Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: wlemann on December 26, 2013, 04:27:57 pm
-
I am using the V-700 Perfection Epson scanner and am confused about the Epson Scan software in Professional Mode.
I think I get the resolution issue.
As to the "Target" what does this mean?
Same with the size boxes?
Thanks, Walter
-
You can do the scanning in one of two ways - scan to a specific output (target) size and resolution, or scan to original size.
With the first option, the software works out what resolution to scan at in order to produce a file that will print at the specified output size.
Your best option is to scan at 2400 or 3200 dpi for film (or 200/300 for document scans), output set to original size. Then process the scanned file in your favourite image editor, and resize to suit your target output size.
-
Thanks for your response:
So for full frame 35 mm film, the 3200 res should be plenty to allow a "full size" print (24" wide X x") on my Epson 7900, correct?
How would you compare the quality achieved with the Epson Perfection V-700 compared to an older Hasselblad/Imacon Flextight? Are they close? The Epson is much easier to use, certainly.
Thanks, Walter
-
I've never used a Imacon Flextight but I very much doubt you'll get as good of a quality scan from the Epson, you get what you pay for often holds true.Try Vuescan software!
Peter
-
Thanks for your response:
So for full frame 35 mm film, the 3200 res should be plenty to allow a "full size" print (24" wide X x") on my Epson 7900, correct?
How would you compare the quality achieved with the Epson Perfection V-700 compared to an older Hasselblad/Imacon Flextight? Are they close? The Epson is much easier to use, certainly.
Thanks, Walter
I doubt very much that the image quality of the Epson is anywhere near that achievable with the Imacon Flextight although the specifications for maximum spi may be similar.
The problem is that although the maximum optical resolution of the Epson is quoted as 6400 spi for the Epson it is only able to resolve detail at around 2300 spi. Therefore while you will get the added pixels and a bigger file size there is no real increase in the ability to resolve the finest detail past 2400 spi.
The cheaper Imacon X1 claimed 6300spi is the highest resolution and from test I have seen indicate it gets close to this at around 6150 spi. Therefore it should be possible to resolve finer detail that may be in the original.
Testing is fine of course and the result quoted above are based on others testing using USAF test charts but of course in the real world we are usually more interested in how the images look and print and it is quite possible to get very satisfactory results at even lower sampling rates. For instance I use the V500 and its real limits to resolving detail peak at about 1500 spi but still provide an acceptable result - most of the time! Obviously there is a limit to what can be achieved with the cheaper flat bed scanners over a dedicated film scanner and you may have the need to go to a film scan provider for the ultimate scan using an Imacon or similar
-
I use the Epson software for reflective scans and it's "copier" functions. When scanning film, I use VueScan or SilverFast (not the cut down version that comes with the scanner), usually SilverFast. I use multi-scan (does the Epson software do that?) and avoid all sharpening, digital ICE, or other manipulation. I do those in LR of PS where I can control them more precisely. I usually scan at 2400-3200 and then down rez as needed. My 4x5 and 6x7 chromes scan nicely (negs are a little trickier), but 35mm is not so good and would be better with a film scanner or good scanning service.
-
The problem is that although the maximum optical resolution of the Epson is quoted as 6400 spi for the Epson it is only able to resolve detail at around 2300 spi.
Actual resolution is very much dependent on the film's proximity to the scanner's true focus plane, and to improve this you need the betterscanning.com holders - Epson holders can adjust up or down, but only in crude increments. If you get custom holders and spend an hour or two getting them set up to your particular scanner, you should be able to exceed 2300. Furthermore, the scans have, to my eye, pleasing colour and tonality, although they do show chromatic aberrations that clean up nicely in Lightroom or Camera Raw.
Here's a scan made on a V750 from 6x6 Portra, downsized to 3000 pixels/side: http://www.flickr.com/photos/61171860@N05/10711368395/sizes/o/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/61171860@N05/10711368395/sizes/o/)
-
Actual resolution is very much dependent on the film's proximity to the scanner's true focus plane, and to improve this you need the betterscanning.com holders - Epson holders can adjust up or down, but only in crude increments. If you get custom holders and spend an hour or two getting them set up to your particular scanner, you should be able to exceed 2300. Furthermore, the scans have, to my eye, pleasing colour and tonality, although they do show chromatic aberrations that clean up nicely in Lightroom or Camera Raw. ...
Very good point and while I agree that you should establish the scanners true focus point by raising and lowering the film holder using test images over the scanner bed the fact remains that there is a limit to what the scanner is capable of resolving once you have set the sweet point - this will almost always (for flatbed scanners) be much less than the manufacturers stated maximum optical resolution.
Dedicated film scanners such as the now deceased Nikon and Minolta range are capable of resolving detail equating to close to their stated optical resolution of around 4000 SPI
Typically it seems that flatbed scanners ability to resolve real detail is limited to 1/3 to 1/2 of the stated optical resolution and in the case of the Epsons from low to high price range somewhere between 1500 SPI to 2300 SPI vs the 6400 quoted maximum (uninterpolated). While there may be small differences between scanner samples with some possibly scoring a little higher than others the ability to resolve the finest detail contained within transmissive media hits this limit.
Going further than this point will give you more pixels to play with a larger file size but no increase in the scanners ability to actually resolve detail that may be contained within the film or transparency. Downsampling may give the impression of a better sharpness and will certainly aid in disguising noise
Testing a small section of your own images at varying sampling rates should reveal the point where there is no increase in the scanners ability to resolve detail. However this is really so dependent on how much detail is in the original and how well you have recorded the detail so if you really want to determine the actual resolution of a scanner this will require a dedicated test target. One that is frequently quoted as useful is the USAF-1951 target. Scanning this target as per the instructions and then using the supplied charts will reveal the true resolution of your scanner
As I understand it the USAF – 51 target it is not as accurate as required by the ISO standards but should show the differences in quality between scanners and the ability to resolve detail. The ISO standards used to measure resolution are I believe ISO 16667 and ISO 14773 not sure how they differ and I have never gone down this route so cannot comment.
-
The problem is that although the maximum optical resolution of the Epson is quoted as 6400 spi for the Epson it is only able to resolve detail at around 2300 spi. Therefore while you will get the added pixels and a bigger file size there is no real increase in the ability to resolve the finest detail past 2400 spi.
Going further than this point will give you more pixels to play with a larger file size but no increase in the scanners ability to actually resolve detail that may be contained within the film or transparency. Downsampling may give the impression of a better sharpness and will certainly aid in disguising noise
Testing a small section of your own images at varying sampling rates should reveal the point where there is no increase in the scanners ability to resolve detail. However this is really so dependent on how much detail is in the original.....
I recently bought the Epson V700 with the hope of being able to finally digitize all the thousands of negative and slides I have that go back to the school days of my father. My previous scanning attempts started with the Nikon LS-2000 (a mere 2700 dpi, but no doubt less in practice) and ended with the Minolta Dimage 5400 II. I concentrated only on a select few slides and negatives, re-scanning them as better and more affordable scanners became available.
I'm disappointed that this process of continual development of affordable, dedicated film scanners seems to have stopped. I too read that the real resolution of the V700 is claimed to be only 2300 dpi, which is a long way off 6400 dpi. However, what I've found is that there does appear to be an advantage in scanning at the full resolution of 6400 dpi. One might not initially notice any additional detail in the 6400 dpi scan, compared with a 3200 dpi scan, or even 2400 dpi scan, but the larger file of the 6400 dpi scan allows for better sharpening during post-processing.
One technique for sharpening I read about years ago (on this forum) is to interpolate an image to several times its size, apply the more aggressive sharpening that the larger image can take, then downsample the image to its original size using Bicubic Sharper. The results do seem to be noticeably sharper without increasing the noise.
However, upsampling an images tends to introduce a certain degree of softness, which limits the benefits of such a method.
By scanning at 6400 dpi, as opposed to 2400 or 3200 dpi, one is certainly not introducing any softness. In fact one might get a more accurate result due to an absence of 'grain aliasing', in the same sense that a very high-resolution sensor has less need of an anti-aliasing filter.
For this reason I'm using the full resolution of 6400 dpi when scanning. Hard drives are so affordable nowadays, so disc storage should not be a problem. How many 6400 dpi scans can one fit onto a 2 TB pocket drive?
-
...I too read that the real resolution of the V700 is claimed to be only 2300 dpi, which is a long way off 6400 dpi. However, what I've found is that there does appear to be an advantage in scanning at the full resolution of 6400 dpi. One might not initially notice any additional detail in the 6400 dpi scan, compared with a 3200 dpi scan, or even 2400 dpi scan, but the larger file of the 6400 dpi scan allows for better sharpening during post-processing.
One technique for sharpening I read about years ago (on this forum) is to interpolate an image to several times its size, apply the more aggressive sharpening that the larger image can take, then downsample the image to its original size using Bicubic Sharper. The results do seem to be noticeably sharper without increasing the noise.
However, upsampling an images tends to introduce a certain degree of softness, which limits the benefits of such a method.
By scanning at 6400 dpi, as opposed to 2400 or 3200 dpi, one is certainly not introducing any softness. In fact one might get a more accurate result due to an absence of 'grain aliasing', in the same sense that a very high-resolution sensor has less need of an anti-aliasing filter.
For this reason I'm using the full resolution of 6400 dpi when scanning. Hard drives are so affordable nowadays, so disc storage should not be a problem. How many 6400 dpi scans can one fit onto a 2 TB pocket drive?
Hi Ray,
Interesting method and certainly grain aliasing needs to be accounted for. I accept that you are seeing an improvement with this method. I wonder though how much benefit is gained when downsampling particularly when downsampling by large amounts. My concern would be the fact that we have no control over the pixels to be discarded therefore perhaps it would be better to gradually downsize in 10-20% steps and choosing an algorithm that adds no sharpening to the image until the last step to final size (I read this somewhere but cannot remember the source).
I have not done any film scanning for a long time and have not tried this or another technique that I have seen recommended. This one came from the Vuescan bible.
Set the scan resolution to the maximum optical resolution e.g. 6400 and set the scale to 50% (3200). It was stated that the effect could not be replicated in an editing application after but has to be done during scanning. I will probably give this method a try next time I scan a film and hope it is not a voodoo move
-
Hi Ray,
Interesting method and certainly grain aliasing needs to be accounted for. I accept that you are seeing an improvement with this method. I wonder though how much benefit is gained when downsampling particularly when downsampling by large amounts. My concern would be the fact that we have no control over the pixels to be discarded therefore perhaps it would be better to gradually downsize in 10-20% steps and choosing an algorithm that adds no sharpening to the image until the last step to final size (I read this somewhere but cannot remember the source).
I have not done any film scanning for a long time and have not tried this or another technique that I have seen recommended. This one came from the Vuescan bible.
Set the scan resolution to the maximum optical resolution e.g. 6400 and set the scale to 50% (3200). It was stated that the effect could not be replicated in an editing application after but has to be done during scanning. I will probably give this method a try next time I scan a film and hope it is not a voodoo move
Hi Tony,
There are so many different options to compare. I haven't yet downloaded the Vuescan software for the V700. Maybe I should give it a try. When the Minolta Dimage 5400 II was no longer supported by the manufacturer regarding updated drivers for the new 64 bit operating systems, I found that Vuescan did include a driver that worked. I now find that Nikon do not provide drivers for my Coolscan 8000ED that allow me to use the scanner with Windows 7, but Silverfast does.
The reason I bought the V700, despite still having a couple of functioning, dedicated film scanners, was the potential for speeding up the scanning process. The 35mm film holder for the V700 can hold up to 24 frames. What this means in effect is, I can spend just a few seconds making individual adjustments for each frame, say 15 or 20 minutes in total, then batch scan all 24 negatives, leaving me free to do other things whilst the scanner's doing its job.
As a rough estimate, if it takes 20-30 minutes to make the adjustments in the scanner's software for each individual frame, including the insertion and removal of the 4 strips of negatives in the film holder, and if it takes an hour to batch scan all 24 negatives, I should be able to scan about 168 negatives during a 10 hour period, but the amount of work required from me during that 10 hour period might be as little as 3 hours. That's the appeal.
However, so far it hasn't quite worked out like that because I've spent so much time trying out the different scanning software and the different options in Silverfast. I was particularly interested in Silverfast's RAW HDR and ME (multiple exposure) scan method which claims to capture all the detail one's scanner is capable of delivering, whilst also preserving the negative aspect of the negatives.
This seemed a great idea because one doesn't have to spend time making individual adjustments for each frame in the scanner software, and one can process the images later as time permits.
Having downloaded the trial version of Silverfast HDR, which is specifically designed for converting the RAW negatives to positives and making the sorts of adjustments one might have made previously if one hadn't scanned in RAW HDR mode, I find that the entire process is unfortunately more time-consuming and that it's much more difficult to get a satisfactory color balance through that route, even when including further processing in Photoshop.
I've now reverted to using the Epson Scan software bundled with the scanner. I find it quicker and simpler than Silverfast, and any deficiencies in the color and contrast of the scanned result are usually fixed instantly with a single click on Auto Color or Auto Tone in Photoshop.
If anyone's interested, my method at this stage is to first click on Color Restoration, which dramatically changes the appearance of the image but also appears to blow out the highlights and block the shadows. I then bring up the histogram, which is similar to the 'levels' histogram in Photoshop, which allows me to unblock the shadows and reduce the highlights, causing the image to look flatter and less contrasty, but never mind because there are other controls in the Epson Scan software that are similar to the Color balance tool and Brightness/Contrast tool in Photoshop, as well as a general Saturation slider.
By playing around with these sliders for just a few seconds, moving Blue towards Yellow and/or Red towards Cyan etc, and increasing saturation and brightness, I find I can get the image in the ballpark so that often (not always) a single click on Auto Color in Photoshop results in a satisfactory outcome, or gets me 90% of the way there.
For some reason, I find it easier and quicker to unblock the deepest shadows using Epson Scan.
-
Ray,
That is the problem, finding the time to do full comparison tests of all options available to us particularly with pressure to produce results and trying to archive 1000’s of captures.
If you can find the time it may be worthwhile testing the demo from Vuescan. It does include some of the features of the full blown version of Silverfast including Multi scanning, Multi exposure and a raw option.
Vuescan I understand is also compatible with the Nikon CoolScan 8000ED and if not one person at least has found a way to fool the system into submission
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Ryck
Like you I did have a large collection of family images and professional work portfolio that amounted to 1000’s of images sadly the vast majority lost around 15 years ago during a house move. By the time the images were noted as missing several months had gone by and my request to the movers to find what they had lost failed. Still although the loss was upsetting at least I did not have to start the laborious archiving!
My reason for buying the V500 rather than the V700 or V750 (apart from being naturally tight fisted with my money!) was for photo restoration work. The vast majority of this work is reflective media and I could not see any quality difference between the Epson scanners V500 vs the V750.
My thoughts at the time were that as Nikon etc no longer manufactured film scanners that there would be a glut of used models for sale on ebay etc. at good prices – how wrong was I, the prices reached amazed me.
In the event I was really surprised at the quality achievable with the cheap Epson for film in spite of its modest resolving power in comparison to the higher end models. I have managed to produce some very pleasing results from old negative and slides – far from great but in many cases quite acceptable. When really needed I have gone out to a scan only service that use an Imacon although prices are a little steep IMHO, ranging from £7 -£10+ depending on file size up to a maximum of 100MB
Seems we have had similar experience I started with of course the Epson software, and then tried the Silverfast light? Then the full blown expensive version and finally Vuescan. Like you I somehow reverted to Epson scan, I quite like the UI and do find it simpler and quicker to use – might be a different story with difficult negs or trans.
Good luck with your task of archiving your old images and if you do come up with a better/faster way I hope you will post
-
Tony: Although you said you already purchased the V500, just a comment about it vs. the V600. Although both units can apply ICE to film scans, the V600 can also apply ICE to prints. That helps a lot with old prints that have suffered creases, marks and other defects.
-
The V600 is only slightly more expensive than the V500 and a lot cheaper than the V700 or V750.
-
Alan, thanks for the heads up I was not aware of the changes between models.
-
The problem is that although the maximum optical resolution of the Epson is quoted as 6400 spi for the Epson it is only able to resolve detail at around 2300 spi. Therefore while you will get the added pixels and a bigger file size there is no real increase in the ability to resolve the finest detail past 2400 spi.
Hi Tony,
I wonder how accurate this assessment of the V700 resolving power is. I've seen only one site claiming this figure of 2300 dpi.
Having got around to scanning some 6cmx6cm B&W MF film on the V700, which is a real joy because of the less significant grain and smoother tonality compared with 35mm, I wondered how much better such images would appear if i were to scan them on my dedicated Medium Format Nikon 8000 ED, which I bought several years ago with the intention of scanning the old MF film I have in my possession, as well as the new MF film I was using before I bought my first cropped-format DSLR.
I never did spend much time scanning MF film on that scanner because the price of DSLRs fell so quickly, and my time then was taken up exploring the new medium. However, Nikon no longer support this scanner with drivers for recent operating systems, so my 8000 ED has remained dormant for a few years.
I recently discovered that Silverfast is selling a version of their software that has Nikon D8000 ED drivers for modern operating systems, so I downloaded the trial version and have spent a bit of time comparing scans of the sharpest of these 6x6 format B&W film I have, on both scanners, using the Epson Scan software with the V700.
I was expecting to see noticeably more detail from the Nikon 8000 ED. Imagine my surprise when I sometimes saw less detail.
One of the complaints about the V700 is it's lack of manual focussing. If the focussing is off, one has to change the height of the film holder. However, in my experience one doesn't have to change the height of the film holder for each individual frame. Once it's right, it remains right. The default height works best for me.
The sort of thing I was seeing in the Nikon scans was the top of the image appearing out-of-focus, and significantly less sharp than the V700 scan, but the bottom of the scan appearing equally as sharp as the V700 scan.
In order to get a good scan out of the Nikon, for comparison purposes, I had to make several scans with different focusing points, then choose the best. It was a long and tedious process, but I had to determine if this 4000 dpi scanner would provide any advantage.
I'm surprised it doesn't. In fact, the Epson V700 flatbed sometimes has a slight edge.
The attached image, with 100% crops, was taken over 50 years ago in Bangkok, with a Rolleiflex. I've chosen it for this demonstration because it's quite sharp and has good DoF. The Epson scan is at full optical resolution of 6400 dpi, and the Nikon scan at full optical resolution of 4000 dpi. No noise reduction was used with either scanner, because this is a test of detail and resolution.
Sharpening has been adjusted to approximately equalize noise in each image. The V700 scan, after sharpening, has been downsampled to 4000 dpi.
The Epson V700 was first released many years ago. Perhaps they have gradually improved the scanner without any major announcement. ;)
-
>>However, in my experience one doesn't have to change the height of the film holder for each individual frame. Once it's right, it remains right. <<
Correct. While it is good to reconfirm maybe once a year, unless something like damage/a large shock occurs to your scanner, you will probably never see a change in the optimal film suspension height.
Doug
-
Hi Ray,
Good to see your comparisons but quite disappointed that you are not getting better from the Nikon 8000ED. Just a few thoughts and trying to defend the Nikon :)
I wonder how accurate this assessment of the V700 resolving power is. I've seen only one site claiming this figure of 2300 dpi.
I know what you mean about the accuracy of testing, but I tend to believe that the figures quoted are meaningful. But ultimately it is the human eye that is counting the LP and unless the same eye each time and the individual is sufficiently rested then results can differ sometimes by noticeable amounts – I have witnessed this first hand with resolution testing and evaluation in medical imaging. The USAF 51 target is also based on LP in the horizontal and vertical only perhaps the inclusion of diagonal LP and circles would offer even more insight? Most testing using this target seems to confirm that the resolution will differ from the horizontal to the vertical with horizontal lines displaying better than the vertical and the results are normally just averaged.
I was expecting to see noticeably more detail from the Nikon 8000 ED. Imagine my surprise when I sometimes saw less detail... I'm surprised it doesn't. In fact, the Epson V700 flatbed sometimes has a slight edge..
I agree and I am surprised too that you even at times saw less apparent detail. Still I have some theories why this may be the case.
Great image I loved my old Rolliecord so light and easy to use, no batteries, no autofocus, no inbuilt metering – still I would miss some of the features of the new DSLR if I had to go back.
Just a few observations on your images and the comments you have made about the quality of the 8000ED vs the v700. I have to stress that this is just a personal opinion (read as guessing! ;D) trying to reason why the 8000ED did not come up to expectations – mine as well as yours.
Although not exactly the best example if you go to http://zeux.zlakfoto.ch/scanvergleich/index.html and click on the v700 in the left panel and the 8000ED in the right panel you will see a comparison of similar images and the difference I would have expected in quality between the two scanners.
First thing that struck me is that the focus is out overall and of course you have experienced this with uneven sharpness. One report http://forum.silverfast.com/post26877.html
The other thing reported using MF is the quality of the film holders being poor/makeweight and leading to unsharp/soft scans. I understand that Nikon also offered a better quality film carrier which also included glass to enable the film to be held flat. I think the Nikon item numbers FH-869 GR and FH-869G
I also wonder about sharpening and how it is being applied in these products. Even though we may think that we have turned all the bells and whistles off for shapening noise reduction etc to get a 'pure' scan there is no way I can think of to easily check what the manufacturer maybe applying via their software or indeed any third party software. Although I suppose that scanning via different applications may reveal differences - but then how to interpret such?
-
Although not exactly the best example if you go to http://zeux.zlakfoto.ch/scanvergleich/index.html and click on the v700 in the left panel and the 8000ED in the right panel you will see a comparison of similar images and the difference I would have expected in quality between the two scanners.
Thanks for the link, Tony. That site offers an excellent method of comparing different scanners. But I see two glaring faults with this particular comparison of the V700 and the 8000 ED.
First, the V700 crop is significantly smaller than the 8000 ED crop. Why is that? It should be the other way round. A 6400 dpi scan is significantly larger than a 4000 dpi scan. One should either show both crops at their original size, or downsize the larger file to the same size as the smaller file, for comparison purposes. It makes no sense to show the originally-larger file at an even smaller size than the originally-smaller file.
To confuse matters, not only are the image elements in the V700 crop smaller, but the degree of cropping is greater so that one gets an initial impression is that the reason for the V700 image being smaller is that it has been cropped more. This appears very devious to me. ;)
The second glaring fault is that the negatives being compared are not the same. The lowest of the 3 crops shows different people passing by in the street.
A third fault, although less glaring, is an appearance of noticeably brighter highlights in the V700 scan, which of course reduces the amount of visible texture on the highlighted surfaces.
The other thing reported using MF is the quality of the film holders being poor/makeweight and leading to unsharp/soft scans. I understand that Nikon also offered a better quality film carrier which also included glass to enable the film to be held flat. I think the Nikon item numbers FH-869 GR and FH-869G
Any system that can ensure the film is held flat has to be an improvement, whatever the scanner. It so happens I have quite a few old 35mm Kodachrome slides that have been mounted between glass plates. I've just tried squeezing one into the Epson frame holder for slides, and it fits, but it's a tight squeeze. This should be a better test for the two scanners. I guess I should have used those glass-mounted slides in the first instance, but I was in MF scanning mode, or mood. ;)
I also wonder about sharpening and how it is being applied in these products. Even though we may think that we have turned all the bells and whistles off for shapening noise reduction etc to get a 'pure' scan there is no way I can think of to easily check what the manufacturer maybe applying via their software or indeed any third party software. Although I suppose that scanning via different applications may reveal differences - but then how to interpret such?
I guess the bottom line is the best result one can get from the resources available. I rescanned this particular image, shown above, several times with the Nikon 8000 ED, not only using different focussing points but different amounts of sharpening, from the maximum amount of 500 at 4 pixels to 100 at 1 pixel. A sharpening amount of 200 at 2 pixels width seemed about right for the MF film I was scanning with Silverfast and the 8000 ED. and roughly equivalent to the 'high' sharpening setting in the Epson Scan software which gives one a choice of only low, medium, or high. Sharpening was further adjusted for each scan later in Photoshop using Smart Sharpen, with the object of getting maximum detail in both images with equal noise, and without applying noise reduction to either image.
I'm particularly pleased that the shadow detail in the Epson V700 scan is at least the equal of the 8000 ED scan. I think the DMax is around 4.00 for each scanner, or is it 4.2 for the Nikon?
So far, I'm very satisfied with this flatbed scanner. Of course, for even better results I guess 'wet mounting' would be the choice, but this sounds like a very time-consuming and fiddly process. Also, the Epson V750, designed to include wet mounting, is not available in Australia. There'd be no warranty if I imported it.
Regards,
-
I pay absolutely no attention to resolution tests of the V700 because there is no way of knowing how well the test scanner is set up. I have seen the difference a betterscanning.com film holder has made to scans from my V750, and I'm pretty sure that I'm getting equivalent resolution to that from my 3200 dpi Konica-Minolta film scanner. Furthermore, it can dig out detail from thin negs that is just unobtainable from the dedicated film scanner.
I have concluded that the resolution issue is a red herring, as camera shake, mirror slap, film grain etc are frequently the main brake on ultimate detail resolution. More important to me now is the quality of the scan, and I like the output from the Epson (with negative film, and after judicious sharpening and CA reduction) better than that from my film scanner.
-
Ray, I agree that there are potential issues in trying to evaluate scans between models in the way shown in the link. There does not appear to be any detail given on the conditions and in the case of the last image comparison at least different images used.
That’s why I said not the best example, however the differences shown illustrate what I would expect to see from the v700 or v750 when both were set up as well as possible and having seen scans from both the Epson and the Nikon (5000ED I think) using the same image and optimal quality settings. EDIT: There are two entries for the v700 and I took the first one as the comparison.
When I first saw the crops I too thought they were quite different, however If you copy and bring both images into PS as layers and set difference blend mode and move one of the images you should see that they line up pretty accurately as far as size goes. Quick example attached using the middle image. The only thing I did was to adjust colour balance a little to get a slightly improved visual match and just crop the whole image down to the v700 size. Wait a few seconds for the image to change.
(http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm256/TonyWarrington/EpsonNikonScan.gif) (http://s298.photobucket.com/user/TonyWarrington/media/EpsonNikonScan.gif.html)
I would think that you may actually see the differences better with your 35mm mounted behind glass and accurate focus set for both scanners.
At the end of the day you are getting very good results from the Epson and the question is how much more detail do you need to reveal and would it yield a significant benefit once printed after good sharpening and noise reduction.
I agree with artobest that one persons testing methodology on two different pieces of equipment needs to be undertaken with great attention to detail to ensure that both are performing at optimum levels to make a meaningful comparison.
-
EDIT: There are two entries for the v700 and I took the first one as the comparison.
Ah! My fault. I clicked on the second entry. That's a good method you are using to demonstrate the differences, Tony.
My interest in this matter is mainly for practical reasons. I've had a Nikon 8000 ED scanner for quite a few years, but cannot now use it with my recent computers, or even the old, original computer, without getting that computer repaired.
The question for me is, should I buy the Silverfast software which enables me to continue using this Nikon scanner? I'm currently using the trial software with numerous watermarks plastered over the image, and I'm trying to find out if there would be any occasion when I might want to use the Nikon scanner to eke out slightly more detail, either for the purpose of making a very large print, or for the purpose of making an average size print from a small crop.
Whilst continuing with my MF scanning of old negatives, I came across a portrait-type image with a shallow DoF and a detailed focusing area in the centre of the frame. I thought this should be an ideal shot to demonstrate any detail and sharpness differences. There should be no problem selecting a focusing point.
It's a shot of a Hill Tribe person in Northern Thailand, standing to attention for his portrait. :)
In order to avoid any confusion resulting from different sharpening methods from different software and hardware, I scanned the image on both scanners without applying any sharpening or noise reduction whatsoever. If one or both of the scanners are applying some degree of sharpening 'under the hood', or by default, then there's nothing I can do about that.
I was surprised to see that there is a big difference in apparent sharpness and detail between the two scans when both images are unsharpened. The differences are like the difference between an excellent prime lens and a mediocre zoom lens, and similar to the differences shown at the website you linked to, at http://zeux.zlakfoto.ch/scanvergleich/index.html
But again, the question is, does the Nikon scan contain any detail that cannot be brought out in the Epson scan after appropriate sharpening?
In the attached examples, I upsampled the Nikon scan to the same file size as the Epson scan. I then initially applied equal sharpening to both images. I can't be fairer than that. But what I saw was significantly more noise in the Nikon scan on smooth areas, such as skin. This indicates to me that the reason for the 'apparently' unsharpened Nikon scan looking sharper than the unsharpened Epson scan is because some degree of sharpening has been applied by default to the Nikon scan, which is not user-controllable.
I've therefore applied different degrees of sharpening, as appropriate, to each scan, but without application of any noise reduction.
I'm trying to find even one skerrick of detail that exists in the Nikon scan, but not in the Epson scan. I can't see it. Even in the 200% crop which shows the individual threads of the guy's shirt, I can see no additional detail in the Nikon scan.
Of course, I accept the possibility that a Nikon scan of a line chart taken with a state-of-the-art lens, might show a few additional lines, but that's not what I'm scanning.
Cheers!
-
Ah! My fault. I clicked on the second entry. That's a good method you are using to demonstrate the differences, Tony.
Still raises the question why two entries and different sizes so you would be correct in questioning the testing methods as in your first reply. The example was posted to illustrate what differences I would expect to see between a good quality flatbed (and I think the Epson 700 and 750 are about as good as it gets at the price point) and a good quality dedicated film scanner such as your Nikon. I still think there is an issue with the Epson scan as it seems to exhibit a small degree of distortion which suggests that the film not held flat thereby focus not optimum.
The question for me is, should I buy the Silverfast software which enables me to continue using this Nikon scanner? I'm currently using the trial software with numerous watermarks plastered over the image, and I'm trying to find out if there would be any occasion when I might want to use the Nikon scanner to eke out slightly more detail, either for the purpose of making a very large print, or for the purpose of making an average size print from a small crop.
Have you tried the Vuescan demo for comparison as it does offer support for the Nikon 8000ED? It may or may not bring anything different to the table but a lot of people seem to like it – I do but as I said earlier I tend to use the Epson software for print copying.
Vuescan demo http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/nikon_coolscan_8000_ed.html support for Win7 and 8 64 bit.
I was surprised to see that there is a big difference in apparent sharpness and detail between the two scans when both images are unsharpened. The differences are like the difference between an excellent prime lens and a mediocre zoom lens, and similar to the differences shown at the website you linked to, at http://zeux.zlakfoto.ch/scanvergleich/index.html
But again, the question is, does the Nikon scan contain any detail that cannot be brought out in the Epson scan after appropriate sharpening?
At least in theory if one scanner is not able to resolve the finest detail it will result in a mush of that detail which no sharpening technique (that I know of!) will bring back. Question then would be, is the loss small enough to be acceptable when the image is considered as a whole?
In the attached examples, I upsampled the Nikon scan to the same file size as the Epson scan. I then initially applied equal sharpening to both images. I can't be fairer than that. But what I saw was significantly more noise in the Nikon scan on smooth areas, such as skin. This indicates to me that the reason for the 'apparently' unsharpened Nikon scan looking sharper than the unsharpened Epson scan is because some degree of sharpening has been applied by default to the Nikon scan, which is not user-controllable.
Cannot see examples however I accept what you are seeing but wonder again about the differences. Just a few random thoughts and not a suggestion that you are doing anything incorrectly .
Firstly as you upsampled the Nikon scan what upsampling algorithm did you choose if Photoshop and have you tried the same upsampling in either LR or ACR? It may offer an improvement, although I cannot guarantee this will be the case. Going through LR or ACR I think could offer you a better sharpening (including masking that you can actually see where it is being applied) and noise reduction at this stage of your capture.
How does the Epson scan look when downsampled to the Nikon size?
Are you using the same software for both the Nikon and Epson scanners as I would have thought that even if sharpening is going on under the hood then it would be the same for both?
I'm trying to find even one skerrick of detail that exists in the Nikon scan, but not in the Epson scan. I can't see it. Even in the 200% crop which shows the individual threads of the guy's shirt, I can see no additional detail in the Nikon scan.
Seems to me that you are already achieving the maximum detail from your Epson scans and there is just no more to be had even with a theoretically better system.
Bear in mind that my opinion about the difference in achievable quality and although based on previous experience of very good from Nikon vs not as good from flatbed (even the high quality ones) is subjective – I do not have the equipment to hand to try and put theory to test. Perhaps my expectations are too high for the Nikon? On the other hand you are able to undertake objective testing based on the two pieces of equipment you have and unless something is out of whack with the Nikon then perhaps this is as good as it gets?
EDIT: After posting I now see the images you refer to. First look seems that pretty much trying to split hairs here between the two scans. But it does appear that they were both brought into different applications and I therefore think that it would be better if both were scanned using the same software and whatever gets applied in the application or by your own manipulations would even the field somewhat. It looks like the Lasersoft applications is adding something in this example that I would prefer not to see.
Again at first sight and looking at the unsharpened comparison. The left image Lasersoft looks a little sharper however in the process it seems that detail is lost in the nose and artefacting apparent resulting in loss of tonality changes. I much prefer the starting point image shown on the right as it appears to offer a much smoother transition between tonalities - somehow I think I am betting on the Epson scan here? ;D
Curious and I hope you do not mind but I took a portion of your unsharpened results and applied a little sharpening to the right hand image only shown in the bottom right and I must say I prefer the result to the Lasersoft example - smoother tonality and highlights showing without clipping. Still while we can try to compare nuances on screen the final quality is going to be only seen once printed.
(http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm256/TonyWarrington/epsvsnik.jpg) (http://s298.photobucket.com/user/TonyWarrington/media/epsvsnik.jpg.html)
-
Tony,
Thanks for your feedback. Good to know that Vuescan contains drivers to enable use of the Nikon 8000 ED with Windows 7.
I did use both the Silverfast software and the Epson scan software when scanning this negative on the Epson scanner, but I didn't find any noticeable difference in sharpness and detail in the two scans when no sharpening or noise reduction had been applied to either. But there can be a slight difference in tonality, brightness and contrast, unless one is very meticulous, because the adjustment tools in the different software are different.
The upsampling algorithm I used for the Nikon scan was Bicubic Smoother (Best for Enlargement). However, I notice that Photoshop Creative Cloud has introduced a new option for upsampling, called 'Preserve Details (Enlargement)'. I've just tried it, and I see a very marginal improvement in contrast and detail when using 'Preserve Details'.
Which brings me to the next point. I think my reasoning is flawed when I draw the inference that the additional noise and appearance of oversharpening in the Nikon scan (after applying the same amount of sharpening to the upsampled image as applied to the Epson scan) might suggest that some default sharpening has been applied by the scanning software to the Nikon scan.
I don't think this is necessarily correct. I think it's more likely that the lens in the Nikon scanner is a more contrasty lens than the lens in the Epson flatbed.
Image resolution is always a combination of lens and sensor resolving power. I believe the combination of the lens and the sensor in the Nikon scanner is simply producing a more contrasty image than the Epson scanner, but not necessarily a more detailed image.
Now, as I understand, as long as detail exists it can be brought out with sharpening. If detail doesn't exist even faintly in the scan, because either the lens or the sensor lacks sufficient resolving power, then nothing can be done, short of using some complicated algorithm which might make a guess as to what the detail might have been.
The fact that I have so far been unable to discern any detail in the Nikon scan which I cannot bring out in the Epson scan with appropriate sharpening, or even inappropriate sharpening, such as severely oversharpening both images, suggests to me that the main advantage of the 8000 ED is that it produces better 'apparent' resolution straight out of the box, whereas the Epson V700 needs more work in post processing, particularly with regard sharpening.
To be more certain about this, I guess I would need a negative or slide of a high quality resolution-chart to scan. However, I find it difficult to believe that the fine hairs, skin pores, film grain, marks, blemishes, dust spots and fine scratches on the film surface do not provide sufficient detail to make a good comparative assessment of the resolving power of the two scanners.
Searching for the faintest scratch on the negative, I found one positioned over the Hill Tribe guy's neck. This scratch is significantly thinner than a single strand of hair on the guy's chin.
The attach image compares 100% crops of the original 6400 dpi scan from the Epson V700, using the Silverfast software, and the Nikon 8000 ED scan after upsampling using 'Preserve Details'.
Both images have been excessively sharpened to bring out the maximum detail, but the Epson scan needed significantly more sharpening to get the detail appearing the same.
I can't see the need to scan a resolution chart. Surely there can be no finer detail than the grain of the film, and that fine scratch rising from the bottom of the frame, left of centre. ;)
I should also mention that these file sizes are around 380 MB in 16 bit greyscale. In 48 bit color they would be more than 1 GB and any print of the entire image, that would be large enough to reveal that fine scratch as you see it on your monitor, would probably not fit on your wall, from floor to ceiling.
Have I made my case? ;)
By the way, you have to be logged on to see images which are attachments.
-
Why do the right pictures have the bright areas on the nose? Why do the left pictures have these two "tags" on the nose?
-
Why do the right pictures have the bright areas on the nose? Why do the left pictures have these two "tags" on the nose?
Alan,
The bright area on the nose in the right image is a highlight which was preserved as a result of the levels, brightness and contrast adjustments in the Epson scan software which I used with the Epson scanner.
When scanning the same negative on the Nikon 8000 ED (left image) that highlight was reduced in intensity as a result of slightly different brightness/contrast adjustments I made with the different scanning software, which was Silverfast.
I presume the two tags you are referring to are the two small white spots on the end of the nose which are missing in the right crop. These are dust spots which would have been removed through my normal practice of brushing and blowing the negatives after inserting them into the holder, and before placing the holder onto or into the scanner.
As I recall, the first scan would have been on the Epson scanner using the Epson scan software. After examining the result, I decided to use the negative to compare detail from the Nikon 8000 ED, but first I would have rescanned the image on the Epson without sharpening or noise reduction applied. I would then have removed the negative to scan on the Nikon.
As an afterthought, after scanning the negative on the Nikon scanner, I then inserted the negative a second time into the Epson film holder in order to scan it again using the Silverfast software, which was included with the Epson Scan software that came with the scanner, just to see if the different software had any effect on sharpness and detail when used with the same scanner. It didn't.
Those two dust spots on the end of the nose would have been removed as a result of the additional blowing and brushing of the negative before it was inserted a second time onto the Epson scanner.
I think I am now ready to apply for a job as a forensic scientist. ;D
-
Ray,
As you said in your final statement ‘Have I made my case’, accompanied by a smiley I hope you realise I am not trying to be argumentative or anal (I used to get paid for this level of anality in image evaluation ;D). My interest is that you do not seem to be getting optimum results from the Nikon and if it was my unit I would be investigating a little further as to the reasons.
I really think that it is not a good idea to compare scans from two different applications regardless of setting both to no noise reduction and no sharpening. We just cannot be certain of what is happening under the hood with the initial algorithms for each application – they are likely to be quite different. Similarly when we do apply changes within the particular application e.g. sharpening, noise reduction, curves or levels the application programmers will have used their own algorithms to achieve the effect
It is my belief that apart from any contrast differences contributing to perceived resolution the Nikon optical system is superior to the Epson therefore it is actually capable of resolving more detail as long as that detail exists in the original. How much added resolving power is the $64,000 question and batch differences may be observed between models from the same manufacturer.
If detail exists in a scan it can be enhanced with sharpening of course and to a degree any losses is the digitization process can be at least disguised if not completely eliminated. Slight digression here but a few years ago I was considering if I should jump to all digital capture or utilise my existing 35mm and MF kit. I had thought about finding a used Nikon scanner either 35mm or even MF like the 8000ED or go out for high quality scans to a bureau. In the process a colleague sent me a comparison scan (attached) from his Nikon 5000 vs either Epson 700 or 750 (cannot remember which). I was assured that the conditions for the scanning was optimum in both cases and the test slide was a glass mounted 35mm SMPTE RP40 (usual use projector alignment). In the case of the Epson the film height adjusted to optimum. Although there is some difference in contrast (the centre dot of the star matches density exactly between images) there is a discernible loss of detail in the separation of some of the bars that cannot really be recovered by sharpening as this detail has been lost in a single grey mush. I know that the 5000 is a different beast being 35mm to the 8000 but the optical systems I understand are similar enough to consider comparison appropriate.
(http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm256/TonyWarrington/SMPTERP40.jpg) (http://s298.photobucket.com/user/TonyWarrington/media/SMPTERP40.jpg.html)
The question of course is how important this loss is to the impact of the image as a whole considering that this is a very small section from a 35mm test object and may not be as apparent in a MF shot?
I doubt the value of using a test object over a normal film other than if you need to establish quality differences to the absolute degree between units or need to confirm a particular unit is performing consistently or within a given specification.
Your results from the Epson are very good indeed and this may be all you need, but you did suggest that you were wondering if you could eke a small amount of usable information for either image crops or large images by using the Nikon. So I can only say if this was my system I would be investigating a little further to see what may be causing possible losses.
I wish I could tell you that by taking a certain path would lead you to a noticeable improvement for the Nikon – quite simply I cannot and you may be wasting your time and effort looking any further but...
One thing that will effect quality is dirty scanner optics, lens, mirror or both. Worst case that should be very noticeable is blooming but prior to things getting that bad a slight coating on either mirror or lens can result in a loss of resolution.
These may be of interest:
Dirty Scanner Optics - http://www.vad1.com/photo/dirty-scanner/
If you are brave and feel competent to undertake it self cleaning may help? - http://www.marginalsoftware.com/LS8000Notes/cleaning_the_optics_of_the_ls.htm
-
The reason for my question is that because there was a white glare spot on only one set, then the images were processed differently. Once you introduce different adjustments, it's hard to determine which is doing what. There are so many variables. Probably the best way to compre is too try to max out the processing as best you can with both scanners. Then print both results and compare. After all, it's the final results that count.
-
My interest is that you do not seem to be getting optimum results from the Nikon and if it was my unit I would be investigating a little further as to the reasons.
Tony,
Thanks very much for those links to 'dirty scanner optics' and how to disassemble the 8000 ED for cleaning. I think I should try to do this. I'm going to print out the instructions so I can refer to them whilst I try disassembling the scanner, and hope I don't make a mess of the job. ;)
When I decided to get this Nikon scanner operational again, I was kicking myself for not having wrapped it in a plastic bag to protect it from the dust. However, I can't say that I've noticed any of those tell-tale signs of dirty scanner optics mentioned in the article, at least not in any significant way. Perhaps this is because most of the film I am scanning is quite old and faded with a few scratches and marks. One doesn't expect a perfect result.
However, I do have some scans of Kodachrome slides I made when I first acquired this Nikon scanner back in 2003 when it was brand new. I'm now going to search for some of those scans, and the original slides which I'll re-scan on the Epson V700. Watch this space. :)
-
The reason for my question is that because there was a white glare spot on only one set, then the images were processed differently.
Alan,
As far as I understand, the images are unavoidably processed differently because I'm comparing different scanners. If I were to compare images from a Nikon and a Canon DSLR, the images would also be processed differently in the RAW converter.
One could spend ages comparing different RAW converters, and one might find that one particular converter produced better results with the Nikon DSLR and another converter produced better results with a Canon RAW file.
This is why I reinserted the negative in the Epson scanner to scan it again with Silverfast. However, the Silverfast program is specific to particular brands of scanners. I can't see why one would assume that its operation will be identical whatever the scanner. As regards resolution, I could not see any difference between the two scans from the Epson scanner after using the two programs, Silverfast and Epson Scan, with the same negative.
Probably the best way to compare is too try to max out the processing as best you can with both scanners. Then print both results and compare. After all, it's the final results that count.
Alan, I'm doing archival scanning and simply trying to extract the most detail from the film. I don't know what the final result will be used for. I take it for granted that whatever I see on my monitor will be what I see on my print, allowing for the inherent differences between a transmissive image and a reflective image, and assuming that the print is large enough to show the detail at the same size it appears on the monitor.
That film scanners nowadays do not seem to be on that trajectory of continual improvement, gives me some urgency to get all my old film digitized. I'd much prefer to have all those boxes of slides and negatives, which take up quite a bit of space, preserved on just a couple of 2 TB pocket drives.
If I decide to make a print of any one of those thousands of negatives or slides, I can then do whatever processing is required, in Photoshop, to get the best or most pleasing print.
-
As an aside, I believe ICE won't work with Kodachrome color and BW film due to the way it's layered.
Also, if you plan on just scanning for archiving, have you considered just scanning flat? Leave it for others later on to apply all post processing. That way they will do what is necessary at that time to get the best out of image files. Also, processing techniques will be better in the future. If you apply the processing now, they might not be able to take advantage of future processing improvements.
-
PS: If you scan and archive flat with no post processing, the whole archiving process will go much, much faster.
-
Ray good luck with your scanner cleaning.
... However, the Silverfast program is specific to particular brands of scanners. I can't see why one would assume that its operation will be identical whatever the scanner....
Ray, I had forgotten that Silverfast is scanner specific and of course if you wanted to use it you have to purchase a Crossgrade version which still allows you to use your original scanner. Silverfast crossgrade shows no price until you put in your Silverfast serial number into the order box - sounds like it could be costly?
https://www.silverfast.com/buyonline/en.html?productline=scanner&upgrade=1
On the other hand Vuescan should allow you to use any scanner that it supports by selecting from the input source in the dropdown menu - at least that is my understanding.
http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc28.htm
-
The question of course is how important this loss is to the impact of the image as a whole considering that this is a very small section from a 35mm test object and may not be as apparent in a MF shot?
Tony,
This has occurred to me also. At extreme levels of pixel-peeping, after having applied the optimum degree of sharpening to each image, I believe the Nikon 8000 ED should have the edge, at least with 35mm format.
I haven't attempted to clean the scanner yet. I wanted to first assure myself that a clean 8000 ED is capable of producing better results to a significant degree, so I've searched for some of the early scans I made with the 8000 ED, back in 2003 when the scanner would have been new and clean.
The attached scan is of a scene of village life in Nepal about 50 years ago, showing the wife teaching her children how to weave fabric. Mahatma Gandhi would have been proud of her. ;D
The image is about as detailed as any of my old 35mm slides and negatives get.
The first comparison shows how soft the Epson image is without any sharpening applied. This difference is typical of the differences one sees in comparison scans on the internet, including the comparison of the test chart that you have shown in your post above.
However, the Epson V700 scan is a significantly larger file and can take more aggressive sharpening before noise becomes objectionable. What I find is there's always a balancing act one has to go through, between acceptable sharpening and acceptable noise. In this case, after sharpening the Epson scan and then downsampling, I noticed that, over all, the Epson scan seemed a bit sharper but had more noise. So I applied some more sharpening to the Nikon scan in an attempt to equalize noise..
I believe the result (in image 03) shows that the Nikon scan, in certain parts of the crop, has very marginally more detail, and perhaps even very marginally less noise in the skin tones.
However, I think it's likely that such small differences will get lost when scanning MF film. First because MF film generally doesn't have the resolution of 35mm film (in terms of line pairs per mm), and secondly because the less obtrusive grain in MF film allows for a greater degree of sharpening before noise becomes objectionable.
What do you think? Is it worth taking the pains, and slowing down the whole scanning process, in order to get such marginal benefits? ;)
-
Also, if you plan on just scanning for archiving, have you considered just scanning flat? Leave it for others later on to apply all post processing. That way they will do what is necessary at that time to get the best out of image files. Also, processing techniques will be better in the future. If you apply the processing now, they might not be able to take advantage of future processing improvements.
That's a good point, Alan. The Silverfast software has a 64 bit HDRi option which allows one to scan the negative or slide as it is, without any adjustments, to produce what could be described as a RAW file. This means that the negative, after scanning, is still in 'negative' format. If it's a color negative film, one has the problem of dealing with the orange mask in post-processing.
I downloaded the Silverfast HDR (64 bit) trial software, which is designed specifically to process such files. I wondered if I'd be able to see any advantage, and what difficulties there would be in processing such RAW scans. So far, with the trial software, I've had difficulty getting satisfactory tonality and color. The post-processing seems to take far more time than the few basic adjustments in the scanning software plus further adjustments in Photoshop. So I'm not sure if this is the best approach.
-
Have you tried to scan flat with the native Nikon and Epson software then use Photoshop afterwards?
-
I haven't attempted to clean the scanner yet. I wanted to first assure myself that a clean 8000 ED is capable of producing better results to a significant degree, so I've searched for some of the early scans I made with the 8000 ED, back in 2003 when the scanner would have been new and clean.
So I understand correctly the scan on the left was produced when your Nikon scanner was new approximately 13 years ago and the Epson scan on the right was made now you have located the original?
Have you tried scanning this image again with the Nikon to observe if there is any noticeable degradation in quality?
The first comparison shows how soft the Epson image is without any sharpening applied. This difference is typical of the differences one sees in comparison scans on the internet, including the comparison of the test chart that you have shown in your post above.
IMHO this is the way it should be compared and judged. The whole point is the native capability of the scanners optical system to resolve detail. Clearly there is a large difference between the two scans shown here and the Epson just doesn’t quite cut the mustard for me as the fine detail has been lost in mush. Sharpening will not regain lost detail just increase micro contrast and may give an overall impression of sharpness but clearly cannot resolve the fine detail contained in your image
However, the Epson V700 scan is a significantly larger file and can take more aggressive sharpening before noise becomes objectionable.
But it is still not possible to bring back information that was lost due to the scanner not being able to resolve the detail and even at 6400 SPI the Epson is not resolving any more information contained within the original image i.e. it has hit its limits which still probably equate to published figures
What I find is there's always a balancing act one has to go through, between acceptable sharpening and acceptable noise. In this case, after sharpening the Epson scan and then downsampling, I noticed that, over all, the Epson scan seemed a bit sharper but had more noise. So I applied some more sharpening to the Nikon scan in an attempt to equalize noise
I think there are a few things to be considered here about sharpness, noise and resolving power. Sorry I know I am stating the obvious but sharpness does not mean that much if you are losing detail due to lack of the resolving power of either a scanner or one lens vs another. It may mean that you are able to improve the look of the poorer image and get closer to optimum or acceptable result. But the same improvements by judicious sharpening would apply equally to an image holding more detail in the first instance in this case being at the time of acquisition via your scanners. Therefore the distance in quality between original unadulterated captures for both systems should remain pretty much the same when optimum sharpening applied to both images.
At this stage I would not be worrying too much about noise as I would expect to take care of it along with capture sharpening probably in either LR or ACR taking advantage of the visible masking in noise reduction panel.
I believe the result (in image 03) shows that the Nikon scan, in certain parts of the crop, has very marginally more detail, and perhaps even very marginally less noise in the skin tones.
I see more than marginally more detail but I really believe that due to trying to sharpen one to equal another and control noise that this may not be the best way to compare.
However, I think it's likely that such small differences will get lost when scanning MF film. First because MF film generally doesn't have the resolution of 35mm film (in terms of line pairs per mm), and secondly because the less obtrusive grain in MF film allows for a greater degree of sharpening before noise becomes objectionable.
I am not sure I can agree with the assertion about the differences in the ability of a particular film to resolve detail are higher with the same film stock between 35mm and MF. In theory they should be pretty close if not exactly the same as the same emulsion brew is coated onto a film base which of course is likely to vary between 35mm, 120 and large format – I think any differences are therefore probably minimal. That is until you start to make enlargements to the same size print from both formats then the difference can be considerable including sharpness how fine detail is resolved and of course grain.
I doubt very much that you are going to see any more from using HDR software at least as far as resolving more detail. But I would urge you to also try the Vuescan software once again to compare both scanners through the same application. This software also offers the ability to produce so called raw files
What do you think? Is it worth taking the pains, and slowing down the whole scanning process, in order to get such marginal benefits?
The important thing is what do you want and is the potential gain enough justification or any added benefit?
FWIW what I think is:
Original Nikon scan superior to Epson without any processing applied therefore must be a better starting point for any sharpening tricks you may want to employ
Nikon scanner optics suspect due to now being over 10 years old without cleaning or service. Even carefully wrapped and stored it is possible that lens and or mirror may have become even slightly coated due not necessarily dust but just atmospheric conditions around the storage area. Therefore unknown at this time if still in pristine operating condition.
I would be rescanning the original image on the Nikon as a first test to see what may have changed then depending on the results consider cleaning – I might after all this time consider it appropriate anyway.
If I was quite happy that quality good enough for purpose then I may give up on the Nikon in favour of the Epson – but I do not like the thought of leaving image quality on the table so I would probably consider the cleaning route. YMMV :)
-
So I understand correctly the scan on the left was produced when your Nikon scanner was new approximately 13 years ago and the Epson scan on the right was made now you have located the original?
Have you tried scanning this image again with the Nikon to observe if there is any noticeable degradation in quality?
Hi Tony,
That's correct, but not quite 13 years ago. Closer to 11. The attached image of the metadata, image 01, shows that the file was created on 26/8/2013, which is very misleading. That would be the date I transferred the file from an old hard drive to a new hard drive in the process of reorganizing my images.
The date the file was modified, 3/05/2003, would have been around the time I made the scan.
I've now re-scanned this Kodachrome on the same Nikon scanner. If one is going to pixel-peep, then let's do it properly at 200%. ;D
I've chosen this particular area of the film because the lady's head scarf brings out the resolution differences in the most obvious way and to the greatest degree.The comparison crops (image 02) show the detail to be very close. In fact, the recent scan, without sharpening or noise reduction applied, appears very marginally sharper than the 11-year old scan, but also very marginally noisier.
This would indicate that I probably applied a bit of noise reduction to the older scan, so such a comparison is not rigorously scientific. However, the fact that the recent Nikon scan appears very marginally sharper (perhaps not as noticeable on the jpeg) gives me confidence that the scanner is not producing suboptimal results because of possible dust on the lens and mirror.
IMHO this is the way it should be compared and judged. The whole point is the native capability of the scanners optical system to resolve detail. Clearly there is a large difference between the two scans shown here and the Epson just doesn’t quite cut the mustard for me as the fine detail has been lost in mush. Sharpening will not regain lost detail just increase micro contrast and may give an overall impression of sharpness but clearly cannot resolve the fine detail contained in your image.
That's true. Sharpening cannot regain detail that was never captured. However, any detail that appears to have been regained through a sharpening process, must be detail that was originally captured. If in the process of bringing out such detail, one also gets sharpening artifacts and noise on smooth tones, then that's something to take into consideration. Sharpening is a complicated subject in its own right with lots of programs specializing in the task. I don't claim to be an authority or particularly skilled with sharpening techniques. What I've been trying to determine with these experiments and comparisons, is whether or not there is any detail in the Nikon scan which cannot be brought out in the Epson scan, because such detail simply does not exist in the Epson scan.
I am not sure I can agree with the assertion about the differences in the ability of a particular film to resolve detail are higher with the same film stock between 35mm and MF.
Sorry! I wasn't clear on that point. If the emulsion is the same, then of course the resolving power of the film should be the same. I was referring to the captured image. A standard 80mm lens on an MF film camera is unlikely to deliver as sharp results, in terms of lines per mm on the surface of the film, as a good quality 80mm prime lens on 35mm format. However, in terms lines per picture height, or picture width, the MF lens will win hands down.
As I understand, the 8000 ED uses only one lens to scan both MF and 35mm film. The 35mm film should make more demands on the scanner's lens. Any differences in captured detail between the two scanners should be more apparent on 35mm film.
-
Hi Ray,
That's correct, but not quite 13 years ago. Closer to 11.
Thats just me, obviously I lost the ability to do a simple subtraction ;D.
I've now re-scanned this Kodachrome on the same Nikon scanner. If one is going to pixel-peep, then let's do it properly at 200%.
Pixel peeping is good in this case as we are looking to see how much information we have managed to capture between two systems. Judging on screen is problematical (unless screen is the final destination) due to the lack of resolution in the current crop of monitors. If printing is our final goal then it is a bit of a crap shoot until a print or two is made as it is not possible to judge quality due to screen limitations – at least I find I am unable to make this type of judgement accurately particularly relating to the amount of sharpening for print output.
I've chosen this particular area of the film because the lady's head scarf brings out the resolution differences in the most obvious way and to the greatest degree. The comparison crops (image 02) show the detail to be very close. In fact, the recent scan, without sharpening or noise reduction applied, appears very marginally sharper than the 11-year old scan, but also very marginally noisier.
This would indicate that I probably applied a bit of noise reduction to the older scan, so such a comparison is not rigorously scientific. However, the fact that the recent Nikon scan appears very marginally sharper (perhaps not as noticeable on the jpeg) gives me confidence that the scanner is not producing suboptimal results because of possible dust on the lens and mirror.
Certainly it is a problem to compare if we are not sure what parameters applied between scans as they would need to be the same to draw meaningful conclusions. I would not be able to remember what I did to an image a month ago never mind a period of years! :) In the case of your recent scan the difference are so minor and considering the magnification factor I would be happy with either.
So if you are confident that both the Nikon and Epson are set optimally then based on this recent result there does not appear to be a any good reason to choose one over the other apart from ease and speed of producing the scan.
-
So if you are confident that both the Nikon and Epson are set optimally then based on this recent result there does not appear to be a any good reason to choose one over the other apart from ease and speed of producing the scan.
Hi Tony,
That's more or less what I'm thinking. However, there is a certain satisfaction in doing the best job one can with the available tools. I can't deny that I prefer the 8000 ED scan, which is sharper straight out of the box, so I'll reserve the use of that scanner for the better quality film and slides that I think I might want to print at some stage.
I'm grateful to Ed Hamrick that my original purchase of the Professional Edition of Vuescan, back in 2005, is still good for the latest upgrade of Vuescan, which contains Win 7 drivers for the Nikon 8000 ED. I don't need to fork out 450 Euros for the specific version of Silverfast which is compatible with the 8000 ED. Vuescan seems tremendous value.
A quick calculation of the print size, represented by a 200% crop on my 27" NEC monitor, which has a resolution of 2560x1440 dpi, results in a print size of 8ft x 5.3ft. In other words, to see approximately the same differences on a print that I see in the 200% crops on my monitor, I would need to view an 8ft x 5.3ft print from the same distance that I view my computer monitor. A 100% crop on my monitor would represent a print size of 4 ft x 2.7ft, which is still a bit larger than my printer can handle, unless i were to make a diptych. ;D
One puzzle that's still in the back of my mind is the quality difference between wet mounted scans and dry mounted scans.
Some of the comparison images I've come across on the internet seem to show differences of an order of magnitiude which are very similar to the differences between unsharpened Nikon 8000 scans and unsharpened Epson V700 scans. However, other comments suggests the differences in detail and sharpness are very small and hardly worth the extra trouble that wet mounting involves.
-
...
One puzzle that's still in the back of my mind is the quality difference between wet mounted scans and dry mounted scans.
Some of the comparison images I've come across on the internet seem to show differences of an order of magnitiude which are very similar to the differences between unsharpened Nikon 8000 scans and unsharpened Epson V700 scans. However, other comments suggests the differences in detail and sharpness are very small and hardly worth the extra trouble that wet mounting involves.
Hi, Ray
I have never tried fluid mounting but it was something I looked into some years ago and my conclusion was based on the opinions of the majority of articles I read was that it should offer benefits. Certainly it should minimise after work on the scanned image for scratches for instance and could conceivably improve apparent sharpness and contrast. Are the benefits large enough to warrant the extra steps I do not know? Like you I have seen some net buzz, good, bad and indifferent.
If I had a better flat bed scanner and was doing a lot of film work I would have no hesitation in buying the BetterScanning mounting station and adapting to fluid mount workflow
http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/msfluid.html
http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/cheapfluidmounting.html
Anyway I think I have found the solutions for you – ditch the Epson and Nikon and find a Kodak EverSmart Supreme ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nvXW7ZG2b6o
-
Hi, Ray
I have never tried fluid mounting but it was something I looked into some years ago and my conclusion was based on the opinions of the majority of articles I read was that it should offer benefits. Certainly it should minimise after work on the scanned image for scratches for instance and could conceivably improve apparent sharpness and contrast. Are the benefits large enough to warrant the extra steps I do not know? Like you I have seen some net buzz, good, bad and indifferent.
Tony,
I've searched again for the site I recall that had a vivid comparison of the differences between fluid-mount scanning and dry scanning. I've found it. http://www.scanscience.com/index.html
http://www.scanscience.com/files/PL09c.pdf
However, I find it difficult to believe that the differences could be so great. The attached scans were done on the Epson V750. Can we assume there's a little bit of advertising hyperbole taking place here? ;)
Nevertheless, I think I owe it to myself to explore the benefits of fluid mounting. I wasn't aware that fluid mounting was an option available for the Nikon 8000 ED. Will I be able to resist going through this whole comparison process again, this time using fluid mounting on the two scanners? Someone please dissuade me. ;D
-
Ray,
The difference is quite marked and along similar lines to other claims and comparisons I have seen - well only those on the net! I feel that there is sufficient positive evidence against the negative (no pun intended!) to say that this method does offer potential quality improvement with the obvious caveat that the original must contain sharpley resolved detail to get the maximum benefit.
Just to throw something else into the pot, there is another method that you may want to consider. Before digital time most of us had to copy reflective and transmissive media using a film camera, sometimes with sophisticated equipment such as Bowens illumitran or even an inverted enlarger colour head or less sophisticated tape image to a window and shoot it!
Now we have DSLR's with high mega pixel count and excellent macro lenses we can do the same but with a twist to capture the most detail. Shoot the original using a macro lens in sections and stitch together in PS or other software. Without even trying this method I am pretty confident that it works very well and with a little practice would become second nature although the time to do each image is a huge downside - perhaps best reserved for the very best of you images?
One example I have seen posted using the simplest of setups:
Comparison of flatbed, drumscan and Canon with macro
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/23/why-you-should-digitize-your-film-using-a-camera-instead-of-a-scanner/
How to
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/
-
I'm very mistrustful of this last demonstration. They claim the V700's film-holder height has been calibrated, but I never see such poor results from my V750 using the betterscanning holder. I suspect they are using the OEM holder with its crude three-step height adjustments. Better than nothing, but not by much.
-
Now we have DSLR's with high mega pixel count and excellent macro lenses we can do the same but with a twist to capture the most detail. Shoot the original using a macro lens in sections and stitch together in PS or other software. Without even trying this method I am pretty confident that it works very well and with a little practice would become second nature although the time to do each image is a huge downside - perhaps best reserved for the very best of you images?
One example I have seen posted using the simplest of setups:
Comparison of flatbed, drumscan and Canon with macro
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/23/why-you-should-digitize-your-film-using-a-camera-instead-of-a-scanner/
How to
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/
Tony,
I'm motivated to try to get the best scanning results from the equipment I already have, but I'm not sure I want to spend more money on additional equipment to achieve what might be only a marginal improvement in the detail that I can already get scanning MF film with my Nikon 8000 ED.
I do have a Nikon D800E DSLR, which I imagine would be able to bring out more detail than the 8000 ED scanner, when using that camera with a 1:1 macro lens on MF film and stitching together a number of images as described in your links. However, I don't have any Nikkor macro lenses. I'd have to buy one. And by far the greater proportion of the old films I have for scanning are 35mm format, so I would need to use a macro lens with extension tubes and/or extender to give me a greater magnification than 1:1, if I wanted to extract the greatest amount of detail from 35mm film through the stitching process.
I'm not sure I want to get involved in such complications, and decisions about which macro lens to buy. I have looked at the option of the Nikon ES-1 Slide Copying Adapter, which seems the easiest option. However, a lot of my old films are negatives. The ES-1 adapter seems to be designed for 35mm positives in a frame. As one reviewer of the ES-1 that I came across mentioned, "Another pain with the ES-1 are the two harsh metal springs depressing the slide to the device, what prevents its use with uncut film, and may even damage your slide. This is really a big, major, crying out loud issue with this device: How in heaven shall we copy uncut film?"
-
I'm very mistrustful of this last demonstration. They claim the V700's film-holder height has been calibrated, but I never see such poor results from my V750 using the betterscanning holder. I suspect they are using the OEM holder with its crude three-step height adjustments. Better than nothing, but not by much.
Artobest,
You might be right, but ScanScience do state on their home page, "The optimum focus of V scanners is known to vary so we first determined the optimum elevation for our unit by scanning the new ScanScience target. It turned out to be 2.6 mm, so all scans including the dry scans were run at 2.6 mm. (The negative was very flat so the un-sharpness of the dry scan was due solely to the inadequacies of dry scanning, which throws away much of the quality.)"
Now, according to the Epson V700 scanner guide, the elevation of the Epson film holder without adjusters is 2.5mm, and with adjusters is either 3mm or 3.5mm. There's no 2.6mm option, so I presume they used their own calibrated adapters.
Also, in the ScanScience catalogue and price list specific to the Epson V scanners they state, "Turn Key Kits (TKK) and Supplemental Kits (SK) include a calibrated adapter which is grouped with the calibrated shims to achieve optimum elevation and sharpest focus. With our system there are no screws to turn, or turns to keep track of. "
Now I'm not implying that the ScanScience mounts for the V700 and V750 are better or more accurate than the BetterScanning mounts. How would I know! For me the issue is whether or not it's going to be worth my trouble getting involved in the complexities and trouble of the fluid-scanning process.
However, it does seem a reasonable assumption that achieving all the conditions of a perfectly flat negative, an optimum elevation for accurate focus, fewer marks and scratches, better tonality and contrast as a result of the fluid, might all add up to a worthwhile improvement that justifies the extra trouble taken. But I'm open to dissuasion. ;D
-
I'm sorry, Ray, but those are out-of-focus scans, whatever the blogger says.
-
I'm sorry, Ray, but those are out-of-focus scans, whatever the blogger says.
Artobest,
It certainly looks like it. That is, the dry scan shown on the front page was out-of-focus. This is the sort of thing one expects in advertisements; exaggeration to grab one's attention. However, the additional comparisons in the following section of the site at http://www.scanscience.com/Pages/SampleScans/Scans.html are much more moderate in their display of differences and therefore more credible.
There's another aspect of fluid mounting which I think could sometimes have benefits. I have a lot of Kodachrome slides in glass mounts. Some years ago when I first began scanning some of these old slides, I was occasionally puzzled why I had been so sloppy in the framing when taking the original shot, sometimes cutting off the hand on an outstretched arm towards the edge of the frame, or someone's foot at the bottom of the frame.
Investigating the matter, I was both surprised and dismayed to discover that the opening in all of my slide mounts, including Kodak cardboard mounts, was smaller than the 35mm format, which should be 24mm x 36mm.
The opening of all my mounts appear to be approximately 22mm x34mm.
Assuming the slide is centrally mounted, that represents a 1mm crop of the image on all four sides. Perhaps not a big deal in most cases, but the attached, unadjusted images show what can happen when the slide is not centrally mounted. One might find that a full 2mm has been cropped off one edge of the image.
I generally don't remove the slide from its mount for scanning purposes, and the glass mounts have the advantage of ensuring the film is flat. I presume the fluid-mount method will not only ensure a totally flat film but will also avoid the cropping which unavoidably takes place with my current method of scanning slides in their mounts.
-
I generally don't remove the slide from its mount for scanning purposes, and the glass mounts have the advantage of ensuring the film is flat. I presume the fluid-mount method will not only ensure a totally flat film but will also avoid the cropping which unavoidably takes place with my current method of scanning slides in their mounts.
FYI, I have been using Wess glassless registration slide mounts for scanning. The plastic mounts tend to both tend to hold the film flatter (there are registration pegs that go into the sproket holes of the film) and have very close to a full frame opening (made possible because of the registration). http://www.wessmounts.net/id3.html I was able to buy a box of them direct from the manufacturer.
-
.. and have very close to a full frame opening (made possible because of the registration). http://www.wessmounts.net/id3.html I was able to buy a box of them direct from the manufacturer.
Thanks for the tip, but just how close to full frame is that opening? I have no trouble getting replacement slide mounts in Australia, if I don't wish to use the glass mounts, or if I want to replace the cardboard mounts from Kodak.
The problem is that all of the slide mounts that I've checked, or have enquired about, seem to have approximately the same opening of 22mm x 34mm. In the specific example I showed above, which was the first time this problem had come to my attention, I transferred the slide from its glass mount to a plain plastic mount with a hinged front section and a few tiny pegs along the two long edges to hold the film in position.
The result was an improvement because at least I was able to centre the film in its holder, but it was still apparent that a degree of cropping was taking place. In order to overcome this, so I could scan the entire scene that I'd captured, I had to trim off a millimeter or so around the 4 edges of the opening of the slide mount, using a Stanley knife. Very tedious!
When we buy a new camera, we are not too pleased if the viewfinder coverage is only 95%. We'd prefer it to be 100%. But supposing a manufacturer were to offer a 35mm DSLR which had a viewfinder coverage of 115.5% with no markings to show the actual size of the image to be captured. There'd be howls of protest, surely. ;D
-
Thanks for the tip, but just how close to full frame is that opening?
Ray, I dug out the electronic calipers and measured the opening, it's 24.5 x 35.9 mm (rounded up to one decimal place), so it does show the full frame.
If I recall the OM series had 97% coverage of the frame, which is just slightly larger than the area of a cardboard mount. When I switched to the F3 I had to crop in my head to take the mount into account since the viewfinder showed 100% of the frame.
-
Ray, I dug out the electronic calipers and measured the opening, it's 24.5 x 35.9 mm (rounded up to one decimal place), so it does show the full frame.
Alan,
Thanks for taking the trouble to measure those dimensions. 35.9 mm is close enough to full frame. I'm now making inquiries if a particular German company is able to ship a box of these slide mounts to Australia. I've been unable to locate any supplier in Australia.
Best Regards,
-
Ray, you can always try emailing the company directly, I think there's a link on the web site, or telephone them. As I said I bought a box of 100 mounts directly from them (to my suprise), the international shipping would be only a little more complicated than shipping in the US, so you never know. More expensive, obviously. Good luck!
-
Artobest,
It certainly looks like it. That is, the dry scan shown on the front page was out-of-focus. This is the sort of thing one expects in advertisements; exaggeration to grab one's attention. However, the additional comparisons in the following section of the site at http://www.scanscience.com/Pages/SampleScans/Scans.html are much more moderate in their display of differences and therefore more credible.
Ray, as far as I can see those further examples aren't made on Epson V700/750 scanners.
-
Ray, you can always try emailing the company directly, I think there's a link on the web site, or telephone them. As I said I bought a box of 100 mounts directly from them (to my suprise), the international shipping would be only a little more complicated than shipping in the US, so you never know. More expensive, obviously. Good luck!
Have done so. I shall now wait for the best quote. Thanks again. :)
-
Ray, as far as I can see those further examples aren't made on Epson V700/750 scanners.
Artobest,
It doesn't matter. It is assumed that the benefits of wet-mounting will apply whatever the scanner used. In other words, if one finds that a Nikon 8000 ED at 4000 dpi produces a better dry scan than an Epson V700 dry scan at 6400 dpi, one might find that 8000 ED probably won't produce a better dry scan than a V700 wet scan.
But an 8000 ED wet scan should still be better that a V700 wet scan.
The issue for me is the extra work and stuffing around involved with the fluid-mount process. I'm getting the impression that I'd be turning my work area into a laboratory and slowing down the entire scanning process.
Using the Wess slide mounts with a Nikon ES-1 slide-copying adapter appears as though it could be a much quicker process that might even produce more detailed results, or at least better in some respects, than a wet scan on a dedicated film scanner, provided one were to use a good macro lens such as the Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8, and a high resolution DSLR such as the Nikon D800E, which also has a dynamic range which is much greater than the DR of positive film, thus ensuring that all the details in the shadows on the slide are retrieved without added noise.
-
Using the Wess slide mounts with a Nikon ES-1 slide-copying adapter appears as though it could be a much quicker process that might even produce more detailed results, or at least better in some respects, than a wet scan on a dedicated film scanner, provided one were to use a good macro lens such as the Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8, and a high resolution DSLR such as the Nikon D800E, which also has a dynamic range which is much greater than the DR of positive film, thus ensuring that all the details in the shadows on the slide are retrieved without added noise.
Ray, you may know this, but you will need some extension tubes to extend the ES-1 further from the front of the 60mm (you can get a set of generic threaded extension tubes and use step-up/down rings on the end to hit the correct filter diameter). The ES-1 is designed to go on the front of the 55mm Micro-Nikkor which has a slightly shorter working distance and the lens assembly is deep set from the filter threads as well. If you were going to pick up a macro lens for duping, you could check out the 55mm AIS or autofocus 55mm F.28 which should give you about the same quality and cost significantly less. I find that I can more or less equal the output of a Coolscan V with the ES-1, D800E and 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor.
Or you can go whole hog and use a bellows + slide copy attachment and a dedicated 1:1 macro lens like the Olympus 80mm f4 or Rodenstock Rodagon D 75mm f4 APO, but now you are talking about around $500 US to get into the game. Plus the Nikon bellows rail is not long enough to dupe slides with a longer than 60mm or so lens, so you need the extension rail which as well as being hard to find is expensive as hell. I am playing with using this type of setup (using an Olympus auto bellows which has a superior method of incorporating the slide holder and is designed to work with the longer focal lengths, with an Oly to Nikon adapter) to stitch a mini pano of 5 shots at around 1.75:1 but have not yet had time to really get into it.
-
Ray, you may know this, but you will need some extension tubes to extend the ES-1 further from the front of the 60mm (you can get a set of generic threaded extension tubes and use step-up/down rings on the end to hit the correct filter diameter). The ES-1 is designed to go on the front of the 55mm Micro-Nikkor which has a slightly shorter working distance and the lens assembly is deep set from the filter threads as well. If you were going to pick up a macro lens for duping, you could check out the 55mm AIS or autofocus 55mm F.28 which should give you about the same quality and cost significantly less. I find that I can more or less equal the output of a Coolscan V with the ES-1, D800E and 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor.
Hi Alan,
As I understand, I don't need an extension tube with a 60mm macro lens on a full-frame DSLR, according to the following website. But I do need a BR-5 adapter ring. http://www.scantips.com/es-1c.html
The advantage of an extension ring with the 60mm macro, such as the PK-13, is that it would allow me to get a greater magnification than 1:1 and enable me to to make a stitch of a 35mm slide, perhaps doubling the size of the file, and allowing me to extract more detail, if such detail exists on the slide, which is doubtful.
Some years ago when I was using Canon equipment, I bought the EF-S 60/F2.8 macro because it got rave reviews for being ultra sharp. I never used it much. However, whilst searching for it just recently, I discovered I also have a portable transparency viewer, the Visual Plus VP-5050V. I must have bought it about 15 years ago, or more, and forgot that I had it.
This transparency viewer makes it easy for me to experiment with the 60mm macro on my highest resolution Canon DSLR, which is the 15mp 50D. Because the 50D is a cropped format, I'm able to stitch together a couple of shots (or 3 shots with big overlap) to produce a file size of around 190 MB in 16 bit, which is pretty close to that of the Nikon D800.
Using the same slide that I used to compare the Nikon 8000 ED scanner with the Epson V700 flatbed, I've found that the unsharpened stitched image from the 50D is as close as matters to the unsharpened scan from the Nikon 8000 ED.
If one were to put a very fine point on it, comparing 200% crops, the unsharpened 50D stitch, after downsampling to the Nikon 8000 ED file size, is a tad sharper.
Since this stitched 50D image is indicative of the sort of quality I could expect from the D800E, I'm wondering if it is worth splashing out $500 on a Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8G ED. The advantage should be, I will be able get the same quality that the 8000 ED scanner produces, but with a single click; no need to stitch.
Furthermore, the absence of an AA filter on the 800E might produces results at 200% which are two tads sharper. :D
Another consideration is the significantly higher DR of the D800, compared with the Canon 50D. The DR of slides is not that great, maybe about 6 stops. However, the DR of B&W negatives can be as high as 11 stops. Using my 50D to photograph such B&W negatives would not only require stitching, to get the best quality, but also exposure bracketing. I think I've just talked my self into getting a Micro-Nikkor 60mm/2.8. ;D
-
Ray, I meant an extension tube between the front of the lens and the ES-1 to achieve the right slide to lens working distance, as you said, the 60mm (like the autofocus 55mm) will get to 1:1 without lens-camera extension tube. (Edit: I am talking about lens in non-reversed position; looks like the graphic is talking about reversing ... Which might end up getting you better corner performance assuming that the 60 is optimized for less than 1:1)
-
Ray, I meant an extension tube between the front of the lens and the ES-1 to achieve the right slide to lens working distance, as you said, the 60mm (like the autofocus 55mm) will get to 1:1 without lens-camera extension tube. (Edit: I am talking about lens in non-reversed position; looks like the graphic is talking about reversing ... Which might end up getting you better corner performance assuming that the 60 is optimized for less than 1:1)
Alan,
You've got me a bit of confused here. :)
As I understand, an extension tube or ring attaches to the camera body. The term ring in this context is misleading. However, a reversing ring, such as the BR-2A, must have a thread in order for the lens to be attached to the camera in reverse position. An extension tube doesn't have a thread.
As I understand again, the front filter of the Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8 lens is 62mm. However, the thread on the ES-1 slide copying adapter, which attaches to the front of the lens like a filter, is only 55mm. I would therefore need an adapter ring to step down from the 62mm thread to a 55mm thread. Such an adapter is the BR-5.
I understand also from the information provided at http://www.scantips.com/es-1c.html that I should be able to use the ES-1 with the Micro-Nikkor 60mm lens fitted in the normal position, without extension tubes, provided the lens is attached to an FX camera. But I would need the BR-5 adapter ring to screw the ES-1 to the 62mm filter thread of the lens. Is this not correct?
If I were to use an extension tube, such as the PK-13, I would increase the lens magnification ratio to 1.6. Without extension tube, the maximum magnification would be 1:1, which would be sufficient to capture a 36mp image of a 35mm slide using the D800. Is this not correct?
-
Artobest,
It doesn't matter. It is assumed that the benefits of wet-mounting will apply whatever the scanner used.
I thinks the benefits would be far greater with the 8000 ED, which has a very collimated light source, producing grainy images that can only be improved by fluid mounting. The Epson, on the other hand, has a rather more diffuse and forgiving light. Here, I'm not so sure about the benefits.
In any case, good luck with your DSLR 'scanning', even though I'm unconvinced that it's the holy grail of film reproduction that some people believe.
-
Alan,
You've got me a bit of confused here. :)
Ray, the instruction sheet you have for the ES-1 is using the older 60mm D, not the latest G version.
But I may have been mistaken about the need for front extension. I had thought that at 1:1 the slide might need to be further from the front of the 60mm G than the ES-1 could provide (it was designed before the 60mm G was released), so you might need a way to extend the ES-1 a little farther from the front of the lens, i.e., by stacking empty filters or something. No additional extension between the lens and camera is needed since the lens natively focuses to 1:1.
However, a little digging on the web reveals that the ES-1 extends from the front of the lens between 45 and 68mm and one source puts the distance from the front of the 60mm G to the subject at 1:1 as 48mm, so it should be OK on its own. However, you will need a 62mm to 52mm step down ring since the thread on the ES-1 is 52mm and the filter thread on the 60mm G is 62mm.
The above only applies to using the combo on a FX camera.
Sorry for the confusion.