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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sperdynamite

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

---

Excellent, thanks!:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sperdynamite

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sperdynamite

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!!!

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/...4dc35c02_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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

A 80mm Rodagon would be perfect, imagine that the thread is M39, you would use this $9 ring: https://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-A739-M...9&sr=8-1-fkmr1

Attachment 197108


You may try with this $50 lens, it would be perfect: https://www.ebay.es/itm/Rodenstock-R...wAAOSwY75duku6

Attachment 197109

This Magnagon would be superb: https://www.ebay.es/itm/Rodenstock-M...YAAOSwveNdneMs

Attachment 197111

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manfrominternet

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:

Attachment 197110


_______________________

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manfrominternet

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pere Casals

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manfrominternet

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interneg

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interneg

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

---

This is LOL :), see this again, man: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1479178

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sperdynamite

...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.