The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The Perfect Scanner ...

pellicle

New member
Jose

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.
especially a drum scanner with all that wet mounting rigmarole I'm sure ;-)

particularly your method of :

Color negatives gave me some headaches till I resorted to filter the light source ... done with CC filters

is a good approach. I had toyed with the thought of this but not gotten around to it. I like it a lot!

BTW I think that when shooting in tungsten light that application of filters on Digital Cameras is just as 80A filtration works quite well in assisting the digital capture. While colour balancing of the image can be done by the camera if you follow the expose right principle why not attempt to even up all the channels to maximize your capture in all 3?

For example examine the difference between the Green and Red channel noise in JPG's on this page. Scroll about half way down, it uses javascript to swap out images ... and may take a minute to load as the server is slow.

did you ever compare the 4x5's scanned at 1200dpi on a flatbed scanner such as the epson? In theory that would yeild nearly the same pixels as your 1Ds camera does (certainly 2200dpi more if needed for big prints).

:)

but I think I'll try filtration on my flatbed and post my results
 
Pellicle

>did you ever compare the 4x5's scanned at 1200dpi on a flatbed scanner such as the epson? In theory that would yeild nearly the same pixels as your 1Ds camera does (certainly 2200dpi more if needed for big prints).

In general using the camera yields better results, at least with my flatbed an old Epson 3200, the scanner has a lot of radiation of lights into shadows that kills micro contrast and sharpness, when I need more resolution than my 1ds2 can give me in one shot, I use a variation of the rig that consist in a Manfrotto calibrated focusing rail to move the camera laterally over the negative, that plus a 90 TSE lens on the camera that can be ****fted up and down, this rig let me do 3 rows by seven or eight columns to cover the 4x5, that method gives me 8500x 12000 pixels aprox, more than enough in my opinion

The stitching is easy with Photomerge or better yet with Autopano



>but I think I'll try filtration on my flatbed and post my results


I tried it once on a Agfa Arcus and it did not work, the fall in intensity of light source due to the filtration played havoc with respect to noise


I few years back I had a Coolscan LS2000 that had independent analog control of the RGB leds, inserting a frame with the orange mask only, I could adjust the intensity of the leds till a gray was obtained, then I scanned the negative with a flat curve and as positive, then inverted in Photoshop

I dont know if the Nikons of today still have this analog control

Best

Jose
 

m3photo

New member
Re: Hope this helps

Hope this helps
Y mucho, gracias.

The information you have shared in both posts have indeed been a great help and have certainly helped in my certainty that using cameras for scanning was more than just a whim.

The Lumix G1 is particularly suited to this task IMHO as stated above.
 

pellicle

New member
Jose

In general using the camera yields better results, at least with my flatbed an old Epson 3200,

ok ... I have one of those ... I understand. I also have a 4870 and 4990 so I know what can be done with them too ... naturally access to gear is important in making decisions.


plus a 90 TSE lens on the camera that can be ****fted up and down, this rig let me do 3 rows by seven or eight columns to cover the 4x5,
you have the right gear there ... sadly I sold my TS-E90 ... nice lens and suited to your role there too

the approach you outline will yeild better results with chromes than you will get with the 4990.


I few years back I had a Coolscan LS2000 that had independent analog
control of the RGB leds, inserting a frame with the orange mask only, I co
the mask is a bit of a myth, and can be fixed without resorting to the analog gain. I have that on my LS-4000 as well, but find that it introduces noise which I am unsatisfied with. My technique for colour negative is here.

anway ... nice chatting with you :)
 

pellicle

New member
Re: Hope this helps

Hi

Y mucho, gracias.

The information you have shared in both posts have indeed been a great help and have certainly helped in my certainty that using cameras for scanning was more than just a whim.
just wondering ... did you read the pdf's I linked to? I don't think I implied it was a whim ... although after doing it myself I still believe that a scanner does a better job when things such as time and dust removal are considered.

This reviewer uses an interesting rig to get the best scan of a segment of film using a macro setup.
 

m3photo

New member
Re: Whim

just wondering ... did you read the pdf's I linked to? I don't think I implied it was a whim ...
Not all of them, no. When I see too many graphs I move on, but that's just me. I appreciate you're catering for a wider audience.
You didn't imply it was a whim, I was making sure it wasn't a whim on my part.
 

photoSmart42

New member
I hate to resurrect this thread, but I'm going to take a stab at using my GH1 for scanning some negatives, and compare them with the professional scans of the same negatives to see a difference. I'll be using my excellent Fujinon-EP 50/3.5 enlarger lens that I've been playing with for my latest macro work, and I know it has a very flat DOF. I plan on using it at 1:1, then stitching the 2x2 frames shot in 3:2 aspect ratio to give me the full 35mm negative scan. I'll end up with an 8256 x 5504 DPI scan, and I'll compare that against the 4800 x 3200 DPI scan JPEG I got from my pro shop as a high-resolution scan of my Velvia 50 film I shot in Tahoe a few months back. For lighting I'll use either a consumer light box or a DIY light box with my Vivitar 285 flash. I'll be holding the negative using either a scanner negative tray for the Epson 4990 I was intending to buy, or a negative carrier off eBay.

I was hoping to get my hands on a cheap Epson 4990 off eBay, but they all seem to end up around $300, which is more than I'd want to spend on an experiment (and more than I can afford until I get a job). I'd still want to get a good scanner eventually, and will probably end up with a V700 to use for bulk scans and MF/LF. I'll still remove the glass like I was going to do with the 4990. Then I can compare what I get from my GH1 scanner against the Epson as well.

I'll keep you posted if anyone is interested (although I'll likely end up posting the results both here and in the film forum).
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I have not found the stitching approach to negative capture to be as useful as it is when I'm doing landscape or real estate photography. Making the join "perfect" is much more challenging, for me anyway, when I am looking at high magnification subject matter with very fine detail.

I've been using the L1 plus 35 Macro plus EC 14 to capture Minox 8x11 mm negatives at high resolution. This nets a 1.4:1 magnification and an effective 5.5 Mpixel image file to work with ... I can see the grain on the faster films (100-400 ASA) easily. Not much point to more resolution than that.

For 35mm, overall I find the Nikon LS4000 ED a superior digital capture solution, but there are times when speed and the condition of the negatives make using camera capture much more effective. Then I use the G1 with the Olympus ZD 50 Macro at very close to 1:2 magnification ... it nets about an 11.5Mpixel image (same as the Nikon scanner).

For both cameras, I have created both B&W and color negative camera calibration profiles which speed the rendering of captured negative images into positives.

It's fun stuff. :)
 

photoSmart42

New member
Thanks, Godfrey! I don't mind playing around with stitching to see if I can make it work. I can always have a little bit of overlap and have Photoshop take a stab at it. It's done pretty well with the other pano stitches I've done. I think the key will be having a stable platform and a reliable, uniform back light. Those are both elements for the macro stand I was planning on building, so might as well take care of two functions at once with the same gear.
 
Top