Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: jhimages on December 14, 2012, 10:36:56 pm

Title: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: jhimages on December 14, 2012, 10:36:56 pm
Has anyone done any comparisons of medium format backs vs. the Hasselblad scanners from medium format film?  I shoot many scenics and landscapes in 6x4.5, 6x6 or 6x7.  I currently use an Epson V700, but that scanner is not capable of shap scans to extract the full resolution of the film.  I like large enlargements, min 8x10, up to 24x36".  I tend to shoot more freely with a DSLR, but the image quality doesn't compare to my medium format work.  I'm wondering if I'm better off with a Hasselblad scanner than a medium format back...
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: FredBGG on December 15, 2012, 02:00:34 am
Many things to consider.

Film has a look to it that digital does not produce. A DSLR and a MFDB are for the sizes of prints you mentioned pretty much equivalent and have a similar look.
To help you get an initial idea of the high end 35mm DSLR vs the 80mp backs take a look at this article. It's written by anIQ180 owner and landscape photographer.


http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/ (http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/)

So I would say that the first thing you need to consider is why you like your MF film work more. It may be more about the look of film.

The next thing to consider is what software you are using. The v700 is a good scanner and excellent when used with negative film (color and black and white)
and with the right software. Silverfast software for the v700 improves the results you can get with the v700. You can also do wet mount scanning with the v700 with a wet mount kit.

The Hasselblad scanner is very good and curves the film so as to get a more accurate focus avoiding the need for wet scans.

Then you should also consider the costs. A digital back that will exceed the quality of a high end dslr will be expensive. You will be looking at a 60PM back for that.

If you like film there is a lot you can do with the price of a MF digital back.

A few thoughts:
A 6x17 panoramic film camera.
A 6x8 Fuji camera with tilt and shift lenses that go from 50mm to 500mm (all tilt shift)
A Giga Pan for shooting automated stitch panoramic shots. You can literally take landscapes that are 100s of MP with a virtual format bugger than 4x5 film.
An 8x10 film camera.

If you don't like dealing with film though that's a different story. A digital back will be more immediate and if you shoot very large amounts of film it
will pay for itself in the long run.

I enjoy film and it's my preferred medium. SLR Fuji gx680 or my Toyo View 8x10 shooting film or direct to paper.

Here are a couple of examples to give you an idea of what the v700 with Silverfast software can do.

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5299/5417854016_f1a10a64ae_z.jpg)
6x8 film

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5297/5417246191_cf601ffe23_b.jpg)
crop from the same negative.


(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5250/5356464560_f46a54d63a_b.jpg)
6x8 film

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5142/5738647019_08d35d415e_z.jpg)
crop from the same negative.


(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6132/5935982552_fbbdfea714_b.jpg)
6x8 film

(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6130/5935423087_2b282d7b8c_z.jpg)
Crop from above.

These scans were done with a v750 (same as the v700, but includes silverfast software) and they are dry scans.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8488/8239700948_7532ebba58_c.jpg)
Direct to paper

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8201/8238634553_3f24397fa6_b.jpg)
Direct to paper playing around with imitating vintage techniques.

I'll see if I can fish out some landscapes for you to see too.




Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: yaya on December 15, 2012, 02:16:37 am
Has anyone done any comparisons of medium format backs vs. the Hasselblad scanners from medium format film?  I shoot many scenics and landscapes in 6x4.5, 6x6 or 6x7.  I currently use an Epson V700, but that scanner is not capable of shap scans to extract the full resolution of the film.  I like large enlargements, min 8x10, up to 24x36".  I tend to shoot more freely with a DSLR, but the image quality doesn't compare to my medium format work.  I'm wondering if I'm better off with a Hasselblad scanner than a medium format back...

With a digital back you can also "scan" your film, on the same camera you shot it with, faster than with a scanner and most likely with better results

Just a thought...
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 15, 2012, 02:45:45 am
Hi,

My experience of film vs. digital is summarized here:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2?showall=1

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

Let's put it this way, I was struggling with film.

Another view, by Tim Parkin, is presented here : http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison-comments/

For best quality you need drum scans. I posted samples from my CCD scanner and scan by "High End Scans" scanning service in Germany here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/VelviaScans/

Tim sent me a small part of a Velvia scan at 10000 PPI, resolution wise it outperformed the IQ180. The camera used was the Mamiya 67.

My guess is that the Hasselblad scanners are a bit better than my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, but I guess that they are far from drum scanners. The major limitation of the CCD scanners is D-MAX. You see it in my samples the drum scan have much better detail in the shadows.

Best regards
Erik

Best regards
Erik


Has anyone done any comparisons of medium format backs vs. the Hasselblad scanners from medium format film?  I shoot many scenics and landscapes in 6x4.5, 6x6 or 6x7.  I currently use an Epson V700, but that scanner is not capable of shap scans to extract the full resolution of the film.  I like large enlargements, min 8x10, up to 24x36".  I tend to shoot more freely with a DSLR, but the image quality doesn't compare to my medium format work.  I'm wondering if I'm better off with a Hasselblad scanner than a medium format back...
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: KevinA on December 15, 2012, 05:29:15 am
Has anyone done any comparisons of medium format backs vs. the Hasselblad scanners from medium format film?  I shoot many scenics and landscapes in 6x4.5, 6x6 or 6x7.  I currently use an Epson V700, but that scanner is not capable of shap scans to extract the full resolution of the film.  I like large enlargements, min 8x10, up to 24x36".  I tend to shoot more freely with a DSLR, but the image quality doesn't compare to my medium format work.  I'm wondering if I'm better off with a Hasselblad scanner than a medium format back...
It depends on what you are looking for, if it's just resolution a decent MFDB will probably win over none drum scanned images.
I actually prefer the look of Portra scanned to digital shot on anything, I doubt the resolution of my Nikon Coolscanned colour neg is a match for a Phaseone, I just think it looks nicer than anything I've shot with a Canon or Nikon and I don't see the look in any MFDB shots I've seen, as I don't own a MFDB it would be wrong for me to state for sure.
TV here in the UK has lots of programs (Like The Hour) where some editor has hit the "Film look" button, it should be called the "near  film look" button. It's very nice but not the same as quality film.
If it's the "look" you want lots of scanners via Vuescan and high bit scanning will give you it and if it's colour neg like Portra DR that goes on forever.
For workflow if speed was important I would look out for an A3 scanner from Creo or Fuji, great quality and the ability to batch scan various formats and much cheaper than a MFDB to buy.
A Coolscan will easily make very detailed images at the size you said and there is a new MF scanner on the market it will scan upto 612, I just can't remember what it's called!
Kevin.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: Rob C on December 15, 2012, 06:42:13 am
An idea of what you can expect, using simple, unsophisticated scanning techniques (CanoScan S4000US for 135 film), and the alternative of copying 120 film on a D700 digital camera.

The first shot is Kodachrome, as is the black/white one; the third image is a copy of an Ektachrome 6x6 via the digital Nikon.

Rob C
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 15, 2012, 09:24:27 am
+1

Erik
Rob, welcome back.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 15, 2012, 09:43:36 am
Hi,

Do you happen to have a link to your previous posting? It may be interesting for the original poster.

Best regards
Erik


In the past I made comparisons between drum scans (better than Hasselblad scans) using 6x6 Velvia and Provia and shots made with a 22MP digital back. Obviously the scan files were much larger but the digital back files were superior in every respect.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: Rob C on December 15, 2012, 10:24:40 am
Keith and Erik - thanks for the welcome.

However, it's not looking like it's going to last - the return!

I keep having to keep re-login, and that takes several attempts. Despite having followed the instructions about passwords, posted in the About This Site section, whenever I try to set a new password (the system recognizes Rob C but not the original password) as required, I get a notice telling me that an E-mail has been sent offering a track to follow in order to start again with the new password. This E-mail has never arrived so far.

Rob C

P.S.

I've just tried to send this to the Admin. for help, but pressing the Report button for that tells me it 'doesn't make sense to report my own post'; in this case, I beg to differ!

Could someone else please click the switch and alert the Admin. on my behalf, please? I really would like to be able to revert to the orignal, simple and direct way of checking into LuLa (Hotel Sahara?)!


P.P.S.

I think Admin fixed it for me! Thanks.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: amsp on December 15, 2012, 11:09:23 am
An idea of what you can expect, using simple, unsophisticated scanning techniques (CanoScan S4000US for 135 film), and the alternative of copying 120 film on a D700 digital camera.

The first shot is Kodachrome, as is the black/white one; the third image is a copy of an Ektachrome 6x6 via the digital Nikon.

Rob C

Damn, it drives me nuts that you can no longer shoot Kodachrome. There's just nothing like it, and now we can't even shoot Ektachrome :( If there's one thing I will forever hate digital for it's killing off so many of our artistic options!

Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: jhimages on December 15, 2012, 12:32:02 pm
Thanks for Fred for this really well written response.  IN using your V750, have you had to play with the height adjustment feature for the film holders?
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: Gigi on December 15, 2012, 12:45:55 pm
yes, dial in your film focus with them. Higher grade neg holders also are recommended by some.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: Rob C on December 15, 2012, 05:37:51 pm
Damn, it drives me nuts that you can no longer shoot Kodachrome. There's just nothing like it, and now we can't even shoot Ektachrome :( If there's one thing I will forever hate digital for it's killing off so many of our artistic options!




I feel much the same, and would love to return to a 500 Series as I've mentioned in the past.

That said, I wouldn't want to lose my D700 if only for the real advances in available gloom shooting as well as the rapid turnaround possible compared with film. I also wouldn't be willing to buy a dedicated MF scanner which I'm sure would actually be a delight: too expensive for fun status for me.

But MF had something special that might be more to do with the MF cameras than the material we put through them. I loved the simplicity of the Hassy, even though I read the little manual for hours before I dared do anything with the camera itself. It made photography very smooth and eliminated external worries that we simply hadn't heard about because they didn't exist pre-digital.

Rob C
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: FredBGG on December 16, 2012, 03:05:33 pm

I feel much the same, and would love to return to a 500 Series as I've mentioned in the past.....


......I loved the simplicity of the Hassy, even though I read the little manual for hours before I dared do anything with the camera itself. It made photography very smooth and eliminated external worries that we simply hadn't heard about because they didn't exist pre-digital.

Rob C

I adored my first CM 500 and EL Hasselblads at first. When I bought them raking up a large dept I was thrilled. Unfortunately things did not go well.
Light leaks, film tearing and a 250mm shutter that was one problem after another.... turned out to be the bodies though. It was a nightmare and almost put me out of business.

I moved on to the more modest and less elegant Mamiya RZ and it made life so much easier. If it had reflected exposure verification for film I would still use it today.

Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: FredBGG on December 16, 2012, 03:31:30 pm
Can someone point me to some high res examples of digital backs being used to "scan" medium format film.
From the tests I did with a P25+ the results were not even close to scanning with the V750 and silverfast software.

The problems I saw were tonality for black and white and unpleasant grain structure in the corners of the frames in particular with color.

I also found that I needed to wet mount for MFDB reproduction. I have a 4x5 format flash repro stand with a 4x5.

I would like to see some examples because I want to digitize my entire archive of 120, 4x5 and 8x10 film.

I have budgeted around $75,000 to do it.

Right now I am oriented towards v750 or a drum scanner and training a paraplegic friend to do the work part time
setting him up to offer the service to others too.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: amsp on December 16, 2012, 03:38:34 pm
I use the 501cm and it's just a beautiful machine, rock solid, simple and very zen-like experience. Having shot exclusively digital for the last 7 years, dealing with all the settings, screens, cables, batteries, etc. it feels like a breath of fresh air to shoot with. It's just you and the subject, nothing else. I chose the V-series because it's pretty much the polar opposite of a modern digital camera, and combined with film it just gives me a completely different experience. I think you need that from time to time to keep things fresh and interesting, at least I do.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: chrismuc on December 17, 2012, 08:38:45 am
A year ago I did comparison shots with my Contax 645 on Fuji Provia and on a Leaf Aptus-II 7 33 MP (48x36mm, 7.2um pixel width). The film was scanned with roughly 40 MP on a Hasselbald Imacon scanner (54x41.5mm, 8.2um "pixel" width).
Enclosed the result: The 40 MP scan is less detailed and more grainy than the 33 MP digital file.
For me digital is light years ahead of (diapositive) film: It's is sharper, no visible grain at reasonable low ISO sensitivities with MF backs, more headroom in the highlights as well as in underexposed areas.
In the meantime I use a P65+ 60 MP back that resolves a file quality which is IMO totally impossible to get with 645 film.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: amsp on December 17, 2012, 09:35:46 am
Chris, no offense, but what measurebators like yourself don't understand is that people are not choosing to shoot film because of things like resolution or sharpness but rather it's unique aesthetics and the physical crafts aspect of it all. I don't think anyone shooting film today debates the strengths of digital, so there's no point rehashing this old Vs. debate any time film is mentioned. Just enjoy whatever works for you.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 17, 2012, 02:01:25 pm
Hi,

The original poster had very specific questions and I would suggest Chris was responding to that.


Best regards
Erik

Chris, no offense, but what measurebators like yourself don't understand is that people are not choosing to shoot film because of things like resolution or sharpness but rather it's unique aesthetics and the physical crafts aspect of it all. I don't think anyone shooting film today debates the strengths of digital, so there's no point rehashing this old Vs. debate any time film is mentioned. Just enjoy whatever works for you.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: amsp on December 17, 2012, 02:35:53 pm
Hi,

The original poster had very specific questions and I would suggest Chris was responding to that.


Best regards
Erik


That may be so, and I merely pointed out that the reasons the OP preferred his medium format film cameras over his DSLR might not be because of resolution or sharpness. I for one am extremely tired of seeing test shots of walls and color charts touted as the reason to choose one thing over another. There's so much more to photography, and I can think of no instance where either resolution or sharpness was the reason for a photograph being compelling. This is from someone who uses film cameras, DSLRs and medium format digital backs mind you.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: EricWHiss on December 17, 2012, 03:46:01 pm
Chris, no offense, but what measurebators like yourself don't understand is that people are not choosing to shoot film because of things like resolution or sharpness but rather it's unique aesthetics and the physical crafts aspect of it all. I don't think anyone shooting film today debates the strengths of digital, so there's no point rehashing this old Vs. debate any time film is mentioned. Just enjoy whatever works for you.

+1

It's funny cause I looked at his sample images and I thought I preferred the look of the film shot.  I have a 80mp back and use it plenty, but I still also shoot film for the 'look'.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: FredBGG on December 17, 2012, 03:56:51 pm
A year ago I did comparison shots with my Contax 645 on Fuji Provia and on a Leaf Aptus-II 7 33 MP (48x36mm, 7.2um pixel width). The film was scanned with roughly 40 MP on a Hasselbald Imacon scanner (54x41.5mm, 8.2um "pixel" width).
Enclosed the result: The 40 MP scan is less detailed and more grainy than the 33 MP digital file.
For me digital is light years ahead of (diapositive) film: It's is sharper, no visible grain at reasonable low ISO sensitivities with MF backs, more headroom in the highlights as well as in underexposed areas.
In the meantime I use a P65+ 60 MP back that resolves a file quality which is IMO totally impossible to get with 645 film.

Digital has worked wonders as far as squeezing resolution and fidelity out of small formats like 24x36 and 645 MF sensors, but they do not match the many aesthetics of film.

Also the negative process is more advanced than slide film due to the collective efforts of feature film stock development an stills negative stocks.

Then their is the issue of black and white. While digital has brought some really nice tools to black and white.. such as shooting color and using the color information in post
to do all sorts of useful things such as selective color filtering the black and white conversion.

Personally I find that even the very best digital is not a replacement for larger formats than 645. IMHO The 6x8 Fuji camera that I use is unmatched by any MF digital SLR
or 35mm SLR for the certain look it produces RIGHT OUT OF THE CAMERA.
Even beaten up processing and small polaroids from the Fuji gx680 produce a special look

Here are a couple of examples of "beaten up stuff" from the GX680

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2676/5841784486_a3f37f76a7_b.jpg)

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5190/5841784716_c85f8dff61_b.jpg)

Polaroid:
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5224/5806044950_155f37e426_b.jpg)

These three are form a technical IQ measurment standpoint absolute crap, but visually I love them.

Here is the same day as the first two, same exposure, but more technically standard developing.

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5230/5862579358_ddacd064da_b.jpg)

With that said I would not consider a Fuji GX680 a replacement for MFD or a D800 in many applications.

For MFD download these sample images by Peter Eastway:
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Downloads/Sample-Images/Sample-images.aspx (http://www.phaseone.com/en/Downloads/Sample-Images/Sample-images.aspx)

There is an absolutely devine portrait of a young girl in those files. Simple lighting and natural skin.
I would post it here, but there is a copyright note that would not allow me to do it. Maybe Someone from Phase can post it here

Going back the the guy that opened this thread... He said he was getting better results with MF film than with a 35mm DSLR. Many 35mm DSLRs can achieve higher resolution than
645 film. However what he may be liking more from his MF film work is the aesthetics of film. There is a lot to photography that has little to do with HiFi reproduction of reality.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: FredBGG on December 17, 2012, 03:59:58 pm
Chris, no offense, but what measurebators like yourself don't understand is that people are not choosing to shoot film because of things like resolution or sharpness but rather it's unique aesthetics and the physical crafts aspect of it all. I don't think anyone shooting film today debates the strengths of digital, so there's no point rehashing this old Vs. debate any time film is mentioned. Just enjoy whatever works for you.

Measurbators ;D that's funny, but I'm sure he meant no offense. We all can't resist a bit of Measurbation ;)

I think that in this discussion both Chris and amsp make very valid points.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: BSteinhilber on December 17, 2012, 04:41:46 pm
I use both a Phase One Digital backs p45+ and now IQ 160 and the Imacon Flextight 646 Hasselblad Scanner (now Hasselblad X1).

The Scanner is really good. I scan 4x5 inch, 6x7, 6x12 and 35mm. A lot of my work is landscape photography and I love the quality of the scans from the 646. I even printed 140 cm wide prints from a 35mm scan (color negative Kodak Portra 160 NC) and the grain is very fine and the persons who bought these prints didn't believe it was 35mm film.

Maybe drum scans are better than the Hasselblad/Flextight scanner, but I think you can't really see the difference in the final print (only maybe side by side), because the quality of the scans is already excellent. I make a lot of Diasec Prints (behind Acryl glass) and nobody ever asked me what scanner I used.
If you find a good used Hasselblad scanner, especially the 646 or 848 Imacon/Hasselblad Flextight models, go for it. Older models without firewire are difficult to use.

If you print your photographs really big (140 cm wide and wider) you will see how pleasing the film grain could be and you will get this quality with that scanner.
Forget to think about the Nikon 8000 or 9000 or scanner with that technique. If you would like to sell prints, than a scanner like the Flextight is the absolut minimun. The D Max of a Nikon can't compare to a Flextight/Hasselblad scanner.


Now the disadvantages:

- you have to remove the dust from every scan. That will take between 20 min up to one hour depending on the negative and the size. Retouching dust spots on a 4x5 inch scan could take a while. You have to play around with the sharpness output in the Flexscan software, it is much better than Photoshop.

- clients (especially younger art directors) complain about the "noise" in the pictures. I always have to explain to them the character of film grain. They looked at the full resolution scans in 100% on their screens (a 180 MB Scan in 8bit). You will see film grain all over, but that's film.

- digital files from a MFDB looks cleaner and more pleasing to many clients and sharper.


For my landscape work I use now 80% my digital back, for long exposures still 50% film.

If you can afford a digital back, than I would prefer that. Bud I don't know what your personal preferences are.

If you do your work for print (advertising or magazije) than you have to go for a digital back, if your main market is selling prints than you could think about to buy a decent scanner like Hasselblad Flextight.

Hope that helps you a bit.









Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 17, 2012, 04:52:11 pm
Hi,

Thanks for good comments. I actually think that there are three camps, those who like digital, those who like film and those who think that whatever result can be achieved by correct processing.

What I think any film buyer should keep in mind is that sooner or later that film needs to be scanned. You either do it yourself, effectively immersing yourself into a digital workflow or you work with a scanning service. The later option can be excellent but quite expensive, normal cost for the 6096 PPI scan I have posted would be around 200€, in this case it was regarded a sample at nominal cost. Add to that a turnaround time of over a week for processing.

CCD scanners may not handle the DMAX of Velvia. It is quite probable that they won't be able to handle DMAX of a film like Ektar 100 either. If you check the sensitivity curves for Ektar 100 it will be obvious that the blue sensitive channel has much higher density than the others. The curves are clipped in the plots at around 10 lux-seconds but I presume they go higher (because no shoulder is seen in the plots). So if your scanner does have a limited DMAX like 3.2 it's very well possible that severe color shift may occur in the highlights. This is of course speculation but I tried to look into this issue due to nasty experience, using my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and Vuescan. In this case I ended up generating a special DNG profile for this setting. The enclosed image shows the image with default profile (top left) and with the generated DNG profile (top right).

Before making the DNG profile I could color balance on any of the gray fields on the color checker and get wildly different results. The flower could turn into pink, red-violet or even pink.

The digital image (bottom) caused no effort at all.

By the way, I have been scanning slide film since 1995, and I was quite happy, until digital arrived. This gallery are scanned slides: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Sextener-Dolomiten/



Velvia (or possibly Provia), a scan I'm satisfied with:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Sextener-Dolomiten/i-XbwTpPm/0/L/20021228-DreiZinnen_2002_a19-L.jpg)

Velvia, drum scanned:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/VelviaScans/i-DcgFGHt/0/L/20111010-Kaffehr01-L.jpg)

Velvia, scanned at home:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/VelviaScans/i-LrJCWGk/0/L/20111002-Velvia_to_hamburg_03_-L.jpg)
Ektar 100, not so happy with this one:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/Ektar100/i-FGMJ5vg/1/L/20111003-Ektar100_Forsmark_Fisheye-L.jpg)

Digital image (same dday/time as the Ektar 100 shot):
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Places/ForsmarksBruk/i-4mxqcFQ/0/L/20110712-DSC00927-L.jpg)



Ektar 100, Drum Scan (http://www.highendscans.de):
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/Ektar100/i-8Ngc89N/0/L/20111010-Kaffehr02-L.jpg)
Ektar 100, scanned home on DSMP
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/Ektar100/i-F6rLFLD/0/L/20110904-Ektar100_nynas_2-4-L.jpg)
Raw image from Sony Alpha 900
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/Ektar100/i-kctSzNS/0/L/20110803-DSC01009-L.jpg)


Best regards
Erik

Measurbators ;D that's funny, but I'm sure he meant no offense.

I think that in this discussion both Chris and amsp make very valid points.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 18, 2012, 12:31:46 am
Hi,

I never had a Flextight, so I cannot comment on that, nor did I scan Portra 160. I normally shot Velvia in my analog times and the recent tests I have made was with Ektar 100.

I would say that it is important that the real density range of your scanner exceeds the density range of your film. I think this may be even more important with Ektar 100 than with Velvia.

The Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro I had was said to have a dynamic range of 4.8, but that was just marketing speak (BS), it was more like 3.5, well short of handling Velvia.

I made some reading and Flextight/Hasselblad is probably the way to go, but I guess that you need to make your own tests.

Drum scanners can be found at low prices, nowdays, but you may need to regards long term supports costs and availability.

Best regards
Erik


I use both a Phase One Digital backs p45+ and now IQ 160 and the Imacon Flextight 646 Hasselblad Scanner (now Hasselblad X1).

The Scanner is really good. I scan 4x5 inch, 6x7, 6x12 and 35mm. A lot of my work is landscape photography and I love the quality of the scans from the 646. I even printed 140 cm wide prints from a 35mm scan (color negative Kodak Portra 160 NC) and the grain is very fine and the persons who bought these prints didn't believe it was 35mm film.

Maybe drum scans are better than the Hasselblad/Flextight scanner, but I think you can't really see the difference in the final print (only maybe side by side), because the quality of the scans is already excellent. I make a lot of Diasec Prints (behind Acryl glass) and nobody ever asked me what scanner I used.
If you find a good used Hasselblad scanner, especially the 646 or 848 Imacon/Hasselblad Flextight models, go for it. Older models without firewire are difficult to use.

If you print your photographs really big (140 cm wide and wider) you will see how pleasing the film grain could be and you will get this quality with that scanner.
Forget to think about the Nikon 8000 or 9000 or scanner with that technique. If you would like to sell prints, than a scanner like the Flextight is the absolut minimun. The D Max of a Nikon can't compare to a Flextight/Hasselblad scanner.


Now the disadvantages:

- you have to remove the dust from every scan. That will take between 20 min up to one hour depending on the negative and the size. Retouching dust spots on a 4x5 inch scan could take a while. You have to play around with the sharpness output in the Flexscan software, it is much better than Photoshop.

- clients (especially younger art directors) complain about the "noise" in the pictures. I always have to explain to them the character of film grain. They looked at the full resolution scans in 100% on their screens (a 180 MB Scan in 8bit). You will see film grain all over, but that's film.

- digital files from a MFDB looks cleaner and more pleasing to many clients and sharper.


For my landscape work I use now 80% my digital back, for long exposures still 50% film.

If you can afford a digital back, than I would prefer that. Bud I don't know what your personal preferences are.

If you do your work for print (advertising or magazije) than you have to go for a digital back, if your main market is selling prints than you could think about to buy a decent scanner like Hasselblad Flextight.

Hope that helps you a bit.










Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: Gel on December 18, 2012, 09:42:47 am
I prefer the home scans Erik.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: FredBGG on December 18, 2012, 01:36:37 pm
@ Erik

Those scans compared to the digital are interesting to look at.
While IQ is high in both cases there is just something more narrative with the film shots.
Film is always in part an illusion and interpretation of what is in front of it.
Chatting with Quentin Tarantino about film vs digital in hi movies he says that he vastly
prefers film because it does not look like what is infront of the camera. The frame rate, the slight jitter
the flow of grain from frame to frame.

I think that it is also interesting how low quality film still has a charm to it, even disasters like scratches, dust and stains.
The other day a friend of mine shot a ex con on Hollywood blvd. A great shot of the guy that showed his gritty past
and much more. Anyway when he unloaded the roll of film to load another he was bumped by a passer by and the 120 roll fell to the ground and partly un rolled.
There was a light leak onto the shot and some how some text on the backing paper exposed onto the image.
My friend was in "measurbator mode" when he looked at the contacts from the lab and was upset he had lost the shot.
I told him he was out of his mind... it's one of his all time best shots. A great image with two stories.

Compare that to a corrupted RAW file ;)

Another friend of mine built a career on distressed photos after a couple of slides fell out of his top pocket
into the crapper and the toilet cleaning liquid in there.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 18, 2012, 02:18:49 pm
Hi Fred,

Thanks for feedback. My idea was mostly to share my limited experience, and also to show the difference between medium level CCD scanner and high end drum scan.

It is very nice to have feedback, it sort of adds a new dimension...

Best regards
Erik

@ Erik

Those scans compared to the digital are interesting to look at.
While IQ is high in both cases there is just something more narrative with the film shots.
Film is always in part an illusion and interpretation of what is in front of it.
Chatting with Quentin Tarantino about film vs digital in hi movies he says that he vastly
prefers film because it does not look like what is infront of the camera. The frame rate, the slight jitter
the flow of grain from frame to frame.

I think that it is also interesting how low quality film still has a charm to it, even disasters like scratches, dust and stains.
The other day a friend of mine shot a ex con on Hollywood blvd. A great shot of the guy that showed his gritty past
and much more. Anyway when he unloaded the roll of film to load another he was bumped by a passer by and the 120 roll fell to the ground and partly un rolled.
There was a light leak onto the shot and some how some text on the backing paper exposed onto the image.
My friend was in "measurbator mode" when he looked at the contacts from the lab and was upset he had lost the shot.
I told him he was out of his mind... it's one of his all time best shots. A great image with two stories.

Compare that to a corrupted RAW file ;)

Another friend of mine built a career on distressed photos after a couple of slides fell out of his top pocket
into the crapper and the toilet cleaning liquid in there.

Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: Pascalf on December 18, 2012, 05:17:47 pm
This comparison shows why I adore film.


Ektar 100, Drum Scan (http://www.gighendscans.de):
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/Ektar100/i-8Ngc89N/0/L/20111010-Kaffehr02-L.jpg)
Ektar 100, scanned home on DSMP
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/Ektar100/i-F6rLFLD/0/L/20110904-Ektar100_nynas_2-4-L.jpg)
Raw image from Sony Alpha 900
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/Ektar100/i-kctSzNS/0/L/20110803-DSC01009-L.jpg)


Three images: drum scan, 'home' scan, and a digital camera

Details:
- look through the windows: what do you see?
- look at the open door / window on the second floor: what do you see?

To each their own conclusions, though for me, the [drum scanned] film shows the most of what I want to see, or have available to make the image I want to [try] and get.


Pascal
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: FredBGG on December 18, 2012, 06:15:30 pm
8x10 V750 scan

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8494/8284820105_594136e7e4_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: EricWHiss on December 18, 2012, 06:33:57 pm
Pascal +1
Thanks for showing that it isn't always about checking detail sharpness 100% on screen!
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 18, 2012, 07:16:25 pm
This comparison shows why I adore film.

Three images: drum scan, 'home' scan, and a digital camera

Details:
- look through the windows: what do you see?
- look at the open door / window on the second floor: what do you see?

To each their own conclusions, though for me, the [drum scanned] film shows the most of what I want to see, or have available to make the image I want to [try] and get.

Hi Pascal,

Do not mistake the digital camera example (as provided by Erik) with what is possible. I have attached two tone mapped versions of the DC example where the shadows were opened a bit (and a lot) more than in Erik's post, and I could have gone much further. And that was based on the JPEG crop that was posted. When necessary, it is relatively simple to do an HDR bracketed exposure of a dense slide film, and capture all there is to capture.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 18, 2012, 09:32:34 pm
Hi,

The intention with the posting was to show the difference between drum scans and CCD scans and in some cases a digital image. You could say that the images I posted is my preferred rendition from each. What you don't see is that I have spent hours on the DSMP image and minutes on the digital image. But I'm not good at scanning negative film.

I actually don't feel there is much detail behind the second floor window, you just see the roof which doesn't seem to have structure.

Regarding the reflections in the glass on the front doors, the images are very different. I have noticed that, too. I cannot get the same rendition from digital in that area.


Best regards
Erik

Pascal +1
Thanks for showing that it isn't always about checking detail sharpness 100% on screen!

Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 18, 2012, 09:41:52 pm
Hi,

I don't really want to post the original drum scanned image, as it is a 2GByte tiff.

The DNG image from Sony is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/PublishedTests/20110803-DSC01009.dng

The DSMP scan is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/PublishedTests/20110904-Ektar100_nynas_2.dng


Best regards
Erik
Hi Pascal,

Do not mistake the digital camera example (as provided by Erik) with what is possible. I have attached two tone mapped versions of the DC example where the shadows were opened a bit (and a lot) more than in Erik's post, and I could have gone much further. And that was based on the JPEG crop that was posted. When necessary, it is relatively simple to do an HDR bracketed exposure of a dense slide film, and capture all there is to capture.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: Pascalf on December 18, 2012, 10:09:03 pm
Hi Pascal,

Do not mistake the digital camera example (as provided by Erik) with what is possible. I have attached two tone mapped versions of the DC example where the shadows were opened a bit (and a lot) more than in Erik's post, and I could have gone much further. And that was based on the JPEG crop that was posted. When necessary, it is relatively simple to do an HDR bracketed exposure of a dense slide film, and capture all there is to capture.

Cheers,
Bart

I don't mean that you cannot get digital to look like film, without some work.

I mean that film can get a look right out of the frame that requires much work out of digital, in terms of density.

I have assembled HDR images and it is not practical with moving subjects.  With film, you get the 'look' that the particular film type gets you.  No long [digital] post processing, thought a chemical processing does precede seeing the film.

And digital post-processing goes both ways: as I mentionned in my original post for this thread:

To each their own conclusions, though for me, the [drum scanned] film shows the most of what I want to see, or have available to make the image I want to [try] and get.


Pascal
- emphasis added

I can get close to the digital results with the film scan, just as I can get film like results with some digital captures.  It just happens to cost less to be able get the film image.  A medium format film camera [in my case, Contax 645] shooting Provia or Velvia gets me superb images that I cannot afford to get with a digital back, digital backs being what they cost.

And in the future, when I scan the film images, I'll get very good quality that stands up to a great deal of post-processing.


Pascal
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 18, 2012, 10:33:33 pm
Hi,

Can you share your experience of scanning? May be helpful for others scanning film. For instance which scanner on software you are using?

My experience is a bit contrary to yours. I can process 100 digital images one afternoon but just getting a single Velvia scan right can take quite long time for me. The castle shot you discuss was Ektar 100 by the way.

In the enclosed picture you see some of the variants I was working on, lots of scans... but this was really my first try at scanning negative film.

The drum scanned image was adjusted by the lab doing the scans.

Best regards
Erik


I don't mean that you cannot get digital to look like film, without some work.

I mean that film can get a look right out of the frame that requires much work out of digital, in terms of density.

I have assembled HDR images and it is not practical with moving subjects.  With film, you get the 'look' that the particular film type gets you.  No long [digital] post processing, thought a chemical processing does precede seeing the film.

And digital post-processing goes both ways: as I mentionned in my original post for this thread:- emphasis added

I can get close to the digital results with the film scan, just as I can get film like results with some digital captures.  It just happens to cost less to be able get the film image.  A medium format film camera [in my case, Contax 645] shooting Provia or Velvia gets me superb images that I cannot afford to get with a digital back, digital backs being what they cost.

And in the future, when I scan the film images, I'll get very good quality that stands up to a great deal of post-processing.


Pascal
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: Pascalf on December 18, 2012, 10:45:18 pm
Hi,

The intention with the posting was to show the difference between drum scans and CCD scans and in some cases a digital image. You could say that the images I posted is my preferred rendition from each. What you don't see is that I have spent hours on the DSMP image and minutes on the digital image. But I'm not good at scanning negative film.

, . . .

Both BartvanderWolf and I are saying the same thing, from different perspectives.

Hi Pascal,

Do not mistake the digital camera example (as provided by Erik) with what is possible. I have attached two tone mapped versions of the DC example where the shadows were opened a bit (and a lot) more than in Erik's post, and I could have gone much further. , . . .

- summary: BartvanderWolf can get digital to look like the result of the ErikKaffehr film scan and post production.

, . . .

To each their own conclusions, though for me, the [drum scanned] film shows the most of what I want to see, or have available to make the image I want to [try] and get.


Pascal
- summary: I can get film to look like the result I want [or quite close] with film scan and post production, including looking like digital.


So, for "Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back", the answer that works for me is film and the film scanner.  It cost me quite less to get decent quality and density images, and scanning makes the film frames accessible for post-production.
When I get an image I really like, I can get it scanned on a better scanner, resulting in a better base digital file that shows more density, and thus, more post production options.

By no means an I saying that this is valid for volume work.

For me, the density and 'look' of my usual film types (Velvia and Provia, with occasional Kodak E100G) provides me with images, at a certain quality, that I cannot afford going medium format digital.  And I would need to take quite a bit of film frames to get close to the investment required for a decent digital back.


Regards,
Pascal
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: Pascalf on December 18, 2012, 11:02:28 pm
Hi,

Can you share your experience of scanning?

, . . .

- have good access to a Nikon LS9000 with glass holder [for medium format] and own a Nikon LS2000 [for 35mm]
- I'll pull some examples from my library when I can and post an example from a medium format scan.
- I almost always use slide film on medium format, so that 'simplifies' my scanning: I set the scanner to match what I see on the light table.
- I used to work at a service bureau with film recorders [making presentation slides, remember those?], so my workflow and expectations are not from the 'fine art' domain.
- film scanning, in my experience, is an 'involved' operation compared to getting a frame from a digital back.  I've used the 22MP Leaf Valeo on Hasselblad H1, which is/was a tethered system.


Regards,
Pascal
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 18, 2012, 11:05:49 pm
Thanks!

Erik


- have good access to a Nikon LS9000 with glass holder [for medium format] and own a Nikon LS2000 [for 35mm]
- I'll pull some examples from my library when I can and post an example from a medium format scan.
- I almost always use slide film on medium format, so that 'simplifies' my scanning: I set the scanner to match what I see on the light table.
- I used to work at a service bureau with film recorders [making presentation slides, remember those?], so my workflow and expectations are not from the 'fine art' domain.
- film scanning, in my experience, is an 'involved' operation compared to getting a frame from a digital back.  I've used the 22MP Leaf Valeo on Hasselblad H1, which is/was a tethered system.


Regards,
Pascal
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: dmerger on December 18, 2012, 11:11:09 pm
Erik, are you able to use the Minolta scan software with your scanner?  (I know it's not supported on most current OS.)
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: Pascalf on December 18, 2012, 11:20:36 pm
Hi,

Can you share your experience of scanning? May be helpful for others scanning film. For instance which scanner on software you are using?
, . . .
- as mentioned, the scanners are Nikon LS9000 and Nikon LS2000
- software is always NikonScan of the appropriate version required to use the scanner:
- the Nikon LS2000 is run from a PowerBookG3 running OS9 and NikonScan
- the Nikon LS9000 is run from a PowerMacG5 running NikonScan on OSX

, . . .
The drum scanned image was adjusted by the lab doing the scans.
, . . .
- and that scan is great, providing you with a very flexible file to work with towards getting the look you want.  You can darken the image and get great density without boosting any values [meaning that you are not boosting noise].

I'll post the [medium format slide film scanning] example when I can.

Regards,
Pascal
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 19, 2012, 12:24:39 am
Hi,

That scan was made http://www.high-end-scans.de/

Working with the owner, Dominique Ventzke, was a very pleasant experience.

Best regards
Erik


...
- and that scan is great, providing you with a very flexible file to work with towards getting the look you want.  You can darken the image and get great density without boosting any values [meaning that you are not boosting noise].
...

Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 19, 2012, 02:48:08 pm
Hi,

I use Vurscan mostly, in part because I have been involved with its implementation for the DSMP, it has been developed with my scanner as reference and I was doing all the testing.

The Minolta software works using PowerPC emulation on my Mac using Leopard but I think it would not work on latest OS like Lion or Mountain Lion. Vuescan doesn't find it if has not been initialized by Minolta driver, but I think there may be a workaround. The Minolta software is quite OK, BTW.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, are you able to use the Minolta scan software with your scanner?  (I know it's not supported on most current OS.)
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: dmerger on December 19, 2012, 05:04:08 pm
Erik, I noted you said that you are not good at scanning negative film.   I expect that that is an overstatement.  In any event, I understand your commitment to VueScan, but thought I’d pass along something you may want to try with your Minolta scan software.

When you installed the Minolta software, it should automatically have installed two profiles: one for normal positive film scans and one for 16 bit linear scans. There is a third profile, however, in the Minolta program files that doesn’t get installed automatically.  It should be labeled MLTF5000n.  That profile is a negative film profile.  I know that there isn’t supposed to be such a thing, but it’s there none the less.  And it works great (at least for me with the original Minolta 5400 scanner).

If you want to try it, here is what I’ve found works well.  Of course you first need to install the MLTF5000n profile.  Then, in the Minolta software, scan as a negative without any color management.  Make no color or tone adjustments.  Make some low resolution, fast test scans at various exposure settings, using only the master exposure slider.  What you’re looking for is an ETTR exposure. Once you think you’ve got the correct exposure, test it by opening it in PS and assigning the MLTF5000n profile (but don’t convert to your working color space).  Check the exposure.  Rescan if necessary to get the proper ETTR exposure. 

Once you have the correct exposure dialed in, set your scan resolution to the maximum native scan resolution.  Manual focus on a uniform area if possible so that you’re focusing on the film grain.  Use ICE if you like (which may have a slight effect on the exposure, so test again to be sure you still have the best exposure).  Then scan and save that scan as you would the negative.  Just to be safe, I usually immediately make a copy and work with it. 

Open your scan in PS, assign the MLTF5000n profile, and then convert to your working color space (I use ProPhoto).  At that point I sometimes run Neat Image to reduce film grain, save the file, and then open it in LR for most of my edits.  Of course you can use whatever photo editing program you prefer.

I don’t know how the Minolta engineers were able to create their negative profile, but I tried it with Fuji Reala and Kodak Gold 100, and it works great for both of them.

I’m not sure if this profile is something you’ll like, but thought that you may want to try it, out of curiosity if nothing else.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: jhimages on December 19, 2012, 09:17:11 pm
I want to thank everyone for the excellent discussion.  I'm very glad I asked.  Erik, thank for the images.

I myself am not hung up at this point on the film vs. digital "look" question, I do agree they are different, and you'll definitely get certain looks, particularly if you go for a grainy image, with film you won't match as easily with digital.  Since I shoot mostly landscapes it is detail I am most interested in, so based upon your input, I'll probably mess a bit more with my v700 scanner to see if film holder adjustments help in any way.  It may be my sharpening settings in PS could also use some fine tuning.  I have to admit though, I can post process a lot of digital images a lot faster than scanning, cleaning and post processing from film, even when I'm very careful about pre-cleaning to eliminate as much dust from my film, my work area and my scanner as possible.  One thing I do hate abou the V700 is the glass is not readily removable.  Even in a clean no-smoking house, mine picks up a cloudy film pretty quickly and its a pain to take the unit apart to clean the inside of the glass, thus part of the reason I'm interested in input on the Hasselblad or other scanners.  But, I do worry about making too much more investment in film based work, as the population of film products continues to decline (assuming you don't count the eastern european films that are becoming available).

Someone raised the question regarding why I was straying away from DSLR's.  I have a d90 and I'm happy with the camera, its some of the Nikon lenses I'm not so thrilled with.  Most of my primes are probably 10-20 years old, and the 50 and the 28mm are two I really hate -- their images always look soft to me, compared to the sharpness and 3-d like quality I can easily extract from a Mamiya 645 AF or a Hassy (all tripod mounted).  Hassy's (V series) though, hate the desert south west.  Fine dust is always jamming up the gear mechanism on the film backs.  Just too open of a design, the same reason I'm very hesitant to consider a Leaf Aptus back.  Newer Nikon zooms are big step up in sharpness, but you sacrifice aperture and distortion.  I'm much happier with the results of MF primes, though I agree that some 35mm primes (like Leica, Zeiss) will have resolution values higher than their MF cousins.
 
The image, if I've posted this right, is about the limit of what I've managed to get from scanning 6x7 (note this is ress'ed down to 1024 pxls wide at 72 ppi).
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: FredBGG on December 20, 2012, 02:02:35 am
That is a lovely image... what a beautiful spot.
However you can get more detail form the v700.

A few suggestions. Scan at the highest native setting 6400 and then scale down in photoshop.
Also I suggest downloading the Silverfast software. You can download it in demo mode for free.

However if you are looking for the most detail you should look at getting a MFD camera or a Nikon d800e and replace the lenses you have.
Based on your comments regarding dust etc you should go for the Pentax 645D with it's better weather sealing
is more appropriate than the DF or Hasselblad H. The image quality beteween the Pentax and the D800 will be very very close with some
advantages to each. However the price difference is quite large.

The D90 is not anywhere close to the D800 or even the D600. The sensor in the D90 is a crop sensor so it is discarding much of your lenses resolution
angle of view. It has more dynamic range, less noise, better tonal resolution and is 36MP instead of 12mp. Compare the two in DXOMark

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/814%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/439%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/814%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/439%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon)

(http://youtu.be/7wPD1wRpels)
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: JohnCox123 on December 20, 2012, 04:43:54 am
I would also recommend a digital solution, one of the great things about digital is you can stitch a panorama if you need a larger angel of view, or merge a HDR shot if there is too much contrast. You can do this with film but it becomes more difficult.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: yaya on December 20, 2012, 05:38:11 am
...the same reason I'm very hesitant to consider a Leaf Aptus back.

The South West and the Middle East (where the Aptus is made) are very similar in terms of weather conditions ;)

In that regard, being able to remove the back and easily clean the IR filter is a plus...

Yair
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: FredBGG on December 20, 2012, 11:39:56 pm
Fine dust is always jamming up the gear mechanism on the film backs.  Just too open of a design, the same reason I'm very hesitant to consider a Leaf Aptus back.  

If it's getting in there it's getting into all sorts of nooks and crannies.
The fine dust is a real nightmare.
When I shoot in the deserts, especially the slat flats even the weather sealed gear is
put together at the hotel and wrapped in commercial kitchen plastic wrap.
Same thing at the beaches.

The leaf Aptus backs have cooling fans air and dust in air and a bit less dust out.
There is no weather seal between body and back in MFD.

Put the lens on the Pentax before you visit the dirt and leave it there.

How about this comparrison:

TWO Pentax 645D cameras                            $ 8,800 each
Standard lens (water resistant and weather sealed)    $ 1,200
24mm lens  (water resistant and weather sealed)       $ 5,000

Total  $23,000

One DF with IQ140 and standard lens (not weather sealed)  $ 26,000
Mamiya 28mm (not weather sealed)                                 $  5,000

Total $ 31,000   If you want the second camera the total is over $ 50,000

What would you want to shoot with in a dusty desert when a summer flash storm shows up?    

Or this guy uses the cameras..... ;)

http://youtu.be/Eo61t5fH6Qw (http://youtu.be/Eo61t5fH6Qw)        

Going Fishing anyone ;)

http://youtu.be/7wPD1wRpels (http://youtu.be/7wPD1wRpels)      
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: FredBGG on December 21, 2012, 09:36:37 pm
Has anyone done any comparisons of medium format backs vs. the Hasselblad scanners from medium format film?  I shoot many scenics and landscapes in 6x4.5, 6x6 or 6x7.  I currently use an Epson V700, but that scanner is not capable of shap scans to extract the full resolution of the film.  I like large enlargements, min 8x10, up to 24x36".  I tend to shoot more freely with a DSLR, but the image quality doesn't compare to my medium format work.  I'm wondering if I'm better off with a Hasselblad scanner than a medium format back...

Shot with a Fuji GX680 Plus-x-Pan 80mm 5.6 Scanned with the V750

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8215/8294967667_158ea67af3_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: FredBGG on December 25, 2012, 05:19:54 pm
Back to scanning with a digital camera.

Quick test with the D800 and a macro ring with the 85mm "scanning" a 6x8cm negative.

Exposing with the histogram nice an centered achieves very good tonality and the file can take quite a bit of adjustment
without artifacts. The really clean shadows of the D800 make for nice highlight tonality reproducing negatives.
The 85mm is not a macro and not optimized for macro at all... so the grain in the corners is not as crisp as the center.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8076/8307566867_e85c6db833_b.jpg)

Next step will be using A Fuji GX680 lens and two or four frame stitching For 60MP and 120MP "scans"
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: julienlanoo on December 25, 2012, 05:24:45 pm
I was discussing this on facebook ( by coincidence, ) to, so i did the test as i have both things..

Scanner is a 949 imacon at full reds

camera is a Arca swiss Rm3di Shneider 90mm apo digitar ( with some extra focusing rings to do macro), + Phase on P45
Light setup = translucid box with 2 speedlight flashes

Base is a 4x5 inch, made on a sinar and a Rodenstock 90 mm
For me the scanner still wins at 100%
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: FredBGG on December 25, 2012, 06:09:23 pm
Thanks Julien

That's a pretty good comparison.
The scanner is clearly way better.

Scanners effectively make hundreds and hundreds of stitches.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 26, 2012, 01:53:38 am
Hi,

I'm not really sure about what you mean by 100%, if you mean "actual pixels" I would say that the P45+ image is not sharp. All sharp P45+ images I have seen were really crisp. If you tried to scale the P45+ image to same scale as the 4x5" the difference would make more senses.

I got a small part of a Velvia 67 (from Mamiya 67) scanned at 10000 PPI from Tim Parkin, and at least MTF-wise it outperformed IQ180, so I am pretty sure that film has a lot to give if you scan well enough.

On the other hand, I would say that digital images are different.

When I tested my Pentax 67 with Ektar 100 vs my Sony Alpha I did a scan at 6096 PPI. The scan was made by Dominique Ventzke who had the following interesting comments:

"The Ektar neg was very interesting especially compared to the digital shot of your Alpha. In terms of resolution I think the 6x7 records much finer detail as long as there is enough contrast. But the digital is sharper when it comes to low contrast  textures and has higher micro contrast as can be seen in the wear and tear of the house walls. I was able to extract quite a bit of information from the highly saturated flowers. I don’t know how these flowers look like but to me the film image looks more real, three-dimensional and subtly detailed than the harsh pixelation of the Alpha image.

When you compare film and digital I think it’s not so much a matter of which is technically better in image quality. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. It’s not so black and white that you can say you need this many MP to match film in 6x7, 4x5” or 8x10”. To me the difference in the look of film based and sensor based photography is much more obvious. For example the open shadow detail and highlight rendition of color negative film corresponds very well with the way I see the world with my eyes. The grain however does not and yet it can look very pleasing. Film scales really well when you enlarge it. But the optical quality of the enlargement (enlarging lens or scanner) is a really important factor. You will start to see the grain already at moderate enlargements but it takes a really long stretch before the image falls apart. For example you can reduce the scans to 80 MP and still have a very good image quality on pixel level albeit at much lower microcontrast than a comparable MFD image."

I would say that Dominique's observations are pretty consistent with what I have seen.

Best regards
Erik



I was discussing this on facebook ( by coincidence, ) to, so i did the test as i have both things..

Scanner is a 949 imacon at full reds

camera is a Arca swiss Rm3di Shneider 90mm apo digitar ( with some extra focusing rings to do macro), + Phase on P45
Light setup = translucid box with 2 speedlight flashes

Base is a 4x5 inch, made on a sinar and a Rodenstock 90 mm
For me the scanner still wins at 100%
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: julienlanoo on December 26, 2012, 07:43:28 am
Yes it was actual pixels..

any way, i note also i spend 1h30 , setting up and focussing the thing, where i had to scan 15 minits to have a High ress scan..
i've tried f8, F16, F32 , the F16 was the best.. that's what i've shown..


greets
ju
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: FredBGG on December 27, 2012, 03:02:56 pm
I had an interesting chat with an engineer with a motion picture scanning company.
He told me that macro lenses just don't do the job well enough and to approach the qualities
of a drum scanner systems have to do three flash exposures and need to be heavily built systems
with precision thermal/humidity control and custom optics as well as 4 edge frame pressure plate.
In his opinion a repro stand with a still camera and macro lens however high end will only
be a high volume, but low quality scanning alternative. Great for volume documentation, but not a high
image quality system.
Some customized systems use dichroic filters and 9 monochrome exposures. Doing color balance analogically before
digitizing makes a significant difference.

Well it's back to scanners.
Title: Re: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 02, 2013, 02:43:36 am
Hi,

I made a quick test a couple of days ago, just photographing a projected 6x7 Velvia. I have published CCD and drum scans of the same slide on this thread.

I don't know what I think...

Putting the image on the light table and using a macro lens would give a better result. Although using a glass mount for the slide (GP) film flatness is an issue in projection.

I can post raw images later this week if anyone is interested.

Best regards
Erik

I had an interesting chat with an engineer with a motion picture scanning company.
He told me that macro lenses just don't do the job well enough and to approach the qualities
of a drum scanner systems have to do three flash exposures and need to be heavily built systems
with precision thermal/humidity control and custom optics as well as 4 edge frame pressure plate.
In his opinion a repro stand with a still camera and macro lens however high end will only
be a high volume, but low quality scanning alternative. Great for volume documentation, but not a high
image quality system.
Some customized systems use dichroic filters and 9 monochrome exposures. Doing color balance analogically before
digitizing makes a significant difference.

Well it's back to scanners.