Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Scanning films with a digital camera, revisited
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Darkroom
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:22 pm    Post subject: Scanning films with a digital camera, revisited Reply with quote
The weakest link, quality wise, in my workflow has ever been the scanner, especially for medium and large format films.

Given that I don want to spend 3500 dollars on a used and now probably unsupported Coolscan to be able to scan only medium format I was left with the alternative between a flatbed - I chose an Epson v700 after careful testing - and external made drum scans.

The flatbed quality - even after calibrating the film holder, using a glass on top of the film to ensure its flatness and "doping" the results with a 4 pass sharpening routine - is nothing to write home about. It's usable, but nothing more, and certainly does not does justice to the sharpness your lenses are capable of. More, is slooooooooow, because to extract the best quality you will often have to scan at insanely high - fake - resolutions then downscaling the resulting files after careful sharpening.

The drum scans are perfect, but depending on the resolution you want they range from 50 to 200 euros for EACH single frame you scan. A bit pricey, if you ask me Evil or Very Mad

There was another alternative, that is using a digital camera to re-photograph the films, but the results were always mediocre due the lack of precise alignment and the small - relatively speaking - pixel count.

Then it hit me: why don't take multiple shots of the same film frame and then stitching the resulting files, keeping the camera+lens complex in direct contact with the film itself so avoiding alignment issues? Really, doesn't get simpler than this…



To have a better idea of the results you can get look at the pictures below; it's the same frame scanned with an Epson v700 and with this "multishot" technique:




You may learn more and see more results, even how it behaves compared to a drum scan, at the following links:

http://www.addicted2light.com/2012/11/23/best-film-scanner-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-drum-scanner-vs-epson-v700/
http://www.addicted2light.com/2012/11/29/how-to-scan-films-using-a-digital-camera/


PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for this interesting post!


PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks but for me I'd have to buy an expensive digital camera Wink Maybe one day someone will compare digital cameras for the best bang for buck camera......for scanning negs. Cool


PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent, well worth trying.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Thanks but for me I'd have to buy an expensive digital camera Wink Maybe one day someone will compare digital cameras for the best bang for buck camera......for scanning negs. Cool


I started this post precisely to give people an excuse to buy new toys Wink

Actually though they are not needed (shhhhh, do not tell anyone Very Happy) the beauty of this method is that you can extract all the information on the film even with a low end camera; it will only take more shots and a better reproduction ratio (i.e. you'll have to get close)!

In fact even if I'm using a full frame it would probably be as good an inexpensive mirrorless like the Sony Nex 3, for example, given how light they are.

If we want to get real, here is a basic shopping list:
    > digital camera: Nex 3 or the like = 300€ (I bought a Nex 3 for under 300 euros with the 16mm included, new, from a megastore near my home)
    > lens: an old Micro Nikkor, Macro Takumar, an enlarger lens + bellows = 40-50€
    > (if needed) adapter for the aforementioned lens = 10-15€
    > a metal lens hood = 2-10€
    > slide viewer (or old scanner transparency adapter) = 10-50€
    >TOTAL = 362-425€


As you can see you are still in the price range of an Epson, but with a night and day change in quality! And that assuming that you don't have absolutely any of the things you need (for example, everyone shooting film will probably have at least the viewer).


PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fotoreporter1975 wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
Thanks but for me I'd have to buy an expensive digital camera Wink Maybe one day someone will compare digital cameras for the best bang for buck camera......for scanning negs. Cool


I started this post precisely to give people an excuse to buy new toys Wink

Actually though they are not needed (shhhhh, do not tell anyone Very Happy) the beauty of this method is that you can extract all the information on the film even with a low end camera; it will only take more shots and a better reproduction ratio (i.e. you'll have to get close)!

In fact even if I'm using a full frame it would probably be as good an inexpensive mirrorless like the Sony Nex 3, for example, given how light they are.

If we want to get real, here is a basic shopping list:
    > digital camera: Nex 3 or the like = 300€ (I bought a Nex 3 for under 300 euros with the 16mm included, new, from a megastore near my home)
    > lens: an old Micro Nikkor, Macro Takumar, an enlarger lens + bellows = 40-50€
    > (if needed) adapter for the aforementioned lens = 10-15€
    > a metal lens hood = 2-10€
    > slide viewer (or old scanner transparency adapter) = 10-50€
    >TOTAL = 362-425€


As you can see you are still in the price range of an Epson, but with a night and day change in quality! And that assuming that you don't have absolutely any of the things you need (for example, everyone shooting film will probably have at least the viewer).


Ok guys.....anyone owning a Nex and an Epson flat bed scanner want to volunteer to check this out Question


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have both Epson and NEX, I found copy pictures with camera painful, I rather use Epson to medium format scans and I had nice bargain deal on Plustek Opticfilm 8200i what I use for 35mm.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I have both Epson and NEX, I found copy pictures with camera painful, I rather use Epson to medium format scans and I had nice bargain deal on Plustek Opticfilm 8200i what I use for 35mm.


I too found using the camera for copying film painful before; aligning camera and film alone was cause for a major headache! Plus the (low) resolution wasn't worth the effort.

But with this setup (you can find the complete, long, explanation at the link posted above) I have only to tape the film on a slide viewer, put the camera on top of the film frame, focus with live view, then shoot. It takes 10-20 seconds to set the film in place and make all the shots for a medium format film frame (depending how large it is, 4.5x6, 6x6, 6x7 etc.), and another 30-60 seconds to stitch them in the panoramic software. In the meantime the Epson is still warming up the lamp Cool

Using a 1:2 or 1:1 reproduction ratio you can achieve a resolution in the ballpark of 3.200 ppi. Going up to 3:1 you can obtain 4.000 ppi or more, extracting every single last bit of detail from the film. Actually when I shot at 3:1 I downsample the resulting file by the 50%, because most of it will be only grain.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm also a big fan of this method. Fast and good!
Dedicated macro lenses and decent enlarger lenses are not a guarentee for good results. Most normal lenses on bellows are useless imho. The first lens I found that worked OK for me (after testing 10+ lenses, including 2 more dedicated macro lenses and two enlarger lenses) was the Minolta MD 100/4 Macro Rokkor. Finally I bought an Apo-Rodagon-R 75/4 (same lens as Apo Rodagon-D 75/4 as far as I know) which produced very high resolution.

Sony Alpha 550 DSLR + Minolta MD 100 F4 Macro Rokkor
B/W Film
http://forum.mflenses.com/agfa-apx100-and-caffenol-c-and-zenitar-m2s-50-2-t48874.html
Slide Film
http://forum.mflenses.com/some-old-slides-made-with-konica-50-1-7-and-konica-28-3-5-t48875.html

Apo Rodagon-R 75/4 and NEX 5N
B/W Film
http://forum.mflenses.com/one-roll-lucky-shd-100-meets-my-new-digitalisation-method-t49684.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-cle-leitz-summicron-c-40-2-apx100-t50046.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/leica-m5-and-nokton-50-1-1-and-lucky-shd-and-nd-filter-t51936.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/jupiter-3-1959-trix-400-iso-3200-t52302.html
Slide Film:
http://forum.mflenses.com/elite-chrome-100-digitalized-with-nex-t52776.html

Last edited by ForenSeil on Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:28 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Has anyone tried a normal lens with extension tubes? Would that work for this purpose? I'll try but I don't have a light table yet. If a normal lens won't do, I'll be in the market for a good macro lens soon. Very Happy The difference in quality between a flatbed scanner and this method is astonishing! Surprised


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
miran wrote:
Has anyone tried a normal lens with extension tubes? Would that work for this purpose? I'll try but I don't have a light table yet. If a normal lens won't do, I'll be in the market for a good macro lens soon. Very Happy The difference in quality between a flatbed scanner and this method is astonishing! Surprised

I tried CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Helios 44-2 58/2, Industar 50/3.5, some Tokinas, Pentacons, an Rodagon 50/2.8 and a few I forgot. They produced all crap ^^ Low contrast, flaring, weird reflections, curved field of sharpness, CAs, low resolution, focus shift while stopping down, smudgy grain...

But there might be some "normal" lenses which might produce useful results. If you have some, try them! Smile

In my experience a decent dedicated macro lens like an good old Micro Nikkor, Macro Rokkor,... etc. makes a very huge difference.

Bye the way currently I'm trying an Rodagon 105mm on NEX 5N which seems to work at least much better than all the other un-dedicated lenses I've tried so far. I'm currently waiting for some fine grained film to see how good it is compared to the Apo-Rodagon-R 75/4 (which was designed for 1:1 duplication)

Last edited by ForenSeil on Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:57 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
miran wrote:
Has anyone tried a normal lens with extension tubes? Would that work for this purpose? I'll try but I don't have a light table yet. If a normal lens won't do, I'll be in the market for a good macro lens soon. Very Happy The difference in quality between a flatbed scanner and this method is astonishing! Surprised

I tried CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Helios 44-2 58/2, Industar 50/3.5, some Tokinas, Pentacons, an Rodagon 50/2.8 and a few I forgot. They produced all crap ^^ Low contrast, flaring, weird reflections, curved field of sharpness, CAs, low resolution, focus shift while stopping down...

There might be some "normal" lenses which might produce useful results. If you have some, try them! Smile

But in my experience a decent dedicated macro lens like an good old Micro Nikkor, Macro Rokkor,... etc. makes a very huge difference.

Bye the way currently I'm trying an Rodagon 105mm on NEX 5N which seems to work at least much better than all the other un-dedicated lenses I've tried so far. I'm currently waiting for some fine grained film to see how good it is compared to the Apo-Rodagon-R 75/4 (which was designed for 1:1 duplication)

+1

Normal lenses are usually pretty good in the dead center, but simply awful from mid frame on. That, though, can sometimes be useful for "artistic" purposes: it gives you a sort of zoom/tunnel/lightspeed effect that suits some images.

For normal (read: sharp Cool ) use you can try a wide angle used inverted; I had great results with an old 35/2 pre-Ai Nikkor O. It gives me a 3:1 ratio though, so I use it only for the best images, when I want to extract every single bit of detail.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
have you tried scanning Fuji Velvia50 or simmilar high-density slide? from my experience even Epson V700 cannot bring usable results with this film, and I am not able to fund something like Nikon Coolscan8000/9000.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
miran wrote:
Has anyone tried a normal lens with extension tubes? Would that work for this purpose? I'll try but I don't have a light table yet. If a normal lens won't do, I'll be in the market for a good macro lens soon. Very Happy The difference in quality between a flatbed scanner and this method is astonishing! Surprised

I tried CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Helios 44-2 58/2, Industar 50/3.5, some Tokinas, Pentacons, an Rodagon 50/2.8 and a few I forgot. They produced all crap ^^ Low contrast, flaring, weird reflections, curved field of sharpness, CAs, low resolution, focus shift while stopping down, smudgy grain...

But there might be some "normal" lenses which might produce useful results. If you have some, try them! Smile

In my experience a decent dedicated macro lens like an good old Micro Nikkor, Macro Rokkor,... etc. makes a very huge difference.

Bye the way currently I'm trying an Rodagon 105mm on NEX 5N which seems to work at least much better than all the other un-dedicated lenses I've tried so far. I'm currently waiting for some fine grained film to see how good it is compared to the Apo-Rodagon-R 75/4 (which was designed for 1:1 duplication)

I just tried Minolta MD Rokkor 50mm/1.4 with 65mm of extension rings and it's useless. Very sharp in the center but aweful just a little bit out. Soft and lots of CA. Sad


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
berraneck wrote:
have you tried scanning Fuji Velvia50 or simmilar high-density slide? from my experience even Epson V700 cannot bring usable results with this film, and I am not able to fund something like Nikon Coolscan8000/9000.


I'm more a b/w kind of guy, but I shot quite a few Velvia 50 rolls too - mostly dawns in the mountains, so with an extreme contrast. This method has been the first able to give me the exact same color shade of the slides, without blocking the shadows or burning the highlights.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thanks for info!


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I tried a different combination: CZJ Flektogon 50mm/4 (P6 mount) with 60mm of extension and the results are much better. The setup with the P6 lens on extension tubes and adapters mounted on a NEX-5 looks ridiculous though. Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
miran wrote:

Quote:
I tried CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Helios 44-2 58/2, Industar 50/3.5, some Tokinas, Pentacons, an Rodagon 50/2.8 and a few I forgot. They produced all crap ^^ Low contrast, flaring, weird reflections, curved field of sharpness, CAs, low resolution, focus shift while stopping down, smudgy grain...

...
I just tried Minolta MD Rokkor 50mm/1.4 with 65mm of extension rings and it's useless. Very sharp in the center but aweful just a little bit out. Soft and lots of CA. Sad

That was one of the lenses I forgot Very Happy Same bad results here. I've also tried the Minolta MD 50/2, which was better (especially in CAs) but also not very nice aswell.

miran wrote:
I tried a different combination: CZJ Flektogon 50mm/4 (P6 mount) with 60mm of extension and the results are much better. The setup with the P6 lens on extension tubes and adapters mounted on a NEX-5 looks ridiculous though. Very Happy

Using decent medium-format lenses is generally a very good idea! They have a large coverage and so the corners dont suffer that much!


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
berraneck wrote:
have you tried scanning Fuji Velvia50 or simmilar high-density slide? from my experience even Epson V700 cannot bring usable results with this film, and I am not able to fund something like Nikon Coolscan8000/9000.

I can't speak for this film but dense films are generally less problematic with this method than with scanning


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
berraneck wrote:
thanks for info!


You're welcome!

miran wrote:
I tried a different combination: CZJ Flektogon 50mm/4 (P6 mount) with 60mm of extension and the results are much better. The setup with the P6 lens on extension tubes and adapters mounted on a NEX-5 looks ridiculous though


I know what you mean, I tried a Biogon 80mm for Pentacon Six with a tilt adapter plus a Canon/Sony adapter on a Nex3 and the camera practically disappeared Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fotoreporter1975 wrote:

miran wrote:
I tried a different combination: CZJ Flektogon 50mm/4 (P6 mount) with 60mm of extension and the results are much better. The setup with the P6 lens on extension tubes and adapters mounted on a NEX-5 looks ridiculous though


I know what you mean, I tried a Biogon 80mm for Pentacon Six with a tilt adapter plus a Canon/Sony adapter on a Nex3 and the camera practically disappeared Very Happy

Pfff I'm currently using the NEX behind a 1000mm F8 with medium format+ coverage Very Happy Wink

Last edited by ForenSeil on Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:19 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
fotoreporter1975 wrote:

miran wrote:
I tried a different combination: CZJ Flektogon 50mm/4 (P6 mount) with 60mm of extension and the results are much better. The setup with the P6 lens on extension tubes and adapters mounted on a NEX-5 looks ridiculous though


I know what you mean, I tried a Biogon 80mm for Pentacon Six with a tilt adapter plus a Canon/Sony adapter on a Nex3 and the camera practically disappeared Very Happy

Pfff I'm currently using the NEX behind a 1200mm F7 with medium format+ coverage Very Happy Wink


Shocked Laughing
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Darkroom
Page 1 of 1