3 Gb drum scan samples from 8x10" Portra 160 neg

[gerald.d]

Exactly, my 6 years old Mac Pro processes such smallish stitches in a few mins with PTgui or Autopano pro.

For an image like to one shown, shooting would take less than 2 mins once the tripod and pano head is set (which still takes less than setting up an 8x10 camera), stitching would be exactly a 16 clicks operations done in less than 3 mins end to end... voila.

This being said I am in the process of purchasing a used Betterlight super 6K back for my Ebony... so not everything is about the end result.  

Cheers,
Bernard

Having said that though, I would LOVE to be able to capture a 1GP image in a single shot with 8x10 film. Problem is round these parts it's impossible to get the film developed and scanned

[narikin]

If film grain is visible up close is not a problem I think, it gives the print a nice photographic look.

Aha - this is where you show your true colors!  Once you switch over to digital in your perception you begin to see film grain as nothing but a mushy blur over your sharp image. Photography is not about grain, anymore than music is about the tape hiss of early recordings.  It becomes hard to look at grainy film images the same way once you see how it is without it.  (though I agree with you about upsampling too much - it is not nice)

This argument has been done to death.  I know all the photographers you mention and nearly all have Phase One/Alpa in their equipment packs, so... stitching MF digital seems to be where high end is at right now, for them at least.

[Mr. Rib]

If you refer to Andreas Gursky and other highly regarded artists- I think most of them still shoot both analog and digital

[Gary Yeowell]

Interesting Tim Parkin is mentioned. Tim did recently some scans for me and we spoke for some time about our shared thoughts on digital capture compared to film. All i can say is he is not exactly a digital capture lover.

[CastorScan]

I collaborate with many international photographers shooting both analog (LF) and digital (Phase One or Alpa bodies + P65 or IQ180 ecc).

A good 8x10" negative perfectly drum scanned exceeds by far the quality delivered by the last and most expensive digital photographic systems, in terms of three-dimensionality, realism, color and density nuances, detail.
Also, the rendition of details (edges, etc) is much more pleasant and natural.

The amount of "crisp and true" information contained in a good 8x10" negative is usually between 1,6 and 3 Gb

[narikin]

A good 8x10" negative perfectly drum scanned exceeds by far the quality delivered by the last and most expensive digital photographic systems, in terms of three-dimensionality, realism, color and density nuances, detail.

Sorry but I respectfully disagree with you, from decades of experience (I operated high end scanners too - Heidelberg Tango drum and flatbed). You could scan a 6x7cm negative at 12,000dpi and get a multi GB file, but its just grain /mush you are scanning at that level. I simply cannot believe it when I look at my old LF negatives how much grain ruins the image.

Also have to point out that you are in the business of making money from this fact being what you wish it to be, and have come here cold -just 3 posts ever - drumming up business for yourself, on that basis.   It doesn't look good.

Yes 8x10" is great, and if you want to use it - please go right ahead, its absolutely everyone's choice.

[CastorScan]

If you say that it means that very probably you never saw any really good drum scan before.

This is a old FUJI REALA 6x7 cm  drum scanned:

whole frame:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8291295942/

crop 1: http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8291390058/sizes/k/in/photostream/

crop 2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8291392122/sizes/k/in/photostream/

crop 3: http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8291285426/sizes/k/in/photostream/


And you should know that the Tango is far worse than a Dainippon 8060 in terms of true optical resolution, color gamut, noise, grain rendition.

[Bernd B.]

Sorry but I respectfully disagree with you, from decades of experience (I operated high end scanners too - Heidelberg Tango drum and flatbed). You could scan a 6x7cm negative at 12,000dpi and get a multi GB file, but its just grain /mush you are scanning at that level. I simply cannot believe it when I look at my old LF negatives how much grain ruins the image.

Also have to point out that you are in the business of making money from this fact being what you wish it to be, and have come here cold -just 3 posts ever - drumming up business for yourself, on that basis.   It doesn't look good.

Yes 8x10" is great, and if you want to use it - please go right ahead, its absolutely everyone's choice.

+1

That is absolutely my own experience, using Howtek Drum Scanners with 4000 and 5000 dpi. I went through this because I wanted to go the hybrid way with photographing on film and then drum scanning. Every word you say is true, I found it out loosing years; and loads of money. Don´t believe the scan hype, 10.000 by 12.000 pixel or so- film is dead! Scanning today is only good (and important!) for archive purposes.

And I do also have the impression that the post is about making business rather than sharing experience.

Bernd

[CastorScan]

You should know that scanning at the highest scanning resolutions is foundamental to dramatically reduce grain and noise.

So 12.000 dpi are extremely usefull in any case. Detail of the negative apart.

[CastorScan]

The links clearly show the benefits of scanning a 6x7cm color negative at 10.000 dpi:

Whole frame:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8291295942/

crop 1: http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8291390058/sizes/k/in/photostream/

crop 2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8291392122/sizes/k/in/photostream/

crop 3: http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8291285426/sizes/k/in/photostream/


Of course the output provided by an old and "entry-level" Howtek limited at 4000-5000 dpi would be completely different...

[Gary Yeowell]

CastorScan, i believe you are wasting your breath on this website, it is so digitally biased you will never convince anyone. For what it's worth, from my point of view you are 100% correct, and quite honestly a good 6x7 Portra drumscan is much nicer in every way than any digital capture i have seen, let alone 10x8.

[narikin]

If you say that it means that very probably you never saw any really good drum scan before

How could I have possibly seen a good scan before?  Nobody can make a great scan but you. We are all rubbish, but you and your equipment is the best.   

It is amazing that we survived till you came here to correct our ignorance and get some business for yourself. 

I'm out of here.

[TMARK]

I agree with you here.

CastorScan, i believe you are wasting your breath on this website, it is so digitally biased you will never convince anyone. For what it's worth, from my point of view you are 100% correct, and quite honestly a good 6x7 Portra drumscan is much nicer in every way than any digital capture i have seen, let alone 10x8.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I downloaded the image and downscaled to 20% Photoshop using bicubic and applied some smart sharpen, see below. That would correspond to something like  24 MP digital capture. In my view it is quite noisy and not very sharp.

On the other hand, I agree with Anders Torger about digital artifacts being ugly, see the sailboat rig below. Fortunately, digital artifacts are normally not very visible in normal captures, see third example.

The digital examples are taken from a P45+ back, 39 MP. I also added a 24 MP capture from an OLP filtered DSLR.

Enclosed images:

1) 10000 PPI scan downsampled to 2000 PPI
2) 39 MP P45+ (shows severe aliasing)
3) 39 MP P45+ (no obvious aliasing)
4) 24 MP DSLR (with Optical Low Pass filtering)

Best regards
Erik

The links clearly show the benefits of scanning a 6x7cm color negative at 10.000 dpi:

Whole frame:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8291295942/

crop 1: http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8291390058/sizes/k/in/photostream/

crop 2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8291392122/sizes/k/in/photostream/

crop 3: http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8291285426/sizes/k/in/photostream/


Of course the output provided by an old and "entry-level" Howtek limited at 4000-5000 dpi would be completely different...

[TMARK]

Just a brief point about film:  it looks different.  It acts different.  It smells funny.  I like the way it looks for what I shoot.  I like how grain adds texture, I like how film looks printed on chromogentic paper, I like how film looks printed on a web press.  I like how the larger formats render.  I don't shoot scenics, but the ones I like are generally shot on film, even 35mm film.  Its different.

Film is an impression of reality, rather than an exact reproduction.  The exact reproductions that mark digital bore me and most digital post is vulgar.

Not that digital doesn't have a place and can't look really good, it just doesn't look really good for me, for how I see things.

So lets all keep it in our collective pants and realize that one man's grain free crisp shadow detail at 100% is another man's soap opera video still.  Neither opinion is wrong for the person holding it.

[amsp]

Just a brief point about film:  it looks different.  It acts different.  It smells funny.  I like the way it looks for what I shoot.  I like how grain adds texture, I like how film looks printed on chromogentic paper, I like how film looks printed on a web press.  I like how the larger formats render.  I don't shoot scenics, but the ones I like are generally shot on film, even 35mm film.  Its different.

Film is an impression of reality, rather than an exact reproduction.  The exact reproductions that mark digital bore me and most digital post is vulgar.

Not that digital doesn't have a place and can't look really good, it just doesn't look really good for me, for how I see things.

So lets all keep it in our collective pants and realize that one man's grain free crisp shadow detail at 100% is another man's soap opera video still.  Neither opinion is wrong for the person holding it.

+1

[RobertJ]

I still have 3 unopened boxes of 8x10 Provia that cost me a fortune, and are now worth even more!  Haven't had the chance to see what 8x10 can really do for me personally.

My favorite image quality in the world right now is from Sigma.  So you're all wrong!

[EricWHiss]

It's funny, I looked at these scans and thought they were pretty great, but I didn't look at the grain or detail really but instead the chrome on the chair, the text on the books where the text color was really close to the binder color, the globe with attention to color.   

I've been doing my own comparison of film and digital shot on the same camera with the same lenses for the last year. The biggest differences are seen when an analog print is made from the negative and put next to a digital print made from a digital capture.   btw - I haven't been doing the comparison to see which is better, I've been doing it to see when to use what.   

[Petrus]

I stopped worrying about film/digital when I got my first digital SLR, Canon EOS-1D. In theory those 4.7 MPix were much less resolution than with slide film (100 ASA Astia or Provia mostly), so I did some testing. Using the same zoom lens and framing it turned out that there was just as much detail in the digital image as there was in the slide (60 MB professional scan). Good enough for me, and cameras have getting only better all the time like 3 times the resolution and twice as many stops of dynamic range with amazing low light capabilities: me not complain.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

For me it was about being good enough. I started moving into digital because I had problems with the wet darkroom. The chemicals were not kind on my respiratory systems and so on. Digital printing came as a rescue. That meant scanning, and scanning was no fun. Michael Reichmann made a test back in 2003, comparing the Canon 1Ds with the Pentax 67 and Velvia: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml. Michael used an Imacon scanner but he also went to drum scanning and his findings still held. He found that the 1Ds surpassed the Pentax 67 in image quality. I made similar tests with my Sony Alpha 900 and had similar results.

Film based photography is very different from digital photography:

- Digital photography is linear, until we manipulate it.
- In most cases digital images have very little noise, compared with film.
- Digital images are limited in resolution by sensor pixels, we have aliasing and moiré, although small pixels and OLP filtering helps. Anyway at certain magnification a digital image falls apart.
- Analog photography is very nonlinear. Film has curves built in. In the printing process the paper also has curves built in.
- Analog photography has grain.
- Analog photography can use larger formats. We still don't have a full size 6x6 sensor or a full size 6x7 sensor, except scanning backs.

The discussion tends to be polarised, because analogue digital photography often has different aims. Both can be used to achieve excellent results and both can produce garbage.

I still feel that there is something special about projected Velvia 67.

Best regards
Erik

I stopped worrying about film/digital when I got my first digital SLR, Canon EOS-1D. In theory those 4.7 MPix were much less resolution than with slide film (100 ASA Astia or Provia mostly), so I did some testing. Using the same zoom lens and framing it turned out that there was just as much detail in the digital image as there was in the slide (60 MB professional scan). Good enough for me, and cameras have getting only better all the time like 3 times the resolution and twice as many stops of dynamic range with amazing low light capabilities: me not complain.