Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner  (Read 12987 times)

Paul Wright

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« on: February 01, 2016, 02:20:04 am »

This has probably been dealt with thoroughly somewhere on the www but it needs a 2016 viewpoint. It's a quiet month so I'm making progress in actually starting to digitize the best of my per-digital work, 20 years worth. I've got some encouraging results doing camera scans. 5D MkIII with L 100mm f/2.8is macro on a boom over  a lightbox. Straightened it all up and shot a couple of 35mm trannies and a B&W neg. They look pretty good! Way better than Frontier scans which I've had done from time to time, and better than scans from a borrowed Epson Perfection V750. 

Next I followed the steps suggested in this PetaPixel piece : http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/ where you pull in really close and shoot the 35mm transparency in sections then stitch it in Lr and tidy up in PS CC. Clever idea! I shot a 35mm transparency in three sections because that's as close as I can get with my lens without extension tubes. The guy in the article did six sections, stitched in Lr and got results that rival a drum scan. It's got me interested enough to get into it and start to digitize the pick of all those images crushed into boxes in the storeroom.

Even with a fully sorted, intelligent workflow this is going to be slow, precision work. My last film scanner was a fairly pathetic Nikon LS-2000 from the turn of the century. What a beast. It's been landfill for years now. New film scanners seem pretty thin on the ground now, all my searches end up with the Plustek OpticFilm 8200i Ai Film Scanner. Is this scanner over-hyped or is it actually a good thing? It has dust & scratches functionality and ships with the well regarded SilverFast Ai Studio 8 (full version).

Is the Plustek OpticFilm 8200i the only scanner out there in 2016?
Logged

TonyW

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2016, 05:48:59 am »

If you haven't already take a look at Mark Segals article
https://luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/CameraScanning.pdf

No first hand experience of the Plustek but fwiw a generalisation.  Most scanners quoted maximum optical resolution while I am sure accurate in samples per inch do not deliver the equivalent in true resolving power.  Typically this seems to result in figures as low as 30% of quoted spi to around 50%.  Some exceptions exist such as the Nikon 5000 which reaches 90+% of its quoted 4000 spi. 

One review Plustek here
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm8200i.html

I suspect that you will achieve better IQ copying sections with your camera and stitching than using most film scanners.  Unless of course you can spring for a Flextight  ;D
http://www.hasselblad.com/scanners/flextight-x5
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2016, 07:52:46 am »

You may also wish to have a look at the 89 page PDF I wrote surveying a range of contemporary film scanners in the context of my review of the newish Epson V850 scanner.
Epson V850 Review.

By the way, whether the viewpoint is "2016" or not hardly seems relevant. Not much has changed over at least the past year.

If you will be doing a large amount of digitizing you may wish to consider a dual equipment and processing strategy: one quick and easy one for the photos you don't intend as "show pieces" and another more quality-intensive focus for the photos that really deserve the full treatment. This could meet your needs in a way that saves a lot of time.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

TonyW

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2016, 09:54:19 am »

You may also wish to have a look at the 89 page PDF I wrote surveying a range of contemporary film scanners in the context of my review of the newish Epson V850 scanner.
Epson V850 Review...
I confess I had not looked at this article on the V850 probably due to not being in the market for a scanner at the moment. 

Just needed to say what a very informative article although not yet gone all the way through it held a surprise or two for me looking at Figure 12.
No surprises on the Epson V850 or the V750.  The Nikon was a surprise at only 12% better than the V850, but the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 was a real eye opener.  Wish when I was chasing Nikon 5000 via the 'bay' years ago that I had considered Minolta as well
Logged

SZRitter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 384
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2016, 10:31:16 am »

I confess I had not looked at this article on the V850 probably due to not being in the market for a scanner at the moment. 

Just needed to say what a very informative article although not yet gone all the way through it held a surprise or two for me looking at Figure 12.
No surprises on the Epson V850 or the V750.  The Nikon was a surprise at only 12% better than the V850, but the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 was a real eye opener.  Wish when I was chasing Nikon 5000 via the 'bay' years ago that I had considered Minolta as well

I used to use both Nikon and Minolta scanners back when I was in college, and always found both scanners to be fairly closely matched. Mind you, I never had the top of the line or MF scanners, but I would say Minolta was by far the better bang for the buck.
Logged

Paul Wright

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2016, 06:13:26 pm »

You may also wish to have a look at the 89 page PDF I wrote surveying a range of contemporary film scanners in the context of my review of the newish Epson V850 scanner.
Epson V850 Review.

If you will be doing a large amount of digitizing you may wish to consider a dual equipment and processing strategy: one quick and easy one for the photos you don't intend as "show pieces" and another more quality-intensive focus for the photos that really deserve the full treatment. This could meet your needs in a way that saves a lot of time.

Thank you Mark, yes I read the 89 page PDF in full last week. Truly great information. The dual strategy approach is good advice.
A V850 for the majority of the project, and six frame stitched camera scans reserved for the heroes.
Did you mention a fluid mount option for the V850? A www search has revealed nothing about it.

If you haven't already take a look at Mark Segals article
https://luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/CameraScanning.pdf

One review Plustek here
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm8200i.html

I suspect that you will achieve better IQ copying sections with your camera and stitching than using most film scanners.  Unless of course you can spring for a Flextight  ;D
http://www.hasselblad.com/scanners/flextight-x5

Tony, thanks for the links and the advice. Yes, I have Mark Segals camera scanning article bookmarked and it informed my first session.

-pw
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2016, 06:20:55 pm »

Paul, the Fluid Mount Accessory for the V750 works perfectly well for the V850 as well, except it is packaged with the V750 but offered as a separately purchased accessory with the V850. Instead, the V850 provides a second set of film holders for enhancing batch scan productivity (you can be loading one frame while the other is scanning). I would recommend getting one of those FMA units - I find it preferable to fiddling with those frame holders and you can assure media flatness with it.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Paul Wright

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2016, 11:49:42 pm »

The V850 is not listed in the Epson Australia website, they top out with the V800. An importer may have some in a couple of months. Darn!

Are the real world differences between the V800 vs the V850 significant? The price difference does not concern me. If I'm going put time and energy into a once in a lifetime scanning project, there's little point in cutting corners.

-pw
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2016, 09:20:49 am »

Paul,

From the Epson America website:

Model V850:


    Epson Perfection V850 Pro color scanner
    8" x 10" Transparency Unit (built into lid)
    Eight film holders: 35 mm slides, 35 mm film strips, medium format 6 x 20cm and 4" x 5" (two each)
    Film Area Guide
    Scanner Software installation CD-ROM
    LaserSoft Imaging SilverFast SE PLUS
    X-Rite i1Scanner with reflective/transparent IT8 targets
    Setup poster
    Hi-Speed USB 2.0 cable
    AC adapter and power cable

Model V800:



    Epson Perfection V800 Photo color scanner
    8" x 10" transparency unit (built into lid)
    Four film holders: 35mm negatives, 35mm slides, 6 x 20cm and 4" x 5"
    Film Area Guide
    Scanner Software installation CD-ROM
    Setup poster
    LaserSoft Imaging™ SilverFast® SE
    Hi-Speed USB 2.0 cable
    AC adapter and power cable

So: An additional set of film holders, a higher grade of SilverFast software (useful, but the Ai 8 Studio version would be better still, available for a reasonable upgrade price from the version supplied with the V850), X-Rite scanner calibration software and materials (not needed if you use SilverFast Ai 8 Auto IT8 process - much easier and faster).

The main operational difference is the provision of "advanced optics" technology in the V850.

For the $200 price difference between the two models, once you are getting into this and plan to do a lot of work with it, were it me I'd buy the V850. That $200, sad to say, is a couple of bags of groceries here in Toronto these days, but you may appreciate value of the extra features over time. I would also recommend getting and using the Fluid Mount Accessory.

Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

ned

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 172
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2016, 09:47:40 am »

FWIW, I ditched all of my digital cameras in favor of film and home processing about two years ago. Love it. For my 35mm scans I picked up the Pakon 135+. Love the ability to feed a whole roll and the color is beautiful. Great combination of speed and convince. Not the highest resolution, but good enough for my 35mm shots.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Logged

Paul Wright

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2016, 07:55:31 pm »

Paul,

...(V800 or V850)

An additional set of film holders, a higher grade of SilverFast software (useful, but the Ai 8 Studio version would be better still, available for a reasonable upgrade price from the version supplied with the V850), X-Rite scanner calibration software and materials (not needed if you use SilverFast Ai 8 Auto IT8 process - much easier and faster).

The main operational difference is the provision of "advanced optics" technology in the V850.

For the $200 price difference between the two models, once you are getting into this and plan to do a lot of work with it, were it me I'd buy the V850. That $200, sad to say, is a couple of bags of groceries here in Toronto these days, but you may appreciate value of the extra features over time. I would also recommend getting and using the Fluid Mount Accessory.

Thank you Mark, very generous with your information. V850 appears a simple choice. Last June in Australia with the V800 there was a free upgrade to Ai 8 Studio. Good for the fortunate few!
BTW, Toronto & Sydney grocery prices sound much the same!

-pw
Logged

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2016, 01:13:00 pm »

Just to add a note, I find "camera scanning" to be much faster than scanner scanning (I have V700 and Coolscan IV) if you are doing a significant number of images.  (I use a D800E, which gives up nothing to the scanners in terms of "real" resolution and dynamic range.)
Logged

Paul Wright

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2016, 11:20:33 pm »

Just to add a note, I find "camera scanning" to be much faster than scanner scanning (I have V700 and Coolscan IV) if you are doing a significant number of images.  (I use a D800E, which gives up nothing to the scanners in terms of "real" resolution and dynamic range.)

Thanks for that. Yes, a properly set up D800E camera scan would look good in the resolution & DR aspects. Can you describe the physical setup you use?

If I go down the camera scan road it would be with Canon 5DIII,  f/2.8 EF L 100mm IS macro plus macro slider, very likely a Velbon Super Mag Slider http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1124144&gclid=COrrsvCk58oCFdcRvQod-1wNag&Q=&is=REG&A=details There are cheapie sliders on eBay for under $30 of dubious quality or almost $700 AUD for a Novoflex slider rail http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=macro+slider+rail&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=  The Velbon looks like nice middle ground with solid reviews. Focusing the 100mm at close to minimum focus distance was very twitchy, so the macro rail would bring the required control. A shorter focal length may simplify matters. 

Here's a fairly entertaining camera scan device called the Film Toaster which I saw today on Petapixel:
http://petapixel.com/2016/02/06/the-1699-filmtoaster-helps-you-digitize-most-film-formats-with-your-digital-camera/
Does it toast film?

-pw
Logged

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2016, 08:46:38 pm »

Paul, I use an Olympus OM system 80mm f4 macro lens on the Olympus bellows and slide/film holder, stopped down to f5.6 or f8 depending.  I cobbled together a OM mount to F mount adapter by removing the OM mount male flange from an Oly thin extension tube and expoxying an F mount flange in its place so I can get the Nikon on the bellows.  For illumination I use an old moonlight.  Note that with that long a focal length, the Nikon bellows and slide/film holder will not give you enough extension, you'd have to use something like the 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor which is no slouch, though the Oly has the advantage in the corners.  I believe that Mark's method is to use a copy stand over a light box - with a setup like that you can use just about whatever lens you want.
Logged

TSJ1927

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #14 on: February 11, 2016, 08:54:19 pm »

http://www.pbase.com/tojo123/image/156930304/original.jpg


This setup works image formats 35mm to 4x5 and easily shoots multiple shots for stitching.  Speed !!  Quality!!
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2016, 09:07:42 am »

Just to add a note, I find "camera scanning" to be much faster than scanner scanning (I have V700 and Coolscan IV) if you are doing a significant number of images.  (I use a D800E, which gives up nothing to the scanners in terms of "real" resolution and dynamic range.)

Well, it depends on what scanner we're talking about. A high-end Imacon will give these camera set-ups a real hard run for their money (and yes in this case, it's megabucks, I know!). My understanding is that it uses high-end, purpose-built Rodenstock lenses worth a couple of thou before we get to the rest of the machine. Testing I've participated in has convinced me that for true edge to edge sharpness this would be extremely difficult to out-do.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2016, 09:17:10 am »

I believe that Mark's method is to use a copy stand over a light box - with a setup like that you can use just about whatever lens you want.

Yes and no - physically of course you can, but if we're talking quality results the quality of the lens and its suitability for the purpose are absolutely critical. A good macro lens designed for copy work is most appropriate for this purpose. In my case, the price of the lens exceeds the price range of most of our current crop of prosumer film-capable scanners.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

SZRitter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 384
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2016, 10:27:42 am »

Yes and no - physically of course you can, but if we're talking quality results the quality of the lens and its suitability for the purpose are absolutely critical. A good macro lens designed for copy work is most appropriate for this purpose. In my case, the price of the lens exceeds the price range of most of our current crop of prosumer film-capable scanners.

As far as sharpness goes, I found that enlarger lenses work quite well. I took a 35mm enlarger, used a Rodenstock 90mm enlarging lens, and added an f-mount where the negative carrier goes. Lightsource (which needs upgrading) is a lightbox under the negative with a negative carrier holding the negative. As far as using four shots with m43 camera, it's pretty darn sharp, if you can get the focus right. You could easily outresolve a 36MP sensor with this setup.
Logged

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: Camera Scans vs Film Scanner
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2016, 05:03:09 pm »

Yes and no - physically of course you can, but if we're talking quality results the quality of the lens and its suitability for the purpose are absolutely critical. A good macro lens designed for copy work is most appropriate for this purpose. In my case, the price of the lens exceeds the price range of most of our current crop of prosumer film-capable scanners.

Well, yes of course.  I was referring to focal length, which can limit which lenses will work with a bellow/film holder setup.  Good macro/copy lenses like the Olympus Zuiko 80mm f4 and the Rodenstock 75mm f4 APO-Rodagon D can be found used for $300 or less.  OTOH, you can pay thousands for a Printing-Nikkor 105mm f2.8, which some view as the holy grail of copy lenses.  BTW, my tests of the Oly and Rodensock copying chromes in glass mounts (i.e., flat) showed the Oly had a very slight edge in the center while the Rodenstock had a slightly greater edge in the corners (both lenses at 5.6).
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up