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

[jduncan]

+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

And for fun, don't forget the fun. Having a film based camera, doing the lab and then scanning  can be  a lot of fun .
Of course for fun one buys a used scanner,  and never ever pixel peep the pictures.

Best regards,
J. Duncan

[Jason Denning]

I tried the v700 but found it terrible with medium format. Ended up buying a Minolta multi pro dedicated film scanner. Not quite a drum scan but close enough for me.

You don't always need drum scans.

A simple Epson V700 scan gives you 80+ MP from a 4x5" - thats much more than needed to get gorgeous prints at huge size.
Scanning different exposures and doing an HDR with them gives you additional dynamic range.
Sure - A drum scan still is the nonplusultra - no discussion about that.
But if you know your way around you can get great results with a lot less change.

Cheers
~Chris

[CastorScan]

INTO THE WHITE - MASSIMO VITALI & ERICH LINDENBERG.

Marco Campanini_CastorScan with Massimo Vitali talking of his new LightJet prints. 180 x 220 cm LightJet prints on Kodak Endura paper mounted on DIASEC made at Grieger lab, Düsseldorf. DRUM SCANS BY CASTORSCAN.
www.castorscan.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1yVLrRfgcQ

[Ken R]

INTO THE WHITE - MASSIMO VITALI & ERICH LINDENBERG.

Marco Campanini_CastorScan with Massimo Vitali talking of his new LightJet prints. 180 x 220 cm LightJet prints on Kodak Endura paper mounted on DIASEC made at Grieger lab, Düsseldorf. DRUM SCANS BY CASTORSCAN.
www.castorscan.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1yVLrRfgcQ

Wow, great work. Thanks for posting.

[uaiomex]

+1

Wow, great work. Thanks for posting.

[Iluvmycam]

Post this over at the Large Format forum. They may be more interested in 8 x 10.

[timparkin]

Hi,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

I'm sorry but that comparison was frankly laughable...

Here's a comparison between a D800E and a Mamiya 7



And that was scanned on a flatbed!!

As for Castorscans scans - yes they're very good but I don't think they're visibly better than a good scan from a Heidelberg Primescan. It downsamples to 2000dpi  without losing detail and 2000dpi is about perfect for scanning 10x8 (although in the centre with a good lens at f/22 you can get 3000dpi's worth probably - rarely).

Anyway - he does have one of the best drum scanners in the world but some of his claims are, shall we say, loosely grounded. e.g. the 12,000dpi scan of Ektar downsamples to about 5000dpi with no loss of detail or grain.

I'd love to find time to do a comparison (which he has offered to help with).

If you want a good comparison of film vs digital, look here..

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

This was done with the cooperation of Phase and a dedicated Phase photographer who used to shoot film. It's about as unbiased as you'll get.

The end result? It's a damn sight easier to get good results from digital than it is from film but if you do persevere with film the results are as follows

perceived sharpness gives 5x4 equivalent to an IQ260 - 10x8 is about 120-150 megapixels

In terms of resolution and raw detail - the the 5x4 exceeds the IQ280 for colour resolution and just about matches it for fine detail.

In other words the IQ280 is equivalent to 5x4 up to about 20x24 when the IQ280 looks better. At about 30x40 they start to be similar. Then the 4x5 starts to look better because the fine detail carries on (albeit with grain and low contrast).

for most purposes medium format film drum scanned just about beats 24-36Mp DSLR's but you have to have great lenses and technique (plus a camera that holds the film flat!).

I haven't a clue how Micheal Reichman got he 1ds2 to beat a Pentax 67 - actually I do ... try this sentence on for size

"But since there clearly isn't really any significant amount of additional real information in the drum scan, ressing up the digital file will essentially accomplish the same thing."

OK so he's got a 12,000 pixel by 15,000 pixel file and he prints it at 13" x 19". 13" at 360dpi is 4680px

Put another way he converted the 5330dpi drum scan into a 2000dpi scan and says "well there is only 2000dpi worth of detail in the film shot..

I know for a fact I get more detail out of film when I scan at 5000dpi over 4000dpi ....

He wasn't biased at all :-)

Tim

[jerome_m]

Hi,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

I'm sorry but that comparison was frankly laughable...

Not that much laughable. The same web site you cited also compared the A900 with the Mamiya 7. You'll find the results here: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html. Quite frankly, I find very little difference between the Mamiya 7 and the Sony A900, at least for colour pictures.

That would mean that a 6x7 camera is similar to a 20-25 mpix digital camera, which is also what Michael Reichman found. The 6x7 camera was a Pentax and the 20-25 mpix camera a Canon in his test, that is all.

These tests have been running for years and, interestingly, they all find roughly the same results. It is just that on the base of these same results, film lovers and digital users argue different conclusions.

The results appear to be that 6x7 rollfilm is about equivalent to a 20-25 mpix digital camera,  4x5 inches sheet film is about equivalent to a 50-60 mpix digital camera (and it is about twice as big as 6x7) and 8x10 inches is indeed unmatched by single shot digital cameras. This is valid for colour film, some B&W film add some extra resolution.

[timparkin]

I'm sorry but that comparison was frankly laughable...


Not that much laughable. The same web site you cited also compared the A900 with the Mamiya 7. You'll find the results here: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html. Quite frankly, I find very little difference between the Mamiya 7 and the Sony A900, at least for colour pictures.

That would mean that a 6x7 camera is similar to a 20-25 mpix digital camera, which is also what Michael Reichman found. The 6x7 camera was a Pentax and the 20-25 mpix camera a Canon in his test, that is all.

These tests have been running for years and, interestingly, they all find roughly the same results. It is just that on the base of these same results, film lovers and digital users argue different conclusions.

The results appear to be that 6x7 rollfilm is about equivalent to a 20-25 mpix digital camera,  4x5 inches sheet film is about equivalent to a 50-60 mpix digital camera (and it is about twice as big as 6x7) and 8x10 inches is indeed unmatched by single shot digital cameras. This is valid for colour film, some B&W film add some extra resolution.

Hi Jerome,

I'll retract laughable as they probably didn't know how to get the best out of the film and a drum scan isn't just a drum scan (I own three drum scanners and two high end flatbeds now) as they all are good at different things and sadly many operators don't have a clue. Given this (and the downscaling of their scan to 2000dpi) I won't say it's laughable - just disspointing.

And for the comparison - Yes that's my website - in the narrative you would also read that it isn't a great comparison for the Mamiya 7 as I didn't have the appropriately scaled lenses. The Mamiya had too short a lens for the test (i.e. for the outdoor test we used a 50mm on the A900 and an 80mm on the Mamiya 7 - these are way off to the point that it gives about half the resolution for the Mamiya 7).

The initial test we made was primarily for medium format digital vs large format film where we were within 4 or 5% on comparative lens focal lengths but we thought we'd throw in DSLRs and Medium format film to see what would happen.

Because the tests weren't satisfactory for MF film and DSLRs and the D800 had just come out we went back the next month and shot the comparison you can see above which is a D800E vs a Mamiya 7 using high resolution black and white film and Velvia 50.

I also bought a new scanner as my previous Howtek scanner wasn't as good as it could be - I now use a Heidelberg Primescan and a Screen Cezanne Elite Pro. Interestingly the results above were done on the flatbed Screen Cezanne (a dark horse to say the least).

So in the test above the we shot the Mamiya 7 with the 50mm lens and the D800 with the 25mm distagon.

The comparison shows that the Mamiya 7 is getting about 30% more linear resolution with Velvia 50 (so about 55 megapixels) and about twice the linear resolution with high resolution black and white (about 90 megapixels).

We tried comparing the Mamiya 7 against an IQ180 to see what the difference would be and they were fairly close. The Mamiya 7 was very noisy with Portra 160 film but it resolved as much as the IQ180. In terms of print quality it was probably about the same as the Velvia at about 50Mp.



The high resolution film (Adox CMS20) was a different story. The Mamiya 7 blew everything out of the water and beat 4x5 colour film. Adox CMS20 is just ridiculous and the Mamiya 7 has the best lenses ever sold in a consumer camera in my opinion.



The camera had a different lens on it but we were at the right distance and the Hasselblad logo tells most of the story.

Tim

p.s. the 1Ds he used was  11mp

[timparkin]

The results appear to be that 6x7 rollfilm is about equivalent to a 20-25 mpix digital camera

I should also add that Michael Reichman's choice of lens was incorrect. He prints both images to a fixed width and hence we should be scaling the focal length by the short side of the film and sense.

The short side of the 1Ds is 24mm and the short side of 120 roll film is 56mm

24/56 = 2.333

Hence if the DSLR was using a 100mm lens the Pentax 67 should have been using a 233mm lens. As it was a 200mm lens was used. This gives the DSLR a 36% megapixel advantage (i.e. 233/200 is the edge difference hence the square of this is the megapixel count difference).

The test was poor by any count..

Tim

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have made some tests of my own and spent a lot of time studying Tim's tests, which I feel are really good.

What I have seen in my test was that my Pentax 67 on Velvia resolved better than my Alpha 99 for high contrast detail but the Alpha 900 images were much easier to work with. I also think the Sony was better at extracting low contrast detail

Recently I made a 70x100 cm print from a Sony Alpha 99 image that I also shot on Pentax 67 many years ago and printed 70x100. The prints were very similar.

I would say that film has more resolution for high contrast detail, while CMOS sensors have low noise and are very good at extracting low contrast detail. Another factor may be that Pentax 67 lenses may be a bit weak. I feel that my Hasselblad V series lenses may be a bit better. The Mamiya seven was famous for it lenses, contrary to some belief that Mamiya lenses are not really good.

Tim's results are better than mine, I guess, he uses a high quality drum scanner and he knows what he is doing :-).

Best regards
Erik

[jerome_m]

p.s. the 1Ds he used was  11mp

Oops. Did not notice that detail. I would agree that the comparison was a bit too optimistic for digital then.

And for the comparison - Yes that's my website - in the narrative you would also read that it isn't a great comparison for the Mamiya 7 as I didn't have the appropriately scaled lenses. The Mamiya had too short a lens for the test (i.e. for the outdoor test we used a 50mm on the A900 and an 80mm on the Mamiya 7 - these are way off to the point that it gives about half the resolution for the Mamiya 7).

Maybe. Still: the results of the Mamiya 7 are consistent with the results of other analog cameras, so they cannot be entirely off either.

We tried comparing the Mamiya 7 against an IQ180 to see what the difference would be and they were fairly close. The Mamiya 7 was very noisy with Portra 160 film but it resolved as much as the IQ180.

Come on. The Mamiya 7 is a fine camera and certainly still competitive in today's world, but you are pulling our collective leg here or possibly fooling yourself. In any case, I don't see that it resolves "as much as the IQ180" in your example. The high contrast text is indeed well rendered, but that is an artefact of the sharpening procedure. The lower contrast details on the camera itself are much better on the IQ.

The high resolution film (Adox CMS20) was a different story. The Mamiya 7 blew everything out of the water and beat 4x5 colour film.

Well, yes, of course. If one is prepared to live with the inconveniences of microfilm emulsions (I believe that Adox CMS20 is a remake of the old Kodak Technical Pan), one gets higher resolution.

Quite frankly, I don't really see the point of these analog versus digital fights. The medium are so different that comparisons will never be accurate anyway, so the best we could do is to say "this analog camera with colour film is roughly equivalent to so many pixels give or take 25%" and these 25% is what people fight about. If one needs to be convinced of the capacities of large format film, one should visit an exhibition with, for example, prints by Hiroshi Sugimoto. 8x10 film, B&W, analog enlargements. It is good.

[timparkin]

Come on. The Mamiya 7 is a fine camera and certainly still competitive in today's world, but you are pulling our collective leg here or possibly fooling yourself. In any case, I don't see that it resolves "as much as the IQ180" in your example. The high contrast text is indeed well rendered, but that is an artefact of the sharpening procedure. The lower contrast details on the camera itself are much better on the IQ.

With high resolution film it does - I'd put good money on that. In fact if you want the raw proof, here's the resolution target 'trumpet' section.

Well, yes, of course. If one is prepared to live with the inconveniences of microfilm emulsions (I believe that Adox CMS20 is a remake of the old Kodak Technical Pan), one gets higher resolution.

Agreed - which is why I've never said that the Mamiya 7 is "better than" the IQ180 (for a start, one is a camera, the other is a sensor).

Quite frankly, I don't really see the point of these analog versus digital fights. The medium are so different that comparisons will never be accurate anyway, so the best we could do is to say "this analog camera with colour film is roughly equivalent to so many pixels give or take 25%" and these 25% is what people fight about. If one needs to be convinced of the capacities of large format film, one should visit an exhibition with, for example, prints by Hiroshi Sugimoto. 8x10 film, B&W, analog enlargements. It is good.

Agreed - I know for a fact that I can get results from my Mamiya 7 with my scanner that beat anything I could get with a D800E in terms of raw resolution.

However I don't shoot medium format (apart from on a roll film back). I shoot 4x5 and 10x8 and I know for a fact that I can get better results than any digital bar the IQ180 with my 4x5 and that I can get better resolution from the 10x8 than anything full stop.

However, that isn't the reason I shoot film - I shoot it because it looks better than digital for me and I also prefer how the cameras work. i.e. Fully corrected lenses that render perfectly to the corners with full movements and the colour of Velvia 50 and Portra which are beyond anything a digital sensor can produce. That and I can afford them and won't have to upgrade ever...

For my work this is more important than any of films downsides.

Tim

p.s. I also shoot 10x8 for commercial jobs where the client has tried the IQ Phase backs and found them not producing what they wanted (battalion photography for the Army).

[timparkin]

Recently I made a 70x100 cm print from a Sony Alpha 99 image that I also shot on Pentax 67 many years ago and printed 70x100. The prints were very similar.

I would say that film has more resolution for high contrast detail, while CMOS sensors have low noise and are very good at extracting low contrast detail. Another factor may be that Pentax 67 lenses may be a bit weak. I feel that my Hasselblad V series lenses may be a bit better. The Mamiya seven was famous for it lenses, contrary to some belief that Mamiya lenses are not really good.

Tim's results are better than mine, I guess, he uses a high quality drum scanner and he knows what he is doing :-).

Agreed with everything you've said. I've also spent far too much time working out the best way of scanning various film types :-)

Tim

[tjv]

I scan 4x5" and 6x7cm neg and pos film with an Imacon 949. I use a Linhof Techno with "digital" Rodenstock lenses and Mamiya 7ii with a full set if lenses. Comparisons I've made echo Tim P's examples. The Imacon doesn't scan at the same res as his Howtec, but the tone and detail on those scans is amazing. In my opinion, they print better, by my subjective measures, than files I've shot on D800 and 5diii cameras. The digi native images just seem to fall apart past a certain size but the film scans keep going.

[timparkin]

I scan 4x5" and 6x7cm neg and pos film with an Imacon 949. I use a Linhof Techno with "digital" Rodenstock lenses and Mamiya 7ii with a full set if lenses. Comparisons I've made echo Tim P's examples. The Imacon doesn't scan at the same res as his Howtec, but the tone and detail on those scans is amazing. In my opinion, they print better, by my subjective measures, than files I've shot on D800 and 5diii cameras. The digi native images just seem to fall apart past a certain size but the film scans keep going.

Hi TJ,

Are you using a digital back too? I'd be interested in which one if so (I presume you aren't using a film back on the Techno - although that would be as impressive as the Mamiya I imagine).

If you want any of your shots scanning on my Screen Cezanne feel or Heidelberg Primescan feel free to send them over - I'd be interested in how they compete with a good 949.

Tim

[Fine_Art]

If you want a good comparison of film vs digital, look here..

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

This was done with the cooperation of Phase and a dedicated Phase photographer who used to shoot film. It's about as unbiased as you'll get.

The end result? It's a damn sight easier to get good results from digital than it is from film but if you do persevere with film the results are as follows

perceived sharpness gives 5x4 equivalent to an IQ260 - 10x8 is about 120-150 megapixels

In terms of resolution and raw detail - the the 5x4 exceeds the IQ280 for colour resolution and just about matches it for fine detail.

In other words the IQ280 is equivalent to 5x4 up to about 20x24 when the IQ280 looks better. At about 30x40 they start to be similar. Then the 4x5 starts to look better because the fine detail carries on (albeit with grain and low contrast).

for most purposes medium format film drum scanned just about beats 24-36Mp DSLR's but you have to have great lenses and technique (plus a camera that holds the film flat!).

Sounds right to me. You also have to factor in the advancements in stitching that make the limit on digital close to the angular resolution of your lenses. Add the ability to check to ensure you have the shot as you like it.

Big sheet film is still a competitive system for the craftsperson. The color, as you say, is excellent, the system price is very low. The archival durability is also a significant advantage. You don't have to transfer everything to another purchased hard drive as the warranty on the old one runs out every 3-5 years. That is another big cost of digital.

[EricWHiss]

Tim,
Ever since seeing your test, I started shooting a lot more film!          I think your tests were the best conducted ones I've seen and do not seem to have any built in biases.   That there are so many different results only show how difficult the testing can be.   When the shot is controlled and the film well handled and scanned the results are quite impressive.  That said, I had wondered about those mamiya 7 portra 400 images - mentioned a few threads up - when I saw them.

Comparing film to digital is probably tricky business and I'm glad to leave that you and other experts.  But I do make my own casual observations in my own shooting as my Hy6 takes both film and digital backs, I have had the opportunity to make some interesting comparisons using the same lenses.   My conclusions are both have their advantages under different conditions.  For shear detail, though I'd have to think the 80mp digital back is ahead under most circumstances when shot between ISO 50 and 200 for sure and probably at 400.  After that its starts to be unclear.  But there's so much more than just detail.  The look, the tonality, etc.  I don't like to shoot my AFi-ii 12 back at ISO 800 and really not 400 either, but I'm happy shooting film at 400 and 800 and even much higher. 

I like to use black and white film in the camera when I'm shooting a high contrast scene as I feel I get nicer results that include some detail in shadows and highlights.  I also like to shoot film when I'm going to be above ISO 400 really with the digital backs as they loose a lot going away from base ISO - - its an area where film just seems to work out better.   Film also manages to show nicer tonality and can be really forgiving on models skin - saving a lot of retouching time.    I think taking the film all the way to print saves some of its goodness as well.  

I think also that the larger formats offer a look that can't be replicated with smaller formats and in this area film stands alone.  I don't think we'll see 8x10 sensors anytime soon.

btw - back to the original topic - I do think the sample images and the Castorscan work are both very good.

[tjv]

Hi Tim,

I am indeed shooting film on my Techno. I use a Horseman 6x7cm back. Film flatness is sometimes a problem due to the transport mechanism, but as long as I shoot each film within a day of loading it things are generally okay. In contrast, the Mamiya 7 keeps things dead flat all the time.

I bought the Techno as part of a slow transition to digital capture, hence don't currently own a digital back. I'm eying up an IQ160 for the future.

The Rodenstock lenses I use are amazing, particularly my 90mm HR W (blue band). I must say though that the Mamiya 7 lenses, particularly the 50mm, are every bit their equal, all be it without the possibilities of movements. Man, it'd be awesome to have a digital Mamiya 7 system!

I live in New Zealand, so a comparison set of scans might be a problem. It's a generous offer and I bet a done properly a wet scan, particularly using your Heidelberg, would be in an other league than the 949. I absolutely LOVE my 949, but it ain't a drum scanner, despite the marketing material that goes along with it. I will say though that it's absolutely foolproof. There is no one I can send my film to here in NZ that does an even halfway okay job at drum scanning. People just don't seem to take pride in their work, or at least they don't seem to know how to get the best out of their machines. In contrast, your scans look beyond amazing!

TJV

Hi TJ,

Are you using a digital back too? I'd be interested in which one if so (I presume you aren't using a film back on the Techno - although that would be as impressive as the Mamiya I imagine).

If you want any of your shots scanning on my Screen Cezanne feel or Heidelberg Primescan feel free to send them over - I'd be interested in how they compete with a good 949.

Tim

[CastorScan]

the Dainippon Screen 8060 Mark II is definitely in another league than any Heidelberg drum scanner, in terms of optical resolution, color transitions, noise-grain reduction.

The Heidelberg drum scanners are even surpassed by many other scanners, including ICG 380, Aztek Premier etc...