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!

Scanning MF Film with MF Digital System

hcubell

Well-known member
Now that I have more time on my hands than I ever expected, I have decided to review some 20 years of shooting 6x7 film and digitizing a fair amount of my prior work. I still have my old Imacon Photo Scanner, but it is SLOW, it only has a SCSI connection that is buggy to adapt to the FireWire connection on an old MacBook that I have retained to use with it, and the Flexcolor software is very dated. So, I have read about the work that Digital Transitions has done configuring a system for digitizing transparencies that uses a Phase digital back, a copy stand, a Rodenstock tech lens and a dedicated light source. Digital Transitions claims that the scans produced with the system surpass those made with even the more recent Hasselblad X1 and X5 scanners and are the equal of the best drum scans. Perhaps all true, but the system is not even remotely cost effective for someone like me. However, it started me thinking about the possibility of configuring my own system that, while not the equal of the DT system, would at least equal the quality of the scans from an X1 or X5. I have an X1D and an H2 with a Phase IQ180 back. One is CMOS the other CCD. I would need a Macro lens for the camera, a device to hold the 6x7 transparency flat and perfectly perpendicular, a copy stand, and a light source. There is a small, new company called Negative Supply that is producing what look like well designed and engineered components like these. The German company Kaiser also produces copy stands and light sources. Perhaps there are others.

Has anyone tried to put together a system like this? Is it unrealistic to think that the system would produce scans at least equal to those from a Hasselblad X1/X5?
Thanks for any input.
 

jng

Well-known member
There are some interesting solutions in these two threads:

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium...backs/67506-medium-format-slides-digital.html (Darr showed a nice set up in post #39)

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium...ks/67293-fun-medium-format-film-images-7.html (it's a pretty long thread by now - scroll down to post #331 and start reading from there)

I would imagine that the X1D might be a bit less cumbersome (and easier to support) than the H2/IQ180. For example you could pick up a V-system (or other) 120mm macro for not too much $$ and use it on the X1D via an adapter plus extension tube to get down to 1:2, and shoot via the electonic shutter. I don't think there's too much to be gained by the extra megapixels of the IQ180 unless you're doing critical reproduction work.

Hope this helps.

John
 

hcubell

Well-known member
There are some interesting solutions in these two threads:

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium...backs/67506-medium-format-slides-digital.html (Darr showed a nice set up in post #39)

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium...ks/67293-fun-medium-format-film-images-7.html (it's a pretty long thread by now - scroll down to post #331 and start reading from there)

I would imagine that the X1D might be a bit less cumbersome (and easier to support) than the H2/IQ180. For example you could pick up a V-system (or other) 120mm macro for not too much $$ and use it on the X1D via an adapter plus extension tube to get down to 1:2, and shoot via the electonic shutter. I don't think there's too much to be gained by the extra megapixels of the IQ180 unless you're doing critical reproduction work.

Hope this helps.

John
Thanks. The perplexing question is how to accurately align the camera sensor to the negative carrier sitting on the baseboard so that the two are perfectly parallel. There are copy stands that allow microfine adjustments of the vertical height of the arm holding the camera, but how do you do microfine adjustments of the camera position on the arm itself?
 

MartinN

Well-known member
Personally I always prefer scanning and would probably never consider cameracopying.
Imacon's are great scanners and maybe someone could help you with the best configuration.
I can indeed see the benefit of scanning 'instantly' by pressing the camera button, but is the
quality of focus good enough ? My scanner is the Plustek Opticfilm 120, and I am very happy with it.
Unfortunately it is not available for the moment, but Plustek probably will market the Opticfilm 120 Pro,
which has manual focusing capability, which my scanner lacks. I have a good fixed focus on my scanner,
and the only problem is with film base curvature that is a pain for every scanner. I simply don't have space
for copying setup, but the MF scanner box can be conveniently kept on the desk.
 

RLB

Member
What are you expectations on quality? Quantity of film to scanned in all formats?

The X5 Imacon would be ideal, but even with FW400 its still not that fast, but the connection is rock solid.

One could make a copy stand and use a MF back to digitize the film, but it will be a compromise even with the best macro lens and stand. The smaller the format the more difficult. I'd look for a good used X5 (no longer made as of last year). You may be able to source one for under $15k. The other option is finding a company to do the scanning for you on an Imacon. We use an X5 here and offer top quality film scanning, but if you have huge amounts of film buyng a used X5 may be less expensive as you will be providing all of the labor.

Robert
Bullivant Gallery and Consulting, LLC
(314) 865-0077
 

rdeloe

Well-known member
Thanks. The perplexing question is how to accurately align the camera sensor to the negative carrier sitting on the baseboard so that the two are perfectly parallel. There are copy stands that allow microfine adjustments of the vertical height of the arm holding the camera, but how do you do microfine adjustments of the camera position on the arm itself?
That's actually not as hard as you might think. I did it using the same approach I used to use to make sure my enlarger and baseboard were parallel. I made sure the surface holding the negative was level, put a mirror where the film that I want to scan goes, and then adjusted the camera on the tripod until the lens was perfectly aligned with the hole in my scanning template.

You probably have all the equipment you need already to just give it a whirl and see how it goes. Here's a setup I built for scanning 4x5 film using equipment and materials I already had. https://www.largeformatphotography....era-scanning-on-the-cheap-an-example-approach

I "scanned" using a small format sensor and stitching. If you're using a medium format camera, you could make it even simpler. Even if you shoot just one frame per negative, I would recommend you use a template of some kind around the negative to block stray light. Wet scanning (fluid mounting) will save you some time in post cleaning up scratches and dust, and will give better results. It's surprisingly easy to do once you get the hang of it.

There are also tools you can buy to make it easier to scan a lot of pictures on roll film. I've never used one of these, but I've read favourable reports: https://microsites.lomography.com/digitaliza/
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
One could make a copy stand and use a MF back to digitize the film, but it will be a compromise even with the best macro lens and stand. The smaller the format the more difficult... The other option is finding a company to do the scanning for you on an Imacon. We use an X5 here and offer top quality film scanning...
This has not been true for many years.

The absolute highest image quality current available is by use of a medium format digital back, specialized optics, and a precisely aligned and highly stable stand. Our version of that is the DT Film Scanning Kit; note that the system has evolved very quickly over the years and all our videos are based on the first generation, so while the overall idea is the same, a lot of the specifics have been iterated and improved. This system outperforms not only legacy systems like the X5, but top-end drum scanners across all film formats. It's what the Getty, Library of Congress, Smithsonian, the Center for Creative Photography (holder of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston's images), National Geographic Society, Irving Penn Foundation, Academy of Motion Pictures (i.e. the Oscars), Pixar, Disney and many dozen other top institutions and companies now use to digitize (the modern word for scanning, since almost none of it is done with a scanner anymore) their film.

Service bureaus that use this equipment do exist, including a branch of our company (Pixel Acuity) but are generally focused on larger collections (either the entire collection of an individual or an institution, not one-offs in an over-the-counter sense).

A DIY system using a modern camera (small or medium format format) and a half-decent stand can quite easily exceed a flatbed scan (a relatively low bar, but still of relevance to many people), and a DIY system using a modern medium format camera and great lens can usually rival an X5. To consistently exceed both an X5 and a Drum Scan I would suggest our system, as the difficulty of the task (and commensurate lens quality, physical alignment, physical stability, and workflow particulars all become harder the higher the quality ceiling you are attempting to hit is; we've scrutinized every factor that can deteriorate quality and systematically addressed them in the design and workflow of our system.

For those transitioning from a scanner mentality to a modern digitization mentality would be well-advised to take this class which, in ~4 hours, covers a wide array of the associated topics. The focus of the curriculum is definitely aimed at museums, libraries, and archives, but as one of our clients once remarked "why would I treat my life's work as any less value than a museum treats their collection?"

I can also recommend our Digitization Guides, the transmissive version of which is quite helpful in fleshing out both the theory and practice of modern film digitization. Note the use of the term "transmissive" here is because the technique is applicable to "film" (which denotes specifically photographic material on a flexible base) as well as other photographic materials such as glass-plate negatives, lantern slides, etc

Finally, I'll note that our system can be purchased as modular components, so if you are interested in, for example, using your own camera, we can sell you all the components of the system other than the camera.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
The German company Kaiser also produces copy stands and light sources. Perhaps there are others.
We originally used Kaiser columns and stands, years ago. Based on our experience we decided to start making our own.

If you do buy a Kaiser I'd strongly encourage you to do so only after you've physically inspected one in person in order to see if they fit your expectations. Preferably you'd have the chance to use one for several hours as the mark of a high-quality copy stand is how well/accurately it holds its calibration after you have aligned it (vs drifting, slacking, or settling into a position other than what you set it to).

Honestly, if you're looking for a way to hold the camera and can't justify the cost of a high-quality digitization stand like the DT Atom with DT AutoColumn then I'd suggest jerry rigging a cross bar system across two or three heavy-duty C-Stands with sandbags and using grip knuckles to support the camera from both the tripod mount and the opposite side of the camera. Changing heights will suck (read: be finicky and take a while), and it's nowhere near as elegant as a proper solution, but at least that way you won't have to deal with sag and slack that cause both uneven and inconsistent sharpness that can come with lower-cost copy stands.

If you happen to have a heavy-duty old-fashion camera stand, that can also be an option, as these were generally build like tanks and the ones intended to support large-format cameras at their furthest-extension will be very solid with a smaller camera at mid-extension.
 

anyone

Well-known member
This system outperforms not only legacy systems like the X5, but top-end drum scanners across all film formats.
Sorry for shortening this so much, but I have issues believing that, having used all kinds of scanners, including Imacons and a drum scanner. It might offer top quality, but I doubt it will be better than what you get from a good drum scan, where you don't have any issues with film flatness, even lighting etc. But then again, this might be an academic discussion. In the end, I think at the highest end of scanning solutions, the film grain is the limit.

And, a drum scanner can be bought nowadays for USD 500 ;-) Fun with legacy software etc. is another issue. Same with speed of use.
Back to the start of the thread: why don't you use your Imacon and make raw scans, that are in turn edited on a newer machine? That's how I do it when I want (fairly) quick scans. Since mounting takes basically no time with the Imacons, I'm not sure how much speed you would gain with other solutions. But then again, I fairly seldom scan large batches. If I do, I use a Nikon Coolscan 8000, and the best images are then re-scanned with the drum scanner.
 

jng

Well-known member
There are copy stands that allow microfine adjustments of the vertical height of the arm holding the camera, but how do you do microfine adjustments of the camera position on the arm itself?
I would suggest using a bubble level and a geared head like the Arca-Swiss L60. It's all a bit MacGyver-ish but can get the job done.

Good points raised by others regarding use cases. Are you looking for speed (i.e., scale or throughput), economy or quality? As the old contractor's joke goes, pick three. :ROTFL:

Seriously, though, the few times I've copied old 6x6 negatives with my MFDB + 120mm macro lens, the quality was fine insofar as I could discern the grain structure of the negative and whatever limitations appeared to be in the original exposure itself. But my setup - which involved setting up my camera on a tripod hovering precariously over the negative, which was sandwiched between a salvaged Omega glass carrier plate and lightbox - was kludgy to say the least.

The Cultural Heritage solutions that Doug highlights look to be state-of-the-art. However without even ball-park information on cost (not published on the DTI website) it's hard to evaluate whether it fits with the OP's or others' needs/use cases/budgets.

John
 

MartinN

Well-known member
And for even more convenience, the scanners often provide infrared dust&scratch correction, which in my opinion is very convenient. The worst thing with film is the dust marks and who wants to sit at the computer desk just getting one image dustfree ? But I have the new idea, that film imagery should have character, dust included. Who else is up to that ;)
 

RLB

Member
As Doug Peterson states, DT's CH division offers some nice solutions for mass scanning of film archives. That said, for you to take advantage of this workflow, the investment cost of purchasing the film holders, lights, etc. AND a quality medium format camera AND lenses (the major expense) AND getting everything dialed in is in my assessment far greater than simply buying a used Imacon X5. The X5 is relatively easy to use, and while its slower it makes fabulous scans and it processes the files while its scanning...a step that that would need to be accomplished in post with the DT copy stand. So if you are a museum with 500,000 pieces of film to scan (or more), a big budget, and a full time staff to manage the project, Doug's proposal makes sense from a speed and efficiency standpoint. As a individual photographer, a traditional virtual drum scanner film scanner still likely is the best way forward. AND once you complete your own archives, sell the X5 for most of what you paid for it so another photographer can do the same thing (Rinse and Repeat). Best of luck with your archive.

Robert Bullivant
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Sorry for shortening this so much, but I have issues believing that, having used all kinds of scanners, including Imacons and a drum scanner. It might offer top quality, but I doubt it will be better than what you get from a good drum scan, where you don't have any issues with film flatness, even lighting etc. But then again, this might be an academic discussion. In the end, I think at the highest end of scanning solutions, the film grain is the limit.
It's a totally understandable reaction. But I stand very firmly behind my statement.

Should you ever wish, you're welcome to send out a piece of film to have drum scanned at your choice of vendors, and then bring the film along with that drum scan to us we can show you. (that is, once businesses are allowed to reopen).

As regards resolution, for small-format film the issue is academic as either a well-calibrated and well-run drum scanner or our system both end up being limited by the film grain. In large format scanning the difference in resolution is often not academic. As regards workflow, material safety, tonality in problematic film, calibration and system maintenance, and flexibility to do other tasks our system significantly exceeds a drum scanner
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
I do not doubt that the DT cultural heritage solution will give you "best quality"---that's just an example of where technology evolves and improves. That---and throw a lot of money, er invest, in a system and all the bits and pieces and you have something that Dante definitely approves of.

But the attraction of the Hasselblad X5 to me is the ease of use. Put the film/slides in the carrier and it goes. Hasselblad hasn't said much, though I have asked, they were tight lipped about if there was anything else in the works for scanning film to replace their X5. There are few options at this level other than moving up to the Phase One system. My X5 does well enough for me and my clients. I don't think I could justify getting the Phase One solution.

Ken
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
As Doug Peterson states, DT's CH division offers some nice solutions for mass scanning of film archives. That said, for you to take advantage of this workflow, the investment cost of purchasing the film holders, lights, etc. AND a quality medium format camera AND lenses (the major expense) AND getting everything dialed in is in my assessment far greater than simply buying a used Imacon X5. The X5 is relatively easy to use, and while its slower it makes fabulous scans and it processes the files while its scanning...a step that that would need to be accomplished in post with the DT copy stand. So if you are a museum with 500,000 pieces of film to scan (or more), a big budget, and a full time staff to manage the project, Doug's proposal makes sense from a speed and efficiency standpoint. As a individual photographer, a traditional virtual drum scanner film scanner still likely is the best way forward. AND once you complete your own archives, sell the X5 for most of what you paid for it so another photographer can do the same thing (Rinse and Repeat). Best of luck with your archive.

Robert Bullivant
A perfectly reasonable analysis. We'd normally say the breaking point for considering our system is around 10,000 pieces of film. At, for example, 200 pieces of film, it really makes zero sense. This also depends largely on whether you are buying a new camera from us, or already have a camera, as the camera is a huge part of the cost.

Other reactions:
- If you buy a used X5, preferably before you commit you would do a test scan first thing to check for alignment of the film. The best way to do this is to scan an ISA target and analyze in the Golden Thread software, but for lower cost workaround you can scan one of your own images that has fine grain, equal detail everywhere, and can be rotated 180º for a second scan that you can then rotate and overlay in Photoshop. A lot of X systems arrived, or eventually became, out of alignment such that a corner or edge of the scan was less sharp than the rest.
- Typical post-processing time to produce a TIFF is 10-30 seconds and can be easily done en masse. Moreover a native-to-raw rather than direct-to-TIFF workflow is advantageous in just about every way. So I'm not sure that's a point in favor of the X5.
- The DT system has a lot more integration than a camera-on-stick model. For example, to set a new frame size or PPI you simply type in the desired frame size or ppi; the camera moves and refocuses automatically and with higher precision than you could accomplish manually, so actually the ease of use is about the same.

The overall point you are making though, I do not dispute. Every person/company/institution has to evaluate how much work they will be doing with a digitization system, how much time each candidate system would take, how much they value incremental differences in quality, and from those questions derive which system provides the best balanced ROI. For someone doing a few hundred scans of personal work our system is almost surely not the best balanced ROI, though again, that can depend on if they already own a camera to put on it. I'd still suggest an adhoc/MacGyver solution with his existing camera over an X5, because it is just so much faster to scan a few hundred items with a camera-based system. But both of those options have advantages/disadvantages.

The one use-case for which I think the X5 is the best option is when you have a limited budget and a need for ongoing sporadic scanning. In that case, an elegant camera-based approach is out of budget and an ad-hoc MacGyver one will be a PITA to set up over and over again. But in the OP's case he is more likely to set up once, scan a bunch of stuff (preferably collated by size prior to scanning), and then tear down, in which case the inherent speed of a camera-based approach cannot possible be overstated –*it's not 10% faster, or even 2x faster... in many cases it's dozens of times faster.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
But the attraction of the Hasselblad X5 to me is the ease of use. Put the film/slides in the carrier and it goes. Hasselblad hasn't said much, though I have asked, they were tight lipped about if there was anything else in the works for scanning film to replace their X5.
I guess it's impossible to prove a negative, especially one set in the unlimited future, but...

It's dead jim.

Hassy/DJI/Imacon is out of the film scanning biz.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
And for even more convenience, the scanners often provide infrared dust&scratch correction, which in my opinion is very convenient. The worst thing with film is the dust marks and who wants to sit at the computer desk just getting one image dustfree ? But I have the new idea, that film imagery should have character, dust included. Who else is up to that ;)
Dust and scratches are far less problematic in camera-based scanning since the light source is diffused (think: pores on a model lit by a spot light vs a large softbox), and dust/scratch removal software didn't remove the dust/scratches, it cloned over them. Except for fast-and-dirty work it's really not much of an advantage.
 
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.
 
Last edited:

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
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.
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.
 

hogweed

Member
sitting at home for the 5th week already, would wish that my digitizing system would be up and running, currently only have an IQ 160 , i only want to begin with the next upgrade which is still some time away ( will it be mirrorless or not? i don‘t know yet)
the phase one captur stage is probable a must have, i will check it next year.

We have a bunch of Kaiser repro stands at the museum. they are pretty standard in Europe...they are fine for good quality work with a dslr up to A3., but only their top model, the motorized one with the big table is the way to go with a MF camera IMHO.

out of all the standard repro tables, the very old ones seem the best, i have a 50 year old Linhof, not motorised of course, but it‘s so sturdy, it would even take a large format camera. check ebay, or if locally a collegue retires.

tom
 
Top