Scanning MF Film with MF Digital System

[Craig Stocks]

My very limited experience with art duplication leads me to suggest you decide on your goal. Creating a digital copy of a piece of film with the intent to then process it into a finished work is different from creating a digital archive that "exactly" duplicates the original - warts and all. Generally, it seems to me that institutions are primarily interested in accurate archival copies whereas a photographer would be interested in the digital version as a starting point.

I've found that resolution is by far the easiest part. Color and tone management is at least an order of magnitude more complex for archival CH type work.

 

[Speedgraphic]

Most (90%+) of institutions in the USA are using FADGI (2016) or ISO 19264 standards which call for very high resolution, and more importantly, very high scrutiny of the *actual* imaging quality not just the stated PPI, as validated by the capture of objective targets and analysis through specialized image quality analysis software.

These are very strict and objective standards. They aren't simply "looks good to me" methods of evaluation.

And nothing that can't be achieved with a 135 camera capable of pixel shift capture. Both the Sony and the Panasonic outresolve any non-multishot Phase back and they are all operating with roughly the same sensor technology. (I'm assuming Sony makes the S1R sensor but I may be wrong).

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I'm not at home right now so I can't show a picture of the set-up I use, so I'll do my best to describe it.

I use a Kaiser Slimlite Plano light tablet and sheet of optically clear glass to keep negatives and slides flat. This sits on the corner of a heavy desk, which I ensure is completely horizontal with a carpenter's level. Then my heavy Gitzo tripod is set up so it straddles the corner, one leg on either side and one leg back.

My Phase XF, IQ4-150 and 120 mm Phase macro lens are mounted on an Arca Swiss Cube which is adjusted to point vertically down. I have a short spirit level that I use to ensure the back is absolutely horizontal both fore and aft and side-to-side. The Cube makes fine adjustments easy.

I then shoot a test negative which has very fine detail, especially in the corners. I shoot at full aperture, tethered to my computer. I use the electronic shutter and vibration delay, releasing from Capture One to avoid any vibration. I check the corners of the image at 100% to make sure I have the back and the slide truly parallel.

Now I'm ready to "scan". I use f5.6 for the aperture as that's the sharpest for that lens. I use F8 for 35 mm mounted slides just to allow a bit of DOF to compensate for the fact they are not truly flat - unless I take them out of the mount. But most of my "scans" are 6 x 6 negatives or transparencies.

The results are extremely good by my standards - certainly much easier than the Nikon 9000 scanner I used to use. And the process is much faster because I'm shooting tethered and can see and adjust results immediately.

(My wife has just reminded me that not everyone is fortunate enough to own the gear I've described above, but I'm sure good results can be obtained following my general set up with other gear. Or you can consult Dante.)

 

[dougpeterson]

And nothing that can't be achieved with a 135 camera capable of pixel shift capture. Both the Sony and the Panasonic outresolve any non-multishot Phase back

I'm very glad for you that your setup gives you results you find acceptable, however your statement is simply not true.

Thankfully nobody has to take either of our words for it, given that there are objective targets, objective standards, and objective analysis software to use to test such claims .

 

[dougpeterson]

I'm not at home right now so I can't show a picture of the set-up I use, so I'll do my best to describe it.
[...]
The results are extremely good by my standards - certainly much easier than the Nikon 9000 scanner I used to use. And the process is much faster because I'm shooting tethered and can see and adjust results immediately.

A fine example of how a relatively straightforward DIY camera-based setup (albeit with a rather nice camera) can easily surpass legacy scanners.

 

[Speedgraphic]

I'm very glad for you that your setup gives you results you find acceptable, however your statement is simply not true.

Thankfully nobody has to take either of our words for it, given that there are objective targets, objective standards, and objective analysis software to use to test such claims .

And let me guess, if I believe you then you have a b̶r̶i̶d̶g̶e̶ collection of extremely expensive cameras, stands, and software packages to sell me. Linking to software that you sell to test cameras is not the same thing as linking to a study that has tested these cameras. If you would like to provide me with a free copy of your testing software and targets then I will do so, but you may not like the results.

 

[dougpeterson]

And let me guess, if I believe you then you have a b̶r̶i̶d̶g̶e̶ collection of extremely expensive cameras, stands, and software packages to sell me. Linking to software that you sell to test cameras is not the same thing as linking to a study that has tested these cameras. If you would like to provide me with a free copy of your testing software and targets then I will do so, but you may not like the results.

I really think you fundamentally misunderstand the situation.

I'm absolutely glad to loan you a target to scan, and provide you free access to the appropriate software (once business resumes) to analyze the results. That's something we do with many individuals/institutions considering our system. Or if you don't want to include us in the process you can contact Don Williams the manufacturer of the Golden Thread / ISA targets and software.

I can offer that because I know (having compared with dozens of clients against dozens of systems, including some of the most highly-technical and scrutinous individuals in the world of film archiving) that our solution provides the absolute best results for film scanning available at any price point. Our system is not right for everyone; other systems can produce good or even very-good results, often at much lower buy-in costs.

I mention the specific targets and software because they exemplify that our testing is not ad hoc, opinion-based, or even a subjective visual comparison. We test our system extensively (both while R+D'ing any changes, and more importantly on every station we install). This is fundamentally eyeballing the corner of the frame and saying "not had any issues with focus at the edges or unsharpness" (the underlying theory underpinning for this are explained in our Digitization 101 class; glad to send you a no-cost coupon, just PM me).

Your Panasonic S1R may be right for you; it may produce excellent results for you; it may make the most sense for you given a specific budget, size of collection, and other factors. It's a worthwhile and valuable recommendation for you to make to others when they are considering what direction to go, most especially if they will enjoy also using that camera in other situations (two birds; one stone).

But, no, the S1R does not match the quality of our system.

Disney, Pixar, Library of Congress, National Geographic... they don't give a flying hoot what brand camera they use for digitization. They only care about results. You think they just casually bought one of our systems on our word that it performed? You think they didn't compare us against a bunch of other camera options including multishot options? God I wish; that would make my life so much easier.

 

[Speedgraphic]

I really think you fundamentally misunderstand the situation.

I'm absolutely glad to loan you a target to scan, and provide you free access to the appropriate software (once business resumes) to analyze the results.

Our solution provides the absolute best results for film scanning available at any price point, and we charge a commensurate price for that. Our system may not be right for everyone; other systems can produce good or even very-good results, often at much lower buy-in costs.

But no... your Panasonic does not match our quality.

PM me and I will accept your targets and software. Sounds like fun.

Edit***

Of course I will also need the results of one of your cameras as a baseline. It would also be interesting if you had them for something like an IQSmart3 which is also suitable for historical repro since it does not require wet mounting like drum scanners do.

 

[Speedgraphic]

Disney, Pixar, Library of Congress, National Geographic... they don't give a flying hoot what brand camera they use for digitization. They only care about results. You think they just casually bought one of our systems on our word that it performed? You think they didn't compare us against a bunch of other camera options including multishot options? God I wish; that would make my life so much easier.

Well I don't know what multishot systems they would have used as comparison points since these cameras I mention are relatively new and you've been selling the repro set up for quite a bit longer. I would guess these companies wanted a purpose built product that delivered an extremely high level of quality and I am sure that's exactly what the DT product does. However, I see absolutely nothing that would prevent a multishot 135 camera from matching or exceeding the results from a bayer sensor that is either 44x33 or whatever the full frame 645 chips are now. Now if I'm wrong and these cameras are multshot or somehow they do not use bayer interpolation then that might change things.

Still I will be the first to admit that the solution I am describing does not make sense for a big institution. It's 'fiddly' in that you have to work at it to achieve the best results, assemble different pieces of software, hardware etc... For example at my shop 99% of the film I see is scanned on Fuji SP3ks, not because it delivers the best file, but because it delivers just enough quality at high speed. So I understand the appeal of purpose built equipment. But if a photographer comes to me and asks whether they should use a digital MFD back to scan film, the answer is no.

If you've done a bunch of testing though then you should share the results because it would be interesting to read through.

 

[jng]

This thread reminds me of a somewhat uncompromising fellow who used to frequent the inferno (and who I believe was eventually banned by the mods - his moniker now escapes me) and who used to tout the Hasselblad multi-shot back as the sine qua non solution for art reproduction. It looks like the latest incarnation is a 400 Mp beast based on the 100 Mp Sony 645 CMOS sensor (https://www.hasselblad.com/h6d-multishot/). While for me this discussion has veered into the academic realm (but is no less interesting), I wonder whether anyone here has experience with the 400 Mp multi-shot back...

John

 

[hogweed]

if you permit, i’d love to hijack the thread, maybe somebody could help me out

what light would i put under the phase one capture stage

a LED one : Kaiser Slimlite Plano or Just Norlicht smart light 500

or a tube one?

biggest glass plate size would be 13x18cm, maybe 18x24cm

99% of the originals are b/w

thanks

 

[dougpeterson]

if you permit, i’d love to hijack the thread, maybe somebody could help me out

what light would i put under the phase one capture stage

a LED one : Kaiser Slimlite Plano or Just Norlicht smart light 500

or a tube one?

biggest glass plate size would be 13x18cm, maybe 18x24cm

99% of the originals are b/w

thanks

I'd strongly the DT Photon for its ultra high CRI/CQS and smooth (read: minimal spikiness) spectral characteristics.

Beware vendors that only advertise/specify their CRI as this is an older metric based only only 7 spot colors; many LED manufacturers will design their lights to hit those 7 spot colors in order to score a high CRI, but such design-to-the-test does not guarantee good overall color quality. Good CQS is a stronger indicator (15 rather than 7 colors, and more importantly it is rare that manufacturers design to that more modern test.

This is also covered in our DT Digitization 101 class and our Lighting for Cultural Heritage webinar.

A high-quality CH profile for the DT Photon is already built into Capture One CH Edition, which is already broadly tested and validated which is strongly preferable to having to do in-situ profiling which is tedious, error prone (especially to false-positives since people often inappropriately evaluate a profile using the same target as was used to create the profile), and creates narrowly-applicable (read: fragile to small condition changes) profiles.

Even if you are primarily doing black and white work the color profile still matters. 1) there is still the 1% which presumably are still considered important items in the collection and 2) properly recording the absolute color of the film base can be informative to its type and provenance and 3) properly recording any discoloration informs conservation as to issues such as unwashed fixer, fungal growth intrusion, and various forms of physical breakdown.

On the DT Atom the DT Photon nestles inside the main cavity of the system, and the DT Film Scanning Stage replaces the hard top work deck, locking into position such that each time you set it up all three axis are the same as last time. Because it's the same light as used for reflective imaging 1) you don't need to buy a separate light 2) you can use transmissive+reflective lighting for things like slides and glass plates that have paper labels or sleeves with annotated information 3) the (built in) color profile is applicable to both reflective, transmissive, and reflective+transmissive imaging.

If you have further questions I'd suggest you send them to me by email, or start a new thread so we don't further derail the OP's original question.

 

[Speedgraphic]

if you permit, i’d love to hijack the thread, maybe somebody could help me out

what light would i put under the phase one capture stage

a LED one : Kaiser Slimlite Plano or Just Norlicht smart light 500

or a tube one?

biggest glass plate size would be 13x18cm, maybe 18x24cm

99% of the originals are b/w

thanks

The Negative Supply panel has a higher CRI than the Photon and you can see their 15 color test right on the site. :toocool:

https://www.negative.supply/light

 

[anyone]

Is it only me or is here a bit much advertising in this thread?

 

[hcubell]

As the resident 'spend less money' guy here, this is when I chime in to offer up some suggestions.

First the tools from these guys are superb: https://www.negative.supply/

They are rock solid, all metal, and as of recently made in the USA. I use the 35mm carrier regularly, and I beta tested the 120 carrier. They made me a custom platform for 8x10 and I use their stock 4x5 solutions. Not being satisfied with the Kaiser Slimlight Plano they have recently developed their own light source which achieves 99 CRI. It's very difficult to do better with an LED unless you go with a trichromatic source from Heiland and dial in the correct settings for every roll/frame/sheet. Not really practical.

Then I would simply advise that you do not use MFD backs. Mostly because they simply complicated everything without significant returns on IQ. You're going to have less DOF, lenses that natively focus only to 1:2 and may not even AF. Plus the real key is a multishot solution for true RGB capture and few of the backs today do that. Some people will say you can scan with bellows using Rodagon G lenses, which yes are wonderful. But they're less wonderful when they're not scanning at 1:1 as tests have shown, and you'll find that macro lenses for native systems will do just as well assuming they're made semi-recently.

The two best camera scan cameras right now are the Panasonic S1R (my preference) and the Sony A7R IV. Both of these allow you to use pixel shift to achieve extremely high resolution files without stitching, and they're true RGB captures instead of the bayer readouts you get from the Phase backs unless I am mistaken. The scans I get from my S1R using the Sigma 70mm 2.8 ART Macro easily exceed what you get from Imacon/Hasselblad scanners. I would bet they match drum scans until you get to those extremely high resolutions (like 4000dpi from an 8x10 sheet). Plus the S1R outputs files that are easily read in ACR so they work with the best negative inversion software available today, which is Negative Lab Pro.

https://www.negativelabpro.com/

I have tried scanning with a digital medium format camera, and I am not going back to that I can tell you. If they added multishot to the current 150mp back it might be better than the S1R but I'm not interested in bayer interpolated scans. The 50mp 44x33 sensors are just not worth it at all for scanning.



***Edit***

A couple of notes from experience.

At least with a 24x36 sensor and shooting at F5.6, you can successfully align your rig with a tool as simple as a bubble level. I have not had any issues with focus at the edges or unsharpness even with 170+mp scans of 5x7 sheets. So a good copy stand is basically fine, but it can be tricky to find a good one. Another point toward mirrorless 135 bodies is that fewer copy stands are rated for MFD level weight.

After extensive testing by a guy named Richard Karesh in the digitizing film group, the 70mm 2.8 ART macro performed at least as well as any other option included some exotic lenses from Rodenstock. But if you get a Sony the 90mm G macro is excellent. My problem with lenses in the 90+ range is that you are going to have more trouble with larger formats assuming you don't want to stitch.

Further proof of the pudding is that Sandy King (the formulator of Pyrocat HD) is currently digitizing his 5x7 negatives with a Sony A7R IV in pixel shift mode. His standards are quite high.

The standards of institutions are actually not that intersting if you consider they're targeting HABS/HAER, which is somewhat low res vs what the average large format printer might try to do.

Thanks to everyone for these helpful and interesting comments. Doug is correct about my use case. I no longer shoot film. I have 200-300 "legacy" 6x7 transparencies that I want to scan in a reasonably fast time frame, and then I am done. I would likely sell off any dedicated scanning equipment at that time. I have been looking at the carriers and light sources made by Negative Supply. A system that uses these components plus a sturdy copy stand, a Sony A7RIV (which I have) and a good macro lens would work well in terms of cost and efficiency. The question still is whether the quality of the scans would match or exceed the scan quality from an X5. I suppose a used X5 would in theory be an option where I could buy one for say $15k and then sell it when done for close to the purchase price, but as Doug points out, it is likely that many of the ones available on the used market have serious mileage on them and are out of alignment.
On the issue of alignment, one possibility is to use a bubble level (on the LCD of the A7RIV?) to adjust the position of the camera. However, the arm that holds the camera on a typical copy stand does not offer the ability to make microfine adjustments to the position of the camera. I gather you just loosen a screw. The suggestion of using an Arca leveling base is interesting. How do you then test whether there is perfect alignment? Trial and error or one of these? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._e2sKymYMc9snNjG7utGD77Rr4nWtAgxoCEMMQAvD_BwE

 

[Craig Stocks]

Though it's deviated a bit from the original question I'm interested in the results of the comparison. But I'd also like to know the criteria for success before the test. Resolution is just one small piece of digitizing. Most processes are designed to deliver pleasing colors rather than accurate colors so depending on your objective you might prefer a process that delivers attractive results rather than accurate reproduction.

Of course either goal is valid, you just need to know which one you're working toward because the processes can be quite different.

 

[hcubell]

Though it's deviated a bit from the original question I'm interested in the results of the comparison. But I'd also like to know the criteria for success before the test. Resolution is just one small piece of digitizing. Most processes are designed to deliver pleasing colors rather than accurate colors so depending on your objective you might prefer a process that delivers attractive results rather than accurate reproduction.

Of course either goal is valid, you just need to know which one you're working toward because the processes can be quite different.

My intent would be to produce scans that are as close as possible to the color and tonal rendition of the original transparency. That's may be another issue where the specialized software developed by DT may offer an advantage compared to the stock version of Capture One, which adds its own "flavor" to a file. Does DT offer the scanning software on a standalone basis?

 

[dougpeterson]

The Negative Supply panel has a higher CRI than the Photon and you can see their 15 color test right on the site. :toocool:

https://www.negative.supply/light

CRI-15 and CQS are not the same thing.

Moreover, the lowest score their light gets is exactly where color negative film bases fall, and where accurate hue discrimination is most important for scanning that film.

This sort of thing is where you really need to have deep knowledge to cut through the marketing.

I can say with some confidence that our panel has the highest CRI/CQS and most even spectrum of any available because we routinely survey all available panels looking for any that we may want to switch to (the is much more to a light than the panel, but of course this is a very very important part; we'd gladly switch to another panel in our system if there was one that was better).

None of this is to say that their light isn't very good or that it doesn't represent a great value for many potential users. Only that, again, ours is the very best.

 

[dougpeterson]

Does DT offer the scanning software on a standalone basis?

Our service branch does: Pixel Acuity (we purchased them last year after years of a close relationship in which they were buying a lot of our equipment anyway). Normally 200-300 items would be below the size of job they would take, but given the "interesting" times we are in they may be more flexible with job minimums. Production is in a state that still allows businesses to be open below a certain size, so they are still at work doing scanning.

 

[dougpeterson]

The suggestion of using an Arca leveling base is interesting. How do you then test whether there is perfect alignment? Trial and error or one of these? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._e2sKymYMc9snNjG7utGD77Rr4nWtAgxoCEMMQAvD_BwE

An L60 or L75 plus a Laser Alignment tool is your best bet given your budget/direction. In our experience bubble levels, even the high precision ones, are not really well-suited to this specific task.

Our system now uses a front-adjusted allen system for micro adjustments along the relevant axis. I prefer it to an L60 or L75, but the differences only meaningfully manifest when scanning at higher PPI.