Best New Scanners Available?

[SergeyT]

>> I'm thinking of medium format and 35mm film scanning, and I have a P45+. Can stitching even be considered as an option with digital film scanning? Or lacking a multi-shot system, is single-shot the only viable option? I might enlarge MF to 13x19, or possibly to 16x20? Would a 39MP file be sufficient for decent results?

You have everything to give it a try and have some of the questions answered.

Many things depend on how technically good the original pictures are.
Quality wise-today's "new" usually has less life in them than yesterday's "old"
For personal use my preference would be a high-end flatbed (Eversmart Supreme, IQSmart3) over anything else, including GFX-100(s). All the quality is there and convenience of a workflow is hard to beat.

[bmikiten]

I've spent the last few months on this issue and have an Epson V850 (wet mount), P45+ back, Nikon D800, Eversmart Creo and a Flextight 848. The bottom line is quite simple - it depends on your final enlargement and original negative size and quality. Are you scanning 4x5 images make with a Schneider XL lens or 120 from a Hasselblad or Rollei or an old canon with a 50mm lens. There is a point where you are just polishing the turd.

Are you a low-tech person who just wants to scan and get on with Photoshop edited? An Epson V850 has currently supported hardware and software as do the stitching back solutions. There are at least three different scanning packages that support these methods and are regularly updated. Wet scanning is a bit of a pain but if you adjust focus and wet scan you can get some pretty amazing results.

Are you making large prints and want really fine detail and quality? If so the Eversmart supreme (and other models) will blow your mind. It requires old software and finicky startup until you get it set up but after that, it can be rock solid. For archiving purposes or big "art" prints, this is the way to go.

Digital captures via either 35mm/120mm or other digital methods can work but even with fine quality (flat field) lenses you'll need to control the back light source and be super aware of lens flare and distortions when stitching. This was annoying only at larger print (11x14+) but I could see it. I know this is pretty popular but I didn't find it to be that convenient or of the quality level of a flatbed or (848) scan.

Just FYI

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm sure you figured this out long ago, but for those who haven't used copy-stand setups: beyond finding a lens optimized for the desired reproduction ratio, the key for high-quality, high-volume production work is dedicating a camera body to it and investing in a robust copy-stand-plus-illuminator-plus-negative-holder setup that can be precisely aligned and then locked rigidly in place so that it doesn't need to be realigned with every capture.

All very true. Another option, one the Daniel Moore uses, is to clamp the lens around it's circumference. That way, the body can be removed without messing with alignment.

[bob carnie]

All very true. Another option, one the Daniel Moore uses, is to clamp the lens around it's circumference. That way, the body can be removed without messing with alignment.

Exactly what we a thinking with the setup we are working on , the lens never moves and the back can easily be taken on and off.

[Serge S]

This was the issue with my camera scan set up - the lightable flare was an issue to some degree - something I always needed to watch for even after masking for it. I went back to my epson V800, it's slower, and the quality may not be as good but I like the workflow better - and it still delivers a nice file to work with.
I keep tweaking things and getting better at it also. The ultimate would be to get a creo scanner - as the workflow suits me.

I've spent the last few months on this issue and have an Epson V850 (wet mount), P45+ back, Nikon D800, Eversmart Creo and a Flextight 848. The bottom line is quite simple - it depends on your final enlargement and original negative size and quality. Are you scanning 4x5 images make with a Schneider XL lens or 120 from a Hasselblad or Rollei or an old canon with a 50mm lens. There is a point where you are just polishing the turd.

Are you a low-tech person who just wants to scan and get on with Photoshop edited? An Epson V850 has currently supported hardware and software as do the stitching back solutions. There are at least three different scanning packages that support these methods and are regularly updated. Wet scanning is a bit of a pain but if you adjust focus and wet scan you can get some pretty amazing results.

Are you making large prints and want really fine detail and quality? If so the Eversmart supreme (and other models) will blow your mind. It requires old software and finicky startup until you get it set up but after that, it can be rock solid. For archiving purposes or big "art" prints, this is the way to go.

Digital captures via either 35mm/120mm or other digital methods can work but even with fine quality (flat field) lenses you'll need to control the back light source and be super aware of lens flare and distortions when stitching. This was annoying only at larger print (11x14+) but I could see it. I know this is pretty popular but I didn't find it to be that convenient or of the quality level of a flatbed or (848) scan.

Just FYI

[Daniel Stone]

If the camera and sensor(regardless of the setup, a dslr/mirrorless or a fancy bellows option with a repro lens) can be locked in position, then you can move the film stage, for stitching.
Having a frame with graduated marks allows you to accurately "step" each shot so its overlapping the same amount every shot.

[bmikiten]

If the camera and sensor(regardless of the setup, a dslr/mirrorless or a fancy bellows option with a repro lens) can be locked in position, then you can move the film stage, for stitching.
Having a frame with graduated marks allows you to accurately "step" each shot so its overlapping the same amount every shot.

Agreed. I even used a micro-adjustment stage to keep everything in alignment. The adjustments for lighting were the biggest issue. I tested it using blank film and film exposed with a sensitometer as well as under tested evenly lit conditions and always saw minor fall-off.

Brian

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree that moving the film is often a better choice. That's what my system did...

Minimize cantilevers! If you're doing high magnifications, minimizing vibration becomes a huge thing. I read a report from a photographer in NYCity. He couldn't use his Sony camera in it's pixel shift mode because there were too many vibrations in his building. It lead to artifacts....Ideally you'd clamp the lens to a frame supported by three posts, use a system that doesn't use a mechanical shutter, pay close attention to the floor/area the scanner is on......As you lessen magnification, these things become less important.

[bob carnie]

I notice a lot of people talk about stitching and reassemble, what are the thoughts of 150mb single capture using a phase back? I like this idea but wonder how people feel about this single capture, or would one still stitch even with this kind of back.?

[Peter De Smidt]

Bob, it all depends on the output that you're after. The workflow without stitching is so much faster. If it's good enough for your output needs, then I'd stop there. They only way to know for sure is to test and see.