Casals]

The Creo is a better tool than the Epson. YMMV

Hello Jim, yes, I'm pretty sure that a Creo (because it zooms, it focus and it stitches) is a superior machine than a V850, no doubt, the question is when it makes a difference.

This side by side was not made by me, it was made by Pali, a V700, 2 Creos, and an Scanmate drum, so for Portra MF (and larger format) we have no difference, for any print size:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4857/46755757932_c7010da815_o.jpg

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178

Well, there is a difference, the older Creo is a bit worse than the other three, that are equal.



_____


OP was asking V700 vs X1, The X1 sports insane 6300dpi effective for 35mm but only 1500dpi effective for 5x7", insted the V850 sports 2900-2300 (x-y) in all formats from 35mm to 5x7",

... so I guess I gave an accurate answer to OP, saying in what situations a machine is better than the other.


_____


What I learned, about the hybrid workflow, it's that edition technique it's way more important than the scanner itself. Sharpening alone is a full scientific body, and color management another one.


_____


Here is this forum it was common to hear that the V700 was total crap and that it even had "plastic lenses", but it sports a +40,000 pix sensor taking 5.9" x 2900 = 17,000 effective pixels in a single pass, look, a lens to taking 17,000 effective pix in a row it is a very, very good lens, and also it has to be very well optimized for the fixed working distance.


So let's see what is Hype and what is real performance, to me the reference is the side by side made by Pali, he is an honest guy knowing what is a scanner and how it is used to its best, beyond his color management skills. If somebody wants to challenge that side by side then I'm fully open to debate it.

[Pali K]

Black and white is not equal to color negatives and color positives are a whole different beast when it comes to digitizing using a scanner. I am the one who posted the example Pere referenced BTW.

You want the best, go with a reputable drum scanner and you’ll not doubt your decision why you did that ever. I promise.

Never used and X1 but only heard great things about it but can vouch for Creo/SCITEX high-end flatbeds that are close to drum quality.

I probably won’t post anything else but feel free to PM me if you want any more thoughts on this directly.

Pali

[Pere Casals]

Black and white is not equal to color negatives and color positives are a whole different beast when it comes to digitizing using a scanner. I am the one who posted the example Pere referenced BTW.

First, OP is to scan color, so your side by side is pretty useful for him, in special for Ektar. The side by side says that the EPSON is totally suitable for his work, isn't it?




Black and white is not equal to color negatives and color positives are a whole different beast when it comes to digitizing using a scanner. I am the one who posted the example Pere referenced BTW.


It would be very interesting if you would finish that side by side tests, as it was initially planned, we have seen yet that the EPSON equals those top notch scanners for MF and LF color negative film, it would be great to see what difference you find with BW film.

It was a little surprise for some that the EPSON could perform that good in that color side by side, perhaps the V700 may deserve you give it the opportunity to show what it does in LF BW, in a well controlled side by side.

I'm pretty sure that it would also be a surprise for some.

[sperdynamite]

Camera scan. My Panasonic S1R makes a 155mp image from 4x5 sheets in seconds. The quality is incredible, and you'll be done in a few hours as opposed to days. Camera scanning makes the X1 obsolete is my legitimate hot take here.

[Pere Casals]

Camera scan. My Panasonic S1R makes a 155mp image from 4x5 sheets in seconds. The quality is incredible, and you'll be done in a few hours as opposed to days. Camera scanning makes the X1 obsolete is my legitimate hot take here.

Yes... camera scans will make both flatbeds and drums obsolete, debate finished :)

Still we lack an industrial solution, many DIY setups are no optimal systems. For your 155Mp image it should be found how many of those pix are effective, only a fraction will be.

[CreationBear]

My Panasonic S1R


I'd definitely like to look at your workflow at some point--and to know why you moved on from the K-1 to the Panasonic. (I still have a lot of nice K-mount lenses, so I tried to avoid PF while your combo was for sale...:))

[sperdynamite]

Yes... camera scans will make both flatbeds and drums obsolete, debate finished :)

Still we lack an industrial solution, many DIY setups are no optimal systems. For your 155Mp image it should be found how many of those pix are effective, only a fraction will be.

Blah blah blah blah blah I've heard it all before about effective pixels. There is always some 'well actually' guy online who has some napkin math to tell you what's wrong with your scanning rig. At some point you do have to use your eyes and decide what's working and what's not. The scans look fantastic, the details are all quite sharp, and you can start to see grain in films like HP5 at the 4x5 size. We're talking about a file large enough for 44" printers without stitching, and you can make your 8 capture pixel shifted file in about 5 seconds. I've yet to see anyone prove that this 'effective pixel' technical jargon has any negative effect in real world scans.

[Pere Casals]

Blah blah blah blah blah I've heard it all before about effective pixels. There is always some 'well actually' guy online who has some napkin math to tell you what's wrong with your scanning rig. At some point you do have to use your eyes and decide what's working and what's not. The scans look fantastic, the details are all quite sharp, and you can start to see grain in films like HP5 at the 4x5 size. We're talking about a file large enough for 44" printers without stitching, and you can make your 8 capture pixel shifted file in about 5 seconds. I've yet to see anyone prove that this 'effective pixel' technical jargon has any negative effect in real world scans.

Of course one may not want a 44" sharp print, at the end such a print is viewed from 1m far, and if the viewer does not put his nose on the print he won't see that it's a low quality enlargement. :) :) :)


I'm skeptical about the real benefit the pixel shift may provide, the shitfting mode adds some digital image enhancing and IMHO this is what you see, but if you sharpen in Ps a regular image then you obtain the same, probably the sensor outresolves the lens so...

[manfrominternet]

I'll keep things simple: it isn't. Nowhere near in fact. You will get obfuscation and dishonesty from some desperate defenders of the Epson but the reality is that any 2000ppi scan from a high end CCD/ Imacon/ drum scanner blows the results from a consumer flatbed out of the water.

If truly skilfully operated, some drum scans might be better than you can achieve with the Imacon, however, a bad operator can make things look far worse than a competently operated Hasselblad/ Imacon. The massive advantage of the Imacon/ Hasselblad is that you have control over it & thus can get the best possible scan it can deliver. I can send a summary of squeezing the best possible results out from one - & how to scan 120 at the 6300ppi resolution - it isn't difficult to do. Just bear in mind that Gursky etc often don't care as much about seemingly unpleasant digital artefacts in their images as you might assume.

Thanks so much for all of this information! Can you send me that summary to squeeze the best possible results out of an X1 Flextight Imacon Scanner for a 4x5 negative/transparency and 120 film at 6x12/6x17 (if, of course, the X1 Flextight Imacon would even accommodate a 6x17 panoramic negative)? That would be very much appreciated. Also, considering that the X1 Flextight Imacon I have at my disposal is $30 per hour, how long does it take to scan one 4x5 negative or transparency? (I have both negatives and transparencies.) Basically, how many 4x5 scans can I reasonably fit in an hour on the X1 Flextight Imacon?

[Pere Casals]

how long does it take to scan one 4x5 negative or transparency?

The Hasselblad Flextight X1 provides a speed of 60 MB / min. So it depends on how you scan, IIRC 5 to 10 4x5" sheets per hour, perhaps some $5 per sheet if you are efficient.

So you may hire the X1 for one hour, compare to result from the V850 (try scan at different dpi 2400-3200, for very dark slides use Multi-Exposure) and decide after sharpening both images in Ps to their best.

The X5 is 5 times faster.

With the V850 if using Multi-Exposure it takes a longer time.

[manfrominternet]

Has anyone here used the "Better Scanner" Wet Mount device with Aztek mounting fluid with an Epson V850 (not the V700 or V800)? How would that setup compare to the X1 Flextight Imacon scanner?

Since, according to Pere, I can only get between 5-10 sheets of 4x5 film scanned in an hour on the X1 Flextight Imacon scanner and have over 80 4x5 negatives/transparencies that I'd like to scan, is it worth it to use the Imacon for $30 per hour? Also, will the X1 Imacon be able to scan my 6x17 negatives?

Also, any opinions on this?: https://www.scanyourentirelife.com/epson-v800-vs-v850-photo-scanner-differences/

[lassethomas]

Also, any opinions on this?: https://www.scanyourentirelife.com/epson-v800-vs-v850-photo-scanner-differences/

The resolutions mentioned in the linked article are all theoretical and has no real world bearing.
My experience is that the v700, v750, v800 and v850 all resolve the same, in optimal circumstances around 2500 dpi (wet mounted, focus optimized and over-scanned) and more often a bit less than that.

[Pere Casals]

Also, will the X1 Imacon be able to scan my 6x17 negatives?

Of course, but you require the holder https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/276369-REG/Hasselblad_50200412_6x17_Flextight_Original_Holder.html

197027

V850 can also do it.



Also, will the X1 Imacon be able to scan my 6x17 negatives?

The sharpness improvement in the wet mount comes from ensuring the negative is flat, the new V850 holders have an ANR glass and adjustable height

197028

If your film is flat then all it's easy, if not place it the way (up/down) that the ANR keeps it flat.

I found that there is little benefit from wet mounting, if you are able to keep the negative flat with the ANR, but YMMV. Wet mount removes scratches and dust.



is it worth it to use the Imacon for $30 per hour?

Don't hesitate, make your own tests, spend 1/2h or 1h in the X1 and compare with the V850 result. IMHO soon you will realize when it's worth and when not for you. IMHO many times it's not worth because the V850 is a very decent scanner for LF and the X1 won't do more, and of course when you have an unexposed Velvia sheet or wanting to recover detail in very underexposed shadows the X1 will be well worth.

Some sheets may even deserve something superior: a 4000dpi drum scan, as Pali suggested: if it's an important image for you, the image is technically excellent and you want a very large print with top quality.


If you make that side by side it would great you post your results here.


First you have to learn to scan... do that in the V850. Remember that you have to scan 16/bits per channel and save in TIFF format, BMP and jpg only saves 8 bit's per channel. To downsize the image use "bicubic, for reductions" choice in the Ps image size dialog. Make a "pixel level" final sharpening and another one with the ideal radious for the viewing distance. You may deliver to the printer the same pixel count the pinter is to print, or you may deliver an oversized image and let the printer optimize.

With th V850 take all histogram range (auto mode clips)... and use Multi-Exposure when necessary. Once you learned the advanced acanning concepts then go to the X1, it's a great scanner, but you should understand that a Ferrari has the same top speed than a VW in a traffic jam, so you have to build your own criterion about when a X1 or a drum it's necessary or not.

[lassethomas]

Once you learned the advanced acanning concepts then go to the X1, it's a great scanner, but you should understand that a Ferrari has the same top speed than a VW in a traffic jam, so you have to build your own criterion about when a X1 or a drum it's necessary or not.

And my guess is that you would find that in most scenarios the v850 scans would be more than enough, especially for color negs and b/w.
I admit I've never scanned with the X1. My experience comes from the Flextight Photo generation. But for color negs I would prefer the epson compared to that one. Always found it hard to get the really linear scans, needed for color negs, with the flextight software. That could have changed in later versions thought.
For really dense slides though, when you need as much dynamic range and color depth as possible, the X1 would perform the best of course.

[Pere Casals]

And my guess is that you would find that in most scenarios the v850 scans would be more than enough, especially for color negs and b/w.
I admit I've never scanned with the X1. My experience comes from the Flextight Photo generation. But for color negs I would prefer the epson compared to that one. Always found it hard to get the really linear scans, needed for color negs, with the flextight software. That could have changed in later versions thought.
For really dense slides, when you need as much dynamic range and color depth as possible, the X1 would perform the best of course.

Yes, there is no doubt that Epson is absolutely proficient in color management, they imposed a dictatorship in the inkjet Pro printing and this was not by chance.

Anyway today we have powerful tools for color management: 3D LUT Creator, with it we easily generate 3D LUTs that can make any kind of conversion between devices, or any adjustment.

No doubt that the X1 is always superior in DMax, but the Epson improves a lot with Multi-Exposure !

[sperdynamite]

I'd definitely like to look at your workflow at some point--and to know why you moved on from the K-1 to the Panasonic. (I still have a lot of nice K-mount lenses, so I tried to avoid PF while your combo was for sale...:))


Of course! The K-1 II is an excellent but ultimately flawed camera. It's AF system is just unforgivable really, though that doesn't effect scanning much. It's great for 35mm where you can get true RGB capture at 36mp, but of course you begin to be penalized when you need to crop in for other formats. People get around this by stitching but that's time consuming, fiddly, and can be frustraiting at times (though effective).

I run a lab, and I scan for clients, speed matters to me. I also shoot a lot of 6x6. My goal was to have a file that exceeded the resolution needs of my printer at it's full size (Epson P6000 24"). Pixel shift can either simply negate bayer interpolation, or it can increase the resolution, luckily newer cameras are doing both. My choices were the S1R, or the Sony A7R IV. The A7R IV actually makes a bigger file, with 16 captures. The sensor shifts 1/2 pixel which is pretty incredible. However, the Sony pixel shift raws must be opened in their Image Edge software, that makes the camera a non starter IMO. I do my color conversions with Negative Lab Pro, and that's an LR based workflow. LR is not always the best at everything, but it is the industry standard and once you settle into a bunch of standards, getting out is tough. So I stick with Adobe. And anyway Negative Lab Pro is a game changer is scanning color negative, it's that good. So, I went with the S1R. I had other reasons for my interest in this camera as well, such as the great camera design generally. Also mirrorless cameras have across the frame AF, so focus is a breeze, and are now largely vibration free during a capture.

The S1R does 8 captures, 4 to get full RGB, and 4 to increase the pixel resolution to 186mp. Like other scanners such as Imacons, you lose resolution as you change formats.

So 186mp for 35mm.
I forget what the other figures for 6x6 are, but I think it's somewhere in the range of 100-125mp.
155mp for 4x5 and 8x10 (and 6x7).

That's well beyond the printing needs of my P6000, which is actually great because it means I can down sample to my file size and still achieve 360dpi. In fact natively 8x10s print to about 30x40 at 360dpi. Drum scanners and IQSmarts will do a little better than this, but frankly if I'm already exceeding the needs of a larger printer that I don't even have yet, who cares? Plus the downsample is really a great way to work. It makes everything better. Obviously 186mp is beyond the needs of even new films like Ektachrome E100 in 35mm, so you can create a big scan, downsample it to your actual needed size, and you get a scan with essentially no noise and all the detail that's in the frame. As sensor resolutions get higher, and pixel shift gets more advanced, this technique will also be available for large format. Further increasing the file quality.

Suddenly the idea of spending $4-6K on an IQSmart that will take hours to create a file sounds a bit crazy. I feel similarly about Imacon/Hasselblad scanners. There is certainly a brand name and reputational effect that will keep these 'virtual drum' scanners expensive, but I would never even consider buying one again. In my scanning rig, the capture technology only gets better over time. Old scanners only get older.

My actual set is the S1R on a decent copy stand with a Kaiser Slimlight Plano as the light source. It's in the mid 90s for CRI, no color issues.

The lens though is another big reason I switched though. Formerly I was using the 100mm 2.8 WR Limited from Pentax, an above average but old design. I've now switched to the Sigma 70/2.8 ART Macro. This focal length has the advantage of being able to achieve full coverage of all formats from 35 to 8x10 on my existing copy stand. The 100mm required to captures of 8x10 which would not fit in the frame. It's also simply one of the best performing macro lenses available today for scanning. There is a guy in the Negative Lab Pro group who has done extensive side by sides (more than I would ever do!) and this is his lens of choice as well. Some folks have gone the route of using exotic glass like enlarger lenses and bellows. I see these as having only disadvantages over the Sigma 70. They don't perform better in tests, and they don't have AF. I would avoid. Even medium format backs are IMO not as good as a pixel shifted file from a modern camera, save perhaps the newer multishot backs. But even then you're making life a lot harder with much more thin DoF.

Here are some screen captures of a recently shot and processed sheet of 8x10 Portra 160VC (exp 2002).
Camera: Gibellini Bellatrix
Lens: Caltar 240/5.6
Scan: S1R with 70/2.8 ART at 5.6.

You can see the samples here (wasn't happy with the LFF compression): https://photos.app.goo.gl/wdoJbMWRoRieDwbz6

[Richard Wasserman]

If you really want to print 6x8 feet I think you must use drum scans. I use an older Imacon Flextight that has similar results to an X1 and found it to be a significant step up from a 4990 Epson flatbed when scanning 4x5 film. I have not compared to an 850—is there much difference? I use the Imacon scans for prints up to 16x20 or sometimes 20x24. Anything larger—the biggest prints I've made are 40x50"—i use drum scans. I also think that if the OP wants to do 6x8 foot prints he should be shooting 8x10, that 4x5 is too small and won't hold up to that degree of enlargement, but that's a topic for another discussion. My thinking is based on scanning b&w, Fuji Astia, and Kodak Portra-primarily 160. BTW some Imacons as well as the Hasselblad variants will handily accommodate 5x7 and 4x10 with the correct holders.

[Alan Klein]

I'll keep things simple: it isn't. Nowhere near in fact. You will get obfuscation and dishonesty from some desperate defenders of the Epson but the reality is that any 2000ppi scan from a high end CCD/ Imacon/ drum scanner blows the results from a consumer flatbed out of the water.

If truly skilfully operated, some drum scans might be better than you can achieve with the Imacon, however, a bad operator can make things look far worse than a competently operated Hasselblad/ Imacon. The massive advantage of the Imacon/ Hasselblad is that you have control over it & thus can get the best possible scan it can deliver. I can send a summary of squeezing the best possible results out from one - & how to scan 120 at the 6300ppi resolution - it isn't difficult to do. Just bear in mind that Gursky etc often don't care as much about seemingly unpleasant digital artefacts in their images as you might assume.
Re Gursky, what do you mean? What scanner does he use? What do the critics say?

[Alan Klein]

Black and white is not equal to color negatives and color positives are a whole different beast when it comes to digitizing using a scanner. I am the one who posted the example Pere referenced BTW.

You want the best, go with a reputable drum scanner and you’ll not doubt your decision why you did that ever. I promise.

Never used and X1 but only heard great things about it but can vouch for Creo/SCITEX high-end flatbeds that are close to drum quality.

I probably won’t post anything else but feel free to PM me if you want any more thoughts on this directly.

Pali

Why do different films scan differently?

[sperdynamite]

Re Gursky, what do you mean? What scanner does he use? What do the critics say?

1. Photography critics worth reading don't stick their nose up to prints and report back what they see.

2. What is seen in museums, galleries, collections etc would often not meet the standards of internat forum warriors especially when the print is really big.

We all try to maximise quality in our work and our work for others, but it's easy to get lost in technical jargon. My guess would be successful gallery artists like Gursky don't actually think much about technical stuff, and judge the prints for themselves. At the end of the day it's all subjective evaluation, and none of those mentioned are being graded on print quality specifically. For that you have to go to a guy like John Sexton, and even his prints don't sell for Gursky numbers or anywhere near.

[CreationBear]

In my scanning rig, the capture technology only gets better over time. Old scanners only get older.

Ha, well said!:) Thanks so much for elaborating--much to digest on this end. One last question, given your "need for speed," I'm assuming you don't wet-mount your negatives?

[Pere Casals]

Why do different films scan differently?

Because grain/clouds are different, and some deliver more aliasing, generating more noise in certain scanners.

[sperdynamite]

Ha, well said!:) Thanks so much for elaborating--much to digest on this end. One last question, given your "need for speed," I'm assuming you don't wet-mount your negatives?

I've tested it and with a DSLR there is very little need. It does reduce dust and scratch prevalence a bit, but you don't get that general increase in quality that you sometimes see with other scanners. Plus flatness has not really been an issue. I could do it on request however.

[Pere Casals]

exceeded the resolution needs of my printer at it's full size (Epson P6000 24").

Yes, you may require around 50 Mpix effective for that, so your method is OK, it falls a bit short but it won't be much noticeable.

Anyway a 810 sheet may have some +500MPix inside, so if you instead shot MF (6x7 or 6x9) you would end in the same quality in that 24" print.

[sperdynamite]

Yes, you may require around 50 Mpix effective for that, so your method is OK, it falls a bit short but it won't be much noticeable.

Anyway a 810 sheet may have some +500MPix inside, so if you instead shot MF (6x7 or 6x9) you would end in the same quality in that 24" print.

I can't roll my eyes enough at this response. Go away.

[CreationBear]

I've tested it and with a DSLR there is very little need

Excellent, thanks!:)

[Pere Casals]

I can't roll my eyes enough at this response. Go away.

:) :) :) Somebody had to say that your "recommended method" only takes 7% of the graphic information that's in a 8x10" sheet.

Scan and print like you want... it's your problem :)

[manfrominternet]

I run a lab, and I scan for clients, speed matters to me. I also shoot a lot of 6x6. My goal was to have a file that exceeded the resolution needs of my printer at it's full size (Epson P6000 24"). Pixel shift can either simply negate bayer interpolation, or it can increase the resolution, luckily newer cameras are doing both. My choices were the S1R, or the Sony A7R IV. The A7R IV actually makes a bigger file, with 16 captures. The sensor shifts 1/2 pixel which is pretty incredible. However, the Sony pixel shift raws must be opened in their Image Edge software, that makes the camera a non starter IMO. I do my color conversions with Negative Lab Pro, and that's an LR based workflow. LR is not always the best at everything, but it is the industry standard and once you settle into a bunch of standards, getting out is tough. So I stick with Adobe. And anyway Negative Lab Pro is a game changer is scanning color negative, it's that good. So, I went with the S1R. I had other reasons for my interest in this camera as well, such as the great camera design generally. Also mirrorless cameras have across the frame AF, so focus is a breeze, and are now largely vibration free during a capture.

The S1R does 8 captures, 4 to get full RGB, and 4 to increase the pixel resolution to 186mp. Like other scanners such as Imacons, you lose resolution as you change formats.

So 186mp for 35mm.
I forget what the other figures for 6x6 are, but I think it's somewhere in the range of 100-125mp.
155mp for 4x5 and 8x10 (and 6x7).

That's well beyond the printing needs of my P6000, which is actually great because it means I can down sample to my file size and still achieve 360dpi. In fact natively 8x10s print to about 30x40 at 360dpi. Drum scanners and IQSmarts will do a little better than this, but frankly if I'm already exceeding the needs of a larger printer that I don't even have yet, who cares? Plus the downsample is really a great way to work. It makes everything better. Obviously 186mp is beyond the needs of even new films like Ektachrome E100 in 35mm, so you can create a big scan, downsample it to your actual needed size, and you get a scan with essentially no noise and all the detail that's in the frame. As sensor resolutions get higher, and pixel shift gets more advanced, this technique will also be available for large format. Further increasing the file quality.

My actual set is the S1R on a decent copy stand with a Kaiser Slimlight Plano as the light source. It's in the mid 90s for CRI, no color issues.

The lens though is another big reason I switched though. Formerly I was using the 100mm 2.8 WR Limited from Pentax, an above average but old design. I've now switched to the Sigma 70/2.8 ART Macro. This focal length has the advantage of being able to achieve full coverage of all formats from 35 to 8x10 on my existing copy stand. The 100mm required to captures of 8x10 which would not fit in the frame. It's also simply one of the best performing macro lenses available today for scanning. There is a guy in the Negative Lab Pro group who has done extensive side by sides (more than I would ever do!) and this is his lens of choice as well. Some folks have gone the route of using exotic glass like enlarger lenses and bellows. I see these as having only disadvantages over the Sigma 70. They don't perform better in tests, and they don't have AF. I would avoid. Even medium format backs are IMO not as good as a pixel shifted file from a modern camera, save perhaps the newer multishot backs.

sperdynamite and all,

I actually have a Sony a7R III that has pixel shift (but obviously not the pixel shift of the SR1 or the new Sony a7R IV). Would I get better results if I purchased the Sigma 70mm/2.8 ART Macro lens (for the Sony, of course) and scanned using my a7R III w/pixel shift? (I actually DO need a new lens for my a7R III as I sold the only lens I had for it a few months ago (the Sony FE 90mm/2.8 G Macro)). Also, instead of Sony's Image Edge software, I use PixelShift2DNG to combine the multiple shots, which I think works much better.

Interneg advised that I could try this, if I have the time and solid copy stand setup.

If this is actually feasible, then this is, by far, more worth it to me, especially because I actually want to use my Sony a7R III. I just need to know what other tools/devices I need to make a solid copy stand setup. I assume I'll need some kind of lightbox...

If anyone could please help/steer me in the right direction, especially with the other gear that I would need (besides the a7R III that I already own) to get this setup started, then that would be GREATLY appreciated. Perhaps an itemized list of the other gear I need?

Many thanks!!!

[Pere Casals]

1) Buy a used enlarger lens, it's way cheaper than a Sigma ART and it will outperform the Sigma as it is designed to have an optimal flat field for close work.

2) Pixel shift won't improve much, compared to digitally sharpening in Ps, as the Sigma ART is the limiting factor taking more pixels won't do much.

3) A single shot, with or without pixel shift, will deliver a suboptimal scan that may be enough for some jobs, but by stitching 4 or 9 shots you'll get decent scans.

4) You may buy a cheap USAF 1951 glass slide target to measure your effective performance, in the center and corners, it will help to align well your camera, and to find optimal lens aperture.

_____

Pixel shift of the S1R, without it and with it:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48999514947_034dc35c02_b.jpg


As it has a sensor without LPF to score high in DXO/etc it may deliver color artifacts that are solved with pixels shift, but I see no sharpness increase, perhaps a 0.2pix radius sharpening in Ps in the non "shifted" image would make a perfect match.

Of course the SR1 is a very good camera, very suitable for scanning, it may take some 40MPix effective in a single shot, which it would allow to make good mid-size prints, I guess that with some 4 shots it would deliver an excellent scan of a 4x5, that would be equivalent to a V850 scan, in 8x10 the S1R would require 9 shots to be close to the V850 with the low ress lens, as the V850 takes some 350MPix effective from a 8x10 sheet.

[manfrominternet]

Thanks for this advice! What kind of enlarger wold you recommend for my Sony a7R III exactly? I assume I'll have to get an adapter of some sort, no?


If you put yourself in my shoes, I have approximately $1150 to use for scanning roughly 75 4x5 negatives/transparencies and 7 rolls of medium format 6x12/6x17 shots. That's a hell of a lot of scanning, now that I think about it.

My current options seem to be as follows:

1.) Use an Imacon X1 Flextight scanner myself for $30 per hour (at roughly five 4x5 scans per hour, that works out to about $450, give or take. With the rolls, that's probably another $500, give or take.)
2.) Purchase the Epson V850 with the "Better Scanning" Wet Mount, which will basically take up all of my budget and probably more, especially with the fluids and mylar and whatever else it needs. :/
3.) Use my Sony a7R III with whatever enlarger or macro lens that anyone here recommends.
4.) Use the Imacon X1 Flextight for some, hire someone with a drum scanner for my favorites/best shots.

In all honesty, I prefer to scan in the comfort of my own home/tiny studio where I can experiment and where mistakes wont cost me anything. I guess that's why I'm leaning towards using my Sony a7R III, since I already have it and need a lens - any lens - for it anyway, since I sold the only one I had back in March.

Are there any other options? I can definitely forego the 8' x 10' Gursky-sized prints for now.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks for this advice! What kind of enlarger wold you recommend for my Sony a7R III exactly? I assume I'll have to get an adapter of some sort, no?

A 80mm Rodagon would be perfect, imagine that the thread is M39, you would use this $9 ring: https://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-A739-Mirrorless-Camera-Adapter/dp/B00ZYYRPV4/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?keywords=m39+to+sony+a73r&qid=1572686699&sr=8-1-fkmr1

197108


You may try with this $50 lens, it would be perfect: https://www.ebay.es/itm/Rodenstock-Rodagon-80mm-F3-5-Enlarger-Lens-w-Lens-Cap-Counter-Ring-and-Case/184015790874?hash=item2ad832231a:g:a1wAAOSwY75duku6

197109

This Magnagon would be superb: https://www.ebay.es/itm/Rodenstock-Magnagon-75mm-f-5-6-High-Resolution-Apo-Macro-Lens-M42-From-Japan/183998627385?hash=item2ad72c3e39:g:-VYAAOSwveNdneMs

197111






with the "Better Scanning" Wet Mount,

I'd not purchase that for the moment, if your negatives are not flat then store them inside big book for a certain period of time.

What you need is this, to get rid of dust:

197110


_______________________




1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)


Make your own tests!

Let me suggest next :


1) Make a test with your A7R3 and any prime lens at (say) some f/11, single shot and stitched 4 and 9 shots, do that ASAP because you have all to try it

2) Hire the X1 for 1 hour and scan sample negatives covering the diversity you have, negatives, slides and underexposed slides, 4x5 and MF

3) Order a V850 from an internet shop with return policy, compare, and if you don't like it then return it, no risk !!!!

4) My view is that your best bet is using the V850 with multi-exposure (with no wet, for the moment) and making some scans in the X1, but test on your own.


_________________________


Scanning with the V850 is as fast than with the DSLR !!!! At the end you have to edit your images. Me, I spend from 10min to 8 hours to edit a sigle image, so you scan while you edit, play music (Maria Callas or Smashing Pumpkins....) and scan while you edit.

[interneg]

1) Buy a used enlarger lens, it's way cheaper than a Sigma ART and it will outperform the Sigma as it is designed to have an optimal flat field for close work.

So is the Sigma. Except it's also able to much more closely integrate with a current generation camera & utilise relevant corrections without hours of preparatory work to build a correction profile.


2) Pixel shift won't improve much, compared to digitally sharpening in Ps, as the Sigma ART is the limiting factor taking more pixels won't do much.
...

As it has a sensor without LPF to score high in DXO/etc it may deliver color artifacts that are solved with pixels shift, but I see no sharpness increase, perhaps a 0.2pix radius sharpening in Ps in the non "shifted" image would make a perfect match.

Rubbish. But if you insist on stopping down to f11, of course you're going to get diffraction effects etc. The two biggest factors are that pixel shift combines the very low noise of current sensors and gets round the Bayer array problems. And I'll take the comments of the people who use pixel shift scanning on a daily basis over your screenshots and errant claims about sharpening. Besides, sharpening is only any good if it's done on a decently low noise file in the first place. Otherwise you run into problems with compromising the information capacity by severely raising the noise floor. A CCD scan may be slightly inherently sharper, but has somewhat higher noise from the sensor whereas a drum scan from a fluid mount may have slightly less edge acutance, but because of the lower noise floor from the PMT tubes it can take sharpening without incurring as much of a noise penalty - thus they usually end up in about the same place sharpness-wise. The Epson sensor/ optics package somehow manages to be both unsharp and noisy.

[sperdynamite]

sperdynamite and all,

I actually have a Sony a7R III that has pixel shift (but obviously not the pixel shift of the SR1 or the new Sony a7R IV). Would I get better results if I purchased the Sigma 70mm/2.8 ART Macro lens (for the Sony, of course) and scanned using my a7R III w/pixel shift? (I actually DO need a new lens for my a7R III as I sold the only lens I had for it a few months ago (the Sony FE 90mm/2.8 G Macro)). Also, instead of Sony's Image Edge software, I use PixelShift2DNG to combine the multiple shots, which I think works much better.

Interneg advised that I could try this, if I have the time and solid copy stand setup.

If this is actually feasible, then this is, by far, more worth it to me, especially because I actually want to use my Sony a7R III. I just need to know what other tools/devices I need to make a solid copy stand setup. I assume I'll need some kind of lightbox...

If anyone could please help/steer me in the right direction, especially with the other gear that I would need (besides the a7R III that I already own) to get this setup started, then that would be GREATLY appreciated. Perhaps an itemized list of the other gear I need?

Many thanks!!!

Frankly I would continue to use your 90mm Sony lens. It's supposedly great. It might be over long if you're scanning larger formats though, perfectly fine for 35-4x5.

The copy stand is easy, search your local craigslist for a while and one may show up. They are a bit expensive new, but they're out there. For the light source you need a high CRI LED panel. I use the Kaiser Slimlight Plano.

The hard part are the film holders. For 35 I use the Negative Supply Mark I, it's a bit expensive unless you scan a lot as I do. Otherwise I currently use a mix of Bessler carriers and a custom ANR glass platform that I use for sheets.

A note on pixel shift, it's not always night and day. Turns out bayer interpolation is pretty good actually. I use PS for very important 35mm and 120 scans, and always for sheets (because with sheet film the time doesn't slow me down and it seems to make a bigger difference). So your A7R3 is a great option, lots of people are using it now. I did read that the pixel shifted files from the A7R3 may be readable in ACR now as well, something to look into. ACR and LR is important to my specific workflow, it may not be for yours. Plus you still have the option to stitch files, which delivers fantastic results. I just have workflow reasons to avoid the practice. What I can say for sure about pixel shifted files is that though you don't always see more detail, you do have a file that has basically no noise, and is so much friendlier to sharpening. In that way the difference is more obvious.

Some do use enlarging lenses, but the performance in side by side tests is worse than with modern macro lenses. There is a group called "Digitizing with a digital camera" on Facebook where you can see this info. I also would find bellows focusing every frame a huge waste of time. Macro lenses are also made to be flat field, and if you're shooting at 5.6-8, DoF and diffraction are not issues.

In my testing my results meet or exceed those of Imacon/Hasselblad scanners, so I'm not really kidding about them being obsolete. While building a DIY scanning kit with an S1R is not exactly 'cheap', at least all the components are swappable and will be upgraded over time. Who knows how long Hasselblad will support the scanners, which rely on moving mechanical parts and old CCDs? Imacons, drums, IQSmarts etc do deliver the 'goods' so to speak, they're all fabulous scanners. If an IQSmart3 was $2000 I would probably own one, but they're often $4-6k, same with Imacons. And I would say if someone just 'gifted' me one, I'd probably use it even having the S1R kit because certain aspects of it probably have workflow advantages with 8x10 film. On the other hand, I'm about to scan 10 Ektar 4x5s. It will likely take me about 30 minutes to get 10 155mp scans, with the best color conversions I've yet encountered via Negative Lab Pro (based on Fuji Image Intelligence found in Frontier and Durst Sigma scanners). With an IQSmart it would take me hours I presume, and I'd still want to use NLP to do the conversions. So, you start looking at the pros and cons...and there is likely to obvious best choice. But the S1R for me delivers the goods and then some. Plus I'm taking my 'scanner' to a paid shooting job today. :-)

I would pretty much ignore everything Pere says. His long diatribes are full of pure conjecture and speculation, not actual experience. So much so that it almost seems like he's a very specific troll, which is weird but there you go.

[Pere Casals]

Rubbish. But if you insist on stopping down to f11, of course you're going to get diffraction effects etc.

Interneg, Interneg.... I guess that you ignore that diffraction limit at f/11 is 141 "Line Pairs per mm" , it is a good aperture to start with, because it is a good balance to increase DOF and Corner vs Center focus, alignment, etc, it is a good recommendation to start there, later OP my open one stop more, but f/11 is ideal to start

You may need to return to photo school :)





The Epson sensor/ optics package somehow manages to be both unsharp and noisy.

This is LOL :), see this again, man: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178

As this side by side compares a V700 to one Scanmate 11000 and two Creos best is that you stop being ridiculous.

[interneg]

...Negative Lab Pro (based on Fuji Image Intelligence found in Frontier and Durst Sigma scanners).

What I've found is that the Frontier system approach does is knock off bits of gamut, highlights & shadows to both autocorrect & force-fit films into the gamut of certain papers - and I'm not entirely sure how much NLP does this, or follows an automated model based around sample & divide of the film mask colour. I do something similar by hand (which allows significant adjustment & intervention for optimisation) which while slightly slower, allows me to get very close to the colour of hand printed RA-4 darkroom prints - and much more so than when trying to match a scan off a Frontier. I've been playing around with making LUTs for Photoshop & they do have serious potential, but they're a time consuming fiddle to perfect if you're really fussy about getting the colour right across a wide range of negatives.

[sperdynamite]

What I've found is that the Frontier system approach does is knock off bits of gamut, highlights & shadows to both autocorrect & force-fit films into the gamut of certain papers - and I'm not entirely sure how much NLP does this, or follows an automated model based around sample & divide of the film mask colour. I do something similar by hand (which allows significant adjustment & intervention for optimisation) which while slightly slower, allows me to get very close to the colour of hand printed RA-4 darkroom prints - and much more so than when trying to match a scan off a Frontier. I've been playing around with making LUTs for Photoshop & they do have serious potential, but they're a time consuming fiddle to perfect if you're really fussy about getting the colour right across a wide range of negatives.

Yeah it's just based on Fuji Image Intelligence, and it actually has a Noritsu profile as well. There is a lot of flexibility, it doesn't clip like the Frontier will. I hear you though, custom LUTs are going to have a lot more control. I need to work fast however and NLP gets me from negative to great in just a few clicks. Apparently the next versions of NLP are going to integrate LUTs in some way, not sure what Nathan exactly has planned but he's mentioned it. He is very available in his Facebook group too which has been nice.

Generally I'm glad people are working on this, because Epson, Nikon, Durst etc are not. I would venture that even recent efforts by users and NLP plus a few others are making better conversions that Phase One's crazy expensive software package. Just a guess though since they want like $5k for the Cultural Heritage version of C1P alone.

[interneg]

Generally I'm glad people are working on this, because Epson, Nikon, Durst etc are not. I would venture that even recent efforts by users and NLP plus a few others are making better conversions that Phase One's crazy expensive software package. Just a guess though since they want like $5k for the Cultural Heritage version of C1P alone.

It's not a terrifically difficult thing at one level - effectively it's a global colour correction (RA-4 paper apparently is designed to deliver neutral results when the neg is exposed to it with tungsten & a 50R filter) & and setting black and white points on the RGB curves, but the tricky bits come when dealing with the seemingly subtle yet annoying oddities of exposure through subtractive filters vis-a-vis working in an RGB colour space etc etc. The LUT I made for Portra 400 let me go from an uninverted neg to an inversion only needing fine tonal balancing in one click - most of the time. That said, I've been so busy recently that I've not done much more to refine it in the last few months. I'm often working more in the direction of dye transfer aesthetics than what might be perceived as 'chromogenic', and rarely scanning entire rolls/ lots of sheets at high resolution (usual job approach involves a contact scan suitable for making the digital equivalent of an enlarged contact sheet, then high res scanning & working up the selects).

BTW, most of the Cultural Heritage hardware is actually made by Cambo & can be bought separately.

And regarding the Fuji Frontier, I'm pretty sure it uses a LUT at the output end for the paper, not sure if it also uses one at the input to model the tungsten & 50R effect.

[manfrominternet]

Frankly I would continue to use your 90mm Sony lens...

The copy stand is easy, search your local craigslist for a while and one may show up.... For the light source you need a high CRI LED panel. I use the Kaiser Slimlight Plano.

The hard part are the film holders. For 35 I use the Negative Supply Mark I, it's a bit expensive unless you scan a lot as I do. Otherwise I currently use a mix of Bessler carriers and a custom ANR glass platform that I use for sheets.

A note on pixel shift, it's not always night and day. Turns out bayer interpolation is pretty good actually. I use PS for very important 35mm and 120 scans, and always for sheets (because with sheet film the time doesn't slow me down and it seems to make a bigger difference). So your A7R3 is a great option, lots of people are using it now. I did read that the pixel shifted files from the A7R3 may be readable in ACR now as well, something to look into. ACR and LR is important to my specific workflow, it may not be for yours.

Some do use enlarging lenses, but the performance in side by side tests is worse than with modern macro lenses. There is a group called "Digitizing with a digital camera" on Facebook where you can see this info. Macro lenses are also made to be flat field, and if you're shooting at 5.6-8, DoF and diffraction are not issues.

In my testing my results meet or exceed those of Imacon/Hasselblad scanners, so I'm not really kidding about them being obsolete. While building a DIY scanning kit with an S1R is not exactly 'cheap', at least all the components are swappable and will be upgraded over time... I'm about to scan 10 Ektar 4x5s. It will likely take me about 30 minutes to get 10 155mp scans, with the best color conversions I've yet encountered via Negative Lab Pro (based on Fuji Image Intelligence found in Frontier and Durst Sigma scanners). With an IQSmart it would take me hours I presume, and I'd still want to use NLP to do the conversions. So, you start looking at the pros and cons...and there is likely to obvious best choice. But the S1R for me delivers the goods and then some. Plus I'm taking my 'scanner' to a paid shooting job today. :-)

Sperdynamite and all,

I unfortunately sold my Sony FE 90mm/2.8 G Macro lens this past March, ironically to have enough money to buy a mint used Linhof Technikardan 45 with a set of 5 Rodenstock/Schneider lenses that I have now. That Sony FE 90mm was literally the only lens I had. So my Sony a7R III has been without a lens and basically hasn't been used since March. That's why your setup appeals to me so much. Not only would I finally have a lens to use (say, with the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 DG Macro Art Lens (for Sony E-Mount) that you recommend/use) with my Sony a7R III, I'd also have a pretty powerful scanning device. Kill two birds with one stone, as they say.

As far as combining the Sony a7R III pixel shift photos, I use PixelShift2DNG (https://www.fastrawviewer.com/PixelShift2DNG) instead of Sony's Edge software. PixelShift2DNG works great.

And you're right! Who knows how long the Hasselblad, which has been bought out by DJI (the Chinese drone company), will continue to provide support for their high-end Flextight X1 and X5 scanners? (You can't purchase the Hasselblad Flextight scanners anymore on B&H.) The technology for mirrorless cameras will only improve over time. I can't say the same about scanners.

Anyway, your setup greatly appeals to me. I want to get my setup started as soon as possible.

So, considering that all I really have right now is my Sony a7R III, I need to start a list of the other items I'll need:

Here's what I currently have in my B&H shopping cart:

1.) Sigma 70mm f/2.8 DG Macro Art Lens (for Sony E-Mount) -- $469.00
2.) Kaiser Slimlite Plano 5000K Battery/AC Lightbox (8 x 11") -- $88.88
3.) Smith-Victor 36" Pro-Duty Copy Stand -- $256.10
4a.) Beseler Anti-Newton Glass for the 45M, 45V and 810 Series Enlargers -- $83.95 (do I need one or two of these?)

4b.) Perhaps instead of getting the "Beseler Anti-Newton Glass for the 45M, 45V and 810 Series Enlargers", should I perhaps get the betterscanning.com "Variable Height Mounting Station"? It costs $119.95 (http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html)

Please let me know if I'm missing anything or have any suggestions or improvements. (The only type of film I have for scanning are 4x5 negatives/transparencies and medium format 6x12 and 6x17 panoramic negatives/transparencies).

Also, of note, I use Capture One and Affinity Photo (my Lightroom/Photoshop replacements), so while I don't think that'll interrupt my workflow (Affinity has a terrific RAW editor), it's something to consider.

Many, MANY thanks!

[sperdynamite]

Sperdynamite and all,

I unfortunately sold my Sony FE 90mm/2.8 G Macro lens this past March, ironically to have enough money to buy a mint used Linhof Technikardan 45 with a set of 5 Rodenstock/Schneider lenses that I have now. That Sony FE 90mm was literally the only lens I had. So my Sony a7R III has been without a lens and basically hasn't been used since March. That's why your setup appeals to me so much. Not only would I finally have a lens to use (say, with the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 DG Macro Art Lens (for Sony E-Mount) that you recommend/use) with my Sony a7R III, I'd also have a pretty powerful scanning device. Kill two birds with one stone, as they say.

As far as combining the Sony a7R III pixel shift photos, I use PixelShift2DNG (https://www.fastrawviewer.com/PixelShift2DNG) instead of Sony's Edge software. PixelShift2DNG works great.

And you're right! Who knows how long the Hasselblad, which has been bought out by DJI (the Chinese drone company), will continue to provide support for their high-end Flextight X1 and X5 scanners? (You can't purchase the Hasselblad Flextight scanners anymore on B&H.) The technology for mirrorless cameras will only improve over time. I can't say the same about scanners.

Anyway, your setup greatly appeals to me. I want to get my setup started as soon as possible.

So, considering that all I really have right now is my Sony a7R III, I need to start a list of the other items I'll need:

Here's what I currently have in my B&H shopping cart:

1.) Sigma 70mm f/2.8 DG Macro Art Lens (for Sony E-Mount) -- $469.00
2.) Kaiser Slimlite Plano 5000K Battery/AC Lightbox (8 x 11") -- $88.88
3.) Smith-Victor 36" Pro-Duty Copy Stand -- $256.10
4a.) Beseler Anti-Newton Glass for the 45M, 45V and 810 Series Enlargers -- $83.95 (do I need one or two of these?)

4b.) Perhaps instead of getting the "Beseler Anti-Newton Glass for the 45M, 45V and 810 Series Enlargers", should I perhaps get the betterscanning.com "Variable Height Mounting Station"? It costs $119.95 (http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html)

Please let me know if I'm missing anything or have any suggestions or improvements. (The only type of film I have for scanning are 4x5 negatives/transparencies and medium format 6x12 and 6x17 panoramic negatives/transparencies).

Also, of note, I use Capture One and Affinity Photo (my Lightroom/Photoshop replacements), so while I don't think that'll interrupt my workflow (Affinity has a terrific RAW editor), it's something to consider.

Many, MANY thanks!

I would say that you are right on with everything save the film holder set up. I would avoid the Better Scanning kit, as I have it and it doesn't really sit flat on a light table. The anti newton ring glass is generally the way to go, you just need to DIY something to hold it above your source. You may want to mask off around the film as well.

As for items 1, 2, and 3, you are right on. In fact I cannot recommend the Sigma enough. Used it again to scan 10 Ektar 100 4x5 negatives. The whole process took about 30 minutes including conversions. Dust is still and issue I'm fighting. Even after running the film through an anti static vac from Kinetronics multiple times I still see a fair amount. I need an de-ionizing gun attached to a compressor I think, blah...

Oh and by the way for the Sigma I'd recommend F5.6 generally, seems like the sweet spot. Though I shot today at 8.0 and the results were also very good. They responded to sharpening very well.

[manfrominternet]

I would say that you are right on with everything save the film holder set up. I would avoid the Better Scanning kit, as I have it and it doesn't really sit flat on a light table. The anti newton ring glass is generally the way to go, you just need to DIY something to hold it above your source. You may want to mask off around the film as well.

As for items 1, 2, and 3, you are right on. In fact I cannot recommend the Sigma enough. Used it again to scan 10 Ektar 100 4x5 negatives. The whole process took about 30 minutes including conversions. Dust is still and issue I'm fighting. Even after running the film through an anti static vac from Kinetronics multiple times I still see a fair amount. I need an de-ionizing gun attached to a compressor I think, blah...

Oh and by the way for the Sigma I'd recommend F5.6 generally, seems like the sweet spot. Though I shot today at 8.0 and the results were also very good. They responded to sharpening very well.

Sperdynamite,

Thank you so, SO much for this. I'm clearly new to this so your help is incredibly appreciated, as is everyone else's on this thread.

I do have just a few more quick questions about the film holder setup, which is the most confusing aspect of this setup to me, especially since I'll only be scanning 4x5 negatives and 6x12/6x17 medium format panoramic negatives:

1.) Regarding the "Beseler Anti-Newton Glass for the 45M, 45V and 810 Series Enlargers (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/673057-REG/Beseler_7005_Anti_Newton_Glass_for_the.html)", do I need one or two of these? I'm asking because I'm wondering if I have to "sandwich" the 4x5 negative or 6x12/6x17 medium format negative in between two of these glass plates, instead of between just one glass plate and, say, the surface of the Kaiser Slimlite Plano 5000 Lightbox.

2.) Instead of getting one (or, if recommended, two) of these "Beseler Anti-Newton Glass(es) for the 45M, 45V and 810 Series Enlargers (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/673057-REG/Beseler_7005_Anti_Newton_Glass_for_the.html)", which is basically just a sheet of glass if you click on the link, should I just get the "Epson 4x5 Holder With ANR Glass (made for the V850) (https://www.ebay.com/itm/Epson-Perfection-V850-4x5-Holder-Or-Film-Guide-With-ANR-Glass/172574854425?epid=633481504&hash=item282e434d19:g:jX0AAOSwZqZaFkye)" instead?

3.) What kind of film holder setup would you recommend if I'm scanning only large format 4x5 negatives and medium format 6x12 and 6x17 panoramic negatives?

4.) When you say I need a "do-it-yourself something" to hold the Anti-Newton Glass above the light source, what do you mean by that exactly? I originally though that one would 1.) put the negative directly on the lightbox (or put the negative "sandwiched" in between two sheets of ANR glass on top of the lightbox, thus negating step 2), 2.) put the anti-newton ring glass directly on top of the negative, 3.) mask off the frame, and 4.) take a pixel shift photo with the mirrorless camera (that, of course, supports pixel shift). Do I have that completely wrong? (I assume I do.)

5.) And finally, if I go with the "Beseler Anti-Newton Glass for the 45M, 45V and 810 Series Enlargers (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/673057-REG/Beseler_7005_Anti_Newton_Glass_for_the.html)", which again is basically just a sheet of ANR glass, how would you recommend that I mask off the area around the film?

I'm just about ready to hit the "buy" button with what's in my B&H shopping cart, but I just need to figure out the film holder setup for both 4x5 negatives and 6x12/6x17 panoramic medium format negatives. I'll purchase whatever you recommend.

Once again, I really appreciate your suggestions and help. I can't thank you enough, especially because your setup also gives me a lens for my Sony a7R III, which hasn't been used since this past March.

[Bernard_L]

Instead of these (presumably expensive) AN glasses, I'd recommend the following. Go to a framing shop. Buy on piece each of the following, sized to accomodate your largest negative:
- One so-called anti-reflection glass, which is actually lightly frosted glass. You may encounter either one or two sides frosted (check reflections)
- One so-called "museum" anti-reflection glass, more expensive, but still less than the photo-branded AN glass
Insist that you need pieces without any scratch or blemish. Ask for edges/corners to be sanded or do it yourself with fine abrasive paper.
Sandwich negative, back side against the (one of the) frosted sides of the cheapo frosted glass, emulsion against the "museum" glass.
Emulsion (and museum glass) facing camera. And yes, you will have to mirror the resulting image. And the remaining challenge is even illumination with good CRI, but that is another story, possibly already solved.

[manfrominternet]

I still need help with this film holder setup, especially since I'm now even more confused. Sperdynamite said that I need a "do-it-yourself something" to hold the Anti-Newton Glass above the light source. I'm not sure what this means exactly.

Also confusing me is the fact that I don't know if I need one Anti-Newton Ring glass (to sandwich the negative directly in between itself and the lightbox), or two Anti-Newton Ring glasses (to sandwich the negative and then put this "sandwich" directly on the lightbox).

Perhaps someone can help illustrate how to assemble a film holder setup with text. For example:

CAMERA
|
|
|
|
ANTI-NEWTON RING GLASS (with black masking on top?)
NEGATIVE
ANTI-NEWTON RING GLASS
LIGHTBOX

Or:

CAMERA
|
|
|
|
ANTI-NEWTON RING GLASS (with black masking on top?)
NEGATIVE
LIGHTBOX

[manfrominternet]

Should I just get the sturdy plastic 4x5 Holder (https://www.ebay.com/itm/Epson-Perfection-V850-4x5-Holder-Or-Film-Guide-With-ANR-Glass/172574854425?epid=633481504&hash=item282e434d19:g:jX0AAOSwZqZaFkye) and the Medium Format Holder (https://www.ebay.com/itm/Epson-Perfection-V850-120-220-or-620-Holder-Or-Film-Guide-With-ANR-Glass/172574860384?hash=item282e436460:g:oLwAAOSw8axaFkyk) for the Epson v850? (BOTH have ANR glass.) At $65 for both of these film holders, this seems like the least expensive option.

[Pere Casals]

CAMERA
|
|
|
|
ANTI-NEWTON RING GLASS (with black masking on top?)
NEGATIVE
ANTI-NEWTON RING GLASS
LIGHTBOX


The ANR glass between the lens and the negative will blur a bit the image, (anyway if you take a single shot you may not notice it less because at the end you are taking a low resolution image :) ) Seriously, if you take and stitch 9 shots of a 4x5" then you will notice a lot that blur.

Remember to compare all 3 ways you have: DSLR, V850 (from your friend) and X1.

4x5 Velvia sheets are a powerful media that deserve you make the side by side comparison.

[sperdynamite]

I thought it might be easier to show and not tell. Apologies for the noisy iPhone pic. This is my set up for scanning sheet film. The window behind has a blind that comes down to mask all light by the way.

You can see my simple cut out mask for 4x5, my lens has a hood on it of course, and you can see the distances my ANR platform is from the Kaiser panel. This distance is important as it blurs any surface issues on the panel itself. Those kaisers scratch so easy, and they show up if you just lay your original on the light.

No need IMO to sandwich your film. Sheet film does not really curl all that much, and very curly sheets (rare) can simple be weighted or taped at the edges. I hardly ever have to do this, and viewing my extreme edges at 100% of a 155mp file still shows good sharpness. Because dust is always possible I like to reduce possible surfaces.

If you don't care about scanning edges, my vote would be to just use negative carriers from enlargers. Just make sure to make a platform for them that holds them a few inches above the light. This is a super easy solution that will definitely work. Enlarger carriers are everywhere on the bay, and it should be easy to make some feet for one to hold it up a good distance. I scan my 120 film using Bessler carriers. Negative Supply is making a 120 carrier though, and when that comes out I will use it.

My ANR platform was a custom make for me from a friend.

Oh and the other thing you don't see is the tether cable that would go to my Mac, which is to the right of me taking this photo. The S1R has decently good tethering software from Panasonic, and the USB-C cable charges the camera's battery while it's plugged in, no need for an over priced AC adapter!

[manfrominternet]

I thought it might be easier to show and not tell. Apologies for the noisy iPhone pic. This is my set up for scanning sheet film. The window behind has a blind that comes down to mask all light by the way.

You can see my simple cut out mask for 4x5, my lens has a hood on it of course, and you can see the distances my ANR platform is from the Kaiser panel. This distance is important as it blurs any surface issues on the panel itself. Those kaisers scratch so easy, and they show up if you just lay your original on the light.

No need IMO to sandwich your film. Sheet film does not really curl all that much, and very curly sheets (rare) can simple be weighted or taped at the edges. I hardly ever have to do this, and viewing my extreme edges at 100% of a 155mp file still shows good sharpness. Because dust is always possible I like to reduce possible surfaces.

If you don't care about scanning edges, my vote would be to just use negative carriers from enlargers. Just make sure to make a platform for them that holds them a few inches above the light. This is a super easy solution that will definitely work. Enlarger carriers are everywhere on the bay, and it should be easy to make some feet for one to hold it up a good distance. I scan my 120 film using Bessler carriers. Negative Supply is making a 120 carrier though, and when that comes out I will use it.

My ANR platform was a custom make for me from a friend.

Sperdynamite,

Thanks so much for this!

Just two quick questions about the film holder, if I may, just so I get everything right:

1.) Is there a particular recommended distance between the ANR platform from the Kaiser panel, or could it be any relatively small distance?

2.) Would it be easiest/cheaper if I just bought these two holders (made for the Epson V850) that have ANR glass, and put DIY legs on them with rubber feet (so as to not scratch the Kaiser panel?) (The 4x5 holder costs $26 and the 120 MF holder costs $39)
197227 197228

[sperdynamite]

Sperdynamite,

Thanks so much for this!

Just two quick questions about the film holder, if I may, just so I get everything right:

1.) Is there a particular recommended distance between the ANR platform from the Kaiser panel, or could it be any relatively small distance?

2.) Would it be easiest/cheaper if I just bought these two holders (made for the Epson V850) that have ANR glass, and put DIY legs on them with rubber feet (so as to not scratch the Kaiser panel?) (The 4x5 holder costs $26 and the 120 MF holder costs $39)
197227 197228

1. Not that I know of, just whatever works to blur any surface scratches on the panel.

2. I use the Negative Supply Mark I for 35mm, Bessler carriers for 120, and a custom made 10x12 anti newton glass platform for sheet film. Beyond that it's all about seeing what works for you. I will say I think the Epson holders are a bad idea because they don't have even feet to hold themselves up, and even in the best of times they are not great with film flatness. Enlarger carriers just work.

Good luck with it all man! I scanned about 8 rolls of 35mm chrome film today with the Negative Supply holder. I'm faster with the camera scanner than I am with the Frontier SP3000.

[Bernard_L]

Taking a step back before plunging. (I confess i haven't read all of the 50+ posts in this thread, so this might be a duplicate)
From your OP, you have "a large number of 4x5 Fuji Provia ..." "as well as a large number of..." and you are contemplating 8'x6' prints; on the other hand, if you "sink basically all of what little money I have" into scanning, how will you pay for a zillion giant prints? So I respectfully submit:
Quick scans of the Ektar shots, for the next step
Which shots definitely deserve to be printed; how many?
Make test scans of the same shot with the three scanning methods, and print at intended size.
Show the three prints to a few friends with a good eye, without telling them which is which
Count your keeper shots and the dollars in your account; make a decision (does the last 10% improvement in quality deserve +100% expense?)

[Pere Casals]

Taking a step back before plunging

+1

[manfrominternet]

Taking a step back before plunging. (I confess i haven't read all of the 50+ posts in this thread, so this might be a duplicate)
From your OP, you have "a large number of 4x5 Fuji Provia ..." "as well as a large number of..." and you are contemplating 8'x6' prints; on the other hand, if you "sink basically all of what little money I have" into scanning, how will you pay for a zillion giant prints? So I respectfully submit:
Quick scans of the Ektar shots, for the next step
Which shots definitely deserve to be printed; how many?
Make test scans of the with each of the same shot with the three scanning methods, and print at intended size.
Show the three prints to a few friends with a good eye, without telling them which is which
Count your keeper shots and the dollars in your account; make a decision (does the last 10% improvement in quality deserve +100% expense?)


I agree. I'm not going to make huge prints anytime soon; that's just a final goal. At this point, I simply want to scan my negatives digitally with my Sony a7R III, a Sigma ART 70mm/2.8 Macro lens, and a copy stand. I can worry about drum scanning/enormous prints later.

Because I, indeed, have little money, I'm asking very specific questions (hopefully not annoying) just so that I can purchase the right things and not have to worry about wasting money because I bought the wrong item. I'm very new to this way of "scanning." I saw a few videos on YouTube on how to do this and there are a plethora of techniques for the film holder setup alone!

I've amended what is in my bhphoto shopping cart, specifically the copy stand. The original copy stand that I intended to get was the Smith-Victor 36" (91.5 centimeters) Pro-Duty Copy Stand ($256.10). I later saw a YouTube video of a photographer successfully using a Kaiser Repro Kid Copy Stand Kit ($156.00) for his medium format negatives, but I worry that, at 23" (58.5 centimeters) in height, it is too short to fit a 4x5 negative in the frame of my Sony a7R III with the Sigma ART 70mm/2.8 Macro lens attached in one shot, even all the way up at 23", the full height of the Kaiser Repro Kid Copy Stand.

That said, do you guys think the 23" tall Kaiser Repro copy stand is tall enough to fit a 4x5 negative in one shot, or do I need the taller (and much more expensive) Smith-Victor 36" copy stand (if I'm using the Sigma ART 70mm Macro lens)?

Without further ado, here's now whats in my B&H shopping cart:

1.) Sigma 70mm f/2.8 DG Macro Art Lens (for Sony E-Mount) -- $469.00
2.) Kaiser Slimlite Plano 5000K Battery/AC Lightbox (8 x 11") -- $88.88
3.) Kaiser Repro Kid 23" Copy Stand Kit -- $156.00 ... (Again, I don't know if I should get this Kaiser 23" copy stand or the Smith-Victor 36" Pro-Duty Copy Stand, which I originally had in my shopping cart.)
4.) Beseler Anti-Newton Glass for the 45M, 45V and 810 Series Enlargers -- $83.95

Here's a text illustration of what I'm thinking this will look like:

CAMERA
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLACK MASK (made from cheap art board)
NEGATIVE (taped onto the ANR glass that its sitting on, if necessary)
ANTI-NEWTON RING GLASS
2" TALL DO-IT-YOURSELF LEGS/BOX (encasing the lightbox and holding up the ANR glass)
BOTTOM OF COPY STAND_____________________________________________

Let me know if this setup looks right or if you have any suggestions, improvements, warnings, etc...

[SergeyT]

Bernard is talking wisdom here.

It may look like a waste of money to perform some tests before committing to a certain method , but then it may turn into a bigger waste if the results achieved with best-guess-selected method do not meet the expectations.
I would seriously look into choosing a "typical' 4x5 sheet from your collection as a sample and make it scanned using a variety of equipment and methods, such as X1, Epson, DSLR, a good drum, etc. Maybe each advocate of their equipment and technics will be willing to make a test "scan" for you (even if for a fee).

Short of that and if money are the main optimization criteria and you would like to gamble why not to get an Epson and call it a day?
Reasons: You will unlikely beat it with DSLR setup on 4x5s.
Unless you are planning on working hard on your frustration with dust, endless alignments of camera position relative to film for each frame or portion of it, contrast reduction due to flare and surrounding light, stitching, post-scan negative conversion (prepare to add Negative Lab Pro or ColorPerfect, together with Adobe subscription to the cart), and other not so obvious issues associated with DSLR "scanning"

[manfrominternet]

Bernard is talking wisdom here.

It may look like a waste of money to perform some tests before committing to a certain method , but then it may turn into a bigger waste if the results achieved with best-guess-selected method do not meet the expectations.
I would seriously look into choosing a "typical' 4x5 sheet from your collection as a sample and make it scanned using a variety of equipment and methods, such as X1, Epson, DSLR, a good drum, etc. Maybe each advocate of their equipment and technics will be willing to make a test "scan" for you (even if for a fee).

Short of that and if money are the main optimization criteria and you would like to gamble why not to get an Epson and call it a day?

All very valid points. I've been thinking about getting the Epson V850 and the betterscanning.com variable height mount and just scanning that way, and, like you said, call it a day. It'll save me a lot of time, at least I hope it does. Pere

Reasons: You will unlikely beat it with DSLR setup on 4x5s.
Unless you are planning on working hard on your frustration with dust, endless alignments of camera position relative to film for each frame or portion of it, contrast reduction due to flare and surrounding light, stitching, post-scan negative conversion (prepare to add Negative Lab Pro or ColorPerfect, together with Adobe subscription to the cart), and other not so obvious issues associated with DSLR "scanning"

Sergey,

I agree with you. I was really hoping someone would encourage me to seriously consider the Epson V850 with the "betterscanning.com variable height wet mount kit" and, like you said, call it a day. I thought that would be, by far, the easiest route.

However, the problem I realized is that the wet mount process with the Epson V850 will take just as long, if not longer. (I've seen some YouTube videos on the wet mounting process.)

Also, I have a Sony a7R III, but I have no lens for it. So this "digitized scanning" appeals to me for two basic reasons: 1.) I'll finally have a lens to put on my Sony a7R III and be able to actually use it (I haven't used my Sony a7R III since March, when I sold the only lens I had), and 2.) The Sony a7R III/Sigma ART 70mm/2.8 Macro combination is apparently a powerful combination when is comes to "digitized" scanning. Yes, of course, it'll take time to actually get it right and develop a work flow, but I think I can do it. Won't be drum scan quality, but it'll hopefully be good. I actually just got a chance to try out the Sony a7R III/Sigma ART 70mm/2.8 Macro at my local camera store today, and it was pretty amazing.

I'm still doing my research, and I may very well end up getting the Epson V850 if I get some more evidence that that's the way to go. I have approximately $1,150 to burn on scanning or scanning equipment. It's not a lot, I know, and I'm very far from my dream of large prints rivaling the works of Struth/Gursky and the rest of the Dusseldorf Becher gang. In the end, I guess I want what we all want: the best bang for your buck. I'm still just weighing my options.

So far, Sperdynamite has convinced me that my Sony a7R III/Sigma ART 70mm/2.8 Macro is a very good option.

I'm planning to make a move this Sunday. Either I'll get a used Epson V850 for $800, or I'll get the Sigma ART 70mm Macro/Kaiser Copy Stand/Kaiser Lightbox/Accessories/CNMY Film Inversion plugin for Affinity Photo for $850. (I use Capture One and Affinity Photo as my Lightroom/Photoshop replacement, for better or worse.)

I will also rent the Imacon X1 Flextight scanner for $30 (for one hour), just to see the difference with the results.

By the way, here's a YouTube video that I found extremely helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHz5SDeQ6Y4&list=PLNpvjHR0V3TYyBJci7oCMv3n8ceaDZEwm&index=5&t=0s

I hope this video helps anyone here who wants to try this method of scanning.

[manfrominternet]

Do I even need ANR glass? What if I kept my negative elevated from the lightbox and mask it like this guy does? (Starts at 1 minute into this video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHz5...m&index=5&t=0s

(Yes, this is the same video I included in my previous post.)

[Pere Casals]

So far, Sperdynamite has convinced me that my Sony a7R III/Sigma ART 70mm/2.8 Macro is a very good option.

Speardynamite scans a 8x10" with a single DSLR shot, so a medium able to record (say) 700 effective MPix is scanned into a file that has many repeated pixels but only around 25 to 30 effective MPix. If you want that then you should follow his advice. At the end with the Sigma ART you may also make nice macro shots of insects, flowers, etc.

[sperdynamite]

Speardynamite scans a 8x10" with a single DSLR shot, so a medium able to record (say) 700 effective MPix is scanned into a file that has many repeated pixels but only around 25 to 30 effective MPix. If you want that then you should follow his advice. At the end with the Sigma ART you may also make nice macro shots of insects, flowers, etc.

I like that he still doesn't understand how pixel shift works so he just continues to be wrong, but with wonderful aplomb.

[sperdynamite]

Do I even need ANR glass? What if I kept my negative elevated from the lightbox and mask it like this guy does? (Starts at 1 minute into this video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHz5...m&index=5&t=0s

(Yes, this is the same video I included in my previous post.)

You may not. If you're putting the film emulsion side to the glass then 'in theory' it should not produce newton rings. It also doesn't degrade the scan so I just use ANR glass to be on the safe side.

[Pere Casals]

I like that he still doesn't understand how pixel shift works so he just continues to be wrong, but with wonderful aplomb.

Scan, single shot, with the DSLR, and you learn what pixel shift does or not does. You won't find more than effective 30MPix effective.

[sperdynamite]

Scan, single shot, with the DSLR, and you learn what pixel shift does or not does. You won't find more than effective 30MPix effective.

I see the bullshit fountain still works.

[lassethomas]

Do I even need ANR glass? What if I kept my negative elevated from the lightbox and mask it like this guy does? (Starts at 1 minute into this video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHz5...m&index=5&t=0s

(Yes, this is the same video I included in my previous post.)

Just try and see how it works.
And well, yes If you can keep it flat enough you'll be fine. and 'enough' is not absolute, it depend on how much unsharpness you think is ok.

As stated before. The reason to wet mount or use glass holders with AN glass at the back is to keep the focus plane flat. And glass holders still produce newton rings with some films. I've had problems with this and Velvia 50.

[lassethomas]

There is no such thing as the perfect scan. There are always tradeoffs. Depth of field against limiting resolution from diffraction. Wetmounting against glassless holders exchanging an even focus plane with scanning speed. Or flat focus and speed but newton rings instead. And so on for ever.
And you won't know what works for you from the beginning. The only way to find out is by trying and experimenting, scanning, postprocess and printing. Iterating and evaluating over and over again. And then you will start to get a an idea.

Trust me. I've gone the long way from crap- to drum-scanners and back. You can jump start to a certain extent, but you need a lot of experience too.
So whatever makes sense now is OK, just start to scan and evaluate. And remember it's going to change.

[Pere Casals]

I see the bullshit fountain still works.

Your DSLR, single shot with p shift, will take some 30MPix effective from a 4x5, a V850 will take some 140, a 4000dpi drum scan will take some 200MPix effective and a 8000dpi one will take some real 400MPix. Your DSLR with Pixel shift: 30MPix effective, baby.


Your rude wording does not hide your deep ignorance. Gang wording normally comes from abnormal family structure combined with substandard education, but it's up to you showing what you are, baby. :) Take it with some humor.

[sperdynamite]

Your DSLR, single shot with p shift, will take some 30MPix effective from a 4x5, a V850 will take some 140, a 4000dpi drum scan will take some 200MPix effective and a 8000dpi one will take some real 400MPix. Your DSLR with Pixel shift: 30MPix effective, baby.


Your rude wording does not hide your deep ignorance. Gang wording normally comes from abnormal family structure combined with substandard education, but it's up to you showing what you are, baby. :) Take it with some humor.

Prove it.

[sperdynamite]

Just try and see how it works.
And well, yes If you can keep it flat enough you'll be fine. and 'enough' is not absolute, it depend on how much unsharpness you think is ok.

As stated before. The reason to wet mount or use glass holders with AN glass at the back is to keep the focus plane flat. And glass holders still produce newton rings with some films. I've had problems with this and Velvia 50.

Even at 155mp with nothing to flatten the Portra 160 4x5 I scanned today I had no flatness issues. If the film was obviously curling I'd simply tape or weigh down the edges. Every case is slightly different of course but I scanned a lot of sheet film and pixel peeped the images pretty hard, no real focus issues. With roll film though heck yeah you're going to need something to hold things flat. That's why I generally go for Bessler carriers for 120.

[Pere Casals]

Prove it.

Regarding drums, here there is an accurate evaluation, see table
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

197304

That test was performed by Tim Parkin, Joe Cornish, Dav Thomas and the Phase One representative in the UK: Chris Ireland. These people have way more wisdom than me, I don't know if you have more or less, but you may check their CV.

_________________


Regarding V700, you have here the ratings https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners

Pali K measurements with his V700 say is 2900x5x2300x4, this is 133 MPix effective. With my V850, with accurate scans (optimal height, etc) I measured 180 MPix, but I concede a common V850 scans may deliver around 140.

_________________


Regarding your SR1 camera, download and print a USAF 1951 TARGET (http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/USAF.pdf), shot it, and calculate what you have, it takes less than 5min. You will find around 30 Mpix effective for a good single shot, with or without shift. The Shift removes color artifacts in sensors lacking LPF.

[sperdynamite]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vt5u0skkqauw022/EB450010.jpg?dl=0

I have no idea how to read this chart but it seems like I can see more than my printer was able to resolve. R3000 on it's highest resolution mode.

[sanking]

I reviewed the requirements of the original poster, and subsequent posts, and determined the following.

1. The OP has a wide variety of formats and media, ranging in size from 4X5 to small format, and some color.

2. The final goal of the OP is to make amazing large scale prints on the order 6’ x 8’, very roughly speaking.

3. The OP already owns a good camera (a7r iii) for digitizing.

Based on my own experience in scanning, which goes back more than two decades and includes use of Epson flat bed, professional high end flatbeds such as Eversmart, drum scanning, and digitizing film with an a7r ii and iv I would recommend the following.

1. Since OP already owns a good camera the least expensive and most straight forward solution to high quality digitizing of the film is to buy a good macro lens and use the camera with a copy stand and led light box.

2. To get the most from the 4X5 slides the OP will need to make at least 4-6 shots and stitch the results, and perhaps two shots with stitching with the medium format film. The a7r iii has pixel shifting but the end file size is still only 42 mp, not the 240 mp possible with the newer Sony a7r iv, or 150 mp with the Panasonic. However, having copied film with the a7r iv my opinion is that 4-6 shots with the a7r iii will give better results than pixel shifting, if getting as much information as possible from the original film is important, as it probably is if 6' X 8' prints are needed.

3. For highest resolution the OP will need to use the macro lens at an aperture of f/4 - f/8. Beyond f/8 there will be diffraction which may reduce resolution below sensor potential, below f/4 plan of focus is highly critical.

4. Using the lens at f/4 or less will require very precise focus, with slide or negative fluid mounted on glass, or stretched flat on AN glass. Emulsion should face the lens.

The a7r iii of the OP is not very heavy so one probably can get by with a fairly duty light copy stand if budget is an important consideration.

Sandy

[Pere Casals]

2. To get the most from the 4X5 slides the OP will need to make at least 4-6 shots and stitch the results, and perhaps two shots with stitching with the medium format film

+1

[Pere Casals]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vt5u0skkqauw022/EB450010.jpg?dl=0

I have no idea how to read this chart but it seems like I can see more than my printer was able to resolve. R3000 on it's highest resolution mode.

OK, no objection, but as you only require that IQ level then you may save film by using a MF film back in your view camera, cost will be 1/8 and you will have the same print.

When I spend a velvia sheet it's for a good reason.

[sperdynamite]

OK, no objection, but as you only require that IQ level then you may save film by using a MF film back in your view camera, cost will be 1/8 and you will have the same print.

When I spend a velvia sheet it's for a good reason.

Based on that argument you are saying that contact prints from 8x10s have no value? Also you’re the one that said it was so easy so how many megapixels am I resolving based on the chart you told me to print and photograph?

[Pere Casals]

Based on that argument you are saying that contact prints from 8x10s have no value? Also you’re the one that said it was so easy so how many megapixels am I resolving based on the chart you told me to print and photograph?

Law of diminishing returns.

As you only take 30Mpix effective from the medium it has little importance if you shot 8x10" or MF, regarding on print IQ.

Try it...

[manfrominternet]

I reviewed the requirements of the original poster, and subsequent posts, and determined the following.

1. The OP has a wide variety of formats and media, ranging in size from 4X5 to small format, and some color.

2. The final goal of the OP is to make amazing large scale prints on the order 6’ x 8’, very roughly speaking.

3. The OP already owns a good camera (a7r iii) for digitizing.

Based on my own experience in scanning, which goes back more than two decades and includes use of Epson flat bed, professional high end flatbeds such as Eversmart, drum scanning, and digitizing film with an a7r ii and iv I would recommend the following.

1. Since OP already owns a good camera the least expensive and most straight forward solution to high quality digitizing of the film is to buy a good macro lens and use the camera with a copy stand and led light box.

2. To get the most from the 4X5 slides the OP will need to make at least 4-6 shots and stitch the results, and perhaps two shots with stitching with the medium format film. The a7r iii has pixel shifting but the end file size is still only 42 mp, not the 240 mp possible with the newer Sony a7r iv, or 150 mp with the Panasonic. However, having copied film with the a7r iv my opinion is that 4-6 shots with the a7r iii will give better results than pixel shifting, if getting as much information as possible from the original film is important, as it probably is if 6' X 8' prints are needed.

3. For highest resolution the OP will need to use the macro lens at an aperture of f/4 - f/8. Beyond f/8 there will be diffraction which may reduce resolution below sensor potential, below f/4 plan of focus is highly critical.

4. Using the lens at f/4 or less will require very precise focus, with slide or negative fluid mounted on glass, or stretched flat on AN glass. Emulsion should face the lens.

The a7r iii of the OP is not very heavy so one probably can get by with a fairly duty light copy stand if budget is an important consideration.

Sandy

Sandy,

Thank you so, SO much for your post. Literally 20 minutes before I even saw your post, I bought the following items from bhphoto:

1.) Sigma 70mm f/2.8 DG Macro Art Lens (for Sony E-Mount) -- $469.00
2.) Kaiser Slimlite Plano 5000K Battery/AC Lightbox (8 x 11") -- $88.88
3.) Kaiser Repro Kid 23" Copy Stand Kit -- $156.00
4.) Archival Methods Heavyweight Natural Cotton Inspection Gloves — $11.95
5.) Print File 9.5x12.5" Standard Proof Box (1" Depth, Black) (count 3) — $23.85 NOTE: I’ll be using the bottom part of one of these sturdy proof boxes and flipping it over to cover the 8x11” Kaiser lightbox, both on top of the Kaiser copy stand. I’ll then cut a hole slightly smaller than 5x7” on this bottom part of the box so I can put this 5x7 anti-Newton ring glass on top of it:
6.) scan-tech.net 5x7 ANR glass — $56.00
Then I will use the three lids of these archival boxes to cut masks that will cover the edges of the three different types of films I have: 4x5 and Medium Format 6/12 and 6/17. These lids should then fit snug over the bottom part of the box that has the ANR glass on top of it, which again will cover the Kaiser lightbox.

I’ll upload photos of my setup once it’s done. :)

[Pere Casals]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vt5u0skkqauw022/EB450010.jpg?dl=0

I have no idea how to read this chart but it seems like I can see more than my printer was able to resolve. R3000 on it's highest resolution mode.

Mark, sorry, until now I could not download and see the shot of the usaf 1951 chart.

With a printed chart you have to place it at some 3m, for a test in macro conditions you should use a high resolution chart or a glass slide with well printed small elements. Anyway the image you show it's resolving 10 lp/mm, if the chart has been printed 100% size, but you have to frame the chart taking the size you want to scan.

The SR1 is 8,368 x 5,584 , if the lens was ideally perfect this would deliver 8,368 x 5,584 x 0.8 x 0.8 pixels, this ends in 29,9MPix effective, (in the case that the lens is good enough to not be a limitation!), the 0.8 factor is "optimistic", real loss should be higher, just to give a number that your setup won't surpase with one shot (with pixel-shift). The 0.8 factor comes from Nyquist-Shannon criterion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem , a good explanation on how this is applied to scanning can be found here:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF2.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190707043702/http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF2.html


If you want I calculate the actual performance then shot the chart from (say) 3m, place it both in the center and in the corner of the image. Place a metering tape with big numbers visible under the chart to have a reference. We may guess that the Macro lens will also perform OK in macro conditions, but to check that well you need a USAF 1951 glass slide.

I'd be happy to make those calculations, you may also use different apertures so you will know how much you can stop (for DOF) before diffraction harms.

[Alan Klein]

Sandy,

Thank you so, SO much for your post. Literally 20 minutes before I even saw your post, I bought the following items from bhphoto:

1.) Sigma 70mm f/2.8 DG Macro Art Lens (for Sony E-Mount) -- $469.00
2.) Kaiser Slimlite Plano 5000K Battery/AC Lightbox (8 x 11") -- $88.88
3.) Kaiser Repro Kid 23" Copy Stand Kit -- $156.00
4.) Archival Methods Heavyweight Natural Cotton Inspection Gloves — $11.95
5.) Print File 9.5x12.5" Standard Proof Box (1" Depth, Black) (count 3) — $23.85 NOTE: I’ll be using the bottom part of one of these sturdy proof boxes and flipping it over to cover the 8x11” Kaiser lightbox, both on top of the Kaiser copy stand. I’ll then cut a hole slightly smaller than 5x7” on this bottom part of the box so I can put this 5x7 anti-Newton ring glass on top of it:
6.) scan-tech.net 5x7 ANR glass — $56.00
Then I will use the three lids of these archival boxes to cut masks that will cover the edges of the three different types of films I have: 4x5 and Medium Format 6/12 and 6/17. These lids should then fit snug over the bottom part of the box that has the ANR glass on top of it, which again will cover the Kaiser lightbox.

I’ll upload photos of my setup once it’s done. :)

How did you get #2 Kaiser slimlite for $88.00 I just tried to buy it and they wanted $109.95. Plus they didn't even have it in stock and was backordered. Please advise. Thanks.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1325594-REG/kaiser_202453_slimlite_plano_5000k_battery.html

[sperdynamite]

Here is a great recent example of Portra 160 scanned with the S1R in pixel shift. I processed this with Negative Lab Pro. I did NOT do any dusting yet however, so you'll see some of that.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vfg0peyjojirxvh/EB450008.jpg?dl=0

This would print to about 37x46 at 300ppi. The level of detail is just tremendous, and NLP does this fantastic color conversion is just a few clicks. By the way I should note that NLP accepts scans from traditional scanners too. Many people are using it with Nikons, Epsons, one guy was using a drum scanner of which time I forget....

[manfrominternet]

How did you get #2 Kaiser slimlite for $88.00 I just tried to buy it and they wanted $109.95. Plus they didn't even have it in stock and was backordered. Please advise. Thanks.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1325594-REG/kaiser_202453_slimlite_plano_5000k_battery.html

Alan,

I got it with my student discount promotion. If you're a student, I highly recommend signing up for it.

[Pere Casals]

I did NOT do any dusting yet however, so you'll see some of that.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vfg0peyjojirxvh/EB450008.jpg?dl=0

An advantage of the V850 is that it makes a very good dusting automaticly, taking advantage of the infrared channel (with color film) (ICE , iSRD) making a perfect job, and saving a costly retouching.

This alone makes the V850 faster than the DSLR scanning.



The level of detail is just tremendous

Not bad for a moderate sized print... but a big print would benefit from stitching several crops. Also the color management is a bit "DSLR type", probably it can be improved with 3D LUT Creator but the V850 color conversion nails the Portra look straight from the scanner.

Anyway 30 effective MPix are a lot, this is four 4k monitors...

In fact that image may even have too much resolving power for portraiture...

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

I got it with my student discount promotion. If you're a student, I highly recommend signing up for it.

Little too old to be a student. :) But I did order it today and it's being delivered tomorrow. Thanks. Alan.

PS Do ex-teachers get the discount?

[manfrominternet]

Little too old to be a student. :) But I did order it today and it's being delivered tomorrow. Thanks. Alan.

PS Do ex-teachers get the discount?

Alan,

Ex-teachers should absolutely get a discount. Perhaps there's a discount for you if you can prove that you are/were a teacher. It's worth a look.

[manfrominternet]

So...

This arrangement is f*cking AMAZING. I compared my “digitized” scans (using my Sony a7R III/Sigma ART 70mm/2.8f MACRO/lightbox/copy stand) to an Imacon scan and the results blew me away and we’re just as good, maybe even better. The resolution is more than I need, at least for now. The size of the images, when stitched with just two shots, is enormous, with a good 4x5 negative still looking pretty sharp at 8.5’ (feet!) across and 6.5’ high.

Like sperdynamite astutely said, CMOS sensors, digital cameras, and lenses will only get better. Scanners, while some of them are still more than great, are slowly being phased out. (I’m looking at you, Imacon/Hasselblad.) I do however, think there will still be room for high-end drum scanning.

That said, I met up with someone this past Saturday who read this thread - an incredibly bright, talented, and generous young guy who will definitely be a very big name in the film processing and scanning industry in the next few years - and he offered to drum scan some of my work. While I’m certain that my setup and scans are no match for his technique with his drum scanner, I wonder how close my scans will actually be to those made by a drum scanner.

Anyway, here’s my setup:
197995

[sperdynamite]

So...

This arrangement is f*cking AMAZING. I compared my “digitized” scans (using my Sony a7R III/Sigma ART 70mm/2.8f MACRO/lightbox/copy stand) to an Imacon scan and the results blew me away and we’re just as good, maybe even better. The resolution is more than I need, at least for now. The size of the images, when stitched with just two shots, is enormous, with a good 4x5 negative still looking pretty sharp at 8.5’ (feet!) across and 6.5’ high.

Like sperdynamite astutely said, CMOS sensors, digital cameras, and lenses will only get better. Scanners, while some of them are still more than great, are slowly being phased out. (I’m looking at you, Imacon/Hasselblad.) I do however, think there will still be room for high-end drum scanning.

That said, I met up with someone this past Saturday who read this thread - an incredibly bright, talented, and generous young guy who will definitely be a very big name in the film processing and scanning industry in the next few years - and he offered to drum scan some of my work. While I’m certain that my setup and scans are no match for his technique with his drum scanner, I wonder how close my scans will actually be to those made by a drum scanner.

Anyway, here’s my setup:
197995

That's fantastic man! Your rig looks great. Yeah there are just a lot of people spreading FUD regarding camera scanning. I was a doubter myself for a while. The proof of the pudding is in the eating however, as they say. Camera scans just look fantastic. The S1R is an incredible camera. I'm a big fan of the L mount system right now. It gets a lot right.

Now if Adobe would just come out with a proper dust and scratches filter!!!! Argggghhhhhhhh waahhhhhhh. :-)

[Tin Can]

Looking good!

I have a V700, when it dies, now 7 years old, I will also go to copy stand

As I have all the parts for the resolution I need...:cool:

[MBrooks]

Here is a great recent example of Portra 160 scanned with the S1R in pixel shift. I processed this with Negative Lab Pro. I did NOT do any dusting yet however, so you'll see some of that.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vfg0peyjojirxvh/EB450008.jpg?dl=0

This would print to about 37x46 at 300ppi. The level of detail is just tremendous, and NLP does this fantastic color conversion is just a few clicks. By the way I should note that NLP accepts scans from traditional scanners too. Many people are using it with Nikons, Epsons, one guy was using a drum scanner of which time I forget....

Impressive results, wow! Looks very nice.


So...

This arrangement is f*cking AMAZING. I compared my “digitized” scans (using my Sony a7R III/Sigma ART 70mm/2.8f MACRO/lightbox/copy stand) to an Imacon scan and the results blew me away and we’re just as good, maybe even better. The resolution is more than I need, at least for now. The size of the images, when stitched with just two shots, is enormous, with a good 4x5 negative still looking pretty sharp at 8.5’ (feet!) across and 6.5’ high.

Like sperdynamite astutely said, CMOS sensors, digital cameras, and lenses will only get better. Scanners, while some of them are still more than great, are slowly being phased out. (I’m looking at you, Imacon/Hasselblad.) I do however, think there will still be room for high-end drum scanning.

That said, I met up with someone this past Saturday who read this thread - an incredibly bright, talented, and generous young guy who will definitely be a very big name in the film processing and scanning industry in the next few years - and he offered to drum scan some of my work. While I’m certain that my setup and scans are no match for his technique with his drum scanner, I wonder how close my scans will actually be to those made by a drum scanner.

Anyway, here’s my setup:
197995

Your set-up looks great and I absolutely agree, scanning with digital cameras is going to be the future for many. Most of the copy stand set-ups I've seen produce way better results than Epson flatbeds or other consumer scanners. The high-end scanning solutions that Phase One are developing are quite remarkable and sensors will only get better with time, as you said. I'm proud to own and operate a drum scanner, but I'm excited to see where high-end sensors can bring scanning tech in the coming years.

[Alan Klein]

Do you need to go to a full frame cameras or can the smaller sensors do as well?

[Pere Casals]

Do you need to go to a full frame cameras or can the smaller sensors do as well?

You may use a DX / APSC sensor camera, but you'll have to stitch more crops to get the same quality, a Full Frame may deliver around 30MPix effective, with a 24x16mm you may get around 16 MPix effective for each shot. If you know how many "effective pixels" you want in the scan this says how many shots you have to stitch, also consider that shots have to overlap to be stitched, you have a remarkable loss from the theoric value.

With a single shot (without stitching crops) say that you use a Nikon D5600 camera and a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G lens, the shot delivers 14 MPix effective, but as the formats are different, 4:5 vs 2:3, you won't use all pixels in the sensor, you'll get around 11 or 12 MPix effective, around the same that if you had shot the scene with a good smartphone, good enough to post the image to the internet, or to see it in a monitor.

A 4x5" shot may treasure 400MPix, you take 12 with a single DX shot.

This also happens with the Full Frame, of the 30MPix effective, with a single shot you take 30*5/6 = 25MPix effective.

[sperdynamite]

Do you need to go to a full frame cameras or can the smaller sensors do as well?

There are advantages and disadvantages. For one your macros are going to be shorter, so more DoF, that's a plus. You are shooting at base ISO, so even Micro 4/3rd cameras will create a nice clean capture. However, full frame sensors of the moment generally have more resolution, and currently you have more pixel shifting cameras. Pixel shift gives you a true RGB capture with no debayering, and in some cases can increase resolution quite a lot. I believe Pentax and Olympus cameras have this feature. But if you just happen to have a crop sensor camera and a macro lying around you can create really nice scans that just maybe won't print large. There are lots of folks scanning with Fuji mirrorless cameras for instance. Most people never bother to print at all anymore, so yeah in those cases a crop camera is a perfectly fine choice.

My choices are all based around printing, so I have to meet those standards.

[Alan Klein]

Why does FF vs let's say M43 matter if they both have the same resolution?

[Pere Casals]

Why does FF vs let's say M43 matter if they both have the same resolution?

Same resolution but not the same sensor surface.

It all depends on the lens quality, but in general a larger sensor with available "commercial" optics will deliver a better result. I pixels are smaller the lens is more challenged, in oposition a larger circle also challenges the lens performance, but the sensor size favors performance at the end.

You can play in DXO to see the what different lenses/camera combinations yield: https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-mounted-on-Nikon-D5200__850

These are propietary ratings more or less matching common technical criterions, but they are good enough to compare, I've myself checked some of those rating with my cameras and I found they are fair.


We also have to consider that many manufacturers have segmentation in their product range, so they reserve top performance for the FF segment, you will find not many Pro level glass optimized for the DX image circle.

[sperdynamite]

Why does FF vs let's say M43 matter if they both have the same resolution?

Well I haven't done any testing in this area but I suspect a 20mp m4/3 scan right next to a 20mp 24x36 scan would show very little difference in a small print size or on screen. On the other hand, once you start doing edits you'll run into more noise faster with the smaller sensor. My Fuji SP-3000 scanners have sensors close to APS-C, and a custom made macro lens to match. It uses pixel shift/multi capture to increase resolution as well. If an Olympus camera can do it's pixel shift trick I bet it would be a great way to scan (If it's pixel shift integration has a set of captures that get you to true RGB). What you won't find are 47mp Micro 4/3rd cameras, or 60mp for that matter. I'm not saying that is going to matter to you, but it's a consideration. Similarly APS-C cameras seem to be maxing out at 30mp or so. Again for me I didn't want to have to stitch to get to high res files. Also I use my 'scanner' camera for some wedding and portrait work, where FF is king.

Other more worthwhile considerations are, how supported is tethering? Does it have USB-3 or C? (The K-1 is bafflingly USB-2), does it have a flip screen? (On a copy stand, a flip screen is a big neck saver, trust me).

[Pere Casals]

Similarly APS-C cameras seem to be maxing out at 30mp or so.

Tell me one that has that effective yield:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-mounted-on-Nikon-D5200__850


When scanning we have to rely on effective numbers, not in nominal pixels. A Epson is able to deliver a file with 820MPix from a 4x5" negative, but only 150MPix can be effective.

Similarly an APSC with 30MPix nominal with available lenses won't reach much more than 16MPix effective.

[sperdynamite]

Tell me one that has that effective yield:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-mounted-on-Nikon-D5200__850


When scanning we have to rely on effective numbers, not in nominal pixels. A Epson is able to deliver a file with 820MPix from a 4x5" negative, but only 150MPix can be effective.

Similarly an APSC with 30MPix nominal with available lenses won't reach much more than 16MPix effective.

Go enjoy your Epson dude. I don't care about your FUD barking.

[Pere Casals]

Presently I enjoy through the negative quality, dude. Optic printing, which places all quality in the negative on paper, not 1/10 of it.

[sperdynamite]

I just found the "Ignore List" feature on this site. I recommend you all take advantage of it. Trolls should not be allowed to post on this forum.

If this 'effective pixel' nonsense were true then my scans should look worse than Imacon scans that I compare them to. Surprise surprise they don't. Nor do they look worse than Coolscans or (low bar) Fuji Frontier scans. All this theory BS is just trolling. Sometimes you have to simply trust your own eyes. Napkin math is no replacement for actual testing. I have a 16x20 print on my wall from a Provia 4x5 that looks absolutely fabulous, and that was scanned with a bayer sensor D810. Hey if I could get a theoretical Hasselblad X10 with a BSI CMOS sensor I would probably do it, but they stopped doing R&D on scanners over a decade ago. Don't let the Photography equivalent of the Comic Book Store guy from The Simpsons talk you out of at least testing out camera scanning, if you're so inclined. There are a ton of excellent ways to scan film, the most important thing is to find what works best for you.

The only other scanner I would consider buying at this point is a Durst Sigma 45 if I can ever find one. And maybe a few more Fuji Frontiers for the lab.

[Pere Casals]

The effective pixel or effective dpi is the way different digital devices are compared, and the way Image Quality is scientifically Predicted for a print size.

Personal testing is also fine, of course, for personal usage.

[letchhausen]

I'm very interested in this thread. In 2013, I had a show with 21 prints, mostly 30x40 with three at 40x50. I scanned them in NYC on a Flextight in NYC and though I had no experience whatsoever with this workflow (I printed color at Evergreen College) but managed to get the files ready for print and had lightjet prints made. They were fantastic. There was only one print where I was unhappy with the color.

A couple years ago, for a magazine feature I was going to be in, I had a local print shop do some scans for me. They do both Epson and Imacon and I voted for the latter. The scans were great, pretty close color-wise out of the box and were easy to manipulate for other things. A year later, I needed some scans for a show. Because of the short timeline, even though I asked for Imacon, they did them on the Epson. The colors were totally off, they were hard to color-correct and for most of them, I just gave up. Total disaster, impossible to print. Looked like utter crap. I have tried scanning on a couple Epson's and my experience has always been negative. Total pain in the ass and the scans are crap. I own an Epson and I only use it for scanning prints for the web. Mostly I scan negatives on a FlexTight in NYC when I go out there. Still, the Flextight software OS compatibility limitation is a pain in the ass and I'm looking for another way.

Th sounds eminently doable to me. Since I'm not familiar with the stitching concept, are you moving the camera to take multiple shots?

[Peter De Smidt]

I move the negative, keeping the camera on a very sturdy, stable and well-aligned support structure.

[Pere Casals]

I have tried scanning on a couple Epson's and my experience has always been negative. Total pain in the ass and the scans are crap. I own an Epson and I only use it for scanning prints for the web. Mostly I scan negatives on a FlexTight in NYC

Problem is not the scanner. But the man in NYC knows how to edit color, as many Pro scanner operators.

See here how Pali K nails exactly the same colors in a side by side of two Creos, a Scanmate 11000 Drum and an Epson V700 https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1478033&viewfull=1#post1478033


Epson and Flextight are both IT8 calibrated machines:

198065


Both have to nail exactly the same calibrated RGB values for each particular patch, and they both do, colors in the target are quite a wide range to ensure a perfect color calibration.


What's the difference?

The man in NYC is everyday, all day long, playing with color !! Are you ? (Now you have a clue about what happens)

If you spend a full month with an image playing with balance, contrast, saturation, curves, etc you won't match his color edition because probably he used a 3D LUT transformation that cannot be emulated with your tools.


Want to control color? empower your self.

First calibrate your Epson with the included target, if it is a V700/750 the lamp changes over time, the LED illuminated V800/850 are totally stable.

> Get the best color edition tool and master it: 3D LUT Creator.

> Get a battery of good presets (for Ps or standalone) and explore it well to solve with 2 clicks many of the shots.

We probably will never reach the level of a good Pro colorist, many they are true artists, but if you are creative and if you enjoy color edition you will be able to customize your images in a superior and personal way.


________________________________

If you want, post (dropbox) the Epson scan and X5 scan, (16 bits/channel) and I'll show you how color can be matched with little effort, 3D LUT Creator feature makes a conversion 3D LUT in two clicks.

________________________________


PD: Color is like a trials bike, with the same bike I don't do the same: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQFIkz202c0

PD: Scan 16 bits/channel, save in tiff, take all histogram for a dull initial image having all range.

PD: color enhacement is a post scanning science that has been critically important in the industry, it was used in digital minilabs and today it is used in the smartphone cameras. Best choice is having the scan as raw as possible an later using the dedicated software tools you prefer.

[Corran]

"Effective" resolution as measured by DXO may be consistent across their site but is only applicable for that single use-case, and I note that most of the time that use-case (whatever it is) will be very different from camera scanning, especially with regard to apertures used. Also, it's important to note that one can use the "sweet-spot" of FF lenses on an APS-C sensor, whereas if one is trying to maximize the sensor surface area usage by including the poorer edges on a FF sensor the results could be mediocre (I wonder if it could even cause issues stitching).

That said, to play a little game, let's look at the supposed "effective" resolution between this FF camera and m43 camera:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/APO-Macro-150mm-F2.8-EX-DG-OS-HSM-Nikon-mounted-on-Nikon-D750__975

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Olympus/Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-75mm-F18-mounted-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II---__1136

We see supposedly 20mp on the FF camera vs. 15mp on the m43 camera. Comparing the short side of the sensor in pixels of that "effective" resolution, I calculate it as about 3660 pixels vs. 3360 - pretty negligible. And, that m43 camera is 16mp while the FF camera is 24mp! There is a newer Olympus that is 20mp and probably closes the gap.

So the difference is meaningless for most purposes, and once you stitch just a couple of frames, if you are really trying to maximize resolution, or perhaps try the pixel-shift tech as mentioned, the m43 is probably just as good as the FF in this one instance. Basically the lens is important, as is the resolution of the sensor, and for most purposes you can get as much resolution as you need with a couple of frames and stitching or other techniques, as long as one nails down their methodology and technique with regard to the negative and camera mounting.

Heck, I've made decent "camera scans" with my phone.

[sperdynamite]

By the way Negative Lab Pro 2.1 is out. There are some expanded features here that are going to be very useful. Included are a great many ways to add metadata to your film scans. It looks like there are also some new settings for those scanning from traditional scanners via Vuescan or similar.

Black Friday sale going on: https://forums.negativelabpro.com/t/negative-lab-pro-v2-1-film-metadata-clipping-control-and-much-more/873

The conversions I've done with this are the best I've seen outside of Fuji Image Intelligence.

[Pere Casals]

Fuji Image Intelligence.

This is not only a conversion, it is a conversion plus an image enhacement tool.

Today image enhancing software (in portrait) detects gender, race, skin type, hair color, age, eye color, face features... and it makes special adjustments for each area, overcoming pitfalls in the illumination, etc.

Also in landscape it detects many features... it automates many adjustments.

Fuji (frontier) Noritsu, etc. raced a long time to have the best enhacements, and it's not by chance that Fuji has that high level in that matter. This is important for a pro job, as it reduces costly manpower in image edition.

Instead an artist may prefer another approach, this is having a raw standard conversion and later editing the image in a personal way, it is not easy to beat auto adjustments with a manual processing, but an artist may want a personal footprint in his works.

Remarkably (IIRC) some wedding/fashion Pros (of the José Villa nature) have developed custom profiles in collaboration with the labs they work with, in that way they have a basic consistence and a personal footprint.

[sanking]

There has been some speculation in this thread that pixel shifting with cameras such as the Panasonic S1R/Sony a7r iv does not result in much actual effective gain in resolution. I finally had the time to test this myself with a Sony a7r iv and a high resolution target, with the camera on a copy stand and the target over a led panel. My calculation is that the actual resolution of the single shot file gave resolution of 110 lpm, and the 16 shot pixel shift file gave resolution of approximately 210 lpm. The single shot file is 9504 x 6336 px in size, the 16 shot pixel shift file is 19008 x 12626 px in size. My test was done with a 55mm Sony/Zeiss at f/4, with an auto extension set at about 1:2. This is a great lens but not designed for macro work so could most likely get even higher resolution with a good auto-focus macro lens.

I used the Image Editing software of Sony to process the RAW pixel shift collections, then edited in Camera Raw. Pretty straight forward and a lot simpler than I originally assumed.

Sandy

[CreationBear]

Awesome, Sandy...assuming you've got enough computing horsepower, doesn't 5x7 start looking awfully good for this kind of workflow?:)

[sperdynamite]

There has been some speculation in this thread that pixel shifting with cameras such as the Panasonic S1R/Sony a7r iv does not result in much actual effective gain in resolution. I finally had the time to test this myself with a Sony a7r iv and a high resolution target, with the camera on a copy stand and the target over a led panel. My calculation is that the actual resolution of the single shot file gave resolution of 110 lpm, and the 16 shot pixel shift file gave resolution of approximately 210 lpm. The single shot file is 9504 x 6336 px in size, the 16 shot pixel shift file is 19008 x 12626 px in size. My test was done with a 55mm Sony/Zeiss at f/4, with an auto extension set at about 1:2. This is a great lens but not designed for macro work so could most likely get even higher resolution with a good auto-focus macro lens.

I used the Image Editing software of Sony to process the RAW pixel shift collections, then edited in Camera Raw. Pretty straight forward and a lot simpler than I originally assumed.

Sandy

It makes scanning soooo much easier. I understand the skepticism, which I originally had as well. But it just WORKS!

[Tin Can]

Pixel shift by B&H with examples 1 year old, if you have newer Data please post

Pixel-Shift Shootout: Olympus vs. Pentax vs. Sony vs. Panasonic

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/pixel-shift-shootout-olympus-vs-pentax-vs-sony-vs-panasonic

[sanking]

Awesome, Sandy...assuming you've got enough computing horsepower, doesn't 5x7 start looking awfully good for this kind of workflow?:)

Use of a pixel shift workflow looks promising for digitizing film of all size, as well as photographing anything not in motion.

However, to take advantage of of this very high resolution technology I think you will need a modern high quality macro lens that gives good performance at the desired magnification.

To add to the last sentence, I digitized a 5X7 negative using 16 shot pixel shift, photographing with a 105 mm Micro Nikkor (film era) to compare with a drum scan previously made with a Howtek at 2000 dpi. The pixel shift file looked OK on my large monotor, but close up comparison with the image made with the drum scan showed the pixel shift file to be of lower image quality.

Sandy

[letchhausen]

Pere - I think you misunderstand, I don't pay someone in NYC to scan my negatives. I rent a Flextight by the hour and scan them myself (in 3F). The scanner is much easier to use than the Epson and the scans are great. The scans I had done in Seattle had color work done by someone, though I had still had to do some work, it was minimal with the Imacon, I basically thew away the Epson scans. I'll look into 3D LUT Creator, though, thanks for the tips!

[CreationBear]

To add to the last sentence, I digitized a 5X7 negative using 16 shot pixel shift, photographing with a 105 mm Micro Nikkor (film era) to compare with a drum scan previously made with a Howtek at 2000 dpi. The pixel shift file looked OK on my large monotor, but close up comparison with the image made with the drum scan showed the pixel shift file to be of lower image quality.

Sandy

Excellent, thanks for the addendum--I suppose the crux is as always defining "good enough," but for my purposes the possibility of even getting close to a drum scan with off-the-shelf, dual use equipment is very attractive. (FWIW, what I was getting at with the 5x7 remark was how its aspect ratio matched-up with a 24x36 sensor--positing a "one-shot" capture, the I'm not sure you'd ever see the difference between 5x7 and 8x10, or perhaps even between 6x9 and 4x5.)

[letchhausen]

I move the negative, keeping the camera on a very sturdy, stable and well-aligned support structure.

Thanks! I've been shooting film and printing in various color and B&W darkrooms. As the last color darkroom closed in WA last year, I'm finding that I'm having to print color in LA. Which is leading me to look into digital workflows that I'm not familiar with to print on an inkjet.

[sanking]

Excellent, thanks for the addendum--I suppose the crux is as always defining "good enough," but for my purposes the possibility of even getting close to a drum scan with off-the-shelf, dual use equipment is very attractive. (FWIW, what I was getting at with the 5x7 remark was how its aspect ratio matched-up with a 24x36 sensor--positing a "one-shot" capture, the I'm not sure you'd ever see the difference between 5x7 and 8x10, or perhaps even between 6x9 and 4x5.)

Yes, in principle I would like to get all of the detail out of a scan, as scanning negatives is very time consuming.

I have found that with 5X7 I am not able to get quite as much information as I would like with sony a7r iv and pixel shifting, but still enough for printing fairly large prints. And could probably get way more than enough with three stitched pixel shift shots.

Different matter for 4X5. Attached is a scan of a 4X5 negative I made way back when. Never made a print of it, other than a small carbon, because the Dmax of about log 4.0 was much too high for silver printing, and DR was too high to scan. With the a7r iv I get nearly all of the detail in the negative, with great shadow detail.

Sandy

[Alan Klein]

Sandy I like the tones. What kind of film and developing? IS that presentation similar with that film and do you have a link to show others?

[sanking]

Sandy I like the tones. What kind of film and developing? IS that presentation similar with that film and do you have a link to show others?

Hi Alan,

Thank you for your comments about the tones. The tones are really very rich, but not by my design. This negative was made in my first years of using LF in the early 1980s, and I overexposed the film by at least two full stops (based on shadow detail) and overdeveloped a lot, so that highlight densities are well over log 3.0. I exposed the film while doing a workshop in Highlands, NC and developed it at the workshop facilities, in HC-110 as I recall, and I have no information at all about the camera, lens, etc.

I was already working with carbon transfer at the time so was able to make a small carbon print during the workshop, then put the negative away until now. The film I can identify, it was Kodak TRI-X Pan Professional, 4164, and I wound up using it a lot in my work with 5X7 film, developing in D76 and DK-50 at first, later with PMK and Pyrocat.

That said, the basic principles do still apply for very rich tones for LF B&W, i.e. overexpose so that you get image texture all the way from deep shadows to highlights, then figure out fully develop the film and then how to compress the tones in your printing process, or in digital work flow. A mistake that a lot of LF film photographers make is underexposure that results in dead black shadows.

Sandy

[sperdynamite]

Some recent scans I made of Provia and Ektachrome with my S1R + 70mm ART macro. Note the edit I made to the picture of Moses (our Great Pyrenees). The blue version is what the chrome looks like on a light table, but the color corrected very easily with "auto color" in LR. And note how much I was able to bring back his eye. Close inspection shows basically no noise penalty.


199449199450199451199452

[sperdynamite]

199453199454199455199456

Close up crops of the above. These were done with pixel shift on, and no stitching. They would print at roughly 400ppi as a 24x24, so great for 360dpi output to take full advantage of my P6000.

Again my shooting technique is the only weak spot here. They were shot with my Hy6 Mod 2 using the 50/2.8 Super Angulon, 80/2.8 Xenotar AFD, and 180/2.8 manual PQ lenses. I mostly shot in aperture priority and used AF a lot, close to wide open whenever possible.

[manfrominternet]

Hi all,

For those who don't know, I'm currently scanning my 4x5 film negatives with a Sony a7R III (42mp, with pixel shift) and a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 DG Art Macro lens. Here are some unfinished results:

203993 203994 203995

While my current setup is pretty good, it takes a long time to take 3 or 4 separate pixel shifted photos of my 4x5 negatives (splitting the 4x5 negative into quarters or thirds) and stitch them together. Sometimes the stitching doesn't work and I have to redo it all over again. I'm also aiming to make large, detailed prints, roughly around 6 feet by 8 feet, give or take.

That said, I was thinking about eventually upgrading to a medium format camera/macro lens and purchasing either a Fujifilm GFX 50r (with a Fujifilm 120mm f/4 Macro) or the Pentax 645Z (with a Pentax 120mm f/4 Macro) to replace my Sony a7R III. Both of these cameras have a bigger sensor at 51.4mp. I'm also considering replacing my Sony a7R III with the newer Sony a7R IV (61mp, 240mp with pixel shift). The 240mp pixel shift feature this camera boasts is pretty impressive. With the Sony a7R IV, I can keep the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro I already have.

With any of these 3 cameras, I wouldn't have to take as many photos of a 4x5 negative as I currently do to stitch together and would ostensibly have the ability to create even larger detailed prints.

Do you guys have any input or suggestions on this?

[Pere Casals]

That said, I was thinking about eventually upgrading to a medium format camera/macro lens and purchasing either a Fujifilm GFX 50r (with a Fujifilm 120mm f/4 Macro) or the Pentax 645Z (with a Pentax 120mm f/4 Macro) to replace my Sony a7R III. Both of these cameras have a bigger sensor at 51.4mp.

Do you guys have any input or suggestions on this?

Or upgrade to Epson V850. Your life will be way easier, with perfect results.

It has been perfectly demonstrated that for color LF film the Epson yields the same final results than drum scanners: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178

DSLR scanning (with an expensive camera-lens-stand-etc) is a nice solution for small formats...

For LF the Epson is the most interesting choice today with next advantages:


> Around 140 MPix effective resolving power for a 4x5" shot

> Excellent (infrared based) iSRD dust removal feature. Otherwise it would be very time consuming to fix that in photoshop

> Top notch color conversion for CN film

> Excellent yield with multi-exposure for very dense Velvia, anyway a drum can recover slightly more in insanely underexposed detail

> Works with modern computers, service and warranty

> Extremly cheap solution for the yield it provides.

[sanking]

Hi all,

For those who don't know, I'm currently scanning my 4x5 film negatives with a Sony a7R III (42mp, with pixel shift) and a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 DG Art Macro lens. Here are some unfinished results:

203993 203994 203995

While my current setup is pretty good, it takes a long time to take 3 or 4 separate pixel shifted photos of my 4x5 negatives (splitting the 4x5 negative into quarters or thirds) and stitch them together. Sometimes the stitching doesn't work and I have to redo it all over again. I'm also aiming to make large, detailed prints, roughly around 6 feet by 8 feet, give or take.

That said, I was thinking about eventually upgrading to a medium format camera/macro lens and purchasing either a Fujifilm GFX 50r (with a Fujifilm 120mm f/4 Macro) or the Pentax 645Z (with a Pentax 120mm f/4 Macro) to replace my Sony a7R III. Both of these cameras have a bigger sensor at 51.4mp. I'm also considering replacing my Sony a7R III with the newer Sony a7R IV (61mp, 240mp with pixel shift). The 240mp pixel shift feature this camera boasts is pretty impressive. With the Sony a7R IV, I can keep the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro I already have.

With any of these 3 cameras, I wouldn't have to take as many photos of a 4x5 negative as I currently do to stitch together and would ostensibly have the ability to create even larger detailed prints.

Do you guys have any input or suggestions on this?


Regarding your work with the Sony a7r iii, I would suggest that you just avoid the pixel shifting and shoot a straight mosaic of about six shots, overlapping about 25%. This should stitch very fast in PS and with 25% overlap stitching should work consistently. And with the six shots you will get effective mp count of about 30 mp per frame, or total of about 180 mp, which should get all the information from a 4X5 color negative film.

As to your question about switching to a medium format digital camera such as the Fuji GFX 50R (or Pentax 645), I actually did a test a few days ago with a sheet of 5X7 B&W film to compare work flow and image quality between the Sony a7r iv, with 16 shot pixel shifting with a 75 mm Apo Rodagon D, and a Fuji GFX 50R, using a Pentax 120 mm F/4 Macro. With the Sony I did three-pass stitching, with 16 shot pixel shifting. With the Fuji GFX 50R I did plain three-pass stitching. Tests with both cameras was done at f/8. I then adjusted brightness and contrast of the image files to compare results. I rather expected the a7r iv to give better results, but in fact image quality with the Fuji was quite similar. And of course, it was very simple and fast to combine the three shots with Photomerge, whereas the work flow with the Sony took a long time.

But my suspicion is that if you did a six-shot mosaic with the a7r iii you would get similar results. Course, if you are just ready to buy a new camera I can understand.

PS: Should mention that the Fuji GFX with either the Fuji 120 f/4 Macro or with the Pentax 120 f/4 Macro is a heavy combination and will require a VERY sturdy and stable copy stand.

Sandy

[Pere Casals]

And with the six shots you will get effective mp count of about 30 mp per frame, or total of about 180 mp, which should get all the information from a 4X5 color negative film.

We have to discount the loss in the overlaping, not all the frame is used, so total may be a 30% lower,

Tim Parkin mesured effective resolving power of 4x5 provia reaching 387MPix effective, and 461MPix for D100 : https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/ ,

anyway I fully agree that with six a7r3 shots we get most of the useful information a 4x5" shot has. Those 6 shots are a wise advice, because of very diminishing returns we won't get much a practical enhacement beyond those 6 shots.

[manfrominternet]

How much better is a drum scanned 4x5 negative/transparency compared to one scanned with an Epson v850?

Wouldn’t it be better to scan with a medium format Fujifilm GFX 50r (with a Fujifilm 120mm f/4 Macro lens) or a Sony a7R IV than an Epson v850?

[Pere Casals]

How much better is a drum scanned 4x5 negative/transparency compared to one scanned with an Epson v850?

Wouldn’t it be better to scan with a medium format Fujifilm GFX 50r (with a Fujifilm 120mm f/4 Macro lens) or a Sony a7R IV than an Epson v850?

See this: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158112-DSLR-Scanning-Signal-Noise&p=1553078&viewfull=1#post1553078


You don't need a GFX or a7r4 to get a better scan than the best drum scanner you can find, you can do it even with a consumer Nikon D3400 and a used $35 enlarger lens, it's all about how many crops you are to stitch, and how much skilled you are.


But think that more scanning resolving power may add nothing to LF image quality when going beyond a certain value.


In this side by side https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners the amazing drum and the amazing Creo machines showed an optical perfomence that is much, much better than the Epson V700 case.

But in practice the Epson obtained exactly the same results even if pixel-peeping: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?154875-Should-I-Drum-Scan-X1-Flextight-Scan-or-use-the-Epson-V850-w-Aztek-Wet-Mount-Kit&p=1522566&viewfull=1#post1522566


Why ? Simply the Epson is a able to take all the image quality those negatives have. In a traffic jam both a Ferrari and a VW Bettle have the same top speed, acceleration and down force.


While the Epson is able to take most of the useful image quality a LF negative usually has, it may not depict well the grain structure of some BW films, so if you are to make a 3m print (from an LF negative) and want a nice grain when inspecting the print with the nose on it, then you may need a 5000dpi effective scan that's well beyond what the Epson yields. It's about how many pixels you effectively resolve on a grain. Anyway the Epson resolves better the grain than a Hasselblad X5 for 4x5", while the Hassie is atonishingly good for 35mm it zooms out you to take all the 4" wide sheet with a sensor that has only 8000pix, those 2000 dpi end in 1800 effective.


High res DSLR scanning of LF sheets is quite a mess, you need focus accuracy, expensive gear to have to stitch less crops, and a lot of additional work in the stitching and edition for dust removal. The Epson detects dust/scratches (color film) in the infrared channel, iSRD selectively patches those specific flaws. A manual dusting edition of a DSLR scan is very time consuming and never it will be as good.


One thing is true, while Pro scanners are able to deliver a well digitally optimized image it happens that the Epson scans require some careful edition to get an optimal image, anyway personally I prefer doing that optimization manually from a crude scan with no auto enhacements, if the image it's worth to invest an effort on it.

[Corran]

How much better is a drum scanned 4x5 negative/transparency compared to one scanned with an Epson v850?

A lot, from any metric. Unfortunately the forum scanner troll will rail against this for pages and pages, and most of us are uninterested in listening to his trolling. Just see the other scanner thread currently being trolled.

The Epson is a perfectly usable scanner within its limitations, and higher-end scanners will be better in terms of resolution and/or DMax, since you mentioned transparencies. There's lots written here and elsewhere about it, and as far as digital camera scans are concerned, read what Sandy and Peter have written here and elsewhere and you'll get some good information. I don't do DSLR scanning except for quick inspection scans personally.

I'm off to actually go make photographs, so will NOT be responding anymore to the likely response.

[Sasquatchian]

A lot, from any metric. Unfortunately the forum scanner troll will rail against this for pages and pages, and most of us are uninterested in listening to his trolling. Just see the other scanner thread currently being trolled.

The Epson is a perfectly usable scanner within its limitations, and higher-end scanners will be better in terms of resolution and/or DMax, since you mentioned transparencies. There's lots written here and elsewhere about it, and as far as digital camera scans are concerned, read what Sandy and Peter have written here and elsewhere and you'll get some good information. I don't do DSLR scanning except for quick inspection scans personally.

I'm off to actually go make photographs, so will NOT be responding anymore to the likely response.

Yeah, he's painful to "listen" to in his ignorance, trying as hard as he can to convince himself of his own righteousness. I'm tempted to go out and buy an Epson just to see how it really compares to my hand aligned by Evan Howtek 8000. The ability to resolve detail is only one aspect of a good scan, but the overall dynamic range - both in the shadows and in the highlights, where drum scans shine, and most people forget about that ability to render d-min, but also how are gradients rendered and how is film grain rendered, and of course, there's no possibility of matching aperture to grain in anything but a drum scanner.

[Pere Casals]

but the overall dynamic range - both in the shadows and in the highlights, where drum scans shine, and most people forget about that ability to render d-min

Of course drums have a well higher DMax than the Epson V700, no doubt. But that drum advantage is only seen in the insanely high densities that regular negatives don't have. An Epson work perfect with densities under 3.0D which a density BW and CN film does not usualy contain.


Yes... insanely underexposed Velvia/Provia is a challenge for the Epson, but if you use Multi-Exposure it improves a lot, still a drum may recover more detail, but this is a very particular situation with very particular films. The Epson DR is perfect for BW and CN, for insanely underexposed Velvia a drum is better.







I'm tempted to go out and buy an Epson just to see how it really compares to my hand aligned by Evan Howtek 8000.

Well, I can tell you a bit what you may find in the Howtek 4500 vs V700 comparisson.

"Collaborative Large Format Scanner Comparison": https://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/


Just download the crops from the Epson and from the Howtek, if you edit each crop to its best you will find this:

https://live.staticflickr.com/8561/28420386682_d481942db8_o.jpg

In the "Collaborative Large Format Scanner Comparison" the V750 scan was not well made, the crop with shadows shows that not all the "histogram" was taken, but it nearly matches what the Howtek is able.



Anyway, you may also check the "Scanner Comparison 2019" and you will find that the Epson is not "pure crap" like many of you have saying. For LF it's a magnificient machine that in the right hands it delivers top notch scans. In a side by side the Epson result is compared to Scanmate 11000 drum and two Creos. Not more, not less. What about that, man?

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/scanimages/prem-4x5-fullframe-u.jpg

If one day you have the 8000 and the V850 probably you will be making 95% of the LF scans with the Epson, simply because in practice only around 5% of the times you may find the effort of mounting in the drum is worth for the benefit you may get. At least this is what happened to some people I know.

[Pere Casals]

A lot, from any metric. Unfortunately the forum scanner troll will rail against this for pages and pages, and most of us are uninterested in listening to his trolling.

Well, you in particular have been trolling quite a lot aganist the Epson, I can point dozens of posts from you stating that the epson was pure crap. You were mistaken, take a look at the "Scanner Comparison 2019" made by Pali and you will find that what you were saying was totally false.

I'm sure it was not lies but ignorance, one day I discovered that you even ignored that to scan a 4x5" with your Cezanne with more than 2000dpi you had to stitch crops, as your 8000 pixel sensor covering 4" only takes that. I you want I link the post showing that. This is your level.

[Sasquatchian]

Oh Pere, maybe you just need to get a good pair of glasses. Your Epson scans, even the "enhanced" versions are pure crap. Your enhancements only accentuate what's shit about that scanner, and, in addition, you completely ignore the horrible gradations produced by the Epson. What a good quality PMT can give you that your Epson never can is that quality of gradation, that is evident even on lower res jpegs posted on the internet. So, while I may buy an Epson as a curiosity as it's a cheap piece of hardware, I can say that the most I'd ever use it for is document scanning, something I've been doing with the Canons lately. But since you apparently don't have access to a good drum scanner - and there are good ones and shit ones as well - or a good DSLR copy station, you're hopelessly married to your mistaken conclusions, much like religious fundamentalists are married to their own delusions.

[Chester McCheeserton]

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152777-DSLR-scanning-vs-Dedicated-flatbed-scanning&p=1505305&viewfull=1#post1505305

My "Bell" example :D

[Tin Can]

Boys stop it


Oh Pere, maybe you just need to get a good pair of glasses. Your Epson scans, even the "enhanced" versions are pure crap. Your enhancements only accentuate what's shit about that scanner, and, in addition, you completely ignore the horrible gradations produced by the Epson. What a good quality PMT can give you that your Epson never can is that quality of gradation, that is evident even on lower res jpegs posted on the internet. So, while I may buy an Epson as a curiosity as it's a cheap piece of hardware, I can say that the most I'd ever use it for is document scanning, something I've been doing with the Canons lately. But since you apparently don't have access to a good drum scanner - and there are good ones and shit ones as well - or a good DSLR copy station, you're hopelessly married to your mistaken conclusions, much like religious fundamentalists are married to their own delusions.

[Chester McCheeserton]

An interesting thread, to be sure.

1. Those of you that are stitching - how are you combining the shots on the computer, Photoshop? Do you ever look back at the seams and see imperfections?

2. FWIW, back in December I got an nikon ES-1 slide copying adapter and rigged it up with a film era 55mm micro nikkor and the proper extension tubes/adapters to my A7r3 to shoot a few old 35mm slides. (never messed with pixel shifting) Realizing that my film flatness is likely not as good as with many of the setups described here, what I found after inspecting the results were that even stopped down to F8 the corners of my images fell apart at the grain structure level in a very similar way that 35mm print enlargements often do...(all 4 corners, evenly, and significantly)

As someone used to the quality of 4000 dpi drum scans from 35mm, Sandy's final comment on post 109 seems to echo my results....I think film flatness and straightforwardness/simplicity of process may still give high end film scanners an advantage for those seeking the ultimate quality...

3. sperdynamite or someone else who has used it – Can you elaborate at all on this MK-1 film holder? I just looked at the site, but can't get a clear sense of how it functions....does it show the clear edge of the negative around 35mm ie true full frame?? (I see now it does - but how does the grain structure in your corners look?) seems like maybe not to make sense to me to fiddle with pixel shift and stitching if all 4 corners of your frame, (regardless of format) are a little weak?

[Pere Casals]

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152777-DSLR-scanning-vs-Dedicated-flatbed-scanning&p=1505305&viewfull=1#post1505305

:) :)This is a 35mm frame made with TechPan, in that situation the Epson is inferior to the Imacon, of course. The imacon resolves +6000dpi effective in 35mm and the Epson 2900 or 2300 depending on the axis.

But go 4x5" and the Epson is still resolving 2900-2300 and the imacon will resolve only 1800-1650, as with its 8000 pixels sensor it has to cover 4".


So yes The imacon is better than the Epson for 35mm, but this is a Large Format forum, man !!!

Also the Epson scan it has not been well optimized. Use trusted side by side comparisons like the one Pali made and not forged tests from people with commercial interests.



Oh Pere, maybe you just need to get a good pair of glasses. Your Epson scans, even the "enhanced" versions are pure crap. Your enhancements only accentuate what's shit about that scanner, and, in addition, you completely ignore the horrible gradations produced by the Epson. What a good quality PMT can give you that your Epson never can is that quality of gradation, that is evident even on lower res jpegs posted on the internet. So, while I may buy an Epson as a curiosity as it's a cheap piece of hardware, I can say that the most I'd ever use it for is document scanning, something I've been doing with the Canons lately. But since you apparently don't have access to a good drum scanner - and there are good ones and shit ones as well - or a good DSLR copy station, you're hopelessly married to your mistaken conclusions, much like religious fundamentalists are married to their own delusions.

Use your glasses for pixel peeping and tell me what difference you find in the V700 vs Scanmate 11000 drum: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152777-DSLR-scanning-vs-Dedicated-flatbed-scanning&p=1505196&viewfull=1#post1505196


It has to be painful, but this is a Fact


http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorNegTestImage.jpg

[Chester McCheeserton]

No Buddy, as I told you before this a 5x7 negative that I shot, processed, and scanned myself.

[Pere Casals]

No Buddy, as I told you before this a 5x7 negative that I shot, processed, and scanned myself.

LOL.

For 5x7" the Imacon is even more infame regarding resolving power. For 5x7" it scans 8000/5 = 1600 dpi hardware yielding 1400dpi effective in the horizontal axis and 1200 in the vertical one. In 5x7" the Imacon takes a beating from the Epson 700 that resolves 2900 dpi effective in the Horizontal axis.

Your information is false. If it is not a forged lie then you don't know how to scan with the Epson.

Even in the case the 5x7" is scanned on the Epson bed instead in a suitable holder the Epson is way better than the Imacon in 5x7".

[Chester McCheeserton]

Pere, I'm going to leave you under the bridge with your epson and keep walking. Happy Memorial Day weekend. I'll let others judge for themselves...

[sanking]

As someone used to the quality of 4000 dpi drum scans from 35mm, Sandy's final comment on post 109 seems to echo my results....I think film flatness and straightforwardness/simplicity of process may still give high end film scanners an advantage for those seeking the ultimate quality...



Most of the scanning I do has been of B&W film, medium format through 12X20.

Best scanners I have used for B&W scanning were drum scanners, Howtek 4000 and Howtek 7500. I also used an Eversmart Pro for several years, and it was a superb scanner. But the scans with drum scanners scans I have done at 2000-2400 ppi ware quite a bit better than any I have done with flatbeds, even better than with the Eversmart at higher resolution. Just a bit of "je ne sais quoi" with the transition of tonal values, hard to explain but important to overall tonal qualiteis. I still own and use a Howtek 7500, and will probably do so as long as it continues to operate. Just can not let it go. Hell, my wife helped me haul this thing up a flight of stairs on a dolly to my studio, friend who saw the stairs suggested we should be in the Drum Scanners Hall of Fame for that feat.

I also own and use an Epson V700. Does a pretty good job with 5X7 B&W film, but even at highest resolution scans with it do not come close to drum scanner quality, or even to quality of the Eversmart Pro at 3200 ppi. But some people like the scans with the V700 as the inability of this scanner to resolve grain makes some prints look smoother, and some people are really into smooth as it is a nice print quality with some images.

Enter the new generation of scanning with high resolution pixel shifting cameras. Quality with 5X7' film ONE SHOT using 16 shot pixel shifting is about on par with best protocol with the Epson V700 and V800. A bit better in fact because it just "resolves" the grain of a film like T-Max 400. And this technology will be getting increasingly better and less expensive.

Sandy

[Chester McCheeserton]

I also own and use an Epson V700. Does a pretty good job with 5X7 B&W film, but even at highest resolution scans with it do not come close to drum scanner quality, or even to quality of the Eversmart Pro at 3200 ppi. But some people like the scans with the V700 as the inability of this scanner to resolve grain makes some prints look smoother, and some people are really into smooth as it is a nice print quality with some images.

Enter the new generation of scanning with high resolution pixel shifting cameras. Quality with 5X7' film ONE SHOT using 16 shot pixel shifting is about on par with best protocol with the Epson V700 and V800. A bit better in fact because it just "resolves" the grain of a film like T-Max 400. And this technology will be getting increasingly better and less expensive.

Sandy

Interesting – Yes when I said 'high end' I wasn't thinking epson flatbeds....I can see replacing my v700 with a copystand rig similar to those described earlier in the thread, just not for a color neg with sky that I know is going to be printed 5 feet on the short side...which the howtek/aztek still seems king to me also...I did make a few prints a couple months ago for the first time from creo scans from 4x5 and 8x10 color neg and I agree they are better then epson and certainly good enough but maybe not quite as good as drum.

Curious though - do you see a difference in the corners in the grain structure as I described above when you do your one - shot pixel shift with the A7r4?

[Pere Casals]

Howtek 4000 and Howtek 7500. I also used an Eversmart Pro for several years, and it was a superb scanner. But the scans with drum scanners scans I have done at 2000-2400 ppi ware quite a bit better than any I have done with flatbeds, even better than with the Eversmart at higher resolution. Just a bit of "je ne sais quoi" with the transition of tonal values, hard to explain but important to overall tonal qualiteis. I still own and use a Howtek 7500, and will probably do so as long as it continues to operate. Just can not let it go.

I also own and use an Epson V700. Does a pretty good job with 5X7 B&W film, but even at highest resolution scans with it do not come close to drum scanner quality, or even to quality of the Eversmart Pro at 3200 ppi. But some people like the scans with the V700 as the inability of this scanner to resolve grain makes some prints look smoother, and some people are really into smooth as it is a nice print quality with some images.

Enter the new generation of scanning with high resolution pixel shifting cameras. Quality with 5X7' film ONE SHOT using 16 shot pixel shifting is about on par with best protocol with the Epson V700 and V800. A bit better in fact because it just "resolves" the grain of a film like T-Max 400. And this technology will be getting increasingly better and less expensive.

Sandy


Sandy, have you the way to make a V700 5x7" scan in holder ? Or are you scanning 5x7 on bed with the low resolution lens?

I ask this because the V700 covers 5.9" with the "Super-Resolution" lens and it can scan 5x7 with it, but if you don't have a suitable solution for it then you are scanning with the low resolution lens.


______


Second, would you make a side by side of the V700 vs DSLR "1 shot shifted" vs drum? This would be quite interesting...

If you don't have a 5x7" holder then you may do it in 4x5".

It is not necessary it is an exhautive test like that made by Pali K, just comparing a 16bits/ch 6400dpi V700 scan vs the DSLR vs the drum. You may have a surprise like Pali had when making a serious side by side.

Probably the V700 will take most of the Image quality of the LF negative, but for sure the drum is to resolve better the grain than the V700, but it would be interesting to see how good the V700 scanned grain can be after a refined edition, and at what enlargement a difference is seen, because usually we have very little grain in LF prints, in fact many LF shooters cite grain absence as a great feature.


Anyway with total probability the V700 will show better defined grain than the DSLR, and it would be interesting to see how the Epson rivals the Drum grain after scanning 16Bits/ch 6400 and sharpening optimally (we require 16bits/ch for a good sharpening).

Of course the V700 requires film flatness to shine. The new 4x5 ANR glass holders ensure that, and have adjustable height.


It also would be quite interesting if you can scan a 1951 glass slide with the DSLR shifted, this has been done many times with the drum and the V700, but we don't know what resolves the DSLR shot with a good lens.
(https://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-USAF-Glass-Slide-contrast-Resolution-Targets-lens-microscope-MIL-S-150A/114228789446?hash=item1a989100c6:g:cQcAAOxymiVRAhWE)

We know that a DSLR scan may reach even 10k dpi effective, but this is with stitching and using an smart setup.

[Pere Casals]

Pere, I'm going to leave you under the bridge with your epson and keep walking. Happy Memorial Day weekend. I'll let others judge for themselves...

Chester, sorry, but you are posting an infame V700 scan compared to a very good scan made with a machine resolving just the half. Your side by side is technically unacceptable. Do a fair side by side...

[sanking]

Interesting – Yes when I said 'high end' I wasn't thinking epson flatbeds....I can see replacing my v700 with a copystand rig similar to those described earlier in the thread, just not for a color neg with sky that I know is going to be printed 5 feet on the short side...which the howtek/aztek still seems king to me also...I did make a few prints a couple months ago for the first time from creo scans from 4x5 and 8x10 color neg and I agree they are better then epson and certainly good enough but maybe not quite as good as drum.

Curious though - do you see a difference in the corners in the grain structure as I described above when you do your one - shot pixel shift with the A7r4?

I did not see that this problem, but I did test a number of good lenses designed for about 1:2 - 1:4 and results were a bit unequal. I actually tested a 55mm Micro Nikkor in some earlier work and it gave very good results in copying 5X7 film with one shot, but a couple of old Apo lenses I own were even better. And the modern Sigma 70 mm f/4 DG Art is about as good as any I have tested for this work, though I hate the focus by wire procedure.
mo
For 1:1 I use, say 35mm film to FF digital, I use a 70 mm F/4 Apo Rodagon 1:1 lens pulled from an old Leafscan 45. Seems very sharp over the entire frame.

Sandy

[Pali K]

Oh boy, I clicked on a scanner thread and instantly time traveled to pre coronavirus days :) Enjoyed knowing that my scans are still generating some healthy debate - haha. I don't want to get in the middle of the fun so please continue but I have one thing that might be worth considering and that is the following scan from a Tango that I made a while ago.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/palikalsi/36099689861/sizes/6k/

Click on the link, pixel peep, pay attention to color especially in the shadows, and then please note that an Epson scan of this will make you think that you are looking at completely different photo and not in a better way. If all you want is a digital copy from a B&W large format negative, Epson is pretty darn good. If you shoot other stuff like color negatives, slides, or 35MM/MF, you'll not be able to get the best out of your film from an Epson. This is coming from no expert - just a random guy on the internet who loves film photography and enjoys the hobby including the digital workflow using some fun scanners.

Hope everyone is staying safe and healthy :)

Pali

[sanking]

Per,

If you were to do some research from the forum archives you would find quite a number of posts by me from about 10-15 years ago on using the V700 to get optimum results, including the use of the higher resolution lens, AN glass to keep the height correct, fluid mounting, and method of adjusting height to optimize resolution. I have also made scans of the 1951 USAF glass slides with the Epson V700 and Eversmart Pro, believe those were also posted here back in the day. With the most optimistic eyes possible I was able to get about only about 2000-2300 ppi, or about 30-45 lpm, with the Epson V700. That agrees with nearly every valid test I have seen with this scanner, and lots of tests were done back then.

I also made a scan of the USAF glass target a few days ago with the Sony a7r iv with the height of copy stand set to a 5X7" scan and the result shows resolution of about 50 lp with 16 shot pixel peeping, and film grain of the T-Max 400 negative is clearly visible. This was done with an Apo Rodagon 70mm 2X lens, and got similar results with the Sigma 70 mm F/4 Art. Small section of that shot attached.

Would be interesting if you would stop citing other sources and do your own research and testing on pixel shifting cameras, and post those results.

Sandy

[Pere Casals]

Oh boy, I clicked on a scanner thread and instantly time traveled to pre coronavirus days :) Enjoyed knowing that my scans are still generating some healthy debate - haha. I don't want to get in the middle of the fun so please continue but I have one thing that might be worth considering and that is the following scan from a Tango that I made a while ago.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/palikalsi/36099689861/sizes/6k/

Click on the link, pixel peep, pay attention to color especially in the shadows, and then please note that an Epson scan of this will make you think that you are looking at completely different photo and not in a better way. If all you want is a digital copy from a B&W large format negative, Epson is pretty darn good. If you shoot other stuff like color negatives, slides, or 35MM/MF, you'll not be able to get the best out of your film from an Epson. This is coming from no expert - just a random guy on the internet who loves film photography and enjoys the hobby including the digital workflow using some fun scanners.

Hope everyone is staying safe and healthy :)

Pali

Hello Pali, yeah, your side by side is quite a reference !!!!





https://www.flickr.com/photos/palikalsi/36099689861/sizes/6k/
Click on the link, pixel peep, pay attention to color especially in the shadows, and then please note that an Epson scan of this will make you think that you are looking at completely different photo and not in a better way.

First, let me point that you don't use Multi-Exposure in your V700, you have to separately purchase an upgrade ($50, IIRC) to have the SF version doing it, this will improve a lot your yield with slides in the shadows.


Second, let me suggest something: compare the Epson scan with the real slide on the light table, you will find that the Epson is accurate, it is an IT8 calibrated machine and it nails exactly the reference colors in the patches.

Many high end Pro scanners have color enhancing features that are difficult to disable, if wanting popping colors from the V700 then one may use any image enhancing software, if not wantig to edit.

Those colors from your drum are artificially modified, see the real slide and they are not there.

_______________________

I agree... for 35mm the Epson is slightly worse than other solutions like a dedicated roll film scanner, but the larger the format the more the Epson shines, you saw what happened with MF CN...

[Pere Casals]

Would be interesting if you would stop citing other sources and do your own research and testing on pixel shifting cameras, and post those results.


Of course I made and posted my own tests, but not with a $3000 pixel shifting camera that I won't own in the mid term, but with a regular DSLR, my own research:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?151265-9000-dpi-effective-DSLR-scanner

When I cite other resources they are reliable, it is to enforce the idea that I'm not posting a forged comparison like other do.




or about 30-45 lpm, with the Epson V700


Sandy, no...

The Epson resolves 58 lp/mm in the Horziontal axis and 46 lp/mm in the Hor axis, see the test made by Pali. (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners)

Do you scan 5x7 with the low resolution lens ? it can be done with the Hi resolution lens of the V700 !!!




a 5X7" scan and the result shows resolution of about 50 lp with 16 shot pixel peeping



If you resolve 50lp/mm on film with the shifting then you are also optically resolving exactly 250lp/mm on sensor, can your lenses do that ?



____________________________________

PD: Those Sigmas are reported to yield 17 MPix effective limitation in a 45 MPix camera (please correct me if I'm wrong), so my view is that they should resolve way less than 50lp/mm over a 5x7" single shot scan, or way less than 250 lp/mm on sensor. It would be interesting to see a shot of the USAF 1951 slide over a 5x7" negative taking all the sheet, Element 5.5 should be discerned.

204089

Regarding the Rodagon x2, it is ideal for scanning MF frames with a Full Format DSLR, or to take MF sized crops of a LF sheet, but if you shot a whole 5x7" sheet with it you are photographing at x5, which is a (1:5) magnification where the Rodagon D (Duplication) performs quite worse than at x2. These are very specialized lenses for particular magnifications. A Regular Rodagon would perform optimally for that.

[manfrominternet]

...

Enter the new generation of scanning with high resolution pixel shifting cameras. Quality with 5X7' film ONE SHOT using 16 shot pixel shifting is about on par with best protocol with the Epson V700 and V800. A bit better in fact because it just "resolves" the grain of a film like T-Max 400. And this technology will be getting increasingly better and less expensive.

Sandy

How would you guys compare the scan of a 4x5 negative/transparency assembled with 4-6 stitched shots and made with a Sony a7R IV/Sigma 70mm ART Macro vs. a scan of the same 4x5 negative/transparency made with a (good) drum scanner?

I guess what I’m really asking here is if there are any current high-end mirrorless/digital medium format (Fuji GFX, Pentax 645z) camera and macro lens options that rival drum scanning.

I’d love to hear what you guys think I should eventually replace my current scanning setup with (Sony a7R III/Sigma 70mm ART Macro).

[grat]

How would you guys compare the scan of a 4x5 negative/transparency assembled with 4-6 stitched shots and made with a Sony a7R IV/Sigma 70mm ART Macro vs. a scan of the same 4x5 negative/transparency made with a (good) drum scanner?

I could beat an Epson or a drum scanner with my 13 year old Canon EOS 30D (8 megapixel) and a 100mm macro lens. It's only time and effort. I might have to take 20+ individual frames to do it, but I could, as long as I had a decent full spectrum light source. B&W imaging is much easier to do with just about any continuous light source, but color is a little pickier.

Years ago (2003), when PanoTools was a new thing, and hugin hadn't been written yet, someone stitched a 1 gigapixel image of Bryce Canyon, Utah, using a 6 megapixel camera and 196 images. That would be roughly 8,150 DPI if it were based on a 4x5 negative.

What amuses me is people keep extolling how $4,000 USD worth of camera+lens (current prices for A7R/IV and said Sigma 70mm ART) or a commercial scanner that *used* seems to be going for over $5000, are far superior to an $800 scanner-- I'd be concerned if they weren't significantly better. They would be incredibly overpriced crap if that were the case.

Next, people will be claiming that a Schneider super-angulon is far superior to a plastic lomography lens.

Personally, I think the lack of improvement on the Epson between the v600 and v850 is pretty depressing, but that's what happens when tech companies appeal to the lowest, cheapest denominator. I'd rather have something better, but I'd rather have money, as well. While I'm currently "making do" with an Epson, chances are, I'll build a decent arduino-powered scanning rig for my non-pixel-shifting 90D. Any real need for high resolution scans will be met by having professional labs do the hard work, because I really don't have a need to produce 4000 DPI scans on a regular basis. 2600 DPI is excessive for my normal use case (ie, viewing at 4k, or printing at 8x10 or equivalent).

And for those with Howtek 8000 scanners, as an IT guy, I have to ask... where are you finding SCSI-2 controllers still supported under Windows 10...?

[Pere Casals]

I think the lack of improvement on the Epson between the v600 and v850 is pretty depressing

The V600 yields 1560dpi effective (https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html), so the difference is huge.



but that's what happens when tech companies appeal to the lowest, cheapest denominator.

The V850 resolves 2900x5.9" in the scan width, totalling +17,000 effective pixels in the scan width, so a sound setup is there.

Problem of the V850 is that it takes holders with four 35mm strips, or two 120 strips, having to cover 5.9".

Now imagine that the V850 uses another "Super-Resolution" lens covering 4", taking two 35mm strips or one 120 strip, or one 4x5 sheet. It would deliver 2900 * 5.9 / 4 = 4300 dpi effective in the Horizontal axis and 3400 in the vertical axis.

The V850 is not better because it is designed to take four 35mm strips at the same time, not because it is cheap, it resolves 17.000 pixels in the scan row which, belive me, it's not easy at all. They have that yield because the lens is optimized to work specifically in the precise magnification it works. You won't find another flatbed resolving 17.000 pixels in the scan width, Creos stitch crops automaticly to get that from a 8000 pix sensor. The Epson has +40,000 pix sensor.

[Sasquatchian]

"And for those with Howtek 8000 scanners, as an IT guy, I have to ask... where are you finding SCSI-2 controllers still supported under Windows 10...?"

I run mine on Mac OS 9.2.2 off an Adaptec 2930 and have been since 1998. That same card is still available or Windows 10, so I'm assuming it should work as well. I think there was a 2940 card too, but the person who would know more authoritatively than anyone would be Evan Lippincott at Aztek. Shoot him an email or give him a call. A most gracious and friendly individual.

[Pere Casals]

I run mine on Mac OS 9.2.2 off an Adaptec 2930 and have been since 1998. That same card is still available or Windows 10, so I'm assuming it should work as well. I think there was a 2940 card too, but the person who would know more authoritatively than anyone would be Evan Lippincott at Aztek. Shoot him an email or give him a call. A most gracious and friendly individual.

Yes, it looks they provide Windows 10 compatibility: http://www.aztek.com/digital_photolab.html this is nice as one may use a fast M.2 drive and lots of RAM, using a single computer to scan and to Ps edit.

Today's computer performance is one of the factors that improved the V700 practical yield, now it is possible to scan LF at 6400-16 to extract every bit of information possible. The Epson requires scanning at higher dpi than Pro scanners for the same, the Pro scanners yield better eleborated information, with the Epson you need to oversample and make a careful edition before binning to the lower edition size, and that was a nightmare with slow computers of the past.

The M.2 loads a 3 Gigabytes file in around 1.5 seconds, and still 12 Gigabytes of RAM are free in my case, being all that quite cheap. The single operation that takes a bit is sharpening the 3GB image just before the bicubic "for reductions" binning to convert to the edition size.

In the past Pro scanners had the advantage to deliver a well digitally optimized image, this was quite important. With the today's computer performance overkill this is less important.

[Alan Klein]

Yes, it looks they provide Windows 10 compatibility: http://www.aztek.com/digital_photolab.html this is nice as one may use a fast M.2 drive and lots of RAM, using a single computer to scan and to Ps edit.

Today's computer performance is one of the factors that improved the V700 practical yield, now it is possible to scan LF at 6400-16 to extract every bit of information possible. The Epson requires scanning at higher dpi than Pro scanners for the same, the Pro scanners yield better eleborated information, with the Epson you need to oversample and make a careful edition before binning to the lower edition size, and that was a nightmare with slow computers of the past.

The M.2 loads a 3 Gigabytes file in around 1.5 seconds, and still 12 Gigabytes of RAM are free in my case, being all that quite cheap. The single operation that takes a bit is sharpening the 3GB image just before the bicubic "for reductions" binning to convert to the edition size.

In the past Pro scanners had the advantage to deliver a well digitally optimized image, this was quite important. With the today's computer performance overkill this is less important.

I just got a V850 as I started to shoot LF. These 4x5 Tmax 100's are scanned at 2400. I tried scanning at 3200 but couldn't see the difference. Should I scan at 3200 or 4800 or higher? The tiff files get pretty big. By comparison, I also linked my earlier 6x7 Tmax 100's scanned on a V600.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/49843934826/in/album-72157714124881023/ Tmax 100 4x5 V850
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/13219393413/in/album-72157642492618713/ Tmax 100 120 6x7 V600



By comparison, these

[grat]

The V600 yields 1560dpi effective (https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html), so the difference is huge.


Well, that's what I get for being dramatic. I knew the v700 --> v800 hadn't been much of an improvement, and for some reason I thought the v600 was the same unit, but of course, it's the one with the ridiculously small transparency light. It was late at night, and I admit my mistake. :)

[grat]

"And for those with Howtek 8000 scanners, as an IT guy, I have to ask... where are you finding SCSI-2 controllers still supported under Windows 10...?"

I run mine on Mac OS 9.2.2 off an Adaptec 2930 and have been since 1998. That same card is still available or Windows 10, so I'm assuming it should work as well. I think there was a 2940 card too, but the person who would know more authoritatively than anyone would be Evan Lippincott at Aztek. Shoot him an email or give him a call. A most gracious and friendly individual.

I'm sure he is. But if I never ever have to see an Adaptec 2940 (An *extremely* common card), or another of the myriad SCSI cable standards I had to deal with for 15+ years, I will sleep much better at night. It's not that SCSI is a terrible system (it works very well), it's that it's not idiot-proof. And I repeatedly ran into systems set up by less than diligent people. SAS was a welcome change.

[Sasquatchian]

The bottom line is that, if you want to use a drum scanner today, you're going to have to deal with some older and outdated hardware. The scanners themselves are quite slow so the modest SCSI transfer speeds are never an issue and since these days, if you're connecting a scanner, that's likely to be the only device on the chain so you won't have any of the "normal" SCSI problems we used to have twenty years ago.

[Corran]

Yeah, it would be nice if my Cezanne worked on a modern machine but at the end of the day it works just fine attached to the dedicated Mac G4 in the corner of my office. It needs a heavy-duty table anyway (my old kitchen table from college days works perfect). I have backup parts for the Mac and actually a whole second Cezanne for replacement that I had to drive a thousand miles to pickup lol. The SCSI is a lot more temperamental on that machine I think, with only two compatible card types that are hard to find.

Some might think it's weird to have a separate computer but I also have my server running and a laptop for other stuff and also an old computer in my living room that will eventually be a media computer. Not to mention my wife's computer. So we have 5+ computers running concurrently.

[calebarchie]

Hello Pali, yeah, your side by side is quite a reference !!!!





First, let me point that you don't use Multi-Exposure in your V700, you have to separately purchase an upgrade ($50, IIRC) to have the SF version doing it, this will improve a lot your yield with slides in the shadows.


Second, let me suggest something: compare the Epson scan with the real slide on the light table, you will find that the Epson is accurate, it is an IT8 calibrated machine and it nails exactly the reference colors in the patches.

Many high end Pro scanners have color enhancing features that are difficult to disable, if wanting popping colors from the V700 then one may use any image enhancing software, if not wantig to edit.

Those colors from your drum are artificially modified, see the real slide and they are not there.

_______________________

I agree... for 35mm the Epson is slightly worse than other solutions like a dedicated roll film scanner, but the larger the format the more the Epson shines, you saw what happened with MF CN...

Wait so let me get this right, the one source you have so devoutly preached this whole time has finally come back and informed you are incorrect - you then proceed to argue with him?

Bonkers!

[Peter De Smidt]

Wait so let me get this right, the one source you have so devoutly preached this whole time has finally come back and informed you are incorrect - you then proceed to argue with him?

Bonkers!

Oh, dear. Someone else is catching on....

[interneg]

Oh, dear. Someone else is catching on....

I wonder if he even owns the mystical Epson he is so obsessed with.

[manfrominternet]

Are there any current high-end mirrorless/digital medium format (Fuji GFX, Pentax 645z) camera and macro lens offerings that can rival drum scanning (without having to take, say, 10+ frames to stitch together)?

Stitching several images using Photo Merge-Panorama in Lightroom sometimes just doesn't align properly, even if everything is perfectly flat. I've had to re-photograph (re-scan) 4x5 negatives all over again several times with my Sony a7R III more times than I can count. :/

[Sasquatchian]

I wonder if PhotoMerge in Photoshop proper is more effective than Lr. I have done hundreds of merges in Ps and rarely had any problem with misalignment, plus there are other options out there outside of Adobe for doing the merging, and even though I've got those, PhotoMerge has gotten so good that that's all I need.

[interneg]

I have done hundreds of merges in Ps and rarely had any problem with misalignment

Same here - I think if the field of the optic being used for the digitisation is flat enough & there's sufficient overlap, then PS handles it just fine

[sperdynamite]

Are there any current high-end mirrorless/digital medium format (Fuji GFX, Pentax 645z) camera and macro lens offerings that can rival drum scanning (without having to take, say, 10+ frames to stitch together)?

Stitching several images using Photo Merge-Panorama in Lightroom sometimes just doesn't align properly, even if everything is perfectly flat. I've had to re-photograph (re-scan) 4x5 negatives all over again several times with my Sony a7R III more times than I can count. :/

I think Sandy posted that he believes he is matching his Howtek by merging 3 frames from his A7RIV, pixel shifted. I think he said that was about a 900mp image of either 45 or 57.

Personally I come at it from a different perspective. Can you match drum scanners within more practical resolutions? I think definitely yes. I mean I have a 24" printer and I'm getting the resolution I need from a single pixel shifted capture with my S1R. 2 captures and I'm exceeding the needs of a 40" printer. I could do a ton of captures and try to eek out all the detail but for realistic enlargements, there is no need. Plus, the drum scanners still work for the most part. So if I ever need a 4000ppi scan of an 8x10 sheet, I could seek one out. I can't imagine ever needing to do that though.

[sanking]

Are there any current high-end mirrorless/digital medium format (Fuji GFX, Pentax 645z) camera and macro lens offerings that can rival drum scanning (without having to take, say, 10+ frames to stitch together)?

Stitching several images using Photo Merge-Panorama in Lightroom sometimes just doesn't align properly, even if everything is perfectly flat. I've had to re-photograph (re-scan) 4x5 negatives all over again several times with my Sony a7R III more times than I can count. :/


When you ask if there are any camera systems that can rival drum scanning, what format do you have in mind? In my reply below I will assume that by "drum scanning" quality you mean effective resolution of about 4000 spi, which many drum scanners are capable of capturing up to 4X5 film size.

In my experience the Sony a7r iv is definitely capable of rivaling drum scanning for 35mm to 6X9 cm formats, with one frame with 16 shot pixel shifting, and I suspect the Panasonic SIR might also. These cameras cost around $3000. In the medium format world there is the GFX 100, larger sensor than FF and with pixel shifting capable of 400 mp, which should rival drum scanning 4X5 film. But cost of the GFX 100 is about $10K. Current GFX 50S and 50R models are not compatible with pixel shifting.

I have worked extensively with Photomerge in PS and rarely have trouble with it even with six or more frames, assuming you give enough overlap to each frame. It really pays to take the time to set up and check that your stitching mosaic works with a variety of image types before moving on.

Sandy

[manfrominternet]

I think Sandy posted that he believes he is matching his Howtek by merging 3 frames from his A7RIV, pixel shifted. I think he said that was about a 900mp image of either 45 or 57.

Personally I come at it from a different perspective. Can you match drum scanners within more practical resolutions? I think definitely yes. I mean I have a 24" printer and I'm getting the resolution I need from a single pixel shifted capture with my S1R. 2 captures and I'm exceeding the needs of a 40" printer. I could do a ton of captures and try to eek out all the detail but for realistic enlargements, there is no need. Plus, the drum scanners still work for the most part. So if I ever need a 4000ppi scan of an 8x10 sheet, I could seek one out. I can't imagine ever needing to do that though.


When you ask if there are any camera systems that can rival drum scanning, what format do you have in mind? In my reply below I will assume that by "drum scanning" quality you mean effective resolution of about 4000 spi, which many drum scanners are capable of capturing up to 4X5 film size.

In my experience the Sony a7r iv is definitely capable of rivaling drum scanning for 35mm to 6X9 cm formats, with one frame with 16 shot pixel shifting, and I suspect the Panasonic SIR might also. These cameras cost around $3000. In the medium format world there is the GFX 100, larger sensor than FF and with pixel shifting capable of 400 mp, which should rival drum scanning 4X5 film. But cost of the GFX 100 is about $10K. Current GFX 50S and 50R models are not compatible with pixel shifting.

Sandy

sperdynamite and Sandy,

Thank you both for clarifying all this.

Sandy, yes, I meant to ask if there are any current mirrorless/medium format digital options for scanning a 4x5 negative/transparency with an effective resolution of between 4000dpi and 5000dpi, rivaling the quality of a good drum scanner.

I currently use a Sony a7R III with a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 ART Macro lens to "scan" my 4x5 negatives. I take 4 photos of my 4x5 negatives/transparencies (dividing the 4x5 negative into quarters and take 4 separate photos of the negative (top left, top right, bottom left, bottom right) and stitch the raw files together. I have trouble stitching the files together sometimes, so I'm usually put in the imposition of having to photograph the 4x5 negative all over again. Should I be stitching the negatives with Lightroom or Photoshop?

I now have the opportunity to get either a Sony a7R IV, a Fujifilm GFX 50R, or a Pentax 645Z and I wanted to know which of these cameras you guy would recommend when it comes to scanning 4x5 negatives/transparencies to get even better results that I get with my current Sony/Sigma ART combo. With the Fuji GFX 50r, I was thinking of adapting a Pentax 120mm f/4 Macro lens with the 1:1 reproduction ratio, since the Fuji 120mm f/4 Macro has a 1:2 reproduction ratio.

I guess I could have simplified my question into this: Which of these combinations would you guys pick to scan your 4x5 negs/transparencies and why?
-Sony a7R IV w/Sigma 70mm f/2.8 ART Macro (with or without pixel shift)
-Fuji GFX 50r w/Pentax 120mm f/4 Macro (w/lens adapter, of course)
-Pentax 645Z w/Pentax 120mm f/4 Macro

[Pere Casals]

-Sony a7R IV w/Sigma 70mm f/2.8 ART Macro (with or without pixel shift)
-Fuji GFX 50r w/Pentax 120mm f/4 Macro (w/lens adapter, of course)
-Pentax 645Z w/Pentax 120mm f/4 Macro





the Sony a7r iv is definitely capable of rivaling drum scanning for 35mm to 6X9 cm formats,

Well, if your setup uses a Rodenstock D you basicly have a Hasselblad X5 that includes a Linos which is the same than your lens. The hassie also has a sort of pixel shifting as each spot is explored by three consecutive r-g-b rows, in this case from the film movement.



Regarding the Sigma Art vs Rodagon D , you were right, not much a difference:


Test:
https://www.digitalcamaralens.com/Html/Objetivos/Sigma/Sigma%2070%202.8%20Macro%20Art/Sigma%2070%202.8%20MAcro%20Art%20Analisis.htm

Methodology:

https://www.digitalcamaralens.com/Html/Metologia/Resolucion%20en%20Estudio_MTF.htm

Patterns:

https://www.digitalcamaralens.com/Html/Objetivos/Sigma/Sigma%2070%202.8%20Macro%20Art/Distor/Sigma_70_2.8%20DG%20Art%20Macro_MTF_Charts.jpg


At 50lp/mm (on the sensor) it still holds a MTF 50%:

204136



The Rodadon D is not better on the paper:

https://www.qioptiq-shop.com/out/Graphics/en/00119141_0.pdf

204138

At 40 lp/mm it holds around 55% MTF.


In no case cycles/mm at extintion is provided but it can be guessed, still those ratings say when we should stitching or not when DSLR scanning LF sheets, depending on print size.

[Pere Casals]

Wait so let me get this right, the one source you have so devoutly preached this whole time has finally come back and informed you are incorrect - you then proceed to argue with him?

Bonkers!


If you review the test I "argued" (suggested) there for example the good Lp/mm rating of the Epson and the Eversmart Pro:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1478228&viewfull=1#post1478228


In that test also "argued" the image edition (2.5pix, 59%) that allows the Epson to match the Scanmate 11100 drum in Portra MF:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1479176&viewfull=1#post1479176


I know Pali he has never tried Multi-Exposure in the V700, the suggestion of using it with dense Velvia is pretty sound, I'm pretty sure that if he tries it he would appreciate the benefit. With ME the Epson improves a lot for slides.

https://www.silverfast.com/highlights/multi-exposure/en.html

Also if you have seen Provia/Velvia projected or in the light table then it's evident that those colors in the sample are not Velvia orginal, but digitally enhanced ones. Have you any doubt ?

I guess you recived clear explanations. Thanks for your irony anyway, funny :).



Oh, dear. Someone else is catching on....


I wonder if he even owns the mystical Epson he is so obsessed with.


Hi Guys, group trolling again ? :)

[sperdynamite]

Personally I would stick with 135 systems over the 44x33 cameras. A pixel shifting sensor gives you a true RGB file of very high resolution. I wouldn't want to go back to bayer interpolation.

There is also the problem of medium format macros. They mostly go to 1:2 and will have even slimmer DoF. I would love to try scanning with a GFX 100 and it's pixel shift mode, but for now I think the full frame mirrorless cams are the way to go. So, 1 vote for the Sony or the Panasonic.

[sanking]

sperdynamite and Sandy,


I guess I could have simplified my question into this: Which of these combinations would you guys pick to scan your 4x5 negs/transparencies and why?
-Sony a7R IV w/Sigma 70mm f/2.8 ART Macro (with or without pixel shift)
-Fuji GFX 50r w/Pentax 120mm f/4 Macro (w/lens adapter, of course)
-Pentax 645Z w/Pentax 120mm f/4 Macro

I would definitely stick with the Sony a7r iv for digitizing film. The pixel shifting system is very effective and the higher resolution more than makes up for the smaller sensor size.

However, consider trying some simple three-pass stitching with your a7r iii to make sure you are able to merge the files. If you don't solve why this is not working you may continue to have problems with the a7r iv. I am pretty sure the problem is insufficient overlap of the image files, but it might be focus. I have had a lot of trouble with the auto focus mechanism of the 70 mm Art and suggest you try manual focus for stitching as failure to focus could be one of the reasons your files do not merge. Or, you could auto focus for the first frame, then move the setting to manual focus to keep same focus for the other frames.


Sandy

[sanking]

Well, if your setup uses a Rodenstock D you basicly have a Hasselblad X5 that includes a Linos which is the same than your lens. The hassie also has a sort of pixel shifting as each spot is explored by three consecutive r-g-b rows, in this case from the film movement.

Regarding the Sigma Art vs Rodagon D , you were right, not much a difference:




Apo Rodagon 75mm 2X appears to give higher resolution, but gives more flare so better baffle system required. Sigma 70 mm Macro Art has very high contrast and almost flare proof. Overall I suspect most users will get better results from the Sigma with the more modern coating.

Sandy

[interneg]

Sandy & sperdynamite: I'd be interested in seeing your results off HP5+ or something of that sort in the 2000ppi resolution range (and higher if you want) - mainly because I've found its granularity & the scanning device's resolution of that grain to be a fairly stiff test of the potential imaging capacity of a system. If you have other films that you mainly use, those are fine too - all I'm interested in is the ability to usefully resolve the granularity. I can throw some Hasselblad/ Imacon scans into the mix as comparators. I'd like to hope the CMOS shift & stitch sensors at least equal or outperform the 1990's CCD systems with their sometimes temperamental electronics and software...

For the record, the Hasselblad/ Imacon lens is a Rodenstock/ Linos 75mm Magnagon with a fixed aperture. It's a different design to the Apo-Rodagon D & is optimised 1:5-5:1 magnifications.

[Peter De Smidt]

For the record, the Hasselblad/ Imacon lens is a Rodenstock/ Linos 75mm Magnagon with a fixed aperture. It's a different design to the Apo-Rodagon D & is optimised 1:5-5:1 magnifications.

I've got one of those, too. It's a very good performer. I expect it's pretty close to the Apo Rodagon D 2x f/4.5 lens, but that's just a mildly informed guess. It's definitely different from the Apo Rodagon D 1x f/4.

[Chester McCheeserton]

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?146948-Practical-Resolution-discussion&p=1454940&viewfull=1#post1454940

I know many of you saw this couple years back but I'm re-linking to it. I as much as anyone, want camera scanning to be better, as I don't own a drum, imacon, or creo...but I'm really not sure we are there yet. The issue is film flatness and ability to focus precisely on a very narrow horizontal plane. Not resolution numbers or how far you can zoom in.

A great test would be one of you doing the stitching and feel like you've got the flatness thing nailed, post the same negative 100% crops showing film grain; stitch camera method vs dedicated film scanner (ie not epson)

I've done a fair amount of stitching in photoshop (both manually and using photomerge) and I think it's totally easy to make it work for 17 x 22 inkjet of a rock in black and white.
30 x 40 in color of a sky to nerds like us that are going to look at the print from 8 inches away, is another story. It would be hard for me to move to making prints from files I knew that I was introducing small seam lines in at the digitization step, maybe I'd get used to it I guess?

[interneg]

I've got one of those, too. It's a very good performer. I expect it's pretty close to the Apo Rodagon D 2x f/4.5 lens, but that's just a mildly informed guess. It's definitely different from the Apo Rodagon D 1x f/4.

The Magnagon seems to be designed to use a special filter on the front - and it's definitely very unlike the Apo-Rodagon D 1x in the shape of the front and rear elements. There is some evidence that suggests it might share some lineage with the 2x. Interestingly, I note that the Apo-Rodagon D spec recommends them for down to 5 micron pixel size sensors. I suspect there might be a common ancestor & some optimisation for the Imacon/ Hasselblad.

[interneg]

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?146948-Practical-Resolution-discussion&p=1454940&viewfull=1#post1454940

I know many of you saw this couple years back but I'm re-linking to it. I as much as anyone, want camera scanning to be better, as I don't own a drum, imacon, or creo...but I'm really not sure we are there yet. The issue is film flatness and ability to focus precisely on a very narrow horizontal plane. Not resolution numbers or how far you can zoom in.

A great test would be one of you doing the stitching and feel like you've got the flatness thing nailed, post the same negative 100% crops showing film grain; stitch camera method vs dedicated film scanner (ie not epson)

I've done a fair amount of stitching in photoshop (both manually and using photomerge) and I think it's totally easy to make it work for 17 x 22 inkjet of a rock in black and white.
30 x 40 in color of a sky to nerds like us that are going to look at the print from 8 inches away, is another story. It would be hard for me to move to making prints from files I knew that I was introducing small seam lines in at the digitization step, maybe I'd get used to it I guess?

I'd agree about the challenge levels - I think the problems are very much those of mechanical precision inter-relating to the optical performance (which has to be good in the first place). I've made inkjet prints 60"+ across off 3 stitched 6300ppi scans from 120 in colour and BW from the Hasselblad X5 with convincing tonal gradients, though it can be demanding of precision in scanning & being reasonably attentive through the process. That said, for absolute finesse, a properly solid enlarger and a Rodagon-G or similar beats it in terms of the communication of sharper, finer granularity...

Everyone might also want to look at the Harvard DASCH imaging system (https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/dasch/scanner) - air bearings and granite surface plates for 2300ppi at high MTF might be a bit excessive, but it might give some people some ideas...

[Pere Casals]

Apo Rodagon 75mm 2X appears to give higher resolution, but gives more flare so better baffle system required. Sigma 70 mm Macro Art has very high contrast and almost flare proof. Overall I suspect most users will get better results from the Sigma with the more modern coating.

Sandy


Sandy, let me point that the Rodagon D 75mm x2 is a MF lens, covering a 87mm image circle. Used on a MF sensor or with a long linear sensor it is terrific, it would resolve 5 times more "effective pixels" than the ART.

Of course when used with a FF sensor it only yields 1/5 of its potential.

What I mean is that the D is a way better lens than the ART when the D works works the right magnification range, but as the ART is optimized for the FF circle it yields comparable to the D in FF.

------

I'd say that the higher flare is not because of worse coatings but because of the larger circle, only around 1/5 of the entering light hits the sensor, the rest (80% excess circle) of the light has the oppotunity to bounce in the (still quite reflective) walls producing stray light, if sensor was big enough this would not happen. It may be addressed with a cropping frame in the rearof the lens.

------

Both things also happen when FF glass is used in APSC...

[Pere Casals]

I note that the Apo-Rodagon D spec recommends them for down to 5 micron pixel size sensors.

7 micron

https://www.qioptiq-shop.com/out/Graphics/en/00119141_0.pdf

[sanking]

Some of the early film scanners, including the Leafscan 45 (some consider the Mother of all CCD scanners) and the early Imacons, were basically reverse enlargers, and that is bascially what we are trying to do with the cameras, just using them in place of the primitive CCD stuff from the 90s. I actually owned a Leafscan 45 and stitched medium format film with it at 5000 ppi. The standard lens was the Rodenstock Apo Rodagon 1:1. I still own the lens, pulled it from the scanner when I finally junked it. http://www.allari-photo.com/body_scancomp.html

There is fellow in Spain named Carle Mitja who has some interesting pages on this. Mitja is a photogravure worker from Catalunya who posts from time to time on the carbon forum on groups.io I moderate. I imagine Per knows him, or has heard of him?

https://carlesmitja.net/2017/09/12/image-processing-for-hybrid-processes-iii-digitization-with-camera/

https://carlesmitja.net/2016/04/05/film-negatives-and-slides-digitization-system/


https://carlesmitja.net/2018/01/01/image-processing-for-hybrid-processes-iv-processing-raw-files/


Sandy





https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?146948-Practical-Resolution-discussion&p=1454940&viewfull=1#post1454940

I know many of you saw this couple years back but I'm re-linking to it. I as much as anyone, want camera scanning to be better, as I don't own a drum, imacon, or creo...but I'm really not sure we are there yet. The issue is film flatness and ability to focus precisely on a very narrow horizontal plane. Not resolution numbers or how far you can zoom in.

A great test would be one of you doing the stitching and feel like you've got the flatness thing nailed, post the same negative 100% crops showing film grain; stitch camera method vs dedicated film scanner (ie not epson)

I've done a fair amount of stitching in photoshop (both manually and using photomerge) and I think it's totally easy to make it work for 17 x 22 inkjet of a rock in black and white.
30 x 40 in color of a sky to nerds like us that are going to look at the print from 8 inches away, is another story. It would be hard for me to move to making prints from files I knew that I was introducing small seam lines in at the digitization step, maybe I'd get used to it I guess?

[interneg]

7 micron

https://www.qioptiq-shop.com/out/Graphics/en/00119141_0.pdf

That change looks like it coincided with the release of the Apo-Rodagon HR. The older catalogues are definite on 5 micron.

https://web.archive.org/web/20151227054130/http://www.qioptiq.com/download/MV-Product-Brochure-online_7601.pdf

[sanking]

Per,

I know that the Rodagon D 2X was designed for medium format. That is why I own it, originally purchased it to use on the Leafscsan 45 in place of the Rodagon D 1:1 for scanning medium format film. A friend suggested it back then, I had no understanding of why but it worked nicely. But it should give very good performance on FF since we are using the central area of the lens, right? It did in fact perform very well on the Fuji GFX50R, with the slightly larger sensor.

Flare is no doubt due to stray light from large image circle, and of course it has no hood at all.

Sandy

[sperdynamite]

Sandy & sperdynamite: I'd be interested in seeing your results off HP5+ or something of that sort in the 2000ppi resolution range (and higher if you want) - mainly because I've found its granularity & the scanning device's resolution of that grain to be a fairly stiff test of the potential imaging capacity of a system. If you have other films that you mainly use, those are fine too - all I'm interested in is the ability to usefully resolve the granularity. I can throw some Hasselblad/ Imacon scans into the mix as comparators. I'd like to hope the CMOS shift & stitch sensors at least equal or outperform the 1990's CCD systems with their sometimes temperamental electronics and software...



For the record, the Hasselblad/ Imacon lens is a Rodenstock/ Linos 75mm Magnagon with a fixed aperture. It's a different design to the Apo-Rodagon D & is optimised 1:5-5:1 magnifications.

I could scan some HP5+ at that resolution. Are you thinking 4x5? I actually think I only have some 8x10 HP5 on hand but my camera is in the shop... I have a bunch of medium format HP5 however and was planning to do ISO/dev time tests with it.

Is there is a simple scanner PPI/pixel resolution calculation? I'm always confused about that. I.E. When someone asks for a 2000PPI scan what pixel resolution are you targeting.

[Pere Casals]

But it should give very good performance on FF since we are using the central area of the lens, right?

Sandy, those glasses are amazing, the graph shows that performance is pretty good in a 60mm circle, with sagital performance falling earlier, but it's still very good in that 60mm circle.

204150

(Picture shows the 1x lens but graph is for the 2x at f/5.6. and 1:2)

[Pere Casals]

Is there is a simple scanner PPI/pixel resolution calculation? I'm always confused about that. I.E. When someone asks for a 2000PPI scan what pixel resolution are you targeting.

First, we have hardware ppi and effective ppi. 2000ppi with a perfect lens outresolving the sensor may deliver 1800 effective ppi, if the lens limits effectively performance then effective ppi is lower.

Say you have 2000 effective ppi (pixels per inch) on the sensor, multiply it by the number of inches of the sensor and you have the total pixels. FF is 1" x 1.5" approx, so image resolution is 2000*1.5 wide and 2000*1 high, so 3000x2000 = 6,000,000pixels effective. 6 MPix


If efective ppi are measured on film, then use the inches of the film instead the inches of the sensor, for a 4x5" sheet:

2000x4 x 2000x5 = 8,000x10,000 = 80 MPix


For example a Hasselblad scans at 2000ppi but delivers 1800ppi effective on film in the horizontal direction and 1600 in the vertical direction for 4x5".

Total pixels will be 80MPix as it was calculated.

Effective pixels will be 1800x4 x 1600x5 = 57.6MPix effective.

The Hasselblad scans 4x5" at hardware 2000ppi because it has a 8,000 pixels sensor, that distributed in a 4" wide sheet are 8000pix/4" = 2000 ppi.

[grat]

There's a philosophy in computer science that's roughly summed up as "GIGO". Garbage in, Garbage out. Or perhaps, using the laws of thermodynamics, entropy always increases. Or the Las Vegas rules of Thermodynamics: You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game.

Applied to photography, you're never going to produce a more detailed image scanning a negative than the original negative**.

How many of these 4x5 or 8x10 negatives are being produced by lenses with anywhere near the MTF of the systems being used to image them at ultra-high resolution? Personally, I'm a novice at LF photography, so I have inexpensive lenses-- mostly single-coated Fujinons, with my best lens being a Schneider Symmar-S.

At 4x5, what's the realistic level of detail I should expect to find in my negatives?

My optics knowledge is pretty rudimentary (concepts, I know, math, not so much), and I know there's not going to be an exact translation between analog and digital.

** although modern machine-learning algorithms can make a really good effort at it.

[Sasquatchian]

Certainly anyone who shoots large format at smaller apertures - f/22 - f/64 and beyond are leaving a lot on the table resolution wise, but that's what a lot of people did throughout the years and still do today. For small to moderate print sizes none of this really matters but if you're into making very large prints, then you will see the difference.

From my personal experience, even the 8000 dpi Howtek drum scanner leaves a tiny bit of resolution on the table in an extremely sharp Velvia transparency, but scanning that at 8000 ppi even with its slight optical loss is still way better than any projected optical print, as the enlarging lenses simply fall apart especially in the corners and edges when you're at 40X enlargements, and that's further made worse when technicians choose speed of quality by exposing those large prints with the lens wide open. There is no thing as perfection here but there ARE methods that are better than others.

[Chester McCheeserton]

I could scan some HP5+ at that resolution. Are you thinking 4x5? I actually think I only have some 8x10 HP5 on hand but my camera is in the shop... I have a bunch of medium format HP5 however and was planning to do ISO/dev time tests with it.

Is there is a simple scanner PPI/pixel resolution calculation? I'm always confused about that. I.E. When someone asks for a 2000PPI scan what pixel resolution are you targeting.

not sure what exactly you mean by "pixel resolution" and I'm sure someone can jump in and deliver a sermon on the difference between dpi and ppi but basically someone with a 4x5 inch negative asking for a 2000 ppi scan means that after opening the scan in photoshop and going to image/image size the file dimensions are 4 by 5 inches with a resolution of 2000 ppi.

Or depending on whether it's full frame or not, approx 10,0000 pixels on the long side.

[Chester McCheeserton]

Certainly anyone who shoots large format at smaller apertures - f/22 - f/64 and beyond are leaving a lot on the table resolution wise, but that's what a lot of people did throughout the years and still do today. For small to moderate print sizes none of this really matters but if you're into making very large prints, then you will see the difference.

From my personal experience, even the 8000 dpi Howtek drum scanner leaves a tiny bit of resolution on the table in an extremely sharp Velvia transparency, but scanning that at 8000 ppi even with its slight optical loss is still way better than any projected optical print, as the enlarging lenses simply fall apart especially in the corners and edges when you're at 40X enlargements....

The proper name for that tiny bit of resolution is Aura, what Walter Benjamin called 'a peculiar web of space and time'....hahaha..

[Sasquatchian]

I'm not really inclined to spend a grand right now to see how Epson's scanners have improved since I last owned own a quarter century ago but I might have to just to see. What I think might be happening is that our friend here has never actually seen anything better, and certainly the drum scanning examples he keeps referring to are done with a scanner clearly not in optimal scanning condition. I'll check and see how my little ol' etrade portfolio is producing right now and maybe I'll go for one. I can always use it for documents, but a grand is also a new microphone too.

[Pere Casals]

I'm not really inclined to spend a grand right now to see how Epson's scanners have improved since I last owned own a quarter century ago but I might have to just to see.

The Epsons made a leap forward 14 years ago, they have not improved since 2006, today they manufacture exactly the same than then, with two improvements: the convenient LED illumination that has no heating delay and it's stable requiring no calibrations over time... and the ANR glass holders with adjustable height, this addresses the film curling that otherwise could lead to very flawed scans.

The Epson is not a Pro machine, it is in the Prosumer segment, clearly not made for those proffesionally scanning all day long, but ideal to have it at home. For a top notch result the image requires ensuring film flatness/focus and a careful edition that not every consumer user is able, anyway this is way less work than wet mounting for a drum.

In that test made by Pali the V700 excells because the scanning/workflow was proficient, with the Epson one has many opportunities to make a botched job, starting by not addressing curling/focus, then one has to scan at oversampled top dpi-16 and optimizing sharpening before downsizing to the edition size and using the right downsizing algorithm, this is not as necessary in a pro scanner.

Thanks to "modern" computing power those oversampled operations are practical.

Also the Epson requires the Multi-Exposure effort for dense Velvia... But it has the iSRD feature saving a lot of manpower with color film.

For color negative film (MF and up) you won't find a better result from a better scanner, as that test showed to the surprise of many, Pali included. It is true that BW grain structure (for beyond x10 prints) is not as detailed as with superior scanners, but this is usually not a concern in LF...

With scanning YMMV, what is for sure is that the Epson is a quite powerful machine for LF, in the right hands. Some won't be able to get great results.



I'm not really inclined to spend a grand right now to see


If you want, I'll give you an address to send one or several negatives and I'll V850 scan it for you, then you may compare it for free.

Sadly in many places the V800 price nearly doubled in the last months... but I guess that price may return to it's "normal" level in the post-covid.

Right now the V850 can be found in Amazon-Spain for 660€ + VAT , the V800 for 500€ +VAT

204164

[grat]

I'm not really inclined to spend a grand right now to see how Epson's scanners have improved since I last owned own a quarter century ago but I might have to just to see. What I think might be happening is that our friend here has never actually seen anything better, and certainly the drum scanning examples he keeps referring to are done with a scanner clearly not in optimal scanning condition. I'll check and see how my little ol' etrade portfolio is producing right now and maybe I'll go for one. I can always use it for documents, but a grand is also a new microphone too.

Alternatively, you could head over to YouTube, and watch a video by a photographer named Nick Carver. He took two 6x17 negatives (one negative, one transparency), had them professionally drum scanned, scanned them in a wet mount setup with his Epson, and with his Canon 6D, then had them printed at large size to do comparisons. He felt that pixel peeping, while entertaining, isn't really the goal-- something that can be hung on the wall and displayed is.

For those not wanting to watch the video, the summary was that the best quality was the professional drum scan, followed closely by the DSLR, and then the Epson-- But in terms of normal viewing of the print, it just didn't matter. The Epson workflow was far preferred, because he had direct control over the color (in his opinion, the Epson did the best job of matching the color as shot), and the DSLR, while it produced high quality images, was incredibly frustrating to get the stitching just right, and the color balance kept coming out "Canon", even when he used Fuji Velvia. He also admitted a lack of practice and knowledge on the stitching and color balance, but felt it was still an unholy nightmare compared with using the Epson and SilverFast. Having it done professionally was incredibly easy (because it wasn't his effort, only his money), but there's a lack of control on the final product.

The video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9d8BukUgzI

[sperdynamite]

I find that video very annoying because you can see from the start he was inclined to write off camera scanning. Then his technique for making the scan was atrocious. No masking, sitting right on the light source, no copy stand, and using a crappy Canon sensor. When I commented that his technique could be improved in a number of ways he was belligerent about it of course.

[Pere Casals]

Alternatively, you could head over to YouTube, and watch a video by a photographer named Nick Carver. He took two 6x17 negatives (one negative, one transparency), had them professionally drum scanned, scanned them in a wet mount setup with his Epson...

Well, it is an interesting video and his points of view are quite useful in part, at least for those not wanting to investing an effort to obtain the best yield from each way.

Anyway in scanning YMMV and with any system one may get better or worse results depending on the effort we make in mastering that system.

Performance/convenience also depends on format.

Regarding color, he does not consider that a Drum or DSLR scanner will match the Epson CN conversion with the right calibrations / profiles. An he also does not mention that the Drum colors of slides usually are optmized by the scanner service people after scanning, this can also be made with the DSLR and Epson images. And also he does not says how he scans slides with the Epson, which requires special attention in the oversampling management anf for high densities.



No masking, sitting right on the light source, no copy stand, and using a crappy Canon sensor. When I commented that his technique could be improved in a number of ways he was belligerent about it of course.



Yes, but he is stitching, so sensor is not to be a factor. Even with shifting with one shot scan you have the lens optic limitation, it would be a surprise if the Sigma ART is to deliver more than 30MPix effective, if stitching you also overcome the limitation from the optics.

...but I agree that his poor evaluation of the DSLR way is very influenced by a lack of effort in its optimization.

Something is true, for the DSLR way one needs to control dust very well.

[grat]

I find that video very annoying because you can see from the start he was inclined to write off camera scanning. Then his technique for making the scan was atrocious. No masking, sitting right on the light source, no copy stand, and using a crappy Canon sensor. When I commented that his technique could be improved in a number of ways he was belligerent about it of course.

Yes. He admitted he was biased against DSLR scanning. And admitted it worked far better than he expected. He also admitted his technique wasn't that great and could be improved.

But even people who know what they're doing, and do it on a regular basis find it fiddly, and difficult.

If you can point out another video or article where someone has done a comprehensive comparison between the technologies, I'd like to see it.

I don't know which comments were yours, but most of the comments I saw that he responded to, he was incredibly tolerant, and open-minded, even to criticism. Then again, there's a level of hostility against the Epson around here that I find a bit baffling, especially since most of the alternatives cost significantly more money, and/or take exponentially greater amounts of effort to accomplish.

Of course, it's also obvious that there is a strong Sony bias here, so ergonomics and ease of use apparently aren't a priority. :rolleyes:

[Peter De Smidt]

But even people who know what they're doing, and do it on a regular basis find it fiddly, and difficult.



I don't find it fiddly or difficult, and you're lumping a bunch of different approaches together. For example, using a slide duplicator with a digital camera is easy and much faster than any other method. Yes, maximizing quality is a challenge, but that's true for any system. With an Epson that involves finding the best scanning height, keeping the negative perfectly flat, and so on.

This is a group for large format photography. Generally, we car about photographic quality enough to go through the hassle and expense of using large format cameras. It's not at all surprising that we care about eeking out as much photographic quality as we can.

Finally, no one in forcing you to use a particular scanning method. If you are happy with an Epson scanner, then by all means keep using it.

[sperdynamite]

But even people who know what they're doing, and do it on a regular basis find it fiddly, and difficult.



Scanning the way he insisted on doing so was indeed fiddly and difficult. But generally camera scanning is an ultra fast way to generate an incredibly high quality file. If it was fiddly and difficult I'd pay big bucks for an Imacon. Thank god I don't have to consider that anymore.

I suggested that he should look into pixel shift cameras and he stated that 'sombody from Hasselblad' told him it's not a good way to go because you need to be vibration free. I pointed out that all scans need to be vibration free and that I use pixel shift all the time. He wrote off my suggestions. How could you possibly beat the industry worst sensors from Canon I guess?

[Pere Casals]

Then again, there's a level of hostility against the Epson around here that I find a bit baffling

:) yeah

:) :) If you want to make good friends here you have to repeat with them that the Epson is "prure crap", only acceptable for x2 or x3 prints, that is has lenses made of cheap plastic (it was a fake belived by many), that its color conversion is infame, that M-E makes nothing...

Not only hostility aganist the Epson, also remarkable hostility aganist anybody telling it's performance in practical situations.

Many people having commercial interests have been involved in discrediting the Epson and in assembling a hard group trolling aganist the few opposing.

This is an example (3 days ago) of the paradigm: "Your enhancements only accentuate what's shit about that scanner, and, in addition, you completely ignore the horrible gradations produced by the Epson. What a good quality PMT can give you that your Epson never can is that quality of gradation, that is evident even on lower res jpegs posted on the internet. So, while I may buy an Epson as a curiosity as it's a cheap piece of hardware, I can say that the most I'd ever use it for is document scanning, something I've been doing with the Canons lately."

(Want quality gradiations with the Epson ? Scan 16 bits/channel...)


Take it with humor :)

[Sasquatchian]

Oh Pere. Scanning in 16 bits per channel alone isn't enough to give you great gradations. The underlying hardware has to be good enough and it's the quality of the sensors, the converters and the optics all combined. No one here could give two shits about Epson either way. What they DO care about is people (like you) grossly overstating the facts without a full understanding of the scanning process. Put your money where you mouth is. Go buy yourself a freaking Howtek or ICG - the only two I would consider after years of study, spend a year (minimum required to learn it) and then see if you have the same opinion. Of course, you're so biased in favor of what you can afford that you can't see beyond and are using someone else's flawed comparison as the basis of your finding of "fact". I fully understand that there's gonna be no convincing you. I only put stuff out there to help make sure that no one else is suckered into your (delusional) world. And that you quote me without actually quoting ME. That's pathetic.

[Alan Klein]

I just got a V850. Does Silverfast 8 SE Plus version that came with the scanner provide multipass and multi exposure or do I need to upgrade Silverfast? How does it do it?

[Pere Casals]

I just got a V850. Does Silverfast 8 SE Plus version that came with the scanner provide multipass and multi exposure or do I need to upgrade Silverfast? How does it do it?

Alan, your SE plus version features Multi-Exposure, see this introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MAw4FF0gWU

You have to check the little button in the split bar that is labeled ME, see min 1:53 in the video.

The scanner will make two passes, each at different exposures and later both will be combined in a single file. Scan and Export in TIFF 16 bits, take all histogram and latter edit curves in Ps.

IMO multipass does not offer much a benefit, but as it averages several scans it decreases noise, a bit the super-resolution effect.



These 4x5 Tmax 100's are scanned at 2400. I tried scanning at 3200 but couldn't see the difference. Should I scan at 3200 or 4800 or higher?

Alan, sorry, I've not seen your post until now.

Image quality is very expensive in effective pixel terms, to the make eye notice an slight improvement you have to double the effective pixels of the image, this is resolving 1.4 times more, linearly.

Because of diminishing returns, if scanning 3200 instead 2400 you will get perhaps 300 more effective dpi but not the 800 the hardware settings say. Is that effort worth ? it depends, if the shot it's not sharp of your print size is small, or you only need 8MPix to fill a 4k monitor... in that case you won't find a difference, the most important is your final pixel level sharpening and using the right downsizing algorithm.


If your negative is sharp then scan at max dpi your computer will stand, sharpen optimal and reduce to the edition size, this is a refined workflow.

Scan a crop of the 4x5" negative at 6400 and compare to a 2400 dpi one bicubic oversampled to 6400dpi, view it at 100%. This will tell the truth.


To scan at high dpi you need a tunned computer, a M.2 disk can load a 3gb file in less than 2 seconds... but a magnetic disk may take 30s.

[Pere Casals]

Oh Pere. Scanning in 16 bits per channel alone isn't enough to give you great gradations. The underlying hardware has to be good enough and it's the quality of the sensors, the converters and the optics all combined. No one here could give two shits about Epson either way. What they DO care about is people (like you) grossly overstating the facts without a full understanding of the scanning process. Put your money where you mouth is. Go buy yourself a freaking Howtek or ICG - the only two I would consider after years of study, spend a year (minimum required to learn it) and then see if you have the same opinion. Of course, you're so biased in favor of what you can afford that you can't see beyond and are using someone else's flawed comparison as the basis of your finding of "fact". I fully understand that there's gonna be no convincing you. I only put stuff out there to help make sure that no one else is suckered into your (delusional) world. And that you quote me without actually quoting ME. That's pathetic.


Sasquatchian, I did not quote your name because you were using a dirty wording like "shit" etc and I judged better not to put your name, it's up to you using that kind of language but it defines you.

Let's do something, I give you an address and you send me a LF negative, BW, CN or Velvia, I'll send you the file and we'll post here the Epson scan and your Imacon scan, to compare the crops you want.

It is true that the Epson won't be as good as a drum for say 3.6D densities, but with usual densities you have the same perfect gradation than with a drum.

The negative Pali selected for the "side by side" has extremly subtile gradations, I guess he selected it for that reason, the result is that the Epson perfectly matches the drum after a careful but simple edition, even if pixel peeping. This is a fact. (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?154875-Should-I-Drum-Scan-X1-Flextight-Scan-or-use-the-Epson-V850-w-Aztek-Wet-Mount-Kit&p=1553157&viewfull=1#post1553157)

The Epson is an IT8 calibrated machine, if you scan an IT8 target you will see that it nails the reference rgb for each patch, one by one.

[grat]

I don't find it fiddly or difficult, and you're lumping a bunch of different approaches together. For example, using a slide duplicator with a digital camera is easy and much faster than any other method. Yes, maximizing quality is a challenge, but that's true for any system. With an Epson that involves finding the best scanning height, keeping the negative perfectly flat, and so on.

Sure, let me put this 4x5 negative into a slide scanner... how many times do I need to fold it? Oh, right. Now who's conflating techniques?

As was said in the video, if the negative could be scanned in one shot, DSLR's would be a fantastic way to digitize images.


This is a group for large format photography. Generally, we car about photographic quality enough to go through the hassle and expense of using large format cameras. It's not at all surprising that we care about eeking out as much photographic quality as we can.

Well, that's true also. And since I don't have a 100 megapixel camera, and I can get 100 megapixel scans of a 4x5 negative, in one pass (actually, 2 negatives in one pass), the Epson makes a lot of sense. I can buy an awful lot of film, lenses, and other gear for the amount I save by using the Epson-- and if I really need a higher resolution scan, I still have the negatives, and can take them to someone who has better equipment, and the experience on using it.

To use a DSLR, I need a copy stand, a perfectly level table, a very flat lens (my 100mm f/2.8 macro has a pretty good reputation, but it still has a small amount of distortion), a custom white balance, and a minimum of 4 images (6 would be ideal). Multiple images means precisely positioning the camera relative to the negative (or vice versa) is kind of important.

If I could load up a negative, mount my camera in a bracket, push a button and have a system automatically take a series of 6 images, that would be fantastic, and I'd put my scanner on eBay tomorrow.

I've considered building such a system, and I might-- but it's not like I can buy one off the shelf, and even if I could, it would be such a specialist item that it would run 4 figures, *without* the camera (I do, however, have an old CoreXY 3D printer sitting in the corner.....).

Should I do so, the resolution would be mind-boggling, since my camera has a very high pixel density (even though it's a "crap" Canon and can't shift the sensor one pixel to the left and interpolate like mad) at something on the order of 7900 PPI.


Finally, no one in forcing you to use a particular scanning method. If you are happy with an Epson scanner, then by all means keep using it.

You're right, you aren't. In fact, the instrument has not yet been devised that can measure the insignificant amount of influence this discussion could possibly have on my preferences. And if you'll pay close attention, I've never suggested that anyone should use a particular method, or that their preferred method was crap, or their hardware was crap, or that their hardware is in fact a figment of their imagination.

That would be rude.

Just like photography, there is no perfect technique for digitizing negatives-- every method I'm aware of has both advantages and drawbacks. Out of "fast", "cheap" and "high resolution", pick two. The Epson provides a very high return on a minimal investment of time and money (and yes, it could, and should be better than it is). But if neither of those is a concern, use a drum scanner. If ultimate bragging rights are your goal, spend the time and use a DSLR-- because really, it's neither fast, nor cheap. It is however, potentially, the highest resolution option available.

[Peter De Smidt]

Grat, if it's so much trouble, why are you talking about it? Just don't do it. Problem solved.

[Corran]

Since Day 1 I have said the Epson was a perfectly reasonable scanner for 4x5, but had its limitations. And as the format got smaller from there, its defects become a bit more apparent for obvious reasons. There's also more options out there for 35mm / 120. (Edited to add: the 4x enlargement mentioned by RD below is exactly where I have considered the limit of an excellent Epson scan to be.)

Many of us have used Epson scanners and have a lot of experience with them. I used to help teach students how to scan film and the photo lab was equipped with a half-dozen of them. They are also sometimes available to use at local libraries, free. Nice!

They still have their limitations and if one needs something a bit better, options exist, even if some are more troublesome than others due to aging hardware/software. I upgraded when I was in the middle of preparing a big gallery show and was making many large prints and had the budget to buy a better scanner. When printing 30 to 40 inches on the long side I found the results to be overall better than I had gotten before, in various metrics.

I'm not a test chart guy. I just don't care. I use the gear and I make photographs. Way back in 2013 though, I was bored and did a little comparison. At the time, I had a Microtek M1 scanner, which is pretty similar to an Epson but actually has autofocus and scans in a "tray" so no glass in-between the scanner lens and film. A pretty good scanner. I also had a shiny new Nikon D800E. I setup a shot and used the D800E to test this shot with studio strobes. Made a few exposures on various chromes, settled on the Provia 100F transparency. I scanned the film on that Microtek M1 and made some comparisons, which I'll leave aside for the moment.

Recently I was looking through some older film and came upon that transparency, and figured I would do a new scan on my Cezanne. I pulled up my old raw tiff files and Nikon raw image and sized it all up to comparable resolutions and then did some basic editing to match things up color-wise, at least as close as I felt like getting without serious work.

This is by NO means a scientific test. I also think chromes are the most challenging thing to scan well, and b&w would be a whole other kettle of fish.

Link (http://www.esearing.com/Bryan/AV/photosharing/test-5407-3z.jpg)

One other comment. Leaving completely aside the issue of performance, there's other reasons to prefer scanners. For one, I can scan 12 4x5 negatives at once on my scanner, or my 8x20 film on the platen. This is not insignificant from a workflow perspective. Even if someone came out with a new film scanner that blew out everything before now, I'd still probably stick with the Cezanne merely for this fact alone.

[Peter De Smidt]

Good stuff, Bryan. Thanks for posting!

[interneg]

not sure what exactly you mean by "pixel resolution" and I'm sure someone can jump in and deliver a sermon on the difference between dpi and ppi but basically someone with a 4x5 inch negative asking for a 2000 ppi scan means that after opening the scan in photoshop and going to image/image size the file dimensions are 4 by 5 inches with a resolution of 2000 ppi.

Or depending on whether it's full frame or not, approx 10,0000 pixels on the long side.


DPI = the dots per inch an output device delivers in whatever screening pattern - stochastic or otherwise. PPI input resolution equates to a particular DPI dot output, but that can vary depending on screening patterns, dot gain etc, etc. There is a tendency to confuse the two throughout the industry and (for example) Canon describe the print mode on their printers as '600dpi' in the driver, when they seem to mean 600ppi... Clear as mud, eh?


Regarding the pixel resolution, yes, it's much as you described - so with Sperdynamite's Panasonic S1R, which delivers 11168px on the short side of the sensor in the pixel shift mode, the native resolution with 4x5 filling the frame as far as possible is theoretically 2972ppi, 5x7 should be about 2233ppi, 8x10 should deliver 1396ppi. But it's not necessarily test chart resolution that matters, it's total optical performance that I'm interested in - so HP5+ in 120 would do fine, if the camera was set up as it would be used for 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, as it's only a chunk of the image at about 50% that's needed for useful comparisons - preferably covering smooth grey mid tones as the visible granularity of the film has a bell-curve distribution. In other words, the most visible granularity essentially denotes where the mid-tone of a particular film is located - which may be a distortion from notional 'reality'. I have a matched set of 1500, 1600, 2040ppi (and I think 2400 and 1200ppi, will need to check) scans I have made on a Hasselblad X5 from HP5+ from the same negs and I'd like to see how they visually relate in terms of granularity to a camera scan - ie the hypothesis I want to test is how overall resolution of the granularity and general sharpness compares - it seems to be a good quick 'image content' type of test in my experience - and one one that quickly separates the low performance optical systems (Epson) from higher performing ones.

I've yet to see any evidence of the claimed ability to resolve granularity realistically at the resolutions claimed by the Epson defenders - but if you combine two 1200ppi scans & interpolate them to 2400ppi by fairly crude means, you end up with an optical signature very similar to the Epson in terms of the rather poor visible sharpness and mushily vague granularity. Funnily, enough that seems to be essentially what the Epson is doing - combining two 1200ppi sensor lines per colour that are offset from each other by 1/2px and trying to interpolate them together.


It all comes back to a threshold not of resolution, but of acceptable sharpness of the total image, granularity and all - all of which may contradict the old-as-the-hills amateur tests of high contrast resolution alone, because it's possible for two optical systems to exist where one has higher resolution and poor MTF across the resolution range & the other system very high MTF performance yet lower absolute resolution, but because of where the threshold of visually perceived resolution falls, the second system will always perceptually outperform the first. And that's the data point where the inexperienced get visibly tripped up by their confidence outperforming their experience (https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/1/let-me-interrupt-your-expertise-with-my-confidence-jason-adam-katzenstein.jpg) - because they have no experience of the differences of the systems in practical use, they dismiss the second system on the basis of an intuitive (prejudicial) reliance on poorly informed reading of data sheets and a cognitive bias towards testing that is poorly set up (or a wilful misreading of the purposes of the test objects for the same reasoning) because simplistic resolution tests are easily digested compared to the complex and highly mathematical testing that has led to an understanding of the relationship between MTF, RMS Grain, latitude on the ability of a film (or other imaging system) to record visually useful and ( more importantly) visually pleasing information - Psychophysics if you want a one-word answer.

It's the same reason why a car with a big engine, bad handling and a poor power to weight ratio is going to be outperformed in both real-world and racetrack environments by a smaller, nimbler car with a more efficient engine.

[rdenney]

Okay, folks. Let's not make the lifeguard blow the whistle and require everyone to exit the pool.

Now that I've done my moderator thing, let me return to my photographer thing.

I have an Epson V750 scanner. I have digitized slides on a Canon 5D/5DII using an Illumitran, and also using a Nikon bellows, Micro-Nikkor, and slide duplicator. I have scanned negatives in my Nikon 9000ED scanner (and in many film scanners of that type before that one, including a Nikon 8000 and a Minolta). I have constructed an apparatus for scanning 4x5 negatives in tiles using a DSLR camera back when Peter and others were exploring it. I have not yet tried using that apparatus with a Pentax 645z and 120mm macro lens, but I do own a Pentax and have done macro work with it. Based on all that, here are conclusions, in no particular order, based on my own personal experience. With a few opinions mixed in, of course.

1. The Epson does not generate more detail, dynamic range, smoothness, or noiselessness at 6400 than it does at 2400, even with many adjustments made for position.

2. I find scans from the Epson look very good when enlarged up to about four times. By "very good", I mean that they meet my requirements for sustaining the illusion of endless detail in the print. In other words, I want to be able to look at the print from any distance and never be taken out of the impression that the only reason I don't see more detail is that I'm not closer. That is, of course, an illusion, but it is conspicuous by its absence. So: I can make 16x20 prints from 4x5 negatives scanned in an Epson that meet my requirements. Transparencies are more challenging--the Epson is only able to capture all of what is in a Velvia scan because of the inherent flare in the system. At that level of enlargement, gradation seems good enough to me. I participated in the print exchange a few years ago, and compared my offering--4x5 Fuji film scanned in the Epson and printed at 11x14 Exhibition Fiber Glossy in an Epson 3800--to other prints in the exchange and did not find mine inferior in any technical dimension, including tonality and gradation.

3. Digitized slides made in the Illumitran have too much contrast for the Canon sensor. When I engage the Contrast Control Unit, the effect is too strong and the image posterizes when I try to restore contrast. I have thought about using a neutral-density gel over the CCU light source to moderate its effect, but never got to it. The copy lens on the Illumitran was...okay.

4. Digitized slides made with the Nikon bellows are better than with the Illumitran, and vastly more convenient, but contrast management is still a challenge. I think these are good for enlargements up to about 8x without losing too much tonality (or enlarging the flaws in the original slides too much). Good for a blurb book, not good enough for larger prints. But that would be true even if I was enlarging them under an enlarger onto Cibachrome. I look at my small-format 11x14 or 16x20 prints from my earlier years and sometimes cringe.

5. The Canon sensors in my 5D and 5DII are not good for this work. They lack the dynamic range to capture everything in a color transparency, though they are fine for negatives. But reversing a color negative is a challenge for me, and it takes a lot of time to get it right. When I started making photos with the Pentax 645z, I realized how much better sensors could be. It's not just that the 645 sensor is bigger--I can crop the Pentax image down to a 24x36 capture area and compare it to a Canon image of the same subject, and even at monitor resolution, the Pentax image has more subtle tonality and better color, and much better dynamic range and shadow reach. The Pentax is to the Canon what Kodachrome 25 is to Ektachrome 200 sitting next to each other on a light table, in terms of color and tonality.

6. Digitized 35mm slides are not for making large prints, but then neither were the original slides. The illusion of endless detail cannot be sustained.

7. Pentax 645z images are good for making large prints--certainly larger prints than I can make from Epson scans of 4x5 while maintaining better tonality, gradation, and sense of detail.

8. Rollfilm scans from my Nikon film scanner can be enlarged to at least a factor of 12 without losing the sense of endless detail. I have been able to scan two ends of 6x12 negatives and stitch them with alignment to the pixel level. My largest such composite was an image of a stained-glass window. The purpose of the image was to be able to print the photo onto transparent film to simulate the look of the original window at 1.5x life size--a print that would have been five feet by eight feet. I made three 6x12 exposures in my Sinar view camera, using lens and back rise/fall to avoid any misalignment between the images, and then separately scanned each end of each frame (the Nikon only supports up to 6x9). That's six images that I then merged in Photoshop. Printed at the target size (at least a test portion printed on paper), the illusion of endless detail was sustained even on close inspection. Lens was a 210mm Sinaron (Rodenstock Sironar-N). That was about a 12x enlargement, and the Nikon scan held up. And because it was a photograph of a stained-glass window, contrast was enormous and colors saturated, and I used Kodak Ektar negative film to control it. In the end, the full-size print was never made, which made me sad because I really wanted to see it.

9. I have routinely made excellent 16x20 prints from 6x7 film scanned using the Nikon--a smaller challenge. 6x7 negatives scanned in the Nikon provide better image detail than Epson scans of 4x5 when viewed at the pixel level. The Nikon scans also provide greater tonality and gradation. But both make 16x20 prints that are adequate for me. I don't compare them to chemical prints--that's like comparing oils to watercolors--but both are capable of whatever artistic expression I'm capable of.

10. I've never worked with scans made using a laser scanner. Frankly, I don't want to--it might force me to raise my standards higher than I can afford to sustain. I said as much to one well-known lab owner who offered to make one for me for free. The images comparing the Howtek to the Epson earlier in this thread were clear to me: The Howtek image showed better color and gradation, and fewer sharpening artifacts. (I was reminded of a video some guy posted on YouTube comparing his Nikon to a Pentax 645z--even at video resolution the Pentax images showed much better color and tonality, but he couldn't get his head out of the pixels and thus drew the wrong conclusion.)

11. I suspect my 645z with the 120 macro lens could make a one-shot digital image from a 4x5 negative with sufficient resolution to meet my requirements for sustaining a sense of endless detail in a 16x20 print. Technique would have to be perfect, but I think I could make it work. And the Pentax sensor has much greater dynamic range and I think could do it even with transparencies (but probably not Velvia). But I would no more get all there is to get out of a 4x5 negative than I would using the Epson to scan it.

12. It is very reasonable to suggest that the Epson is good enough for making moderate prints from large-format negatives when budget considerations are included in the analysis. It is also reasonable to assert that other technologies are better at this or that dimension, though at higher cost, space, or difficulty. This is not a religious topic. Those who state that they can only accept the very best that is possible will need to bring their checkbook. But if they have their checkbook in hand and have actually done it, those haven't who still insist they are wasting their money have no standing. If someone was paying me to make a much larger print than 16x20 from one of my 4x5 negatives, I would send it out for laser-scanning.

13. I don't use large format solely for greater detail--I generally meet my requirements for endless detail in a 16x20 print using 6x7 or medium-format digital. I mostly use large format for its image-management capabilities.

Again, my results are my results. You can apply different standards than I do, or measure image quality in different ways than I do, but you can't change my results.

Rick "what I think I know" Denney

[sanking]

Again, my results are my results. You can apply different standards than I do, or measure image quality in different ways than I do, but you can't change my results.

Rick "what I think I know" Denney

Rick,

Well said. I take my hat off to you for having the patience to write this up.

But what is a laser scanner? I never heard of that?

Sandy

[Pere Casals]

I'd like to see how they visually relate in terms of granularity to a camera scan - ie the hypothesis I want to test is how overall resolution of the granularity and general sharpness compares - it seems to be a good quick 'image content' type of test in my experience - and one one that quickly separates the low performance optical systems (Epson) from higher performing ones.


This is easily adjusted with Photoshop edition:

Look, in this side by side https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/ the Epson grain looks a bit softer, a few clicks in Ps and you have exactly the same in the X5 and Epson images.

There is no doubt... a perfect match. The Epson image looks even better... see the letters on the lens... (the crop is seen like in a x12 enlargement in the monitor, so the Epson made a good job in great enlargements)



https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49942969366_16d13369fd_h.jpg

204181

[Peter De Smidt]

Great summary, Rick. I too hadn't heard of laser scanning before.

[interneg]

It is very reasonable to suggest that the Epson is good enough for making moderate prints from large-format negatives when budget considerations are included in the analysis.

While some CMOS based imaging systems are coming down in price, an Epson isn't a bad option if you aren't making big prints and have fairly relaxed aim points (qualitatively speaking).

The problems start however when:
...he couldn't get his head out of the pixels and thus drew the wrong conclusion

And that is the fundamental problem - it's not the number of pixels, it's how well they're used in the visually important range.



P.S. I think what you meant by 'laser scanning' dates from the era when a drum scan was used to output to a laser film writer for halftone separations - initially direct from transparency on scanner to laser - Rudolf Hell's major innovation was to realise a computer for image manipulation could be put betwixt scanner and output device.

[Pere Casals]

1. The Epson does not generate more detail, dynamic range, smoothness, or noiselessness at 6400 than it does at 2400, even with many adjustments made for position.

2. I find scans from the Epson look very good when enlarged up to about four times.


Let me say my view.

Tecnically, at 6400dpi you get a 25% higher resolving power than at 2400, diminishing returns, but for sure there is a performace increase. Of course to notice it the LF shot has to be sharp enough, and the sheet has to be well in focus.


As we all know the V700 is quite sensitive to the film curling, if negative falls 1 single mm you loss half of the resolving power in the x direction:

204182

Instead the V700 is less sensitive to a film displacement in the up direction.

New ANR glass holders with adjustable height ensure flatness and allow perfect focus.


IMO if flatness/focus is ensures then x8 enlargements are pretty good, if the film goes 1mm down in the scanning then x5 enlargements are still good.

See that in the graph resolved microns change from 7 to 12 if the film falls down 1mm from the ideal position. Film position has 1mm tolerance from 2.5mm to 3.5mm, so it can only fall 0.5mm, beyond those margins we have problems.


So IMO, being able to enlarge x4 or x8 from an Epson is about focus/flatness accuracy.

[sanking]

Per,

Some great comments at the end of that article, which I believe is about three years old.

Quote

"I have a $20 solution that will equal the quality of the Flextight scanner. Put a negative on a lightbox and shoot it with any high quality camera and a good macro lens. I've compare shots done this way to drum scans and there's no quality difference. I now 'scan' transparencies this way and the results are wonderful."


I realize now how much time we are wasting with scanning. Damn, I have a 108 mp Xiamoi cell phone that will probably give results that are just as good as my Howtek scanner?

But what can we expect? We live in a world where neither the emperors nor the peasants wear clothes, and no one notices.

Sandy

[Pere Casals]

Quote

"I have a $20 solution that will equal the quality of the Flextight scanner. Put a negative on a lightbox and shoot it with any high quality camera and a good macro lens. I've compare shots done this way to drum scans and there's no quality difference. I now 'scan' transparencies this way and the results are wonderful."




Well, the Flextight makes 6900 dpi effective for 35mm film, this is an insane amount, and it makes +4.0D for Velvia... this is its sweet point, as the format gets large it shines less.

I've no doubt that a DSLR scanner can reach 10,000 dpi effective, it would require stitching even for 35mm, but it can be done with a bare $35 Nikkor-EL 50mm reversed, which is an insanely good lens.

[Peter De Smidt]

"The third important parameter for a scanner is its density range (Dynamic Range) or Drange (see Densitometry). A high density range means that the scanner is able to record shadow details and brightness details in one scan. Density of film is measured on a base 10 log scale and varies between 0.0 (transparent) and 5.0, about 16 stops.[13] Density range is the space taken up in the 0 to 5 scale, and Dmin and Dmax denote where the least dense and most dense measurements on a negative or positive film. The density range of negative film is up to 3.6d,[13] while slide film dynamic range is 2.4d.[13] Color negative density range after processing is 2.0d thanks to compression of the 12 stops into a small density range. Dmax will be the densest on slide film for shadows, and densest on negative film for highlights. Some slide films can have a Dmax close to 4.0d with proper exposure, and so can black-and-white negative film.

Consumer-level flatbed photo scanners have a dynamic range in the 2.0–3.0 range, which can be inadequate for scanning all types of photographic film, as Dmax can be and often is between 3.0d and 4.0d with traditional black-and-white film. Color film compresses its 12 stops of a possible 16 stops (film latitude) into just 2.0d of space via the process of dye coupling and removal of all silver from the emulsion. Kodak Vision 3 has 18 stops. So, color negative film scans the easiest of all film types on the widest range of scanners. Because traditional black-and-white film retains the image creating silver after processing, density range can be almost twice that of color film. This makes scanning traditional black-and-white film more difficult and requires a scanner with at least a 3.6d dynamic range, but also a Dmax between 4.0d to 5.0d. High-end (photo lab) flatbed scanners can reach a dynamic range of 3.7, and Dmax around 4.0d. Dedicated film scanners [14] have a dynamic range between 3.0d–4.0d.[13] Office document scanners can have a dynamic range of less than 2.0d.[13] Drum scanners have a dynamic range of 3.6–4.5."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_scanner#Scan_quality

[Pere Casals]

The Epson V700 scans perfectly CN and BW film +6 overexposed, which delivers densities under 3.0D.

204184


This is the signal-noise vs density of the V700 before using Multi-Exposure.

204185


+8 stops overexposure is also perfectly scanned if using Multi-Exposure, which works perfectly up to 3.4D.


Velvia won't show any quality in areas over 3.4D, but a drum or flextight will recover better that. Anyway normally there is no reason to pull that low quality detail, if the slide was not mistakenly underexposed.

[rdenney]

Rick,

Well said. I take my hat off to you for having the patience to write this up.

But what is a laser scanner? I never heard of that?

Sandy

Crap. I meant drum scanner.

Rick “fingers not connected to brain” Denney

[Corran]

Since I had my Cezanne on and some old negatives at hand I popped one of the black and whites I happened to have scanned with my old Microtek back in the day to see, and this definitely shows the differences in pretty stark "black and white" so to speak. I'm mostly a b&w shooter now, but back then I was shooting mostly chromes, so I don't have too many negatives to look at, but this tiny section on one of those was a great test with visible words. This is about 2.5 inch on the screen but would be a massive print of the full image. At a modest enlargement the differences don't show up as much. Maybe I'll rig up a quick camera scan later with my D800 and 55mm Micro at 1:1.

Again, not scientific, I just dug up some old raw scans from 7 years ago out of curiosity before I had the Cezanne, and rescanned them. None of the images are particularly good so they've languished in a binder.

http://www.esearing.com/Bryan/AV/photosharing/Untitled-64-test.jpg

[sanking]

Sandy & sperdynamite: I'd be interested in seeing your results off HP5+ or something of that sort in the 2000ppi resolution range (and higher if you want) - mainly because I've found its granularity & the scanning device's resolution of that grain to be a fairly stiff test of the potential imaging capacity of a system. If you have other films that you mainly use, those are fine too - all I'm interested in is the ability to usefully resolve the granularity. I can throw some Hasselblad/ Imacon scans into the mix as comparators. I'd like to hope the CMOS shift & stitch sensors at least equal or outperform the 1990's CCD systems with their sometimes temperamental electronics and software...

For the record, the Hasselblad/ Imacon lens is a Rodenstock/ Linos 75mm Magnagon with a fixed aperture. It's a different design to the Apo-Rodagon D & is optimised 1:5-5:1 magnifications.

Hi,

I don't believe there are any HP4 negatives that are worth scanning in my archive. I used it from time to time but way back then, and none of my good work in either medium format or LF was done with HP4. I did use it some wirth 12X20" format, but those negatives were typically shot at diffraction limited apertures of f/45 or greater.

If you send me a sample negative medium format to 5X7 I will be happy to digitize it for you with the a7r iv with pixel shifting, and return. If interested just contact me by email.

Sandy

[Pere Casals]

It's the Magnagon just the OEM industrial version with fixed iris of the APO-Rodagon-D 2x ?

https://www.closeuphotography.com/rodenstock-linos-magnagon-lens/magnagon-75mm-f4
"I have read a few times that the Magnagon is a re-badged APO Rodagon D 75mm M=1:1 lens but the APO Rodagon D 75mm 2X f/4.5 seems to be a lot closer of a match."

Here says "Constant optical quality at magnifications between 1:5 - 2:1", so to have 1:2 to 5:1 we just reverse the lens.

___________


And interesting review (with APSC) of x2 lenses:


https://www.closeuphotography.com/2x-lens-test

https://www.closeuphotography.com/minolta-dimage-scan-elite-5400-lens/

I found this is interesting information to learn about scanners... interesting data about Minolta DiMAGE vs Nikon old scanners.

[interneg]

Hi,

I don't believe there are any HP4 negatives that are worth scanning in my archive. I used it from time to time but way back then, and none of my good work in either medium format or LF was done with HP4. I did use it some wirth 12X20" format, but those negatives were typically shot at diffraction limited apertures of f/45 or greater.

If you send me a sample negative medium format to 5X7 I will be happy to digitize it for you with the a7r iv with pixel shifting, and return. If interested just contact me by email.

Sandy

If you'd rather contribute TMY-II scans, that's fine as well - I'd prefer people use what they are comfortable with, because they'll generally get the best results they can achieve with their setup, rather than working on sight unseen images.

I do have some TMY-II examples I scanned at 3000ppi on the X5 which can deliver visible granularity from TMY at that resolution, so I'll dig them out & append it to the set of comparisons.

I'm mainly interested in appearance & handling of granularity, rather than the sort of negatives often used as 'resolution' comparators - and a broader sample of films might actually help more in getting a sighting shot on the overall imaging performance of the pixel-shift scanning approach.

[Pere Casals]

I do have some TMY-II examples I scanned at 3000ppi on the X5

Lachlan, those have to be scans of MF film, as for 4x5" LF max hardware resolution of the X5 is 2,040dpi. As this is a LF forum it would also be interesting if you can also post 4x5" scans, to see how the hassie resolves TMY grain for LF.

[interneg]

Pere, I'm not interested in listening to you repeating the same tired (and self-evidently untested) statements over and over and over - just accept the following: you can get 3000ppi scans from almost full frame 4x5 on the X5 by shifting the negative and stitching - and very easily on 9x12cm. However, if investing in a pixel shift camera lets me get this sort of result faster and more easily, then that's what I want to investigate. Furthermore, I'd refer you back to Rick Denney's comments about the person who "couldn't get his head out of the pixels" because pixel resolution isn't the simplistic zero-sum game you want it to be. Pixel counts don't mean anything other than a set of arbitrary numbers if the rest of the optical performance isn't there.

Rather than hiding behind intentionally dishonest attempts at gatekeepering, how about you show (not tell, and with new evidence, rather than the same old scans) everyone how you can get your Epson to adequately resolve the granularity of HP5?

As a point of fact: for what I want to investigate, the format of the source material is (and should be) irrelevant. All that matters is: can a given scan system/ set up deliver a reasonable account of the source negative's granularity at a specified nominal pixel resolution comparable to what I currently work with, such that I should consider investing in a suitable shift/ stitch camera?

[Pere Casals]

how you can get your Epson to adequately resolve the granularity of HP5?

With the Epson without stitching... it's only about nailing flatness/focus.

The X5 resolves 2600 effective with 3000 scans, so 0% MTF at 2600, quite a surprisingly low value for such an expensive machine, and if scanning 4x5" without stitching you have 0% MTF at 1800 or 1700. It is totally impressive for 35mm, but for LF having to stitch to go beyond 1700... after paying $16.000...




because pixel resolution isn't the simplistic zero-sum game you want it to be. Pixel counts don't mean anything other than a set of arbitrary numbers if the rest of the optical performance isn't there

Cycles/mm at extintion is a very important metrics describing optical performance, the rest of the optical performance is close related, in this case.




All that matters is: can a given scan system/ set up deliver a reasonable account of the source negative's granularity at a specified nominal pixel resolution comparable to what I currently work with, such that I should consider investing in a suitable shift/ stitch camera?

The X5 scans always have around the same 60MPix effective not matering much the format size for regular formats (35mm, 6x9cm, 4x5") (it varies depending on aspect ratio, a longer frame delivers more, 6x12 delivers twice what 6x6, of course).

Suposing that a lens like the Sigma ART 70mm resolves less than 30MPix effective (may it more?), this would be your limiting factor for 1 shot scanning, the more you shift the more you'll approach that value. The ART has 50lp/mm at 50%MTF.

But with the DSLR you can stitch crops for "unlimited" performance.

IMO what math says is that the DSLR will be superior to the X5 if stitching, a practical test should show that.

[grat]

As a point of fact: for what I want to investigate, the format of the source material is (and should be) irrelevant. All that matters is: can a given scan system/ set up deliver a reasonable account of the source negative's granularity at a specified nominal pixel resolution comparable to what I currently work with, such that I should consider investing in a suitable shift/ stitch camera?

At the risk of further convincing some people I'm in the pro-Epson / anti-DSLR camp**, since I'm relatively new at this particular aspect of photography, how do you define "delivering a reasonable account of the source negative's granularity at a specified nominal pixel resolution"?

In short, could you define your terms in a way that A) a novice can decipher and B) aren't apparently subjective? Obviously, you have your personal standard, but I'm curious what it breaks down in a way I could, for example, research on my own. If you already did earlier in this thread, my apologies-- just point me at the post, and I'll be on my way. :)

In spite of what some people here believe, I'm genuinely interested in the discussion.

** Actually, I am pro-Epson, because at this instant in time, the Epson, with it's limitations, makes the most sense for me personally. But I'm not anti-anything.

[rdenney]

Once a scan can reproduce the grain of the film, down to its shape, there’s not much more to be mined. The more it can do this, the less, say, color depth matters.

An Epson cannot do that. Neither can a digital camera (though at least the grain is visible, if the magnification is sufficient) unless we do microscopy more than macro photography. A drum scanner comes closer.

But it means that any scan we can currently make is an approximation that can only be evaluated by whether it attains our objectives, in addition to whether the negative and everything we do attains our objectives. If the scan really revealed all of what’s in a negative, we would no longer need that evaluation. So, we are stuck with determining whether that approximation is good enough, given our intentions and constraints.

We’ve always dealt with this. 4x5 is a compromise compared to 8x10, and medium format is a compromise compared to 4x5. A Sironar N is a compromise compared to a Sironar S. And so it goes. We all have to find the optimum between objectives and constraints.

For me, the Epson is a reasonable compromise for making 16x20 prints from 4x5 negatives. If I was shooting Velvia, it might struggle (because it can’t reproduce the microscopic dye clouds and there has to have the dynamic range to handle the variability of sensels that integrate groups of dye clouds). If I was making 40x60” prints, it would struggle. I’d have to send it out for a drum scan, or photograph it in sections at high magnification. I know that’s the case because the Epson cannot make scans of 6x7 medium format that meets my 16x20 print requirements, which is why I own a Nikon film scanner. But that is also an approximation.

We are trying to get all we need, not all that is available, unless we are prepared to spend a fortune in dollars or time or both.

But if we could scan grain shapes easily (not just making grain sort-of visible), our choices would be focused on other links in the image quality chain. Like lenses, or technique, or film. You know, like we used to when we were using enlargers.

Rick “remembering arguments about whether this or that enlarger lens was good enough” Denney

[Pere Casals]

Once a scan can reproduce the grain of the film, down to its shape, there’s not much more to be mined. The more it can do this, the less, say, color depth matters.

An Epson cannot do that. Neither can a digital camera (though at least the grain is visible, if the magnification is sufficient) unless we do microscopy more than macro photography. A drum scanner comes closer.

Yes, but with the drum we have to scan at 8.000dpi hardware, is we scan at 4000dpi then true resolved power (at contrast extintion) may be in the 3400 to 3600 range, and this is not much an improvement for grain compared to the Epson result if the focus is nailed. The drum at 8.000 will make a difference, but a single 8.000dpi 4x5" scan costs many hundreds of dollars.

What makes a difference in BW grain depiction is illumination, the drum illumination nature is a lot like with condenser enlargers sporting a higher Callier, while flatbeds have a more diffuse illumination like diffuser enlargers, at least it's what I understand. Callier is about taste.





For me, the Epson is a reasonable compromise for making 16x20 prints from 4x5 negatives.


With all the respect, this is a paradigm I oppose. Beyond personal quality requirements there is a lot of "YMMV" in that.

Many have been judging the Epson 4x5" performance based on scans made in the old V700 bundled holders. As that through-focus resolution graph makes evident, a single 1mm distance drop in the sheet center will lower the resolution to just the half.

Many have not checked that... belive me, a 1mm drop (or more) in a 4x5" sheet is quite easy to happen, this is 1mm in a 100mm wide plastic foil. Many times an on bed scan with the low res lens may be better because focus it's easy to ensure, or at least we easily detect the curling.

With the new holders we place the curling up and the ANR glass on the film flattens perfectly the film, this is a major advantage that may just double practical performance, most of the times, so we go from 16x20 to 32x40".


What happened with Pali's test ? He says he is a "normal guy", but he ckecked focus and he nailed it. He extracted the best possible scan playing the same attention to focus than the one is required when DSLR scanning. The result was that for CN the Epson exactly matched (at pixel-peeping level) what an Scanmate 11000 drum and two Creos. With also perfectly matching color gradation which it was an additional surprise.


This fact alone may make reconsider some paradigms.

(Of course for 6x7cm a Nikon 9000 is better than the Epson if the shot is very, very sharp, or if we want to show grain structure, no doubt.)
_____

Intoxications:

Let me add how such paradigms were coined:


Your enhancements only accentuate what's shit about that scanner, and, in addition, you completely ignore the horrible gradations produced by the Epson.

But later Mr Sasquatchian admits that he has not seen an Epson in the last 25years (after 1995, it looks)


I'm not really inclined to spend a grand right now to see how Epson's scanners have improved since I last owned own a quarter century ago but I might have to just to see. What I think might be happening is that our friend here has never actually seen anything better...

And later it may even follow a group trolling...

But the "normal guy" Pali obtained for CN the same sharpness and the same subtle color gradations in a challenging color gradation shot, being rival machines true top notch.


_____


Rigth now, the single concern that remains about the Epson-DSLR for LF is grain depiction, to me LF is not much about grain, but I propose making a proficient collaborative side by side.

I offer shooting several times a test scene with HP5+ and TMX 4x5" and sending negatives to several people to scan it with drum and dslr (one shot and stitching), then we may compare grain from V850 vs X5 vs Drum vs DSLR.


Proposition:

Scene: Ample SBR with smooth and microcontrasty areas.

Films: HP5+ and TMX (what I've at hand).

Developers: Xtol and HC-110, totalling 4 sheets per scanner.

Schedule: Juliet


Do we go?

[Peter De Smidt]

Dealing with grain is highly scanner dependent. For example, I used to own both a consumer flatbed and a Nikon Coolscan. The Coolscan absolutely obliterated the flatbed, at least it did with fine-grained film. The resolution, color, tonality were all significantly better. This, by the way, is a reason why many people don't like Epson flatbeds. Back in the 90s and early 2000s, most people were scanning 35mm film, and Epson scanners were clearly inferior to a lot of other options. People who've been scanning a long time remember this, and they see similar differences when looking at drum-scanned film versus and Epson. This isn't legitimately controversial. As film size goes up to 8x10, the Epsons do a much better job. But, as I said, this applies to fine-grained film. With grainy film, say Kodak HIE (high speed infrared), my consumer flatbed trounced my Nikon. With the Nikon, the grain was huge, easily twice as big as the flatbed scan. This just shows that not all of us need the same attributes in a scanner. Rendering grain well, in my experience, mostly comes down to limiting grain growth in the scan. With my scanner, I've tested a wide range of resolutions, and with it, a Cezanne, grain gets progressively finer as resolution increases, right up to 6000 spi. So, for 35mm film, especially grainy film, that's what I scan at. It's more important for grainy film than for fine-grained film, as I said. Now this is also true for larger film, but I don't print large enough for it to be a big deal. Yes, I could scan LF film in 6000spi strips and combine. It isn't hard. I've done it a few times for fun, but for editing and storage, it's a pain, and so I don't do it.

[Pere Casals]

At least since 2006, color conversion is also the reason why many people like the Epson flatbeds, like Nick Carver explains. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9d8BukUgzI min 22:00

But this is irrelevant because with modern tools like 3D LUT Creator one makes with color what he wants.

I agree with Carver that the Epson has one of best CN inversions around straight from the scanning, IMO only Frontiers and Noritsus are better, but this after applying Image intelligence auto edition.

Anyway I think that with the right edition tools one may get the same from Drum or DSLR.


The "Horrible" Epson color inversion and lack of gradation was another fake paradigm that had no base comming from intoxication. It is exactly the counter: one of the best and most pleasing CN inversions around.


This Nick's Tube explaining Epson operation has today 261.000 views, it looks that many people are interested in operating the Epson, for several reasons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtpmlEeJodw



For the record (not everybody thinks Epson colors are bad):

204257

[grat]

At least since 2006, color is also the reason why many people like the Epson flatbeds, like Nick Carver explains. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9d8BukUgzI

But this is irrelevant because with modern tools like 3D LUT Creator one makes with color what he wants. A novelist may blame the keyboard, but's Shakespeare had none.

Strictly speaking, Carver liked the Epson's colors mostly because of SilverFast with negafix-- which in spite of the cool name, just seems to be some very carefully crafted color curves for remapping the negative's color correctly. If you're good at color curves (I'm not), it can be duplicated with effort.

The professional lab with a drum scanner does alright with color as well, but they're using their profile(s), rather than the user's, and I have no idea if they take a particular emulsion's color cast into account or not-- I would hope they do.

The DSLR, as a rule, wants to impose it's own rendition of color-- Fuji, Canon, Olympus, Sony-- they all have their own interpretation of how a set of 4 numbers should be interpreted as a color. As you say, if you have the time and patience to create custom LUTs, that can be compensated for as well.

[Pere Casals]

As you say, if you have the time and patience to create custom LUTs, that can be compensated for as well.


The "Dark Art" of Scanner Profiling : https://luminous-landscape.com/the-dark-art-of-scanner-profiling/

[rdenney]

Vuescan had always done an okay job of inverting color negative scans for me. I use it for the Epson and for the Nikon.

I do have scanner calibration targets and have attempted to build a scanner profile, which has worked better in the Nikon than in the Epson, just because of the size of the target. Vuescan will create scanner profiles from IT8 targets, too.

Rick "noting that the target supplied with Silverfast SE bundled with the scanner was reflective only" Denney

[Pere Casals]

Silverfast Negafix advantage is that it has specific maps for each film, accounting for the C-41 <--> RA-4 specific spectral interaction, an inversion not considering the specific film may require a more complex color edition later to obtain a sound result.

_________________________________



Silverfast guys say that now the V800/850 reaches 4.08D with multiexposure in Version 8. Is this because of the new LED illumination ? Is it true ? Until recently they stated 3.38D !

204269

I was noticing something "abnormal" with velvia in the V850, hmmm...

:) It would be better if this was false, because if it's true...

[Peter De Smidt]

Having separate profiles for each film stock is even better. Wolf Faust , Hutch color, and others made the profiling targets. It really does make a difference, which I know from first hand experience.

[interneg]

With the Epson without stitching... it's only about nailing flatness/focus.

The X5 resolves 2600 effective with 3000 scans, so 0% MTF at 2600, quite a surprisingly low value for such an expensive machine, and if scanning 4x5" without stitching you have 0% MTF at 1800 or 1700. It is totally impressive for 35mm, but for LF having to stitch to go beyond 1700

All you've demonstrated is a total lack of knowledge of the mechanical behaviour of the internals of the Imacon design. And that vague multiplications of a supposed scan of a film copy of a chrome on glass target are never a good idea when dealing with complex opto-mechanical systems. If you wanted your statement to have the vaguest hint of integrity you'd upload the scan you supposedly had made, so that everyone could peer review it. You are hanging the totality of your flawed claims on the matter of a difference of the resolution of one element in group 5 - and if you had any knowledge of the literature around why the USAF-1951 is a poor comparison device when discussing total optical performance, you would know that one of the biggest problems with the USAF-1951 surrounds the problem of defining what the smallest element resolved in a particular test actually is. Cognitive bias is a big problem here. I would not be surprised if you over-read the Epson test you supposedly did, and under-read the Imacon, because that suited what you wanted the result to be. Either share the scan, or stop making the claim.

[Peter De Smidt]

Confirmation bias also enters these threads quite regularly....

[interneg]

Confirmation bias also enters these threads quite regularly....

Very much so, especially with those who want to prove how 'clever' their cheapness and rampantly amateurish approach is. The total lack of even the most passing engagement with the tenets of scientific method (specifically: repeatability and falsifiability) often leaves me with Wolfgang Pauli's famous comments stuck in my mind!

I probably shouldn't tell them that it's actually quite easy to repeat essentially what the Epson does if you have two slightly offset 1200ppi scans and interpolate the lot together to 2400ppi... You even get the same odd 'wooly' unsharpness that's so distinctive of the Epson outcomes.

Then again, much in life would be simpler if the Ansel-manqués were able to realise that they are making huge pseudo-technical mountains out of the merest suggestions of molehills.

[Pere Casals]

All you've demonstrated is a total lack of knowledge of the mechanical behaviour of the internals of the Imacon design.

The thing is quite clear.

The X5 always resolves at contrast extintion the same amount of pixels in the scan width, around 6900, the more inches the scan width has the less pixels per inch resolved.

When lens position makes the sensor cover 1" (35mm film) then the X5 resolves (at contrast extintion) Element 7.2 horizontal and two elements less for the vertical direction, so it has contrast extintion at 6900dpi average which is 85% yield of the hardware dpi at contrast extintion.

At 2040dpi flextight manual says it delivers 1800 dpi also at contrast extintion with a 90% optimistic yield, it's more 1700dpi with a 85% yield, but lets admit 1800 at extintion. This is when lens position makes the sensor cover 4" wide film.

At 3000 samples per inch you also can infere that you will have around a 90% yield for the contrast extintion dpi, which is 2700 or if the loss is 15% which is more plausible, you would have 2550 at contrast extintion. Anyway the reality should be in between.


No mistery...


What is clear is that if you scan 4" at 2040dpi you will have contrast extintion in element 5.1 or 5.2. If not, tell me what element resolves your hassie in those conditions...


We don't have the MTF graph of the Magnagon, but we have the Apo Rodagon 2x which is a close match, well... if you are minimally able to interpret a MFT graph then this totally matches what I've just stated. Use the calculator...

204276

(The pictured lens is the 1x, the graph is for the 2x)

Or were you guessing that you had 100% MTF at 2040dpi when covering 4" ? LOL... life is not that wonderful, at 1800 you have extintion 0% MTF.

The points above are flawless, but we can discuss them one by one if you don't agree with something.




I would not be surprised if you over-read the Epson test

I fully agree with the V700 one posted by Pali in the 2019 Scanner Test, check it. For the X5 I fully agree with published tests, resolving at extintion average 7.1 with 1" test, and obviusly 1/4 of that at 4" / 2040dpi.




Confirmation bias also enters these threads quite regularly....

First, that reasoning you have above is flawless, no byas.

Second, it's you that are introducing byas. You just stated that people don't like the Epsons because flawed color, but it's exactly the counter:

min 22:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9d8BukUgzI

204277

Third, you add to the Lachlan Yuong personal attacks in group trolling mode, which is your specialty. You have a beam in the eye, regarding what's trolling.

[rdenney]

Okay, folks, don’t make it personal. We are all friends here, or we can at least act like we are.

Rick “and let’s try to minimize going in circles” Denney

[Peter De Smidt]

Circles of confusion...;)

[Pere Casals]

Ok, no more circles, let's draw my conclusions for "Should I Drum Scan, X1 Flextight Scan, or use the Epson V850 w/Aztek Wet Mount"


For Color negative film we have smashing evidence: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152777-DSLR-scanning-vs-Dedicated-flatbed-scanning&p=1505196&viewfull=1#post1505196

> This pixel-peeping is a totally reliable proof that the can exactly enlarge to the same print size from CN scans: from the Epson and for a drum. The X1 Flextight should also be similar or at least we can stitch two crops taking nearly all sheet to match.

> For the Epson the Aztek Wet Mount will ensure perfect focus delivering a Pro feel, but also the new ANR glass holders may work, the Epson is a Prosumer machine requiring to manually ensure focus for optimal results, the Flextight is Pro machine that ensures focus, but it has lower performance for 5x7" and no 8x10".

> A drum is always the total perfection in any situation, but ownership has many problems, scanning service is expensive, for CN has no advantage because CN it's too easy to scan.




BW LF film:

All sytems will resolve well the usual image quality LF negatives have, differences will be in grain depiction. For LF the Flextight and the Epson don't have a resolving power to scan grain perfectly but drum has to scan at nominal 6000 or more to scan grain significatively better than the other, which it would be expensive. Again the Epson requires an effort to ensure focus to get top quality for plain oversized prints.

Recently a member here compared his Epson vs his Drum scans, we may inspect the crops, with mild edition we can easily match results. We can go to it.

Drum has a more collimated illumination like a condenser enlarger. Flatbeds have an illumination closer to diffusion enlarger. Flextight system had its illumination design modified time ago to be less collimated.

More collimation more Callier effect. Callier is about taste.




Velvia:

The flextight and the drum have better DMax than the V700 for recovering very underexposed velvia. But now Silverfast guys say that with the V800/V850 Multi-Exposure gets 4.08D when for the V700 they were stating 3.38D. Is this from the new illumination? new Firmware? Is that performance true? (They cite the same ISO norm that was also used to rate top dollar scanners)

I guess we should make a side by side M-E V850 vs drum for dense Velvia, to see what was improved or not.



Color management:

I agree with the Nick Carver tube, the Epson delivers straight the best CN color inversion. For slides as we speak about IT8 calibrated machines we get the same. DSLR scans delivers initial worse color, but IMO with a proficient edition all systems match.

What is true is that the Epson inversion is the best straight, requiring a less complex color edition, specially for portraiture. Matt Osborne scans his many film fashion works with a V800, we can browse his albums to see a very consistent portraiture color job: https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/albums https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/albums

[Alan Klein]

Ok, no more circles, let's draw my conclusions for "Should I Drum Scan, X1 Flextight Scan, or use the Epson V850 w/Aztek Wet Mount"


For Color negative film we have smashing evidence: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152777-DSLR-scanning-vs-Dedicated-flatbed-scanning&p=1505196&viewfull=1#post1505196

> This pixel-peeping is a totally reliable proof that the can exactly enlarge to the same print size from CN scans: from the Epson and for a drum. The X1 Flextight should also be similar or at least we can stitch two crops taking nearly all sheet to match.

> For the Epson the Aztek Wet Mount will ensure perfect focus delivering a Pro feel, but also the new ANR glass holders may work, the Epson is a Prosumer machine requiring to manually ensure focus for optimal results, the Flextight is Pro machine that ensures focus, but it has lower performance for 5x7" and no 8x10".

> A drum is always the total perfection in any situation, but ownership has many problems, scanning service is expensive, for CN has no advantage because CN it's too easy to scan.




BW LF film:

All sytems will resolve well the usual image quality LF negatives have, differences will be in grain depiction. For LF the Flextight and the Epson don't have a resolving power to scan grain perfectly but drum has to scan at nominal 6000 or more to scan grain significatively better than the other, which it would be expensive. Again the Epson requires an effort to ensure focus to get top quality for plain oversized prints.

Recently a member here compared his Epson vs his Drum scans, we may inspect the crops, with mild edition we can easily match results. We can go to it.

Drum has a more collimated illumination like a condenser enlarger. Flatbeds have an illumination closer to diffusion enlarger. Flextight system had its illumination design modified time ago to be less collimated.

More collimation more Callier effect. Callier is about taste.




Velvia:

The flextight and the drum have better DMax than the V700 for recovering very underexposed velvia. But now Silverfast guys say that with the V800/V850 Multi-Exposure gets 4.08D when for the V700 they were stating 3.38D. Is this from the new illumination? new Firmware? Is that performance true? (They cite the same ISO norm that was also used to rate top dollar scanners)

I guess we should make a side by side M-E V850 vs drum for dense Velvia, to see what was improved or not.



Color management:

I agree with the Nick Carver tube, the Epson delivers straight the best CN color inversion. For slides as we speak about IT8 calibrated machines we get the same. DSLR scans delivers initial worse color, but IMO with a proficient edition all systems match.

What is true is that the Epson inversion is the best straight, requiring a less complex color edition, specially for portraiture. Matt Osborne scans his many film fashion works with a V800, we can browse his albums to see a very consistent portraiture color job: https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/albums https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/albums
How does Silverfast change the speed of the V700 and V850 during multi exposure to slow it down to harvest more data? Have you actually seen this? Have you compared the results to a single normal pass and using shadow control on a post processing program?

[Pere Casals]

How does Silverfast change the speed of the V700 and V850 during multi exposure to slow it down to harvest more data? Have you actually seen this? Have you compared the results to a single normal pass and using shadow control on a post processing program?

M-E takes at least twice the time as two scans are made in two passes. Some Pro scanners may be making the two exposures in a single pass, taking two shots before davancing the carriage or the film.

The quality boost you have from M-E in very deep Velvia shadows is impressive, not only gets much more shadow detail, it also removes noise in it. It is fantastic !! But you will only see the benefits in very dense underexposed areas of slides or extreme highlights of negatives.

Just try it... it is not a mild difference in the extreme velvia shadows, it's a huge difference, when I compared it the first time I got atonished.

M-E also can be used to recover highlight detail of extreme highlights of BW color and color negative film, of course with negative film you have the extreme densities in the extreme highlights, in glares, shines, light sources...

(As always, scan 16-bit/channel and safe in TIFF, take all histogram to get a dull image and adjust curves in Photoshop).

[Sasquatchian]

The best color negative inversions I've ever seen are and continue to be with Trident, the native software from ColorByte for the Howtek, but, of course, you need a Howtek scanner to be able to take advantage of that. And then, you have to include the ability to match the aperture to film grain which is simply not possible in anything but a real drum scanner, and in that aspect, not all drum scanners are created equal either. You have to look to see what the actual stops are and how many there are, and it doesn't help that some companies label them like #1, #2, etc rather than their actual size in microns. But you only discover these things by actually using the scanners and their related software. And, of course, the other big negative is that Colorbyte, despite my urging when I was beta testing for them, stopped development in the late 90's and it continues to run beautifully, but on Mac OS 9 only.

[interneg]

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words.

Well, here's one from a Hasselblad X5 and HP5+ at (top to bottom) 3000ppi, 2040ppi and 1500ppi. They are all 100% crops of native resolution settings of the scanner. No sharpening, no downsampling. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cfz-aV17REHJyxhM06xkKr-mD0hdoX1u/view) And to make it very clear, downsampling 3000ppi to 1500ppi looks quite different from scanning at 1500ppi in terms of the appearance of the granularity. They demonstrate the threshold for what I would like to see in terms of the reproduction of the original negative's granularity - not perfect compared to an actual enlarger print, but more than convincing.

I'd be interested to see how well the pixel-shift cameras do in comparison. I'm hopeful they'll at least equal the 2040, and I'd be overjoyed if they can equal or outperform the 3000ppi with a 4x5 negative. If anyone wants to throw a drum scan with adjusted aperture in, feel free.

On the other hand, this is what Mr Casals believes 2300ppi from an Epson V7xx scanning HP5+ should look like (https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/34949184821/sizes/o/). I also note that he hasn't uploaded the scan of a copy of a USAF-1951 target he claims to have made on a Hasselblad/ Imacon.

If you're happy with the Epson, brilliant - most people quickly manage to accept that it does have quite severe limitations concurrent with its price and limited technology compared to CMOS pixel shifted scans or high end CCD & PMT scanners and move on to get on with actually making work.

[Sasquatchian]

In my twenty-five odd years of scanning and a few added on top of that when I supervised the commercially made drum scans at prepress houses in L.A. I found through practical experience that if you make incremental steps in your scanning hardware and your personal scanning ability, you'll end up scanning the same images over and over and over again each time you get a better scanner. When I hear people make outlandish claims about really cheap scanners like the Epsons - and they really are cheap at roughly a grand, it just makes me laugh a little, or perhaps cry instead. When I started researching higher end scanners in '97-'98 ish, I really didn't know enough to make an informed decision, but Imacon was nice enough to drop off one of theirs for a few weeks while I had a Howtek 4500 on loan for review. I didn't know until much later about the inflated claims for some of the other brands of drums or about the finer points of scanner apertures or the differences in their software. Probably through serendipity I ended buying the Howtek and then another one (the 8000) a few years later. I always heard "people" talk down about the Howteks and how crappy they were, but it turns out it was they who didn't know how to use theirs to the ability of the hardware. The real point here is that some of you might be happy with an Epson - for now - but as soon as your experience increases or your needs increase or your appreciation of what really makes a great scan comes into focus, you'll be pissed off at all the time you wasted on cheap, crappy hardware. But if you think you'll settle for mediocrity for quite a while, then you'll be happy with Epsons and others like it. Personally, I don't like to have to make excuses for the quality - or lack of - in my equipment or spend my life trying to convince people that it's something it's not - if you catch my drift.

[Pere Casals]

On the other hand, this is what Mr Casals believes 2300ppi from an Epson V7xx scanning HP5+ should look like (https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/34949184821/sizes/o/).


Mr Lachlan Young, LOL... :) :) :) My god....

The image you link is ultra fine grain Delta 100 in a fine grain Xtol developer https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/34949184821/ (see description!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Look, how you compare that granularity to HP5+, boy?

In the other hand it's seen from a mile far that is not HP5+ but tabloid (Epitaxial) fine grain. Aren't you able to see it? What kind of film photographer are you, Lachlan?


You have yet an address to send me a negative, send it and we'll do a fair side by side.


This is the truth about the X5 resolving power for LF: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?154875-Should-I-Drum-Scan-X1-Flextight-Scan-or-use-the-Epson-V850-w-Aztek-Wet-Mount-Kit&p=1554205&viewfull=1#post1554205

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?154875-Should-I-Drum-Scan-X1-Flextight-Scan-or-use-the-Epson-V850-w-Aztek-Wet-Mount-Kit&p=1554278&viewfull=1#post1554278



When I hear people make outlandish claims about really cheap scanners like the Epsons - and they really are cheap at roughly a grand,


I'm not really inclined to spend a grand right now to see how Epson's scanners have improved since I last owned own a quarter century ago but I might have to just to see. What I think might be happening is that our friend here has never actually seen anything better...

Half a grand, in fact. (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?154875-Should-I-Drum-Scan-X1-Flextight-Scan-or-use-the-Epson-V850-w-Aztek-Wet-Mount-Kit&p=1553653&viewfull=1#post1553653)

You admited you have not seen an Epson in the last 25 years, so you speak about pre 1995 Epsons, not post 2006 when the V700 was released, so you have quite a flawed criterion.

[Jim Andrada]

@ Sasquatchian

Well said. It's exactly how I arrived at using the Creo instead of the Epson. I thought about a drum scanner and spent some time with Lenny in California and I finally concluded that while I was unsatisfied with the Epson, the drum workflow wasn't something I felt I wanted to get involved with. My conclusion after using the Creo for several years is that it's definitely a real scanner and not a toy, albeit maybe not quite up to what a drum scanner can do.

Having said all that, the Epson is certainly better than nothing. I have images that I originally scanned with the Epson and later re-scanned with the IQsmart 2 and I think I made rather nice prints from each one - but it was easier with the output of the IQsmart. So while I get (and agree with) your points, I don't know that I'd go so far as to label the Epson as "Crap" - I think I'd just sum it up as representing one end of a price performance spectrum where "price" includes time and effort as well as $$$. Drums and high-end flatbeds are pricey and bulky and are definitely not for everyone. Having the Epson as an option is really valuable in so far as keeping LF within reach of a lot of people so I'm really glad it's around. I just wish Individual "X" weren't quite so vocal about how it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[interneg]

Having the Epson as an option is really valuable in so far as keeping LF within reach of lot of people so I'm really glad it's around. I just wish Individual "X" weren't quite so vocal about how it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

That's about the sum of it.

[interneg]

Pere, it matters relatively little what you used for the negative for that scan, at that resolution it should have some visible, clean, crisp granularity, not whatever odd, soft, aliased horrors are floating around in the sky area. If you'd kept it and your claims to 1200ppi to perhaps a little bit more ppi of useful resolution from the Epson, you'd discover that most people would probably agree. If I was feeling a little more charitable than your usual mode of belligerent condescending nonsense is making me, I'd prepare some samples of Delta 100 and Acros at 2040 and 3000ppi. But I think such things will have to wait until after you bother to post your mythical scan of a USAF-1951 copy from an Imacon.

[sanking]

Jim has expressed my opinion almost to a word.

One more thought. Don't feed the trolls.

“So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses in stability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it.”

― John Stuart Mill, The Subjection of Women


Sandy

[Chester McCheeserton]

The best color negative inversions I've ever seen are and continue to be with Trident, the native software from ColorByte for the Howtek, but, of course, you need a Howtek scanner to be able to take advantage of that. .

just curious have you tried aztek DPL? or does it not work with your howtek?

I don't like working with PCs and I never used the Trident software but for me the Aztek DPL software, despite its numerous quirks is the absolute best for scanning color negative film.

[Sasquatchian]

Chester - Yes, I've used DPL. I actually bought it and paid Aztek $800 for a day of "training" if that's what you want to call it. I used it every day all day for thirty days and gave it back. It was inferior in every way then (may be better now, I don't know) and it was not color managed in any way shape or form. Well, yes, it did have the controls for color management but they literally did not do anything. What they did was just copy the interface from Photoshop and there was no functionality. So, yes, all you need is a PC computer to run the software. The scanners, Howtek and Aztek are identical except for some improvements that Aztek made - like a military grade drum bearing and a hand aligned optical path, both of which they did to my scanner. Aztek was also using an alternate brand of PMT so the Buhle's that were OEM from Howtek. It's unfortunate that Colorbyte stopped Trident so long ago. They told me that it would cost them too much in development time to write the SCSI tables for OSX and there was no existing database of Howtek users worldwide to have at their disposal to market to. I think they told me there were approximately 4000 scanner produced over the years.