Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: torger on December 27, 2011, 04:04:36 am
-
I have a large amount of 120 (mostly 6x6cm) and 135 (36x24mm) transparancies in a family archive that I want to be able to digitize with high quality. I am myself not too familiar with digitizing, and looking around it seems to be a bit of a hassle and/or very expensive to get better than mediocre quality. I can do with some hassle, but have a limited budget.
There seems to be three options: 1) flatbad scanner 2) dedicated filmscanner 3) digital camera with macro lens.
According to my research flatbed scanners have poor dynamic range and hugely overestimate their resolution, 2300 ppi is what a good scanner (epson v750, €700) can do in practice despite 6400 ppi claimed resolution. It is the cheapest and quite efficient solution, but I think I want better quality, both in resolution and DR.
Concerning resolution I'd like to sample also grain so large prints get analog look with visible grain up close. It seems about 4000 ppi is what is needed for this goal (?).
Dedicated film scanners are plentiful for 36x24mm, but very few exists for 120 film. Reflecta MF5000 is one of the few, which gives about 3050 effective ppi and a bit better dynamic range than the best flatbeds. The discontinued Nikon Coolscan 9000 still seems to be king among "affordable" scanners, but still much more expensive than the Reflecta. Better DR still and 3900 effective ppi.
The Nikon Coolscan seems to provide the quality I desire but is a bit too expensive and hard to find (€6500 is a price I have seen), with some compromise the Reflecta MF5000 (€1600) may do as well.
Finally, there is the option to take a photo of the transparency using a sharp macro lens. I would use a 21 megapixel 5Dmk2 with 1:1 macro lens which would in theory yield about 3900 ppi (stitching or lower res required for 6x6, would probably do lower res for casual digitizing and stitch when digitizing for a print). This option was the hardest to find information about, so I don't know what quality to expect. In theory dynamic range would be great, HDR also possible (as is with some scanners), and if it is possible to focus and get a sharp shot, resolution would be good too. No automatic infrared dust detection though, but I think/hope I can live with that.
Has someone experience with these methods and recommendations? I'm especially interested in the macro lens method since I have not been able to find any information of what quality one can expect from that compared to scanners.
-
I am also planning to digitize the family archive. It is mainly slides (mounted in glass) and B&W negatives in 36x24mm. I think i will go the 5dmk2 with makro lens setup way. Taking photos is just a lot faster than scanning. Those old film images don´t contain that much information, so 21 MP should capture all the relevant information just fine. The resulting RAW files are also smaller than the TIFF files from a scanner.
-
I have a large amount of 120 (mostly 6x6cm) and 135 (36x24mm) transparancies in a family archive that I want to be able to digitize with high quality. I am myself not too familiar with digitizing, and looking around it seems to be a bit of a hassle and/or very expensive to get better than mediocre quality. I can do with some hassle, but have a limited budget.
Whatever you do, it will be a hassle: this is drudge work, so finding an efficient and effective way to work is the key. Have some nice music and bevvy to while away the waiting. ;D
There seems to be three options: 1) flatbad scanner 2) dedicated filmscanner 3) digital camera with macro lens.
I would consider a flatbed for 120 film, but never for 35mm. I will return to the camera option later. FYI, I have scanning experience spanning many years, mainly for print reproduction.
According to my research flatbed scanners have poor dynamic range and hugely overestimate their resolution, 2300 ppi is what a good scanner (epson v750, €700) can do in practice despite 6400 ppi claimed resolution. It is the cheapest and quite efficient solution, but I think I want better quality, both in resolution and DR.
You’ve done some homework! The Epson has decent dynamic range, and there is nothing else available that is better in its segment (though Epson software sucks in my NSHO*). Occasionally large-format pro scanners (Fuji, Lino etc.) come up, but they are often hard to fix, and may need to be used with an older OS for compatibility. For perspective, my first medium-format scans were made on an Agfa Argus II scanner, enlargeable 200–300% for offset with excellent results. The Argus’ native resolution was 600 ppi.
Concerning resolution I'd like to sample also grain so large prints get analog look with visible grain up close. It seems about 4000 ppi is what is needed for this goal (?).
4000ppi at a minimum, yes; the 2700ppi resolution on many scanners turns grain into clumpy porridge.
Dedicated film scanners are plentiful for 36x24mm, but very few exists for 120 film. Reflecta MF5000 is one of the few, which gives about 3050 effective ppi and a bit better dynamic range than the best flatbeds. The discontinued Nikon Coolscan 9000 still seems to be king among "affordable" scanners, but still much more expensive than the Reflecta. Better DR still and 3900 effective ppi.
Not heard of the Reflecta; it looks like a re-badged Plustek. The Polaroid Sprintscan 120 scanner and its evil twin (joke) from Microtek come up occasionally on eBAY. Another option is a medium-format Minolta scanner, though they seem to be highly regarded, thus not cheap.
The Nikon Coolscan seems to provide the quality I desire but is a bit too expensive and hard to find (€6500 is a price I have seen), with some compromise the Reflecta MF5000 (€1600) may do as well.
There may not be enough difference between the Reflecta and the Epson flatbed (for 120) to justify the price differential.
Finally, there is the option to take a photo of the transparency using a sharp macro lens. I would use a 21 megapixel 5Dmk2 with 1:1 macro lens which would in theory yield about 3900 ppi (stitching or lower res required for 6x6, would probably do lower res for casual digitizing and stitch when digitizing for a print). This option was the hardest to find information about, so I don't know what quality to expect. In theory dynamic range would be great, HDR also possible (as is with some scanners), and if it is possible to focus and get a sharp shot, resolution would be good too. No automatic infrared dust detection though, but I think/hope I can live with that.
For best results, you would need a lens optimised for 1:1 when shooting 35mm slides; many macro and enlarging lenses are best at 1:10 or so. Is it possible for you to easily try this out? Many years ago I photographed a 5" x 7" Ektachrome transparency for a client who ran a Cibachrome printing lab—his largest enlarger was 4" x 5". I turned my LPL colour enlarger head upside down, put an improvised light box over the head made from a small polystyrene cooler (diffused with white perspex) and shot it with Ektachrome Duplicating film on my Nikon F w/55mm macro. While I never saw the result of my labours, the client said a printed 8 x 10 was very acceptable. If you go this way, you will be able to balance your light source much more easily than in the bad old days! There are a lot of slide copiers on eBay, including the ancient Bowens Illumitran (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Bowens-Illumitran-slide-Duplicator-/130620112709?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e6990bf45#ht_1697wt_1165). Here’s a cheaper (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Bowens-Illumitran-3-Film-Slide-Copier-spares-repair-/200690209237?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item2eba1191d5#ht_500wt_1413) one, but without the copystand by the look of it.
FWIW, Schneider Comparon enlarging lenses are optimised for around 1:5 whereas Componons are best at 1:10 and more; Comparons are much cheaper on eBay.
In conclusion, I would get the best flatbed I could afford for the 120 scans, and a dedicated 35mm scanner for the littlies. HTH
Just spotted on eBay: Polaroid SprintScan 4000 Plus (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Polaroid-SprintScan-4000-Plus-Desktop-Scanner-/320817239554?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ab2329602#ht_657wt_1165) (SCSI and FW). Oops, not working.
*NSHO = not-so-humble opinion. ;D
-
There's a lot of carefully made landscape shots among those transparencies so there's as much detail as the film can take there. I've looked at tests for macro lenses for the Canon, and it seems like the new Sigma 150mm could be a good candidate. Canon's own 100mm cheap has some barrell distortion and L version some chromatic abberation, I would probably go for the cheaper of those two since a slight barrell distortion is easier to work with than chromatic abberation I think.
-
There's a lot of carefully made landscape shots among those transparencies so there's as much detail as the film can take there. I've looked at tests for macro lenses for the Canon, and it seems like the new Sigma 150mm could be a good candidate. Canon's own 100mm cheap has some barrell distortion and L version some chromatic abberation, I would probably go for the cheaper of those two since a slight barrell distortion is easier to work with than chromatic abberation I think.
I would try an enlarging lens first, but of course you’d need bellows etc. Please keep us posted; this is a problem that many people face in preserving older work.
-
Whatever you do, it will be a hassle
Thanks for the detailed reply! I actually don't have a macro lens, but sooner or later I'd like to have one for macro photography so I would buy one, but would think more about having one suitable for copy work (low distortion, high sharpness, good corner performance, bokeh less important etc).
I don't know which distances these standard 1:1 macro lenses are optimized for though... the resolution tests are surely not made at 1:1 distance...
-
I just went through this myself. Thousands of old family slides some dating back to 1950 most 35mm. I looked at a nikon 5000 scanner with the auto loading feature but its a lot of money and I also looked at Scancafe.com. I decided to do it myself with my MFDB and used one of the slide copier attachments which you can find on ebay. This worked fairly well and I did several hundred. I'm not sure how the digital capture would compare to the scan but it works well. I did several hundred slides in a few hours. Later I moved to a bowens illumitran with slide carrier and this was even faster to load and unload. I tried a macro lens first then an enlarging lens but got decent work from both.
Here's what I can tell you from the experience: The biggest problem you will have will be dust on the slides themselves and adjusting faded colors. Some scanning software has very good color restoration software that can save a bunch of time.
I still have about 2000 more to go. I think for these I will just review in a slide projector and send the best to scancafe!
-
I've done it for 6x6 and 6x7 with my D700 and a 2.8/105 Micro Nikkor. It was relatively easy to sit a Kodak lightbox on its side, make a screen-sized black card mask for the two formats, stick that to the perspex and then just switch off the room lights and expose via the transmitted light of the box, which is supposed to be as close to daylight as matters. Okay, I didn't use anything other than my eye and the grid lines in the camera, but had I hung onto my old Durst enlarger stand...
You obviously only get to use a small square out of a D700 frame, but 6x7 does better.
If this isn't for pro use, then it should be perfectly fine for domestic use. I've some such images on my website, but have never gone to the lengths of printing anything up, so can't claim anything there for the technique. Yes, if you can fit an enlarger lens, you'd probably do better at the required magnification.
Were 120 film scanners reasonable in price, I'd be back with 120 film! However, they are not, and I suspect that, medium long-term, film will vanish completely, so not worth spending big bucks (for me).
Rob C
-
Hi,
I have a decent MF film scanner (Minolta Diamge Scan Multi Pro) and it is a pain in the neck. Definitively good for great 70x100 prints, but you need to work a lot to achieve excellent results. Scanning is slow, don't count on more than 2 slides per hour including post processing. Colors may be weird and image quality may be far from what you expect from a DSLR.
Shooting with a DSLR and a macro lens may be worth trying.
Best regards
Erik
I've done it for 6x6 and 6x7 with my D700 and a 2.8/105 Micro Nikkor. It was relatively easy to sit a Kodak lightbox on its side, make a screen-sized black card mask for the two formats, stick that to the perspex and then just switch off the room lights and expose via the transmitted light of the box, which is supposed to be as close to daylight as matters. Okay, I didn't use anything other than my eye and the grid lines in the camera, but had I hung onto my old Durst enlarger stand...
You obviously only get to use a small square out of a D700 frame, but 6x7 does better.
If this isn't for pro use, then it should be perfectly fine for domestic use. I've some such images on my website, but have never gone to the lengths of printing anything up, so can't claim anything there for the technique. Yes, if you can fit an enlarger lens, you'd probably do better at the required magnification.
Were 120 film scanners reasonable in price, I'd be back with 120 film! However, they are not, and I suspect that, medium long-term, film will vanish completely, so not worth spending big bucks (for me).
Rob C
-
Sold my Imacon last year knowing that I would come up against this problem at some point. When asked for an unscanned image from the archive - I used an Aptus 75 back on a hass V with extender on a tele lens. Results were quite good for the purpose I was scanning for ... easy to get colour right from a colour neg and is also quick in comparison to scanning. It also fits in right away with your workflow by running the files through your normal raw proccessor. I set up a vertical black frame to hold the negs and then about 1.5 m behind had a white background with 2 strobes trained on it on either side to give a strong light source. I then shot it horizontally. If you were looking at it from the side you would get from right to left: Camera - frame - strobe then white background. If you made a robust frame with easy setup you could get through quite a bit of scanning in a short time. The problem then is the usual dust and hair removal. Another drawback is that it may be difficult to set up profiles on any camera that would do the same job as scanner software... hence any negs are shot in real colour .. then converted in photoshop after... You would have more immediate feedback when scanning trannys.
R
-
Sold my Imacon last year knowing that I would come up against this problem at some point.
Crazy man. I confess that I’d forgotten about the Imacon in my post (have almost bought a few on eBay, but they always went over my reserve). Each passing year makes a dedicated scanner less of an option. Unless you want to be like the last guys processing Kodachrome!
-
If you can use your existing setup of DSLR with a Makro lens + maybe extension rings you´ll be fine for a painless setup, for lighting you could use something like a long TTL Cable and your flash, Tripod + some gaffer tape and and some white opaque Plexi.
Buying a lot of equipment (scanner) may only be interesting if you really want to dig into this and the amount of slides is really big.
And finally: do yourself a favour, put up all these images on a light table, gather your family and sort out what is really of interest (will be a fun evening!) and if you have a certain amount sorted out bring it to a lab and let somebody else do it, if this is only 100 or maybe 200 slides this is the best way...... :)
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
I did a quick test comparing CanoScan FS4000US with vuescan multipass scanning (HDR) on a 36x24 transparency, and also made a shot with the camera (5Dmk2). The camera needs HDR to match the multipass scan, and it is required or else the dark parts are excessively noisy. So it will be messy.
-
I did a quick test comparing CanoScan FS4000US with vuescan multipass scanning (HDR) on a 36x24 transparency, and also made a shot with the camera (5Dmk2). The camera needs HDR to match the multipass scan, and it is required or else the dark parts are excessively noisy. So it will be messy.
That's what I have, too; unfortunately, it seems to have stopped speaking to my computer. It might be that it no longer loves PS6, but it used to... I'm hoping it's only a damaged USB cable, but since the kit one has a thinggy on the cable and my other cable does not, and as I'm not sure what that thinggy really does (imagine it cuts out interference?), I'm nervous about trying it.
When it worked, I loved it.
Rob C
-
I did a quick test comparing CanoScan FS4000US with vuescan multipass scanning (HDR) on a 36x24 transparency, and also made a shot with the camera (5Dmk2). The camera needs HDR to match the multipass scan, and it is required or else the dark parts are excessively noisy. So it will be messy.
I was wondering about that.
How does the detail/sharpness compare?
-
I was wondering about that.
How does the detail/sharpness compare?
I'm no macro photographer (yet) so I actually don't have a macro lens. I put a 2X teleconverter on a 24mm TS-E to at least get some magnification (only covered a quarter of the frame still), which of course is no test for resolution. Before running to the store and buy a macro lens I thought I should try out dynamic range, so that was what I did.
Transparencies can be really dense it seems. I picked out photo of a dark scene as a test. There is a lot of information in those dark areas I could see when making the longer exposures with the camera. To get that information with reasonable quality HDR is required, just like multipass is required to get sufficent quality with the canoscan, but that is automatic with vuescan, HDR with the camera is more cumbersome. With the camera and HDR one can exceed the canoscan dynamic range a little, but without HDR the scanner clearly delivers better shadow quality (in multipass of course). I thought multipass was HDR but it seems to just be averaging, it does improve noise though.
-
scancafe.com
http://www.scancafe.com (http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2011-10-06/chesapeake-above)
Scanned in India - super secure UPS shipping. Very fairly priced. I had over 1000 aerial chromes scanned last year and was very happy with the results. ( order the higher rez scans)
They scan and clean the files. Scans are made on Nikon 9000 scanners.
Also look at Jaincotech.com (http://www.jaincotech.com) I had the selects and sisters for two Geographic stories plus my Over Florida book scanned by Jainco and they were fantastic.
They scan on Imacon scanners in the US and India. Also fairly priced. (but higher than ScanCafe.com)
-
A professional service is probably best for bulk scanning. There's some fine art stuff there too, and then it would be kind of nice to be able to it myself. If macro lens + HDR (+stiching for medium format) just works it could be worth the effort for fine art prints, I usually spend 12 - 16 hours of tuning those anyway, an hour or two in digitizing would not be too heavy in that process.
Now I just need a macro lens and a good film holder to test the concept fully...
-
The greatest problem, outwith a purpose-built rig, is keeping parallel to the slide/print being copied. On small blowups it isn't so important, but anything over about 600x600 pixels is going to show shortcomings, both in sharpness over the field as well as in the shape of the rectangle or square you will be printing/transmitting up...
Rob C
-
Just saw this on eBay: Minolta Dimage Scan Multi PRO ICE AF-5000 (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Minolta-Dimage-Scan-Multi-PRO-ICE-multi-format-scanner-/270879347326?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f11aad27e#ht_2181wt_233).
-
Hi!
I made a Quick and Dirty experiment with a 100 Macro lens on a light box compared to my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro at 3200 PPI.
Results are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr//images/Articles/ScannerVSRepro/index.html
I guess that the repro is not optimal, it was quick and dirty. Both focusing and framing is difficult. The camera I used does not have live view. I used autofocus on this shot.
Best regards
Erik
I have a large amount of 120 (mostly 6x6cm) and 135 (36x24mm) transparancies in a family archive that I want to be able to digitize with high quality. I am myself not too familiar with digitizing, and looking around it seems to be a bit of a hassle and/or very expensive to get better than mediocre quality. I can do with some hassle, but have a limited budget.
There seems to be three options: 1) flatbad scanner 2) dedicated filmscanner 3) digital camera with macro lens.
According to my research flatbed scanners have poor dynamic range and hugely overestimate their resolution, 2300 ppi is what a good scanner (epson v750, €700) can do in practice despite 6400 ppi claimed resolution. It is the cheapest and quite efficient solution, but I think I want better quality, both in resolution and DR.
Concerning resolution I'd like to sample also grain so large prints get analog look with visible grain up close. It seems about 4000 ppi is what is needed for this goal (?).
Dedicated film scanners are plentiful for 36x24mm, but very few exists for 120 film. Reflecta MF5000 is one of the few, which gives about 3050 effective ppi and a bit better dynamic range than the best flatbeds. The discontinued Nikon Coolscan 9000 still seems to be king among "affordable" scanners, but still much more expensive than the Reflecta. Better DR still and 3900 effective ppi.
The Nikon Coolscan seems to provide the quality I desire but is a bit too expensive and hard to find (€6500 is a price I have seen), with some compromise the Reflecta MF5000 (€1600) may do as well.
Finally, there is the option to take a photo of the transparency using a sharp macro lens. I would use a 21 megapixel 5Dmk2 with 1:1 macro lens which would in theory yield about 3900 ppi (stitching or lower res required for 6x6, would probably do lower res for casual digitizing and stitch when digitizing for a print). This option was the hardest to find information about, so I don't know what quality to expect. In theory dynamic range would be great, HDR also possible (as is with some scanners), and if it is possible to focus and get a sharp shot, resolution would be good too. No automatic infrared dust detection though, but I think/hope I can live with that.
Has someone experience with these methods and recommendations? I'm especially interested in the macro lens method since I have not been able to find any information of what quality one can expect from that compared to scanners.
-
Hi!
I made a Quick and Dirty experiment with a 100 Macro lens on a light box compared to my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro at 3200 PPI.
Results are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr//images/Articles/ScannerVSRepro/index.html
I guess that the repro is not optimal, it was quick and dirty. Both focusing and framing is difficult. The camera I used does not have live view. I used autofocus on this shot.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks! The results looks promising I think. I have now ordered a good quality macro lens so I will be able to test myself. My idea for a "high end" digitalization would be to use a small-pixel APS-C camera at 1:1 macro distance and do HDR + stitching to cover dynamic range and image area. Medium format / 35mm digital cameras generally have a bit large pixels so ppi at 1:1 macro does not get that high. Ideally I'd like to "outresolve" the film. It seems like in the 3200 ppi scan you provide that there still is even more detail to extract from the film.
The quick way would be to zoom out and take one snap of the whole transparency, but I don't expect "high end" results from that (for medium format I guess it will be less good than a flatbed scan, for 36x24mm it will probably be better), and if one is going to do manual cleanup retouching the HDR and stitch part will not be what takes most time. Possibly I can do 36x24mm transparencies without stitching using a 5Dmk2 (pixel density about 4000 ppi), but HDR seems necessary to capture the deep shadows with adequate quality.
The ideal result from my perspective would be that with some work it is possible to through this relatively inexpensive method achieve quality comparable to the best scans, so when I decide "now I want to make a high quality digitalization and print of this medium format transparency" I can do it right away myself. How easy/difficult it is to get sharp focus and high resolving power over the image area will be the critical aspect. I'll report back but it may be some time because I have some unsolved issues yet - primarily how to mount the film. I currently plan to use a light-table as light source, and Hugin for mosaic stitching, and possibly HDR (not too familiar with how HDR in Hugin works though, so I don't know if it is adequate).
-
Hi,
Just for your information, the sample I had was from a Velvia 67 slide used for an earlier test. And I made a very QD setup, camera on tripod, lighbox on floor, used the glassless holder from the scanner as holder and shielded excess light with cardboard.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks! The results looks promising I think. I have now ordered a good quality macro lens so I will be able to test myself. My idea for a "high end" digitalization would be to use a small-pixel APS-C camera at 1:1 macro distance and do HDR + stitching to cover dynamic range and image area. Medium format / 35mm digital cameras generally have a bit large pixels so ppi at 1:1 macro does not get that high. Ideally I'd like to "outresolve" the film. It seems like in the 3200 ppi scan you provide that there still is even more detail to extract from the film.
The quick way would be to zoom out and take one snap of the whole transparency, but I don't expect "high end" results from that (for medium format I guess it will be less good than a flatbed scan, for 36x24mm it will probably be better), and if one is going to do manual cleanup retouching the HDR and stitch part will not be what takes most time. Possibly I can do 36x24mm transparencies without stitching using a 5Dmk2 (pixel density about 4000 ppi), but HDR seems necessary to capture the deep shadows with adequate quality.
The ideal result from my perspective would be that with some work it is possible to through this relatively inexpensive method achieve quality comparable to the best scans, so when I decide "now I want to make a high quality digitalization and print of this medium format transparency" I can do it right away myself. How easy/difficult it is to get sharp focus and high resolving power over the image area will be the critical aspect. I'll report back but it may be some time because I have some unsolved issues yet - primarily how to mount the film. I currently plan to use a light-table as light source, and Hugin for mosaic stitching, and possibly HDR (not too familiar with how HDR in Hugin works though, so I don't know if it is adequate).
-
Hi!
I made a Quick and Dirty experiment with a 100 Macro lens on a light box compared to my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro at 3200 PPI.
Results are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr//images/Articles/ScannerVSRepro/index.html
Best regards
Erik
The links loop for me, Erik. ???
-
Erik the link is faulty for the echophoto...
-
Hi!
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr//images/Articles/ScannerVSRepro/20120101-DSC01513.jpg
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr//images/Articles/ScannerVSRepro/20120101-TT_Velvia_01_2.jpg
Sorry that the index.html file is broken. Fix it tonight!
Best regards
Erik
Erik the link is faulty for the echophoto...
-
Fixed!
BR Erik
The links loop for me, Erik. ???
-
Fixed!
BR Erik
Now non-loopy, but my broadband account has hit the 12GB limit, and has been slowed. Waiting, waiting …
-
I have something to add to this topic ;)
Here is same shot scanned with 9000ED and shot with 90TS-E on 5DMII/2 frame stitched, 1 shot. No HDR.
Resolutions are shown on the screen shots.
(http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo265/itsskin/ScreenShot2012-01-08at001525.jpg)
Then, here is 100% crop from 5DMII and 2x downsizing from 9000ED
(http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo265/itsskin/ScreenShot2012-01-08at001456.jpg)
This king of blurriness appears all around the Nikon frame. But when it's sharp - it's sharper than Canon. I do a lot of 120 and 4x5 reshootings with setup stated above and quite convinced, that you can achieve same quality with it as Nikon offers. Better - only drum.
-
Just curious, since the Nikon scanners have a notorious shallow DOF, is the film flat in the CS9000 ? Have you tried wet mounting ?
-
I have something to add to this topic ;)
Here is same shot scanned with 9000ED and shot with 90TS-E on 5DMII/2 frame stitched, 1 shot. No HDR.
Resolutions are shown on the screen shots.
(http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo265/itsskin/ScreenShot2012-01-08at001525.jpg)
Then, here is 100% crop from 5DMII and 2x downsizing from 9000ED
(http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo265/itsskin/ScreenShot2012-01-08at001456.jpg)
This king of blurriness appears all around the Nikon frame. But when it's sharp - it's sharper than Canon. I do a lot of 120 and 4x5 reshootings with setup stated above and quite convinced, that you can achieve same quality with it as Nikon offers. Better - only drum.
Am in awe of anyone who uses a camera for duping, but how long does it take? If personal, matters not a lot. If professional …
-
Hi,
Scanning is slow and duping is fast if you have a decent setup.
Best regards
Erik
Am in awe of anyone who uses a camera for duping, but how long does it take? If personal, matters not a lot. If professional …
-
Hi,
Scanning is slow and duping is fast if you have a decent setup.
Best regards
Erik
Including stitching?
-
I have done some macro lens experiments this weekend. As I've said earlier, my personal goal is not so much a more efficient way to scan, but to be able to digitize to get film transparencies into my digital workflow for fine art prints. Highest quality is thus of key importance.
I started off with a 24x36mm transparency. I decided quite quickly that 5Dmk2 resolution corresponding to ~3900 ppi at maximum mangnification (1:1) was a bit on the low side for prints that is enlarged so much that the film grain becomes visible. To get the analog look requires significant outresolving of the film, I changed to a Canon 7D, corresponding to 6000 ppi, although a bit softer pixels due to pushing the lens resolving power. I just for fun tested with a 2x teleconverter to get 12000 ppi, but I could not see any significant advantage.
Focusing is a challenge. The film is never perfectly flat (I did not wet mount it though), but I don't think the focal plane is perfectly flat either, even if this lens (a new Sigma 150mm/2.8) is specifically designed towards having a flat focus plane. I could adjust precisely with a leveling head screws, but pulling one corner into focus would put another out of focus, so one have to settle with a compromise, all parts of the picture being somewhat in focus, but not perfect focus peaking over the whole surface. But this is at f/2.8. I tried lots of apertures to find the best DOF vs sharpness/diffraction compromise, and f/8 was the best. Slight diffraction onset (a little less microcontrast than for f/5.6 or f/4), but then enough DOF to bring the whole surface in focus. At f/8 getting the film in focus is not too hard. With perfectly mounted film f/5.6 would probably be the best choice.
Since one looks only at a 22x15 mm area at a time with the APS-C camera (stiching required!), I'm not too worried about film flatness for larger transparencies, at f/8 it only needs to be within 0.3mm oin that area, if you just verify and possibly readjust when moving the slide for the next area.
I did stiching in Hugin and it works well, so resolution-wise I think this works.
I was planning to post examples and stuff, but I got stuck in an unexpected area. Dark parts of transparencies are dense but still contain detail which means that some dynamic compression in post is often interesting, meaning that the capture must be made at a high dynamic range, which at least not a 7D or 5Dmk2 is up to -- shadows get too noisy when pushed for me to be satisfied. I only want to see film grain in the digitized picture, not camera noise. I knew this from earlier experiments, so I was going to do HDR.
When I do digital photography I always do my HDR manually, blend in a bright sky etc, rather than using HDR software, so I'm new to this. I tried many different HDR software (including what is builtin in Hugin of course), but not a single one produces satisfactory results. The problem is that the HDR programs does not properly understand digital camera exposures so they blend in blown highlights from the bright exposures instead of ignoring them, thus reducing the highlight quality (improving shadow quality works though, shadow noise problem disappears). The worst software reduce highlight quality by much, the better by less but all noticably and unacceptable to me. I was surprised that HDR software has not come farther in merging exposures, but I guess it is because HDR software is rarely used just for quality improvement, they are designed for "cool effects", not for fine art printmakers.
Without solving the HDR problem this method will not produce dynamic range compared to the better film scanners. Concerning resolution I think it is competetive, with APS-C camera probably better than 4000 ppi 135 film scanners, and most certainly better than 3200 ppi medium format film scanners. I have not made that side by side comparison yet though, I'm not really up for it until the HDR showstopper is solved somehow.
-
There is a thread along these same lines over at the Large Format Forum.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=84769 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=84769)
-
Hi,
I just tried SNS-HDR based on recommendations from these fora, certainly worth a try!
Best regards
Erik
I have done some macro lens experiments this weekend. As I've said earlier, my personal goal is not so much a more efficient way to scan, but to be able to digitize to get film transparencies into my digital workflow for fine art prints. Highest quality is thus of key importance.
I started off with a 24x36mm transparency. I decided quite quickly that 5Dmk2 resolution corresponding to ~3900 ppi at maximum mangnification (1:1) was a bit on the low side for prints that is enlarged so much that the film grain becomes visible. To get the analog look requires significant outresolving of the film, I changed to a Canon 7D, corresponding to 6000 ppi, although a bit softer pixels due to pushing the lens resolving power. I just for fun tested with a 2x teleconverter to get 12000 ppi, but I could not see any significant advantage.
Focusing is a challenge. The film is never perfectly flat (I did not wet mount it though), but I don't think the focal plane is perfectly flat either, even if this lens (a new Sigma 150mm/2.8) is specifically designed towards having a flat focus plane. I could adjust precisely with a leveling head screws, but pulling one corner into focus would put another out of focus, so one have to settle with a compromise, all parts of the picture being somewhat in focus, but not perfect focus peaking over the whole surface. But this is at f/2.8. I tried lots of apertures to find the best DOF vs sharpness/diffraction compromise, and f/8 was the best. Slight diffraction onset (a little less microcontrast than for f/5.6 or f/4), but then enough DOF to bring the whole surface in focus. At f/8 getting the film in focus is not too hard. With perfectly mounted film f/5.6 would probably be the best choice.
Since one looks only at a 22x15 mm area at a time with the APS-C camera (stiching required!), I'm not too worried about film flatness for larger transparencies, at f/8 it only needs to be within 0.3mm oin that area, if you just verify and possibly readjust when moving the slide for the next area.
I did stiching in Hugin and it works well, so resolution-wise I think this works.
I was planning to post examples and stuff, but I got stuck in an unexpected area. Dark parts of transparencies are dense but still contain detail which means that some dynamic compression in post is often interesting, meaning that the capture must be made at a high dynamic range, which at least not a 7D or 5Dmk2 is up to -- shadows get too noisy when pushed for me to be satisfied. I only want to see film grain in the digitized picture, not camera noise. I knew this from earlier experiments, so I was going to do HDR.
When I do digital photography I always do my HDR manually, blend in a bright sky etc, rather than using HDR software, so I'm new to this. I tried many different HDR software (including what is builtin in Hugin of course), but not a single one produces satisfactory results. The problem is that the HDR programs does not properly understand digital camera exposures so they blend in blown highlights from the bright exposures instead of ignoring them, thus reducing the highlight quality (improving shadow quality works though, shadow noise problem disappears). The worst software reduce highlight quality by much, the better by less but all noticably and unacceptable to me. I was surprised that HDR software has not come farther in merging exposures, but I guess it is because HDR software is rarely used just for quality improvement, they are designed for "cool effects", not for fine art printmakers.
Without solving the HDR problem this method will not produce dynamic range compared to the better film scanners. Concerning resolution I think it is competetive, with APS-C camera probably better than 4000 ppi 135 film scanners, and most certainly better than 3200 ppi medium format film scanners. I have not made that side by side comparison yet though, I'm not really up for it until the HDR showstopper is solved somehow.
-
Hi,
I just tried SNS-HDR based on recommendations from these fora, certainly worth a try!
It is one of the softwares I tried, it was one of the better but I still got reduction in highlight quality, and it was not too obvious if the "neutral" mode was really neutral. But I'm new to HDR software as said, I need to mess around a bit, it was harder to do this "simple" HDR operation than I thought.
-
Look at the HDR sample on the LFF (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=84769&page=11) thread.
-
it was harder to do this "simple" HDR operation than I thought.
The difference here from normal HDR work is that I do not want any different look at all from a normal single exposure, just completely noise free shadows. I have realized that HDR software is generally not designed to give that result. Some HDR softwares are great at providing "natural" look of a HDR bracketed scene, but that is not the same. I want zero compression, zero tone mapping, just zero noise in a ETTR-exposed 16 bit tiff file.
I've managed some HDR software to keep the highlight quality, but not being able to get a neutral result yet, there's always something. Picturenaut has been closest for me, but I get some strange problem with color there.
I would try Lujik's Zero Noise, which does seem to be what I need, but it seems to have expired.
-
It is one of the softwares I tried, it was one of the better but I still got reduction in highlight quality, and it was not too obvious if the "neutral" mode was really neutral. But I'm new to HDR software as said, I need to mess around a bit, it was harder to do this "simple" HDR operation than I thought.
Hi,
SNS-HDR is not an HDR creator, but a tonemapper (granted though, the best for that purpose). The Neutral preset just gives the exposure blended result that's assembled from the individual exposures, before any tonemapping but after exposure fusion/merging. You need something that behaves like Guillermo's "Zero Noise" application to do a Raw (linear gamma) exposure merging before gamma pre-compensation and tonemapping.
Picturenaut could assist in the HDR merging process, which will produce an HDR file and it'll tell you how many stops of range the resulting file covers. You could feed that file in SNS-HDR for the inevitable tonemapping to Low DR media, but I'm not sure if the extra steps of first producing an HDR intermediate file really are necessary (or even beneficial).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just saw this on eBay: Minolta Dimage Scan Multi PRO ICE AF-5000 (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Minolta-Dimage-Scan-Multi-PRO-ICE-multi-format-scanner-/270879347326?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f11aad27e#ht_2181wt_233).
US $1,733.00.
-
What's the problem with stitching? It's the fastest part done with PTGui.
-
What's the problem with stitching? It's the fastest part done with PTGui.
Which is commercial software. More cost. :(
-
SNS-HDR is not an HDR creator, but a tonemapper (granted though, the best for that purpose). The Neutral preset just gives the exposure blended result that's assembled from the individual exposures, before any tonemapping but after exposure fusion/merging.
I now worked tested some more, I guess it is more about me being a beginner in HDR than stuff is not working. I stitched each exposure separately to 16 bit tiff in Hugin, 3 layers 2 stop separated, and then made a neutral tone-mapping in SNS-HDR and saved as 16 bit tiff, and then I got desired result - no clipped highlights, noise-free shadows, and a totally neutral render.
One should not be in a hurry though, it is not fast software. I had a crash too, will be interesting to see 3 x ~190 megapixel merging that 6x6 medium format will be... I now do my test on 36x24mm, sampled at about 45 megapixels.
-
Which is commercial software. More cost. :(
They don't charge per stitch :) If you are a pro, you should have this software already anyway.
-
They don't charge per stitch :) If you are a pro, you should have this software already anyway.
Ha! Thanks for the should; at least you didn’t have the temerity to say must.
Who is entitled to say anyone should own any particular software? And does have = own? Just asking. ;D
-
Ha! Thanks for the should; at least you didn’t have the temerity to say must.
Who is entitled to say anyone should own any particular software? And does have = own? Just asking. ;D
My bad. Sorry ;D
Read it like: "As pro you should already have a software, capable of making stitching 1 minute task with great quality. Paid of free, as both exist"
Ok? ;D
-
I realize that it will be a bit more work than I'd like to present comparisons and I would need a flatbed scanner too in there. So I just say what the likely result of such test would be based on my own informal tests this weekend :-)
I change my mind and think 5Dmk2 provides enough density at 1:1, which is close to 4000 ppi. Due to lens and f/8 for enough dof to manage focus resolution is a little bit worse than a 4000 ppi film scanner, but probably significantly better than any flatbed. I did 6000 ppi with the 7D but I doubt it will show on even large prints, the grain is probably adequately resolved with 5D. This reduces the stitching work. I would not want to go lower than 5D density though.
Concerning DR single shot is worse than multipass on good film scanners, but probably better than single pass flatbed. With 3 shot 2 stop spaced HDR (one ettr shot and two brighter for reducing shadow noise) it is better then the multipass scan. Probably single shot is good enough when no shadows are pushed in post, but on dark transparencies you will want HDR since there is detail to find there if pushed in post.
Getting predictable and satisfactory results from HDR software proved a bit messy, but I succeeded with SNS-HDR with neutral preset and reducing brightness slider to avoid highlight clipping. I did stitching in Hugin, outputing one exposure at a time to merge in external software. Hugin's own HDR is too poor quality.
Using this technique one will probably get slightly better quality than a 3200 ppi medium format scanner for medium format transparencies. I think it is certainly good enough for fine art prints.
Use a sharp lens with good corner performance and low chromatic abberations, use bracket mode in camera and live view to minimize vibration, and to make sure no alignment for HDR is needed since that can reduce sharpness.
-
I got some issues with grain afterall... my idea was that I could sample at some X resolution and then it would be fine enough to print at any size, and X seemed to be 4000 ppi, enough to capture the film's real detail and some extra. However, after some test printing I have realized that to do that one needs some sort of grain simulation to get pleasing results if print sizes go large, or else that digital texture I don't like will emerge. Or digitize at extremely high resolution.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61088.0