The Perfect Scanner ...

[m3photo]

... is one that is light and portable, shoots RAW/16bit files and does a good job.

Yes folks, it's called the Panasonic Lumix G1 and when mated to a 55mm Micro-Nikkor does a very good job indeed. The copying distance is very comfortable as it's now a 110mm lens and with 35mm slides and negatives the focus is between the 24 and 25mm mark on it taking into account the thickness of the added m4/3-Nikon adapter.
Compared to my now redundant Microtek i900 (yes I know, not much to shout about) the results are way better. Working with the G1 of course, one can shoot bracketed sequences if required for that extra range on those tricky slides we all have.
The set-up is most rudimentary, tripod facing window and an A4 sheet of good quality printer paper as a diffuser. I use the slide/negative holders from the Microtek to support them on the window ledge and fire away!
I have a friend who has a Nikon Coolscan and I keep meaning to do a comparison, but wait (exclamation mark, à la Russell Brown) perhaps one of you fine folks could do the test for us ...

Happy scanning.

This was prompted by reading a recent post by Carl (Scho) who signed off with a sad:
" I also have many nice pictures that I took of of my children years ago with the Rollei, but I have yet to scan all of the negatives."
Imagine what this little gem could do with 6x6 negatives

 

[pellicle]

Hi

happy to be involved ... I have an LS-4000. If you have a target I'll happily scan it and submit my scans.

FWIW I think there are some problems with digital cameras as scanners, expecially with respect to negative films because of the variation in density of each of the layers (red green and blue) having different density ranges.

For instance, this is the typical responce curve of a C-41 neg:

... ok ... that seems to be blocked ... please read article here.
notice that for a given exposure amount that the density of the film is substantially different. This density range will also not match to the sensor which is tuned to try to get a greater scene brightness.

A way around this is to employ HDRI and make multiple exposures and then get at the relevant data in a TIFF

There will of course be no digital ICE or bulk scanning operations ... ultimately I've gone back to my film scanners for scanning film

 

[woodmancy]

... is one that is light and portable, shoots RAW/16bit files and does a good job.

This looks good - can you post a picture of your setup?

Keith

 

[woodmancy]

This looks good - can you post a picture of your setup?

Keith

. . . . and how many images do you cover in one image (just one?)

Thanks

Keith

 

[kweide]

i only scan some old slides. Just those worth it. I use my good old Epson 4490 for that task and i think, its doing still a good job...

 

[pellicle]

Hi

also, for what its worth, on another thread on another forum:

With this setup I was able to obtain good results with b&w negatives and reasonable from positive "slide" film.

In a nutshell, I noticed this:

- The camera must be colour balanced for the light source, even though it is supposed to be daylight. I used the standard D80 auto colour temp setting and that produced the most pleasing colour balance, matching the original. Didn't record what the actual colour temp setting was.

- The diffused light source gets rid of most if not all scratches, imperfections and other surface defects of the film. Including most drying marks. No need for the infra-red d-Ice of the scanners and that won't work with b&w negatives anyway.

- Grain is less noticeable than in a film scanner. This might be a consequence of the next point.

- 10mpx is waaaaay too low for the definition I'm used to getting from my film scanners. It however produces perfectly acceptable "scans" from slides and b&w, at that definition.

- Getting the framing just right is fiddly with my setup and takes a long time.

- Flatness was not a problem, but field curvature from the lens was. Hard to focus precisely, mostly because the focus point changed slightly as I closed down the iris. I ended up using the lens wide open, with slightly less sharp results than I could get if I spent the time to get precise focus at smaller apertures: it took less time that way. Not sure if this focusing problem was a result of the lens itself or something else. The 105/2.5 is not a macro lens, so this might be the problem.

- For normal slides and negatives, I didn't find dynamic range a problem. The results were evenly illuminated and there were no "hot" or "dark" spots. Have not tried with "difficult" film images.

full thread here.

 

[scho]

This was prompted by reading a recent post by Carl (Scho) who signed off with a sad:
" I also have many nice pictures that I took of of my children years ago with the Rollei, but I have yet to scan all of the negatives."
Imagine what this little gem could do with 6x6 negatives

OK, now you've shamed me into digging into my boxes of old 6x6 negatives. You have to be in sort of a masochistic mood to spend much time scanning. I have an Epson 700 flatbed which is primarily used for my 4x5 negative scanning, but it does OK with 6x6 negs also. Here is one of the oldies of my daughter taken with the Rolleiflex about 35 years ago that I just scanned today (better late than never).

 

[m3photo]

Re: LS-4000 Test etc.

happy to be involved ... I have an LS-4000. If you have a target I'll happily scan it and submit my scans.

notice that for a given exposure amount that the density of the film is substantially different. This density range will also not match to the sensor which is tuned to try to get a greater scene brightness.

A way around this is to employ HDRI and make multiple exposures and then get at the relevant data in a TIFF

There will of course be no digital ICE or bulk scanning operations ... ultimately I've gone back to my film scanners for scanning film

Thanks for the offer, but rather than posting you one of my slides, I thought it would be easier for someone who has a Coolscan and a G1 to try it out for themselves and comment on the differences.

Photoshop takes care of most of these problems and as you say, several exposures will usually do the trick - always working with RAW/16bit files naturally. Masking works well with really difficult areas.

ICE to me means a sort of defocussing to hide the scratches which defeats the object of a quality machine in the first place. I find that (with images that really deserve the work of course) the Spot Healing Brush Tool in Photoshop is far better as it's not a general "fix-everything-including-what-doesn't-need-fixing" ICE programme.

Bulk scanning? Hmm, I usually do a pretty harsh pre-selection and then do take a little extra care and time with those selected for re-photographing considering I'm then going to work on the results in PS. Once you get into the flow of it, working on the G1 on a tripod is really quite comfortable and not really slow compared to a scanner IMO.

One thing I didn't mention for those who haven't worked with a G1 is the fact that the EVF "gains up" to ease viewing those darker images and also has a focus assist for greater precision thus making it a far better digital camera than any other DSLR for "scanning".

The last item in the set-up I overlooked in my initial introduction is perhaps the most important "technological" addition:
A black cotton T-shirt.
Yep, surrounding the lens and held up so that it shrouds the slide, stops stray light coming at it and greatly reduces the de-spotting work thereafter in Photoshop as it stops the camera from capturing surface dust. I've found that at least with a flatbed, even a supposedly purpose-built one like the Microtek i900 the light source picks up this dust also and creates more work,
not so with the black T-shirt (available at extra cost!).
OK, so that's the starting point - tripod, taping a holder to the window, T-shirt etc. My next acquisition will be a Nikon ES-1 of course and then I'll be just firing it at the sky not having to bother about camera shake etc. and speeding up the process considerably, now that I know how the G1 fares in this adventure.

Anyone want a Microtek i900?

 

[m3photo]

Re: The Set-up

This looks good - can you post a picture of your setup?

When I've got some time in the next few days I'll set it up and take a shot of it for you.

 

[m3photo]

Re: Nº of images

. . . . and how many images do you cover in one image (just one?)

It's up to you. Just for safety's sake, seeing as though it just means pressing the shutter button a couple of more times I suggest 3 - what the meter says, then +1.5 and minus 1.5 stops is usually sufficient for difficult very bright/very dark areas. As I say, my way of working does depend on Photoshop work afterwards - there's no free lunch!

 

[pellicle]

Re: LS-4000 Test etc.

Hi

ICE to me means a sort of defocussing to hide the scratches which defeats the object of a quality machine in the first place. I find that (with images that really deserve the work of course) the Spot Healing Brush Tool in Photoshop is far better as it's not a general "fix-everything-including-what-doesn't-need-fixing" ICE programme.

respectfully if you have not used a Nikon then I understand why you may feel that way. However while the LED light source of Nikon enhances the dust because of its tightly collimated light source this has the effect of making the IR dust control equally precise. I have an LS-20 without ICE, when the LS-30 was released I tried it and found the ICE to be adding a blur which I did not like. I tried the ICE on the LS-IV ED and 4000 and found it to be a generation better and to be honest it takes a critical evaluation at 4000dpi to see such.

The ICE on my Epson 4990 is no match for the quality attained by the ICE on the Nikon 4000. I have read similar observations on the Minolta 5400 scanners and the Microtek scanners.

 

[m3photo]

Re: Epson 4490

i only scan some old slides. Just those worth it. I use my good old Epson 4490 for that task and i think, its doing still a good job...

That's what I thought with the Microtek ... until I tried the G1 ... over to you ...

 

[m3photo]

Re: ICE

... respectfully if you have not used a Nikon then I understand why you may feel that way.

No, no, it's my ignorance here. This is why I suggested that someone who has both, test the Nikon scanner against the G1.
If the difference proves that I'm barking up the wrong tree I'll have a word with my bank manager about the Coolscan

 

[m3photo]

Re: Rolleiflex

OK, now you've shamed me into digging into my boxes of old 6x6 negatives. Here is one of the oldies of my daughter taken with the Rolleiflex about 35 years ago that I just scanned today (better late than never).

Excuse the rude awakening
This lovely image is well worth it though, don't you think?

 

[pellicle]

Ok

this weekend is busy ... however try looking at this article of mine, in particular compare the differences between a drum scan and a LS-4000. The G1 can not do better than that and perhaps only approach the LS-IV ED

As suggested dig through that above mentioned thread. Much of this research has already been done some time ago ... that last thread was in reference to a 5D MkII

 

[m3photo]

Re: Your Article

Ok
this weekend is busy ... however try looking at this article of mine, in particular compare the differences between a drum scan and a LS-4000. The G1 can not do better than that and perhaps only approach the LS-IV ED

Thank you.
I find, however that the article's main aim is to compare an APS-C camera's rendition of a difficult snow scene to the same capture on film. I believe this has been discussed at length before by many others.
If your findings go on to state the above i.e. that the G1 can perhaps only approach the LS-IV ED, I'll save my money and keep my camera/scanner combo

 

[photoSmart42]

Forgive my noobness, but please explain to me the concept of camera scanning. To me a scanner is a flat device where you put some documents which then get scanned to produce digital copies of said documents. Are we talking about using a camera as the scanner? As in place the documents on some surface, fix the camera on a tripod so it looks straight down, and take a picture?

 

[m3photo]

Re: Camera as a canner ...

Are we talking about using a camera as the scanner? As in place the documents on some surface, fix the camera on a tripod so it looks straight down, and take a picture?

Yes. A camera is really a digital scanner that you normally hold in your hand to scan what's in front of the lens.
Many times, when I have needed a simple photocopy of a document, I have used my camera, simply because I do not have a photocopying machine - it's the same result.

 

[pellicle]

Re: Camera as a canner ...

Yes. A camera is really a digital scanner that you normally hold in your hand to scan what's in front of the lens.

while a scanner is a device optimized for capturing only a specific range of dynamic ranges that come from the transmission of light (shining through) film from a light source of specific colour temperature.

People also adapt scanners to be cameras too ... even the better light scanning back is ultimately based on a scanner technology. This is an example of scanners as cameras http://golembewski.awardspace.com/photographyGallery/index.html

The scanning is something which sets it apart, as the camera does not scan it captures all rows in one hit, the scanner must capture each row in steps.

This topic has popped up many times in the years since digital cameras became of sufficient quality (even before some would argue) to make a decent print.

It has its attractions and some people say they prefer it ... I have not seen any bureaus offering "copy stand" scans of film using a digital camera. Copying artwork is one thing, copying film is another.

Some interesting reading over and above (and from) the above mentioned thread:

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaDigitDia5000.html

http://thedambook.com/downloads/Camera_Scanning_Krogh.pdf

 

[Jose Luis Gonzalez]

Hi all

I´ve been scanning my negatives from 35 mm to 4x5 with my 1Ds2 and a Canon 400 D for a couple of years now, I did a comparison with my drum scanner and I opted for the camera as a scanner, it gives me the same quality and much less work than using the drum scanner. The 1Ds2 can read up to a optical density of 1.7 from a calbrated Kodak step wedge, a correctly developed b&w negative will have a density of 1.2/1.3 in the High lites with detail ( zone VII ) so there is wide margin to record even higher zones, besides bracketing and HDR are weapons for problematic negatives.

Color negatives gave me some headaches till I resorted to filter the light source to neutralize the orange mask, doing so the RGB histogram is well balanced and when a WB is done the blue chanel is less stressed. This can be done with CC filters, but even a conversion filter such as a 80B works well ( I placed filters not on the lens but between the negative and the light source). Use Prophoto RGB as a output space from the Raw converter, if not you risk reds to clip easily



Hope this helps

Jose