DSLR Scanning - Signal / Noise

[Blackmarxz]

Hello,

How many images can i stitch from a 4x5 negative - before signal/noise ratio drops significantly?


Subject to DOF restrictions would seem I can do a fair amount, however expect at some point the DSLR images dont get any better at picking up details

Cheers

[Jim Michael]

I think you are referring to the number of exposures in the mosaic for which the limit would be resolution of the grains or dye clouds. Those are the details. However there can be actual noise in the high density areas that might be overcome via multiple exposures at each mosaic element such as in astrophotography.

[Peter De Smidt]

I used to do 25 frames per 4x5 at 1x magnification. I found that going higher lead to better results on a high resolution test target, but it didn't lead to better results with regular negatives.

[sperdynamite]

Check out this page: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?157960-Lightbox-for-film-scanning/page4

I don't think many CMOS based camera capture systems will have a significant amount of noise, especially those that eliminate the debayering altogether.

[Peter De Smidt]

I never found noise to be a problem, even with quite dense negatives. As sperdynamite points out, this should be even less of a problem with pixel-shift/averaging systems. Using HDR exposure blending increases the density range that can be captured, but my old D200 could already do about a stop more than an Epson scanner when scanning a Stouffer step wedge, and so it might only be called for in the most extreme cases.

[CreationBear]

my old D200.

Peter, out of curiosity, had you removed the AA filter from your D200 for scanning? FWIW, I'm mulling over a DSLR for scanning relatively big negatives (5x7) for fairly small prints, and was wondering if that's where the inflection point is (versus FF or "gross" megapixels) in terms of basic performance.

[Peter De Smidt]

No, and I recommend a newer camera than the D200. Modern cameras have better dynamic range, as well as more resolution. A D600 or newer would be better. The best would be a pixel shifting mirrorless camera, especially one with electronic first curtain shutter to minimize vibration.

[sanking]

Sony mirrorless cameras 42 mp and greater (a7r ii, a7r iii and a7r iv) do not have AA filters. This is probably true of some other brands of high resolution FF cameras.

Sandy

[sperdynamite]

I like and use the Panasonic S1R even though the Sony has a better sensor. The reason being that Panasonic has pretty great tethering software, a variety of shooting ratios (1:1, 4:3, 3:2), and the pixel shifted scans do not require an extra piece of software to open them in LR or ACR. IIRC the Sony files need proprietary Sony software. Not a huge deal but an extra step. Nothing can beat the Sony sensor though. The Panasonic comes close but it's not as high res.

[Peter De Smidt]

CreationBear, if you're talking 5x7 prints from a 5x7 negative, then a 50-80mm enlarging lens + extension tube + most fairly recent cameras should work great. Honestly, at that size I bet my phone would work well. After this week of tests and grading, I'll give it a try.

[sanking]

I like and use the Panasonic S1R even though the Sony has a better sensor. The reason being that Panasonic has pretty great tethering software, a variety of shooting ratios (1:1, 4:3, 3:2), and the pixel shifted scans do not require an extra piece of software to open them in LR or ACR. IIRC the Sony files need proprietary Sony software. Not a huge deal but an extra step. Nothing can beat the Sony sensor though. The Panasonic comes close but it's not as high res.

There appear to be support in Light Room for opening Sony pixel shift shots.
https://www.dpreview.com/news/5727281053/adobe-has-quietly-added-support-for-sony-s-arq-pixel-shift-files-to-lightroom

Wish it were available in Bridge as I don't use LR. But the Sony Image Edge software is pretty easy to learn, and a free download.

Sandy

[CreationBear]

Peter, Sandy, Sperdy--Thanks for the replies! I do have a Pentax K-5 (ASP-C, 16MP, with AA filter) so was looking at the used Pentax market. At around $300, you can get a K-5ii without AA filter; with $200-$300 increments getting you later models with more MP and then pixel shift until you reach the FF K-1 at about a grand.

At any rate, as Peter implies, that big negative absolves a multitude of sins--hopefully I'll finally decide on an output strategy soon.:)

[sperdynamite]

Peter, Sandy, Sperdy--Thanks for the replies! I do have a Pentax K-5 (ASP-C, 16MP, with AA filter) so was looking at the used Pentax market. At around $300, you can get a K-5ii without AA filter; with $200-$300 increments getting you later models with more MP and then pixel shift until you reach the FF K-1 at about a grand.

At any rate, as Peter implies, that big negative absolves a multitude of sins--hopefully I'll finally decide on an output strategy soon.:)

I started my DSLR scanning journey with the K-1. A very fine camera in some ways. AFAIK the lower KP has pixel shift as well. I don't think APS-C vs FF matters much when it comes to scanning. In fact a smaller sensor has some advantages. Though when it comes to pure resolution the larger ones have the advantage.

[Blackmarxz]

I never found noise to be a problem, even with quite dense negatives. As sperdynamite points out, this should be even less of a problem with pixel-shift/averaging systems. Using HDR exposure blending increases the density range that can be captured, but my old D200 could already do about a stop more than an Epson scanner when scanning a Stouffer step wedge, and so it might only be called for in the most extreme cases.

Actually, was interested in exploring pixel shift of BNW 4x5.... Unsure if can/should convert the DSLR to BNW via Bayer removal... On quick read has both advantages and disadvantages..... Though would be curious to see if can get A7RIV PIxel shift with 25 exposures and - and debayered....

[Peter De Smidt]

Having the anti-alias filter removed doesn't seem worth it. It's expensive. It might affect your camera for other uses. And it's unclear how big of a difference it would make. Even my really old D200 could do better than an Epson with a cmos, Bayer, anti-alias and all that. Personally, I'd rather spend the money towards a better camera. It's easy to shift from what's good enough for an intended purpose to 'what's the best I could do?' Diminishing returns set in rather quickly.

[CreationBear]

And it's unclear how big of a difference it would make

Ah, definitely--I'm quite fond of the K-5 as-is...great ergonomics and a bomber build.:) For my purposes, it might make sense to just optimize the hardware (copy stand, light source, etc.) and see what a good ink set could do with a print I could afford to frame.:) Very glad you gents are pushing the envelope, though!

[Pere Casals]

Even my really old D200 could do better than an Epson with a cmos, Bayer, anti-alias and all that.

LOL , this is totally false and missleading.

It's about understanding very basic math: An EPSON takes 140 Effective megapixels of a 4x5 sheet and a D200 will take 8MPix effective from every shot. You may need 30 shots stitched of the D200 to equal the EPSON 4x5 scan, after discounting the overlaping loss.

Don't tell that you wre not aware. I you don't recall it, Pali K made a proficient benchmark of a V700 vs two Creos and a Scanmate 11000 drum, being the Epson result totally equal to the expensive scanners, while resolving less the EPSON usually takes all what LF film is able to resolve in practice.


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


The V700 performs extraordinarily well with LF sheets, top notch, you will have a lot of problems to equal the EPSON for LF with a DSLR, a lot of stitching. Even with the Cezane you have to stitch crops to equal the Epson for 4x5", as the Cezanne sensor has only 8000pix.


Yes, a modern DSLR can take more than the EPSON from a 35mm frame in a single shot, for LF situation is totally different, a lot of stitching is required to equal the Epson, and anyway the Epson takes all what the sheet has, so all those complications to scan with the DSLR are futile.

[interneg]

A low MTF optical system (Epson) with a lot of pixels and higher noise will always perform worse than a higher MTF optical system (Nikon and lens) with lower pixel counts. Theoretical 'resolution' has long been known to count for very little compared to latitude, noise, MTF performance. I'm not surprised that Peter was seeing better performance off the Nikon sensor, as above about 600ppi the Epson MTF performance drops like a stone.

[Pere Casals]

A low MTF optical system (Epson) with a lot of pixels and higher noise will always perform worse than a higher MTF optical system (Nikon and lens) with lower pixel counts. Theoretical 'resolution' has long been known to count for very little compared to latitude, noise, MTF performance. I'm not surprised that Peter was seeing better performance off the Nikon sensor, as above about 600ppi the Epson MTF performance drops like a stone.

More LOL.

That test is faithful, well made, self explanatory and the most important: totally honest.

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

It's the indian, not the arrow, if you are not capable don't blame the V700.

In fact Pali measured the real optic perfomance of all those scanners, but the practical test shows that (specially for LF) scanner resolving power is not useful beyond a certain point, as limiting factor usually is not the scanner.

You are lost in MTF elucubrations without understanding the real impact in real photography... see the test, it's self explanatory: for MF and up there is little benefit (or none) from better scanners than the Epson.



By the way just consider that the V700 resolves 2900x5.9 = 17,110 effective pixels in a single row, so those are exceptionally good lenses:top notch... The Linos inside your X1 is not better. Didn't you know that? Surprised?

[interneg]

Anyone who spends their time quoting 1951 resolution charts while dismissing MTF and information capacity has clearly had no useful engagement with the peer reviewed literature of imaging science since about 1952. The 1951 chart is popular because it provides simplistic answers for camera fondling amateurs suffering from sub-Freudian pathologies with no apparent understanding of where real world imagemaking places demands on imaging systems.

The D200 sensor has better MTF than the Epson scan array, lower noise, & is designed to be able to take sharpening well - to the point that the Nikon delivers sharpness performance more in line with its sensor resolution, while the Epson gets rapidly bogged down beyond about 7-8mp for a 4x5.

[sperdynamite]

Anyone who spends their time quoting 1951 resolution charts while dismissing MTF and information capacity has clearly had no useful engagement with the peer reviewed literature of imaging science since about 1952. The 1951 chart is popular because it provides simplistic answers for camera fondling amateurs suffering from sub-Freudian pathologies with no apparent understanding of where real world imagemaking places demands on imaging systems.

The D200 sensor has better MTF than the Epson scan array, lower noise, & is designed to be able to take sharpening well - to the point that the Nikon delivers sharpness performance more in line with its sensor resolution, while the Epson gets rapidly bogged down beyond about 7-8mp for a 4x5.

He's trolling. Don't feed him.

[Pere Casals]

He's trolling. Don't feed him.

only telling the truth, and countering missleading information, this is the truth: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178





Anyone who spends their time quoting 1951 resolution charts while dismissing MTF and information capacity has clearly had no useful engagement with the peer reviewed literature of imaging science since about 1952. The 1951 chart is popular because it provides simplistic answers for camera fondling amateurs suffering from sub-Freudian pathologies with no apparent understanding of where real world imagemaking places demands on imaging systems.

The D200 sensor has better MTF than the Epson scan array, lower noise, & is designed to be able to take sharpening well - to the point that the Nikon delivers sharpness performance more in line with its sensor resolution, while the Epson gets rapidly bogged down beyond about 7-8mp for a 4x5.

All that you say is missleading and false, the reality is this one: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178

This is the reality, the truth, the fact.

If you cannot get perfect LF scans with the V700 it's your fault, the machine is perfectly able, the results in that test are the truth, real facts.

Pali was able to match performance and color of the V700 with the drum even at pixel peeping level, me I'm also able. You are not.


PD: the information you have about V700 MTF is totally wrong. The 35mm holder takes 4 strips, place something opaque under the 3 unused strips and you are to remove 95% of the flare, resulting a perfect MTF like the one you have in the X1.

[Pere Casals]

Hello,

How many images can i stitch from a 4x5 negative - before signal/noise ratio drops significantly?




The more images you stitch the better, but with the A7R4 in particular you would have to stitch 3 overlaved horizontal images in a column, taken with the sheet vertical to take most of the resolving power a 4x5 sheet may usually resolve.

An ultra sharp 4x5 sheet may slightly improve if stitching a 2x2 or a 3x3 mosaic, a 4x4 mosaic would be usually a plain overkill (with the R4) if your lens is really. A bad lens requires more crops for the same.

If you are interested in performance measurement just buy a usaf 1951 glass slide: https://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-USAF-Glass-Slide-contrast-Resolution-Targets-lens-microscope-MIL-S-150A/121938148407?hash=item1c64147c37:g:cQcAAOxymiVRAhWE

This will tell you what lens at what aperture works the best, if you have DOF / alignment / focus issues and what real improvement adds pixel shifting. Many times the lens itself would be the limiting factor, pixel shift is not to add much when the lens itself is the limitation, you won't find a commercial lens resolving 240MPix over 35x24mm sensor, by very far, and instead you may have several factors degradating the glass work.

So, let me advice to purchase that glass slide that it will help you to quantitatively refine your scanning. It will tell you what it's worth and what it isn't and when: The perfect tool to overcome urban legends around about glass, etc.





Subject to DOF restrictions would seem I can do a fair amount, however expect at some point the DSLR images dont get any better at picking up details




DSLR scanning requires accurate alignment and focusing, also a lens that has a very flat focus field may help when crop is small.

An excellent setup for that is using a reversed enlarger lens, with the lens reversed and close to the film your focusing should be easier, but a regular lens may work easier with the camera.


If you have to buy a decent stand and a good illumination source, or to inverst in an expensive DLSR then an old/used V700 would be better, because it takes most of the Image Quality the sheet has without having to stitch crops and without the many DSLR complications. Also the V700 has an infrared channel to detect dust and scratches, this is specially useful for color film and it would save a large amount of time in the edition, with perfect results. Manually removing dust in Ps will never deliver a perfect result and it's an extremly nasty job when a sheet has that problem. Also the V700 sports a very good color conversion. Epson is a world class company in color management, for example they have leading position in Pro inkjet printing, so they sport a very proficient color managent from scratch that otherwise it would be not that easy to reach by other means.


Anyway an stitched DSLR can deliver amazing image quality, I checked that personally: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?151265-9000-dpi-effective-DSLR-scanner , obtaining best results with a reversed enlarger lens, now I've a new USAF 1951 slide reaching Group 9 and I can tell you that with DSLR scanning you may obtain more resolving power than you may want, still I would recommend you not using DSLR scanning for LF to avoid stitching and other nightmares.

DSLR scanning is very good for 35mm and quite good for MF if having a very expensive last model DSLR, but for LF you have to stitch crops to get a sound perfomance, and a lot of crops if your DSLR is not a very expensive one.

[interneg]

He's trolling. Don't feed him.

I know, I know - especially when it's very obvious that a lot of bricks are being thrown from inside a glass house (https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/34949184821/sizes/o/).

[Peter De Smidt]

I've reached my limit. I've blocked a number of people, but that doesn't really work. I'm going to stop checking in here, at least for awhile.

[Pere Casals]

I've reached my limit. I've blocked a number of people, but that doesn't really work. I'm going to stop checking in here, at least for awhile.

I have you blocked since years ago, but anyway I click "View Post" when I feel it contains plain missleading and false information or an slander. This time it was the case.


See this: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152777-DSLR-scanning-vs-Dedicated-flatbed-scanning&p=1505192&viewfull=1#post1505192

Your lies, slanders and personal attacks come from far. I removed from my ignore list several times but no more, so you reached my limit long time ago.

Anyway, when you throw missleading information or an slander then I may tell the truth.

[Pere Casals]

I know, I know - especially when it's very obvious that a lot of bricks are being thrown from inside a glass house (https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/34949184821/sizes/o/).

For reference material look here:

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

There you have a well made side by side of 2 Creo machines, a Scanmate 11000 drum and a V700.

This is a test made with a proficience level you only can dream with, you don't have that level, sorry. So it's ridiculous you try to discredit that evidence.

Epson flatbeds have been attacked with false information by people having commercial interests: selling problematic pre-press obsolete gear... wanting to sell expensive scanning services not better than the Epson ones...

The truth: the V700 is a very, very good scanner for LF, rivaling in results with top notch gear in most of the practical situations, as that exhaustive test shows: not more, not less.


Lachlan, here you have it, learn something: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners

[Pere Casals]

especially when it's very obvious that a lot of bricks are being thrown from inside a glass house (https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/34949184821/sizes/o/).


LOL, Lachlan :) :) is that discrediting the "Scanner Comparison 2019" ???

Look, this is a MF Fisheye shot, with the lens just nearly touching the hub of the propeller (twin-engine plane), see how small are the large propeller blades seen compared to the hub. Nothing is in focus, man... only the tip of the rotor hub is slightly focused.



203790

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/34949184821/in/dateposted-public/
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49901041483_e054805c9e_k.jpg

[interneg]

Pere - your image is actually a better actual test of a scanner's MTF than Pali's (which is a better test of colour rendering than the optical performance of scanners). It has large areas of mid-tones where the granularity of the film should be crisply visible at the approx 2400ppi resolution you claim, if the MTF performance wasn't as bad as the Epson's is. It clearly shows that the Epson is incapable of accurately rendering a fair representation of the negative's granularity at anything even vaguely approaching 2400ppi, let alone 1200-1500ppi. There should be sharp apparent granularity, not blurry weirdness.

[Pere Casals]

Pere - your image is actually a better actual test of a scanner's MTF than Pali's (which is a better test of colour rendering than the optical performance of scanners). It has large areas of mid-tones where the granularity of the film should be crisply visible at the approx 2400ppi resolution you claim, if the MTF performance wasn't as bad as the Epson's is. It clearly shows that the Epson is incapable of accurately rendering a fair representation of the negative's granularity at anything even vaguely approaching 2400ppi, let alone 1200-1500ppi. There should be sharp apparent granularity, not blurry weirdness.

That "The Nose" scan was made at 2400dpi hardware with effective performance at around 1800-2000, it is an image for internet, I did not waste any effort in it. To get those 2900 dpi effective HOR with the Epson you scan 6400 hardware and later you sharpen (avoiding overshot) and downzise with bicubic "ideal for reductions".

Hasselblad X1 won't show any good grain, for LF: for 4x5 it resolves only 1800dpi effective in the horixontal axis and 1600 dpi effective in the vertical axis, when the Epson resolves 2900 dpi effective in the Hor and 2300 in the Vert axis, way more than the X1 for 4x5".

Look, the "Scanner Comparison 2019" shows that the Epson is an very good scanner that takes most of what a LF negative may have. It is true that the Epson does not depict a coarse grain, but you may be aware that in LF you don't see much the grain, in special if it's tabular (epitaxial D100 in The Nose).

I guess that you are not proficient with the Epson... but if you want I challenge you: Make a 4x5" scan with your hasselblad X1 (if you have it operative) and send me the negative, I'll scan it with the V850: I'll show you an slightly better scan.


Don't speak more, send me that negative, take the challenge.

[interneg]

Pere, you've shown once again that you cannot see what is staring you in the eyes from your own examples. You have repeatedly failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to disprove all the high quality testing that has shown the MTF performance of Epson scanners is unacceptably low compared to high end scanners or modern CMOS sensors used as scanners. If a fragment of what you said was true you would be able to immediately take the negative of that image, scan it following your claimed settings and clearly demonstrate that you can achieve acceptably sharp and clear rendering of HP5+'s granularity. If you cannot or will not, then you are basing your claims on nonsense. There is no debate here, either you own up to the bald facts of the Epson's poor performance, or you show everyone that the Epson can do what you claim - with your own work. Right now.

[Pere Casals]

interneg...

are you accepting the challenge or not... tell me...

with the bw neative you want

[interneg]

The only question Pere, is whether you are going to rescan that negative tomorrow using the system you espouse and show that the granularity in the sky/ clouds can be adequately imaged compared to known examples of HP5+.

Your unwillingness to do so makes it more and more clear to everyone that you are unable to back up your claims with any repeatable evidence whatsoever.

If you simply stopped making hyperinflated claims about the Epson, a lot of the trouble you get yourself into would go away.

[Pere Casals]

The only question Pere, is whether you are going to rescan that negative tomorrow using the system you espouse and show that the granularity in the sky/ clouds can be adequately imaged compared to known examples of HP5+.

Your unwillingness to do so makes it more and more clear to everyone that you are unable to back up your claims with any repeatable evidence whatsoever.

If you simply stopped making hyperinflated claims about the Epson, a lot of the trouble you get yourself into would go away.



Lachlan, the only question is that you cannot challenge the "Scanner Comparison 2019", because it says the truth.

You also negate this side by side: https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/


The only question is that I challenge you to scan the same 4x5" negative in the X1 and in the V850, and compare.

While for MF the X1 is slightly better than the V700, for 4x5" the V700 is better bacause the X1 "zooms out" while the V700 keeps exactly the same performance, I can demonstrate it to you.


You won't accept that challenge because to know it will discredit your position. Send me a negative, man, I'll give you an address by PM.

[interneg]

Pere, you must show everyone that you can adequately image the granularity of HP5+ from your negative on your scanner at the resolutions you claim. No more excuses or timewasting.

If you can't, there's no shame in admitting to it. All it will show is that you have failed to disprove the results of the MTF tests of the Epson scan array.

[Pere Casals]

Pere, you must show everyone

Not at all: "everyone" has seen yet the "Scanner Comparison 2019"

Single one that is still negating that evidence is you, and as you are an artist negating facts and evidences (:) take with humor) then my proposition is quite fair: let's scan both me and you the same 4x5" negative, the one you prefer, let's play with a reference media so we'll know the reality.

Why do you refuse taking that X1 vs V850 challenge in 4x5" ? Are you scared ?

Man, let's do it !! we'll get some fun...

[interneg]

Why is it so difficult for you to re-scan your negative?

Either you can adequately image the granularity on it, or you can't.

What is it that you are so desperate to hide?

[Pere Casals]

Why is it so difficult for you to re-scan your negative? Either you can adequately image the granularity on it, or you can't.


What granularity? It is very fine flat grain D100 developed with a very fine grain solvent Xtol developer... First: this is a wrong MF negative to show grain structure depiction. Second: let's use a LF negative as it gives the advantage to the Epson over the X1.

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

...for sure you would say that the V700 crop was very bad if it was not exactly matching the Scanmate 11000 drum result.


As you largely lack a technical criterion, then we need an absolute reference negative to compare, proceed with fair play, opinions on a scan of a negative you have not seen are totally useless.





What is it that you are so desperate to hide?

Nothing to hide, just wanting a fair play.

The V700 behaves exactly like the "Scanner Comparison 2019" demonstrates, which is excellent. Then let's see what a X1 does in 4x5" compared.

Now, tell me... Why don't you want to scan the same 4x5" sheet in your X1 and in my V850 ?

it is to be a fair side by side based in a trusted reference... Select the negative you want.


It is LOL that you refuse to play the challenge in fair conditions... :)are you scared, Lachlan ?

[interneg]

Pere, you've been shown multiple times across multiple forums by multiple people that your claims are wrong and that the Epson cannot adequately image granularity in any way close to what various high end scan systems readily can. Furthermore, your own results disprove your own claims. You have had several days to come up with new evidence from your scanner that shows you can adequately image the granularity of HP5+ beyond what high end CCD/ DSLR/ drum scanning systems can comfortably deliver at around 1000-1200ppi and have failed to do so. Do you actually own an Epson? Or is it yet another case of you having been allowed to watch while someone else scanned your negatives?

[Pere Casals]

Do you actually own an Epson? Or is it yet another case of you having been allowed to watch while someone else scanned your negatives?

:):):) I really apreciate your I appreciate your nonchalance




Pere, you've been shown multiple times across multiple forums by multiple people that your claims are wrong and that the Epson cannot adequately image granularity in any way close to what various high end scan systems readily can. Furthermore, your own results disprove your own claims. You have had several days to come up with new evidence from your scanner that shows you can adequately image the granularity of HP5+ beyond what high end CCD/ DSLR/ drum scanning systems can comfortably deliver at around 1000-1200ppi and have failed to do so. Do you actually own an Epson? Or is it yet another case of you having been allowed to watch while someone else scanned your negatives?


Lachlan, let me insist, let's do a fair side by side, you want a dirty discussion and I want a fair comparison. If you have doubts about the "Scanner Comparison 2019" then we can do a real test with the negative you select.

Look, Pali is not a rookie with the scanners, he is way more proficient than me and than you, I'd say that by a far extend, but if you don't agree with his conclusions then let's do that test.

If we are to play with images then we need a 4x5" reference negative and comparing results, this is what it would be useful. You have a PM with my address to send me a 4x5 negative you have scanned with the X1, and we'll compare. Let's go !!!!

[interneg]

Pere, you don't need other people's negatives or anything of the sort. What you need to be is honest. Do you or do you not own an Epson V7xx or v8xx series scanner? A 'Yes' or 'No' is all that's needed.

If the answer is 'Yes' why do you refuse to re-scan your own HP5+ negative? A fresh scan of that extant negative following your claimed procedures is all it will take to show whether your claims have any foundation in fact or are repeatable on an Epson scanner. No need for histrionics or accusations or wild speculations. Either you can adequately image the granularity on the Epson at the resolutions you claim for it - or you can't. HP5+ in Xtol (or any other developer) is going to show visible granularity at the resolutions in question if the imaging chain has adequate MTF. Either show new evidence or accept that on the basis of your own extant evidence, your claims do not hold water.

[Pere Casals]

Pere, you don't need other people's negatives or anything of the sort. What you need to be is honest.

Lachlan, you say my Epson scans are faulty, isn't it ?

Is this faulty? https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/32535835184/

You also say that this test is faulty:

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


You don't behave honestly, so we only have a possibility to know the truth: let's scan the same 4x5" negative with your X1 and with my V850, then we'll compare, this is the single fair way we have to see the reality, you have the privilege to select the negative. Why are you so scared to show the truth ?

You have my address, send me that negative and I'll demonstrate you that the Epson 4x5" scan is slightly superior than the X1 scan. If you also want to play fair this is the opportunity. Send me the negative.

[grat]

From what I've read, the Epson has been demonstrated to hit 2600 ppi on real-world resolution tests.

Replicating this in a single pass with a DSLR would require a resolution of 100+ megapixels-- made more difficult by the fact that most DSLR's use a 3:2 ratio instead of 5:4. So you're probably looking at a minimum of 4 stitched images, taken perfectly flat, with identical color balance. This isn't impossible-- you might even be able to adapt something like a FotoDiox 4x5 <-> DSLR adapter to a copy stand. If you're good with stepper motors and arduino, you could probably even build something to automate the process. Various software packages have gotten pretty good at stitching, although they still get a little confused now and again.

By using this process, increasing resolution far beyond the MTF of the lens that originally created the negative is certainly possible. It's only time and money.

But in terms of time and money, you're still way behind the guy mounting / dusting the 4x5 in a frame on the Epson, and telling Silverfast to scan, correct color cast, do a quick trim on the histogram and dump it into <insert editor here>.

[interneg]

Grat - the Epson's MTF response falls below 50% at just under 700ppi under the best possible test conditions (http://dasch.rc.fas.harvard.edu/papers/Scannerevaluation1.pdf). The last 70 years of imaging science have shown that the relevance of USAF-1951 imaging target is questionable at best, if the optical/ mechanical system does not have sufficient MTF in the first place. In the shortest terms: a nominally higher resolution imaging system with low MTF response across the board will produce visibly worse results than a nominally lower resolution system with very high MTF across the frequencies that matter in image reproduction. Most academic papers that look at the field of understanding the 'image content' potential of film or other sensors discuss this apparent resolution/ MTF relationship in detail, before inter-relating it to the noise of the sensor/ grain. The FUD about other scan systems is produced by those who have profoundly limited experience of Epson type scanners and almost nil of any other higher end scanning solution. The DASCH scanner used in the linked article has about the same resolution as the Epson supposedly has. The difference in results are very obvious - one can image the film granularity, one cannot.

[interneg]

Lachlan, you say my Epson scans are faulty, isn't it ?

Is this faulty? https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/32535835184/

You also say that this test is faulty:

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


You don't behave honestly, so we only have a possibility to know the truth: let's scan the same 4x5" negative with your X1 and with my V850, then we'll compare, this is the single fair way we have to see the reality, you have the privilege to select the negative. Why are you so scared to show the truth ?

You have my address, send me that negative and I'll demonstrate you that the Epson 4x5" scan is slightly superior than the X1 scan. If you also want to play fair this is the opportunity. Send me the negative.

Your Epson scans are in line with essentially every Epson scan I have seen or made in terms of their fundamentally poor imaging of the film granularity. In and of themselves there is nothing wrong with them as average examples of the Epson scanner sensor. They are however deficient in the detailed grain rendering that an adequate MTF performance in the optical chain should deliver. It is therefore incumbent on you to show with new scans on your equipment with your negatives that you can produce imaging of the granularity on a par with high end scanners/ DSLR scans running at 1500ppi or similar, let alone 2000+ppi. It is striking that you never dare link to this post because it shows very, very clearly that the Epson lacks fundamental ability to handle fine detail in low contrast areas - indicative of poor MTF in the imaging chain. (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?132325-Changing-from-v700-to-IQSmart2-for-8x10&p=1343113&viewfull=1#post1343113)

It is also now clear from your unwillingness to give a simple yes/ no answer to questions over your ownership of an Epson V7xx or V8xx scanner that your actual ownership of one of these machines is doubtful and that your sum total experience of Epson scanners may extend solely to the handful of scans you repetitiously post. Either produce new evidence that demonstrates your claims or stop clogging up threads with stuff you have derived from the spec sheets, rather than practical experience.

If you can accept that an Epson can make an OK 1000-1200ppi scan, then that is closer to the reality of what the sensor array can deliver in useful (as opposed to theoretical) resolution. And for most people using/ playing around with LF, those sort of resolutions are fine for what they need to do.

[Pere Casals]

It is striking that you never dare link to this post because it shows very, very clearly that the Epson lacks fundamental ability to handle fine detail in low contrast areas - indicative of poor MTF in the imaging chain. (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?132325-Changing-from-v700-to-IQSmart2-for-8x10&p=1343113&viewfull=1#post1343113)


Yes.. In that post hes says: "I am sure the Epson file can be edited better but my main point here is that things just work with the ES and they look spectacular without any fuss."

Editing it better you have this difference:

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

Edited better:

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


Well, totally matching !!!!

When he made a serious side by side he found that results are equal. It is true that the Epson image requires a 2min careful edition to match the Creo super-scanner.



If you can accept that an Epson can make an OK 1000-1200ppi scan

LOL, Lachlan, the Epson is better than your X1 for 4x5", your X1 only resolves 1800 dpi effective for 4x5", total contrast extintion at 1800 dpi !!! The Epson resolves 2900 in the Horizontal axis so your expensive gear takes a beating from the Epson.

I say that the Epson makes a 4x5" negative slightly better than X1, let me reiterate: send me the negative you want, we'll compare the two scans side by side, this is the way you'll learn it. Send me that negative and you'll see.

[grat]

Whoa... Waitaminute.

You say:


The last 70 years of imaging science have shown that the relevance of USAF-1951 imaging target is questionable at best, if the optical/ mechanical system does not have sufficient MTF in the first place.

From the article you linked:


Testing was done by scanning a high quality chrome-on-glass USAF target that had a series of well defined and measured lines and spaces.

So first, that article "determines" the MTF of the Epson scanners by using the chart that you say can't be relied on. And then, rather than using the USAF target the way it was meant to be used, they used their own method for measuring MTF, and used THAT result to determine the effective resolution of the scanner. If that's not a classic case of confirmation bias, I don't know what is.

The whole point of the chart, is to test resolution-- If you can see this line, then your resolution is that. If you use a method of interpreting MTF based on your interpretation of the results of scanning that chart, and your resolution numbers wildly disagree with the chart's actual results, then perhaps you need to reconsider your methods.

It's entirely possible they measured the MTF of the USAF-1951 target. After all, it is a piece of glass, and as such, has a refraction index, and therefore, must affect the light passing through it.

Further, that article uses the word "assume" or "assumption" multiple times, along with phrases such as "I believe" and "probably", and just to be petty, either the author doesn't know the difference between the word "mute" and "moot", or it was never reviewed by an editor.

So your position is that based on a questionable test, the Epson series of scanners, which people have been buying for the past decade, perform far, far worse at scanning negatives than pretty much any other scanning device on the market, and no one has noticed but you.

Now, you'll note that I stated the Epson has been tested to perform at somewhere around 2300-2600 DPI, which is far worse than claimed by Epson, but at least it has a reasonable test to back it up (the aforementioned USAF resolution chart, which if the website had it in the wrong place, it would indeed, have a lower resolution than expected, because apparently the Epson does best in the middle of the scanner bed).

But that's my real problem with these kinds of tests. People either deliberately (or accidentally), handicap the product they're testing, and then provide only partial information on their method and results-- don't tell me you used the USAF chart, and then show a partial crop of the result, show the full result-- including the rest of the scan bed, because that might be relevant. These days, any amateur who can put three sentences together can produce an article or a blog and claim to be an expert without any understanding of basic scientific method.

If that article's all you've got to "prove" the horrible MTF of the Epson scanners, versus all the people who frequently upload high resolution images scanned with the Epson scanners, then good luck-- you're going to need it.

Oh, and a drum scan beats your DSLR scanning, according to at least one professional photographer I'm aware of, who scanned the same negative with a DSLR, an Epson v850, and a professional lab with a Noritsu drum scanner.

[interneg]

Grat: a Noritsu is, no matter how much you want to believe it to be, not a drum scanner. It's clear that you haven't done basic due diligence here. The USAF target (indeed, nearly any sort of bar chart target) can be used to determine MTF if used appropriately. High contrast resolution alone (which is what most who buy USAF-1951's use them for) is a bad determinant of useful imaging capacity (MTF, noise, latitude all matter much more in determining the useful resolution and information storage capacity). If you want more detail, there are innumerable academic journal articles that cover the maths in considerable detail. The upshot of all of them is that total 'resolution' matters much less than a high MTF response in the visually important part of the image - including resolution of some degree of image granularity, which the Epson fails to do well, because of its poor interpolation of 2x 1200ppi sensor lines.

[grat]

Grat: a Noritsu is, no matter how much you want to believe it to be, not a drum scanner. It's clear that you haven't done basic due diligence here.

I've done exactly as much diligence as you, in that I'm quoting other people on the internet. I have no personal experience with commercial scanning solutions. Doing some quick searches, it appears you are correct, the Noritsu is not a drum scanner. Unfortunately, I can't be bothered to go back and check to see if I misremembered what the professional photographer said (possible) or he misspoke (also possible). I can't afford one, and even if I could, there are other things I'd rather purchase. Also, I have no need to prove my resolution is bigger than yours.


The USAF target (indeed, nearly any sort of bar chart target) can be used to determine MTF if used appropriately. High contrast resolution alone (which is what most who buy USAF-1951's use them for) is a bad determinant of useful imaging capacity (MTF, noise, latitude all matter much more in determining the useful resolution and information storage capacity).

And the article you linked, did it badly. Something you still haven't addressed.


If you want more detail, there are innumerable academic journal articles that cover the maths in considerable detail. The upshot of all of them is that total 'resolution' matters much less than a high MTF response in the visually important part of the image - including resolution of some degree of image granularity, which the Epson fails to do well, because of its poor interpolation of 2x 1200ppi sensor lines.

And the fundamental problem here is that you're using math and MTF to "prove" that a scanner that thousands of people are happily using to scan negatives, performs at only 15% of it's published capability, and no one but you is aware of it. Just as the article you linked to used MTF to produce numbers at odds with the actual test equipment they used, you are using MTF to disprove real-world experience.

This is like the old theory that people wouldn't be able to breathe if their cars went over 30 miles per hour, or that bumblebees don't have enough wing-to-mass ratio to allow them to fly. If the evidence doesn't support your math, then there may be a problem with your math.

Fundamentally, you have yet to disprove my statement that while using a DSLR to "scan" negatives can surpass the resolution limits of an Epson perfection v700 or greater, the time and effort to do so is non-trivial. You'll get bonus points if you can do it without personal attacks.

[interneg]

Grat - anyone who has actually made decently sized prints from an Epson scan and looked at them alongside the same image off any decently high end scanner will be able to see that there are significant defects in the Epson scan.

With moderate competence, DSLR scans can do a much better job than the Epson in terms of sharpness and granularity resolution. I have seen the results and worked on the files to my satisfaction - there are issues that need refined, but they are merely ones of colour correction. A reasonably current 24mp APS-C sensor can do a better job than the Epson.

If you like the Epson, fine, but it's not in any way comparable to what either high end scanners or intelligently used CMOS sensors can do.

[Pere Casals]

Grat - anyone who has actually made decently sized prints from an Epson scan and looked at them alongside the same image off any decently high end scanner will be able to see that there are significant defects in the Epson scan.

With moderate competence, DSLR scans can do a much better job than the Epson in terms of sharpness and granularity resolution. I have seen the results and worked on the files to my satisfaction - there are issues that need refined, but they are merely ones of colour correction. A reasonably current 24mp APS-C sensor can do a better job than the Epson.

If you like the Epson, fine, but it's not in any way comparable to what either high end scanners or intelligently used CMOS sensors can do.


Real facts discredit what you are saying: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158112-DSLR-Scanning-Signal-Noise&p=1553112&viewfull=1#post1553112

[grat]

Grat - anyone who has actually made decently sized prints from an Epson scan and looked at them alongside the same image off any decently high end scanner will be able to see that there are significant defects in the Epson scan.

Naturally. Comparing an $800 scanner to a $16,000 scanner, I would @$#%*( well expect the $16k scanner to do a better job. Usually the complaints are with color and contrast, which are relatively simple to fix with modern software. And the $15,000 price disparity can be used to buy other things, like a motorcycle or a small car.

Then, if I really want a high-quality scan, I can send the negative off to a professional lab, and have the scan done for a nominal fee. While still having a whole lot of money that I didn't spend on a high-end scanner.


With moderate competence, DSLR scans can do a much better job than the Epson in terms of sharpness and granularity resolution. I have seen the results and worked on the files to my satisfaction - there are issues that need refined, but they are merely ones of colour correction. A reasonably current 24mp APS-C sensor can do a better job than the Epson.

Which, I believe, is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. I also said the Epson was far more convenient.


If you like the Epson, fine, but it's not in any way comparable to what either high end scanners or intelligently used CMOS sensors can do.

I'm *so* glad you're OK with me liking the Epson. I was afraid I was going to have to send it back, because someone on the internet said it didn't work. And it's nice to see you've come around to my viewpoint on the relative performance. :)