Originally Posted by CreationBear
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
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks