Camera scanning with full frame or medium format

[pkr1979]

Hi all,

I'm considering switching from scanners to digital cameras for scanning. So I was wondering if anyone has any experience in scanning with both full frame and medium format, and can say anything about potential benefits with medium format over full frame (or FF over MF).

More specifically I am considering either a used Panasonic S1R or a used Fuji GFX 100s (however, I am open for suggestions). I am scanning small format, medium format (645+67) and 8x10" large format. I am scanning roll film more often than sheet film.

So, comparing one to one I suspect that the Fuji will outperform the Panasonic due to the fact that it has a larger sensor, more pixels, and a higher bit depth, but factors I assume could make a difference as well is pixel shift and in camera stitching.

I know that both have pixel shift, but if I am not mistaken the Panasonic does this in house meaning you get a raw file from the camera, while from the Fuji you will end up with a tiff from the fuji software?

And if you camera stitch - will this not close the pixel gap between these two cameras? I was also wondering how important lens profiles are when stitching, as I am considering the Pentax 645 120mm in combination with the GFX.

I guess my question is can stitching, pixel shift, native 1:1 macro lenses and lens profiles narrow the gap between FF and MF - or even switch it in favour for the FF?

Cheers
Peter

 

[koraks]

Neither of the digital cameras you mention are medium for at though, are they? What does the 'medium format' in the thread title refer to?

 

[pkr1979]

The Panasonic S1R is full frame and the Fuji GFX 100s is medium format. Medium format in the title refers to digital medium format cameras.

 

[koraks]

Sorry, I didnt realize that the Fuji is MF, silly of me! Disregard my earlier comment.

can stitching, pixel shift, native 1:1 macro lenses and lens profiles narrow the gap between FF and MF - or even switch it in favour for the FF?

I'd say, depending on specifics, yes. Especially w.r.t. the lens used.
I'd also take into account performance aspects that may not directly related to pixels - think of field curvature, distortion pattern, vignetting and color variations across the field of view.

 

[runswithsizzers]

the Fuji GFX 100s is medium format

It is and it isn't.

It is, nominally, because Fuji say it is. And everyone else have agreed to call the Fuji GFX series cameras "medium format."

However, the sensor on Fuji's GFX 100s measures a little less than 44×33mm, while the image area of 6x4.5 film measures 56x42mm.

When talking about small format, "full frame" sensors measure the same size as a 35mm negative. But when talking about medium format, Fuji's GFX version is quite a bit smaller than the smallest medium format film frame. So technically, the GFX cameras are not quite medium format cameras, and should probably be called something else.

Still, the Fuji GFX 100s sensor is quite a bit larger than full frame sensors, and bigger is better if all other factors are equal. Just be sure you can find (and afford) a suitable flat-field macro lens for the GFX before going that route.

 

[pkr1979]

It is and it isn't.

It is, nominally, because Fuji say it is. And everyone else have agreed to call the Fuji GFX series cameras "medium format."

However, the sensor on Fuji's GFX 100s measures a little less than 44×33mm, while the image area of 6x4.5 film measures 56x42mm.

When talking about small format, "full frame" sensors measure the same size as a 35mm negative. But when talking about medium format, Fuji's GFX version is quite a bit smaller than the smallest medium format film frame. So technically, the GFX cameras are not quite medium format cameras, and should probably be called something else.

Still, the Fuji GFX 100s sensor is quite a bit larger than full frame sensors, and bigger is better if all other factors are equal. Just be sure you can find (and afford) a suitable flat-field macro lens for the GFX before going that route.

Thanks - Yes, I am aware of the difference. However, my question remains the same though.

 

[xkaes]

I'd go with which camera has the most pixels -- and other features that you find important. Some other factors are what lens(es) you have for the digitizing, and how easy they are to set up.

 

[isaac7]

Pixel shifting does give you larger images but I don’t think that is the biggest advantage. I have seen videos that show pixel shifting can help combat grain aliasing when shooting B&W 35mm (and presumably smaller formats). As the film size went up there didn’t seem to be much benefit. Pixel shifting while shooting color does a manual debeyaring theoretically giving you better color resolution. I’m not sure if that works the same way with Fuji sensors though.

Lenses will be an interesting choice. Since you might be shooting 8x10 onto a 35mm sensor a 50mm enlarging lens would probably be ideal. A bigger challenge might be getting a good light source and keeping the film as flat as possible. B&W would be easier since evenly lit high cri or RGB LED panels at that size will be challenging.

 

[djdister]

I think pixel shifting and/or overlapping exposures and the required stitching is too much work. I'm happy with using my GFX100s and a macro lens.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I am considering either a used Panasonic S1R or a used Fuji GFX 100s

You have mentioned possibly using the Pentax 645 120mm in combination with the GFX. Have you selected a lens for the Panasonic?

Since you are shopping used, I assume cost is a consideration? Have you calculated the total cost, including the lens plus any necessary adapters for each system?

How do you plan to use the digital files? Will you be printing via ink jet printer or paying someone to do that for you? If so, what is the largest print you anticipate making?

Bottom line, unless you have a real and specific need for the extra pixels, I would go with whichever system is less expensive, assuming the lenses can record similar detail. If one lens is a lot better for flat-field macro work, then go with that system. However, it may difficult to find accurate resolution data for the lenses you are looking at.

Personally, I am scanning 35mm and medium format with a 16mp APS-C camera and a pretty good lens (Rodenstock APO-Rodagon D 75mm f/4.0 copy lens). I do stitch the medium format negatives, taking two overlapping shots of my 6x6 negatives and three overlapping shots of my 6x9 negatives. So even though my camera sensor is only 4896 x 3264 pixels, my 6x6 negatives come out about 4800x4800 pixels, and my 6x9 negatives about 6900x4600 pixels. That is plenty of resolution for my modest needs, but I don't make big prints. I do make photo books, but so far, none bigger than 8"x10"

 

[pkr1979]

I think pixel shifting and/or overlapping exposures and the required stitching is too much work. I'm happy with using my GFX100s and a macro lens.

This is a point that needs to be considered - if it becomes to much of a hassle/time consuming maybe one should just keep scanning with scanners.

 

[pkr1979]

You have mentioned possibly using the Pentax 645 120mm in combination with the GFX. Have you selected a lens for the Panasonic?

Since you are shopping used, I assume cost is a consideration? Have you calculated the total cost, including the lens plus any necessary adapters for each system?

How do you plan to use the digital files? Will you be printing via ink jet printer or paying someone to do that for you? If so, what is the largest print you anticipate making?

Bottom line, unless you have a real and specific need for the extra pixels, I would go with whichever system is less expensive, assuming the lenses can record similar detail. If one lens is a lot better for flat-field macro work, then go with that system. However, it may difficult to find accurate resolution data for the lenses you are looking at.

Personally, I am scanning 35mm and medium format with a 16mp APS-C camera and a pretty good lens (Rodenstock APO-Rodagon D 75mm f/4.0 copy lens). I do stitch the medium format negatives, taking two overlapping shots of my 6x6 negatives and three overlapping shots of my 6x9 negatives. So even though my camera sensor is only 4896 x 3264 pixels, my 6x6 negatives come out about 4800x4800 pixels, and my 6x9 negatives about 6900x4600 pixels. That is plenty of resolution for my modest needs, but I don't make big prints. I do make photo books, but so far, none bigger than 8"x10"

I was thinking maybe the Sigma 105 macro with the S1R. Cost is a consideration, but I will have to admit I have not really done a lot of calculating. I will print A2 at home, and maybe larger at labs. Out of the lenses I have looked at the mentioned Pentax appears to be solid.

 

[xkaes]

I use a 100mm bellows lens when digitizing 4x5" (as big as I go), and that's quite a distance between the camera and the 4x5" film. For 8x10", you'll be even farther away. For smaller formats, I use shorter lenses. I do it in a darkroom with all the lights off.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

My question is what scanners are you using?

I still do film scans with scanners since I mostly shoot 35mm and I use a Nikon which can scan the whole roll in one go. Moving to camera scans is more labor intensive for me so I stick with film scanners. I should add that scans for me are just proofing since I still print in the darkroom. Time is more important than quality. For larger formats I don't think camera scans are worth it unless you go whole hog and get a Fuji 100mp camera. Just my 2¢. Of course it would depend on your current situation which is why I asked what scanners you are currently using and what you plan on doing with the files.

 

[pkr1979]

My question is what scanners are you using?

I still do film scans with scanners since I mostly shoot 35mm and I use a Nikon which can scan the whole roll in one go. Moving to camera scans is more labor intensive for me so I stick with film scanners. I should add that scans for me are just proofing since I still print in the darkroom. Time is more important than quality. For larger formats I don't think camera scans are worth it unless you go whole hog and get a Fuji 100mp camera. Just my 2¢. Of course it would depend on your current situation which is why I asked what scanners you are currently using and what you plan on doing with the files.

I have a ScanMate 11000 drum scanner and a Nikon CoolScan 8000. The drum scanner takes up a lot of room and is quite time consuming to use. I mainly use fine mode on the coolscan, so that is also time consuming. For small formats I sometimes just use my Canon 6D. My printer does A2 so I like to print that. I dont do a lot of darkroom printing.

 

[250swb]

You are thinking about the problem backwards. Decide which camera you'd want to use for everything other than scanning and buy that, you then get a camera and a 'free scanner'.

For 4x5 and 8x10 and doing digital contact sheets use an Epson V700/V850. Modern full frame cameras (especially with pixel shift) are fine for medium format film and there are a lot of choices for 1+1 macro lenses.

 

[pkr1979]

Epsons scanners and 8x10 is not a good combination in my experience. But now we are drifting off topic. So, when camera scanning various formats - full frame or medium format?

 

[loccdor]

For me the medium format digital cameras for film scanning did not add enough value for the price. I went with a used Pentax K-1 36 MP camera with pixel shift and 50mm f/2.8 macro lens, together these cost $1300. If I wanted to spend more I'd probably go with that Sony camera with more MP that also has pixel shift.

You may want to consider that scanning small formats on a larger format is going to be trickier with regards to depth of field, diffraction, and film flatness. You may want to reverse the lens for that as I do when digitizing half-frame.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I have a ScanMate 11000 drum scanner and a Nikon CoolScan 8000. The drum scanner takes up a lot of room and is quite time consuming to use. I mainly use fine mode on the coolscan, so that is also time consuming. For small formats I sometimes just use my Canon 6D. My printer does A2 so I like to print that. I dont do a lot of darkroom printing.

Coming from a drum scanner is a tough one. For smaller negs I think you'll be fine with either camera.

Are you planning on replacing your scanners?

I think if I were you I'd get the Fuji especially if you are planning on using it as a regular camera.

 

[Owlch]

GFX100 series can be an overkill and a burden demanding more computing power, unless you’re scanning sheets of Portra 160 or T-MAX and others with crazy high resolving power. I assume you don’t scan sheets with camera, as flattening the films itself can already be a pain to start with.

16 or 14-bit doesn’t really matter. Either one is enough unless you’re doing some serious digital archival work. That’d be in a different universe.

Pixel shift (4 shot) on a 40+mp colour camera should be enough for most cases. PS by itself barely increases resolving power even with the crazy 16-shot mode. What it does largely is to eliminate the need of demosaic due to the Bayer colour filter array, so 4-shot mode is enough.

[Ignore this paragraph if you’re not interested in the technical explanation] On a digital sensor alone, the resolving power is largely limited by the diode micro lens aperture size and its design. Doing 16-shot pixel shift by moving it half a diode in each direction has very marginal gain that I think is…also a pain in film scanning. You may wonder why “diode micro lens” instead of just pixel size..well that’s something I’m nerdy about, just ignore.

So my humble opinion is that while a 40-ish mp FF cannot meaningfully close the gap to MF, it’s enough for most use cases in film scanning already.

 

[pkr1979]

Coming from a drum scanner is a tough one. For smaller negs I think you'll be fine with either camera.

Are you planning on replacing your scanners?

I think if I were you I'd get the Fuji especially if you are planning on using it as a regular camera.

Hi - yes. The intention is to camerascan instead of using scanners.

 

[pkr1979]

GFX100 series can be an overkill and a burden demanding more computing power, unless you’re scanning sheets of Portra 160 or T-MAX and others with crazy high resolving power. I assume you don’t scan sheets with camera, as flattening the films itself can already be a pain to start with.

16 or 14-bit doesn’t really matter. Either one is enough unless you’re doing some serious digital archival work. That’d be in a different universe.

Pixel shift (4 shot) on a 40+mp colour camera should be enough for most cases. PS by itself barely increases resolving power even with the crazy 16-shot mode. What it does largely is to eliminate the need of demosaic due to the Bayer colour filter array, so 4-shot mode is enough.

[Ignore this paragraph if you’re not interested in the technical explanation] On a digital sensor alone, the resolving power is largely limited by the diode micro lens aperture size and its design. Doing 16-shot pixel shift by moving it half a diode in each direction has very marginal gain that I think is…also a pain in film scanning. You may wonder why “diode micro lens” instead of just pixel size..well that’s something I’m nerdy about, just ignore.

So my humble opinion is that while a 40-ish mp FF cannot meaningfully close the gap to MF, it’s enough for most use cases in film scanning already.

Technical explanations are aprecitaed - thanks

 

[_T_]

You can start with the amount of information you want to capture from a piece of film and work backwards to the specs of the camera and lens necessary to capture that information using only a few basic optics formulas and the nyquist sampling theorem.

You’re coming from scanning 8x10 on a drum scanner with a nominal resolution of 11,000dpi. I’m going to have to assume that it’s actual resolution is close to nominal because I don’t know how it actually performs. But that gives you a maximum resolution of 433lpmm or 217lppmm. And nyquist theorem says you need twice the number of samples as the highest sampled frequency so you can get all the information out of a piece of film that has a frequency of 108lppmm. Portra 160 has about 80lppmm so you’re able to outresolve the ideal exposure of a piece of that film (ideal in terms of resolution captured on the film).

Is this something you’re hoping to continue to achieve after you transition to camera scanning? Because it could prove difficult.

With the GFX100 you have a sensor with 266lpmm or 133lppmm. You would cut that number in half due to nyquist, or you could double the number of samples by using pixel shift if you wanted to stitch 4 images together for each area of the frame and then additionally stitch a 81 nearly 1:1 frames together to get the image of the entire frame. So a total of 324 frames for one 8x10. That’s a lot of work and it doesn’t yet consider the resolution of the lens. But in this idealization you would probably end up doing more work camera scanning than drum scanning to achieve the highest quality results.

To discuss the lens we need to talk about diffraction. The diffraction limited resolution of a lens is 0.61λ/NA where NA is 1/(2*f-number) and effective f-number is (1+magnification)*f-number and we generally give a value of around 550nm or so for the average wavelength of light. And we’re trying to find the idealized f-number that gives us the resolution we need to match your drum scanner. So: 0.61λ/(1/(2*((1+~1)*f-number))=1/(217lpmm) don’t forget to convert to nm! And your minimum aperture for an ideal lens to resolve the same as your drum scanner is f/3.4 so you don’t have a lot of wiggle room to work with in terms of stopping down for a deeper dof and will have to focus each shot more carefully, slowing the process down even further. If it’s even possible to find a lens that is capable of these resolutions that’s compatible with your camera.

You can do all these same calculations with whatever resolutions you actually want to achieve and see that lower resolutions are going to be much easier.

 

[bags27]

Hi all,

I'm considering switching from scanners to digital cameras for scanning. So I was wondering if anyone has any experience in scanning with both full frame and medium format, and can say anything about potential benefits with medium format over full frame (or FF over MF).

More specifically I am considering either a used Panasonic S1R or a used Fuji GFX 100s (however, I am open for suggestions). I am scanning small format, medium format (645+67) and 8x10" large format. I am scanning roll film more often than sheet film.

So, comparing one to one I suspect that the Fuji will outperform the Panasonic due to the fact that it has a larger sensor, more pixels, and a higher bit depth, but factors I assume could make a difference as well is pixel shift and in camera stitching.

I know that both have pixel shift, but if I am not mistaken the Panasonic does this in house meaning you get a raw file from the camera, while from the Fuji you will end up with a tiff from the fuji software?

And if you camera stitch - will this not close the pixel gap between these two cameras? I was also wondering how important lens profiles are when stitching, as I am considering the Pentax 645 120mm in combination with the GFX.

I guess my question is can stitching, pixel shift, native 1:1 macro lenses and lens profiles narrow the gap between FF and MF - or even switch it in favour for the FF?

Cheers
Peter

I use the S1R for scanning 35 and 120. I use it because after experimenting a lot with my Blad 50c II, with its larger sensor, I was just more accurate with the S1R and auto focusing with the Sigma 105 macro. I have a very elaborate and stable kit with a massive Beseler enlarger.

Over the years, I've been convinced of one thing and should be convinced of another. What I do know is that the pixel shifting on the Panasonic is a waste of time (for me, at least, and I know for others who've done careful study--though I can no longer link to those). The thing I should be convinced of is that scanning with more than 24 mps is pretty much a waste of time as well. I've seen studies about that as well--not technical, of course, because technically it's probably better to have more mps. But the eye taste does confirm that. But of course, I'm weak like everyone and want more, more, more. So, I keep flirting with upgrading to the 907 100 mps and scanning with that--which would be a complete waste of money--but I might do it anyway (for other reasons, mainly).