35mm film scanner questions

"Allan" <pabroon DeleteThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:H3jRf.702$fy1.89880@news20.bellglobal.com...
>I know there has been discussion on this before, but I now find myself in
> the market for a film scanner. I expect to scan about 5 films per week.
>
> Also, I have older Nikon bodies and lenses. Am I right in thinking that
> with
> a good film scanner I can expect similar photograph quality to say the
> Nikon
> D200?
>
> What are the current thoughts on this - models, features etc?
>
> thanks
>
> Allan
>
>

Definitely not with what I've got (up to 3200 dpi)...my D200 wins hands
down. I don't know if the orphaned 5400 II might or the Coolscan 5000 (but
I'd be very surprised if either one could).
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm film scanner questions 

"Allan" <pabroon.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:H3jRf.702$fy1.89880@news20.bellglobal.com...
>I know there has been discussion on this before, but I now find myself in
> the market for a film scanner. I expect to scan about 5 films per week.
>
> Also, I have older Nikon bodies and lenses. Am I right in thinking that
> with
> a good film scanner I can expect similar photograph quality to say the
> Nikon
> D200?
>
> What are the current thoughts on this - models, features etc?


No experience with a D200, but lots of experience with
film scanning in general (35mm, MF, LF) and with a
Canon G2 and 10D. Bottom line, I wouldn't bother
shooting/scanning film in any format smaller than MF
these days.

IMO: scanned 645 (MF) roughly matches a Canon 5D
and/or Nikon D2X. Scanned 6x7 (MF) might be matched
by a Canon 1Ds MkII.

95% of users will get better results from a Canon 20D
than from 4000 dpi (Nikon Coolscan) scanned 35mm film.

You've got to be really hard core to want to shoot and
scan 35mm film these days. And if you're going to do it
at all (scanning film, that is) with 35mm or MF, forget
about doing it with an Epson film/flatbed scanner (yea,
even the 4990.) It'll have to be a dedicated film
scanner, 4000 dpi or better.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm film scanner questions 

m4w3y3 wrote:
> I have found that whenever there is an attempt to directly compare digital
> and analog images, there is always something that renders the comparison
> 'invalid'. I wonder if this is an attempt to protect digital from
> unfavorable comparisons.
>
> For example, my scanner will capture an image at a full 24bits/channel...I
> don't know of any digital cameras that come even close to that...what can we
> get...8 bits/channel? maybe more (theoretically with so-called RAW formats)
> and yet, I will bet that someone will argue that the reduced bits/channel
> figure of digital is somehow...'better'.

You seem to want to argue based on just numbers without looking at the
final scanned files. If you are going to argue based on just numbers
you should at least get them right , there is no film scanner that does
24bits / channel. If you believe you are running 24 bits per channel
it most likely means that in fact you are getting 24 bits/pixel or 8
bits / channel.

So we have been hearing about how good your scanner is compared to
digital cameras, might we see one of these scans? I posted a link to
one of my digital photos it just seems fair that you post one of yours.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm film scanner questions 

"m4w3y3" <marbing.RemoveThis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MUlRf.761$fy1.100000@news20.bellglobal.com...


> However, my scanner will do 6400dpi which can give me a 160Mg TIFF file
> (8800 x 6000 or equal to a 53Mp digital camera) from a 35mm frame.
> I can scan 24 slides in a single batch and, once the files are saved, I
> have exactly the same editing capabilities in Photoshop (or other photo
> editing software) as any digital camera user. Of course, I can also scan
> medium format and large format (4x5) negatives too...at 6400dpi. (which is
> 25600 x 32000 pixels or 820Mp).


What 6400 dpi scanner are you using?

Is that 6400 dpi optical resolution, or interpolated?

Most of us who have worked with both film scans
and digital have learned that comparing pixel-counts
from these two methods is rather meaningless.

Furthermore, there's not much correlation
(unfortunately) between scanner dpi ratings and
their actual resolving power.

For example: I own a Nikon film scanner rated
at 4000 dpi, and an Epson flatbed/film scanner
rated at 4800 dpi. The Nikon's scans are far
sharper, even though they're at lower resolution
than the Epson's.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm film scanner questions 

Well, 48bit color amounts to 16 bits/channel so, that should be an easier
number for you to accept. Still twice what I can expect from a digital
camera. The other problem is that the act of scanning a film image degrades
the image since the scanner can't hope to capture all of the detail. One of
the errors that people who try to compare alaog images to digital images is
that they think that making a scan of the analog image puts everybody on the
same level...but it doesn't. It is a ploy to compare a degraded copy of a
film image to an enhanced original digital image. It's a setup.

"Scott W" <biphoto RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142302038.673219.249130@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> m4w3y3 wrote:
>> I have found that whenever there is an attempt to directly compare
>> digital
>> and analog images, there is always something that renders the comparison
>> 'invalid'. I wonder if this is an attempt to protect digital from
>> unfavorable comparisons.
>>
>> For example, my scanner will capture an image at a full
>> 24bits/channel...I
>> don't know of any digital cameras that come even close to that...what can
>> we
>> get...8 bits/channel? maybe more (theoretically with so-called RAW
>> formats)
>> and yet, I will bet that someone will argue that the reduced bits/channel
>> figure of digital is somehow...'better'.
>
> You seem to want to argue based on just numbers without looking at the
> final scanned files. If you are going to argue based on just numbers
> you should at least get them right , there is no film scanner that does
> 24bits / channel. If you believe you are running 24 bits per channel
> it most likely means that in fact you are getting 24 bits/pixel or 8
> bits / channel.
>
> So we have been hearing about how good your scanner is compared to
> digital cameras, might we see one of these scans? I posted a link to
> one of my digital photos it just seems fair that you post one of yours.
>
> Scott
>
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm film scanner questions 

If that is true why is there resistance on the part of digital people to a
fair comparison?

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b.RemoveThis@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:8764mhokhj.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
>
> Nope; mostly it's attempts to protect film from unfavorable
> comparisons.
>
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm film scanner questions 

m4w3y3 wrote:
> Well, 48bit color amounts to 16 bits/channel so, that should be an easier
> number for you to accept. Still twice what I can expect from a digital
> camera. The other problem is that the act of scanning a film image degrades
> the image since the scanner can't hope to capture all of the detail. One of
> the errors that people who try to compare alaog images to digital images is
> that they think that making a scan of the analog image puts everybody on the
> same level...but it doesn't. It is a ploy to compare a degraded copy of a
> film image to an enhanced original digital image. It's a setup.

Seems to me you are trying to do a bit of switch bait. First you tell
us how great your scanned images are and how well they compare to a
digital camera and how many pixels the digital camera would have to
have to meet your scan. The details of your scanner played heavily on
this, 6400ppi scan for example. Now you are trying to say that scanner
degrades the image one film, but if you recall the whole point of this
thread is comparing what one can do with a film scanner compared to a
D200.

You told us that you scanned images from 35mm is the same as a 53 MP
camera, I really would love to see one of these images. For the record
I don't believe you can get 53MP of good sharp pixels even from 6 x 7
film.

Scott

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm film scanner questions 

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:09:09 -0500, "m4w3y3" <marbing.TakeThisOut@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>I have found that whenever there is an attempt to directly compare digital
>and analog images, there is always something that renders the comparison
>'invalid'. I wonder if this is an attempt to protect digital from
>unfavorable comparisons.


<snip>

By all means please send me a scan sample to post!

Whatever resolution you're scanning at, send a
sample representing 0.25" x 0.25" of film, plus
a small overview scan of the frame that it came
from. If it's on par with what I've already
got posted here, I'll gladly post it.

Here's the scan samples site:

www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis

and my email address is there as well.

Save your high-res scan sample and the
overview frame as high-quality, low-
compression JPG and email to me.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm film scanner questions 

In article <MUlRf.761$fy1.100000@news20.bellglobal.com>, m4w3y3
<marbing.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca> writes
>A 3200 dpi film scanner will produce around a 4480 x 3045 pixel file from a
>35mm frame (which is the equivalent of a 13.5Mp digital camera). It will
>produce that file form film used in a 35mm SLR or a 35mm point and shoot.
>There are similar anti-noise filters and grain-melting filters that make the
>scan as clear as anything that comes from a dSLR costing many times more
>than the scanner.
>However, my scanner will do 6400dpi which can give me a 160Mg TIFF file
>(8800 x 6000 or equal to a 53Mp digital camera) from a 35mm frame.

Except it doesn't work out that way so your comparisons are exceedingly
wide of the mark. For a start, the information you are pulling off of
the film at that resolution is at a very low contrast - due to the
vanishingly small MTF of the film, not to mention the original camera
optics. Similarly, you gloss over the noise with some glib "anti-noise"
filter statement without recognising that no filter can distinguish
between signal and noise, so reducing noise also reduces the signal - of
which you have already precious little anywhere near the limiting
resolution of your scanner. Meanwhile the dSLR image has contrast and
SNR in abundance right up to it resolution limit.

In your scanned film image, the MTF at the nyquist frequency of the
scanner is likely to be of the order of 2-3% at best, based on the MTF
curve for Provia. By comparison, the MTF of the dSLR sensor at Nyquist
will be around 65% - a figure that Provia could only produce at about
35cy/mm, or just under 2000ppi.

So most of those 160MB in your Tiff files are redundant information but,
because it is mainly noise, doesn't even compress efficiently. It
certainly isn't the equivalent of the 53Mp digital camera that your
exceedingly naive assessment claims. More like 15Mp - if you are very
lucky, and probably less than half that.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm film scanner questions 

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:22:30 -0500, "m4w3y3" <marbing RemoveThis @sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>Well, 48bit color amounts to 16 bits/channel so, that should be an easier
>number for you to accept. Still twice what I can expect from a digital
>camera.

Wrong. AFAIK, most digital cameras use 12-bit
A/D converters internally. The spec for the
Canon 20D explicitly says 12 bits -- that's
per channel, per sensel.

>The other problem is that the act of scanning a film image degrades
>the image since the scanner can't hope to capture all of the detail. One of
>the errors that people who try to compare alaog images to digital images is
>that they think that making a scan of the analog image puts everybody on the
>same level...but it doesn't. It is a ploy to compare a degraded copy of a
>film image to an enhanced original digital image. It's a setup.


Well, if you're going to process film
digitally, you've got to scan it.

If you'd like to prove that you can make
an optical print sharper than I can via
Nikon scan + Epson R1800 print -- that's
a challenge I'd be happy to accept.

Any film format up to 8x10" LF. Any print size.
Let's do it. Make your print. Send me the
print plus the original negative or chrome.
My street address and email address are on my website.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm film scanner questions 

In article <RIoRf.1114$fy1.112801@news20.bellglobal.com>, m4w3y3
<marbing.RemoveThis@sympatico.ca> writes
>I have found that whenever there is an attempt to directly compare digital
>and analog images, there is always something that renders the comparison
>'invalid'. I wonder if this is an attempt to protect digital from
>unfavorable comparisons.
>
>For example, my scanner will capture an image at a full 24bits/channel

Really? And what do you do with this amazing dynamic range which, at
7.2 is more than a thousand times more than the density range of the
best film?

Whilst the tiff format will support huge bit depths, there aren't too
many applications that will interpret anything more than 16
bits/channel.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm film scanner questions 

rafe b wrote:
> "m4w3y3" wrote:
>>However, my scanner will do 6400dpi which can give me a 160Mg TIFF file
>>(8800 x 6000 or equal to a 53Mp digital camera) from a 35mm frame.
>>I can scan 24 slides in a single batch and, once the files are saved, I
>>have exactly the same editing capabilities in Photoshop (or other photo
>>editing software) as any digital camera user. Of course, I can also scan
>>medium format and large format (4x5) negatives too...at 6400dpi. (which is
>>25600 x 32000 pixels or 820Mp).
>
> What 6400 dpi scanner are you using?

I see he declined to answer, but I suspect he's talking about his
Microtek i900 flatbed/film scanner.

> Is that 6400 dpi optical resolution, or interpolated?

Probably both. Microtek reports the optical resollution as
3200x6400 dpi.


> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com

Great page, thanks.


--
--Bryan
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm film scanner questions 

Stephen Henning wrote:
> If you have a DSLR, you already have the very best film scanner made.
> With a macro lens you can do slide copying just like all photographers
> did for many decades. The advantage is that you have full control of
> contrast and color temperature. So if you want the best film scanner
> made, then just get yourself a copy stand and enjoy quality. Would you
> rather spend you money on a good macro lens or a film scanner? I know
> where my money has already been spent.

Well I think calling a DSLR the very best film scanner made is a pretty
big overstatment.
I think it could work well enough for many if not most people but it
can in no way compete with a high end scanner.

Perhaps you could post a sample of you film scanned using your DSLR?

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm film scanner questions