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

[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/Ht...20Analisis.htm

Methodology:

https://www.digitalcamaralens.com/Ht...studio_MTF.htm

Patterns:

https://www.digitalcamaralens.com/Ht...MTF_Charts.jpg


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

Attachment 204136



The Rodadon D is not better on the paper:

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

Attachment 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.i...=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.i...=1#post1479178
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=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/highlight...posure/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.