Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson Scan (From Nick Carver's Youtube Channel)
https://youtu.be/Q9d8BukUgzI
I think you'll see some pretty surprising conclusions here, but they track with my experience.
Personally I would quibble with his DSLR scan technique. 1. He appears to be doing no masking at all. 2. He should be using a copy stand and macro rails with the film in a proper film holder elevated off the light source. 3. The 6D has the worst in class sensor of all semi-modern DSLRs. 3a. The 6D cannot pixel shift so he's fighting bayer interpolation and he has to do an extremely large amount of captures and stitching to achieve his resolution target. And 4. Though he seems to have an understanding of Negative Lab Pro, he doesn't seem to have a strong grasp of how to use it.
All that being said, I'm just not surprised to hear that a DSLR is so close to the drum scan in IQ. You really do have to try it to see for yourself. I'm also not surprised to see that he prefers the Epson scan. Epsons do well with larger formats, and he's both wet scanning it, and taking advantage of iSRD. Dust is a huge problem with ultra high res scanning, and one I'm still trying to deal with. (Particularly with 8x10!)
Enjoy the video!
Re: Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson Scan (From Nick Carver's Youtube Channel)
These are what I use to combat dust: https://www.amazon.com/Record-Cleani...0226479&sr=8-3
I roll both sides of the scanner platen, the light table, and the film. It really helps.
Re: Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson Scan (From Nick Carver's Youtube Channel)
Re: Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson Scan (From Nick Carver's Youtube Channel)
His dslr scanning method...was sub-optimal...in many ways. His camera was a poor choice, the lens was worse, the negative should've been carefully masked, there's no way his alignment was accurate enough for the best results, and his light source quality was questionable.
Re: Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson Scan (From Nick Carver's Youtube Channel)
Correct on all points
The video was well done...
Re: Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson Scan (From Nick Carver's Youtube Channel)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter De Smidt
Great tip thank you!
Re: Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson Scan (From Nick Carver's Youtube Channel)
Ha! Just watched it tonight.
Recommended.
Re: Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson Scan (From Nick Carver's Youtube Channel)
If you want to stitch with a digital camera, other than, say, a simple 3-frame stitch, make a dedicated movement system like Scanduino. Just like an Epson, you mount the film and press the button. Regarding stitching, with a precision movement system you can simply use a template in Ptgui. He says, "I tried everything." Clearly, he didn't. It's odd to me that he would go to all the work involved with the video, but he failed to do due diligence.
Re: Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson Scan (From Nick Carver's Youtube Channel)
He got one thing right. Aztek makes shitty scans even though they've got great hardware. Just about everything else about this video reminds me of why people who don't really know what they're doing shouldn't make instructional or informational videos. This was painful on so many levels.
And without knowing the specifics of the drum scans he farmed out to Strickland, it's very hard to know if even those were any good. There are drum scanners and then there are drum scanners. And then there are the operators. And keeping the E6 scan from Aztek as a good example when their neg scan sucked so bad had me shaking my head. What inkjet print was he printing on? If it's Epson, then 360 or 720 dpi, if you've got it, will make very slightly sharper prints if the paper actually supports it. And printing slices is NOT the same as looking at an entire print. You lose the context. Printing full sized prints simply is not that expensive when they're fairly modest like his are. And, having done dozens and dozens if not hundreds of flat stitches using PhotoMerge in Ps, I've never ever had the issues he had. Well, once with 25 100mp Phase files where there was a lot of parallax going on, but never on a flat stitch. I simply don't buy that he tried every single option, or if he did, he clearly didn't understand how the tool works. I actually felt embarrassed for him from one photographer to another.
Re: Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson Scan (From Nick Carver's Youtube Channel)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasquatchian
He got one thing right. Aztek makes shitty scans even though they've got great hardware. Just about everything else about this video reminds me of why people who don't really know what they're doing shouldn't make instructional or informational videos. This was painful on so many levels.
And without knowing the specifics of the drum scans he farmed out to Strickland, it's very hard to know if even those were any good. There are drum scanners and then there are drum scanners. And then there are the operators. And keeping the E6 scan from Aztek as a good example when their neg scan sucked so bad had me shaking my head. What inkjet print was he printing on? If it's Epson, then 360 or 720 dpi, if you've got it, will make very slightly sharper prints if the paper actually supports it. And printing slices is NOT the same as looking at an entire print. You lose the context. Printing full sized prints simply is not that expensive when they're fairly modest like his are. And, having done dozens and dozens if not hundreds of flat stitches using PhotoMerge in Ps, I've never ever had the issues he had. Well, once with 25 100mp Phase files where there was a lot of parallax going on, but never on a flat stitch. I simply don't buy that he tried every single option, or if he did, he clearly didn't understand how the tool works. I actually felt embarrassed for him from one photographer to another.
Micheal Strickland does good work, he uses a Tango. I actually reached out to Nick Carver to bring up some of the issues I had with his camera-scanning technique. He was basically non receptive to the idea that he did anything wrong or anything could be improved. So...okayyyy. I do like some of his videos, even when I'm not crazy about his work overall. It's very 'commercial'.