35mm Scans VS FF digital

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, you are privileged because you have the new holders, beyond adjustable height, with the curling up the ANR glass ensures flatness, which is of great value because if not there is no way to focus all the frame if some curling is there, with the former holders in the V700 it was necessary to get 3rd party holders to obtain the results you are obtaining straing from the box.

Also, as obviously you have discovered, Epson images require a proficient edition to shine, once you get used to it then you do it in two clicks. Personally, I prefer a very raw image from the hardware and making manually the optimization, specially for portraiture.

What is not debatable is that the Epson is a top notch performer for MF and up, there is no doubt, that side by side you performed is smashing evidence. I don't know if you are totally aware but you are rivalling a good Howtek drum with the Epson, not everyone would be able because it requires a proficient scanning and a proficient edition, this takes some effort, but wet mounting the drum takes way more effort.

Thanks for the compliment. The equipment though is doing most of the work.

I usually scan with only histogram adjustments to prevent clipping at both ends. All other adjustments are made in post.

People may be able to buy the V850 holder from one of Epson's suppliers. I don't know if they line up with the V700 though.
https://epson.com/Support/wa00399

What did you mean "...in two clicks"?

 

[138S]

People may be able to buy the V850 holder from one of Epson's suppliers. I don't know if they line up with the V700 though.

Yes, it does...

What did you mean "...in two clicks"?

I mean two operations, a curve edition and a sharpening.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, it does...




I mean two operations, a curve edition and a sharpening.

That's great that the holders work. They seem to be backordered with the supplier. They're only around $15 each. https://compassmicro.com/products/s...r-assy-4x5-for-epson-perfection-v850-pro.html

 

[138S]

That's great that the holders work. They seem to be backordered with the supplier. They're only around $15 each. https://compassmicro.com/products/s...r-assy-4x5-for-epson-perfection-v850-pro.html

A true bargain, given it's the factor allowing the Epson to match a high end drum...

Sadly there are no 5x7" holders. You have to DIY the 5x7" holders to take advantage of scanning with the super-resolution lens.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

A true bargain, given it's the factor allowing the Epson to match a high end drum...

Sadly there are no 5x7" holders. You have to DIY the 5x7" holders to take advantage of scanning with the super-resolution lens.

What is the max size dimensions allowed by the high resolution lens? How do you "fake" the machine regarding the dimensions you want scanned?

 

[138S]

What is the max size dimensions allowed by the high resolution lens? How do you "fake" the machine regarding the dimensions you want scanned?

Scan width with the "super-resolution" lens is 5.9", this lens is mounted when a holder is detected in "the middle edge on the hinge side of the scanner".

 

[Helge]

This is a urban legend

No amount of fiddling with distance will change the pitch of the sensor or the optics.

There are loads of tests online, that will tell you that the special holders either only have little effect, or are in fact worse.
That fact alone tells you heaps about the standards of precision employed by Epson in building theses scanners, and about the futility of trying to tame and optimize the scanning.
You will get useable (but far from optimal results) for medium format and large format. But it’s a cruel joke for 135 formats.

 

[138S]

No amount of fiddling with distance will change the pitch of the sensor or the optics.

It has best sensor in the market, +40,000 pixels, a Creo a Cezanne or a Hasselblad have 8000 only. Epson Optics are very good, resolving 17,000 pixels in the scan width, as those lenses work at fixed magnification they are specifically designed for the job, yielding 17.000 pixels wide. But the lens covers 5.9"... instead the Cezane has a "zoom" . The Creo Zooms and stitches. The Epson Sensor/optics are very good, but it has no "zoom".

There are loads of tests online, that will tell you that the special holders either only have little effect, or are in fact worse.

It depends on if film is curled or not, and if your particular unit requires a focus adjustment, that graph shows that 1.2mm curling ends in half the performance, I guess you understand that graph and the need for flatness and focus.

You will get useable (but far from optimal results) for medium format and large format. But it’s a cruel joke for 135 formats.

Of course the Epson shines for MF and LF but's it's not that perfect for 35mm film.

You will get useable (but far from optimal results) for medium format and large format.

Not "useable", but a top performer for MF/LF, recently Alan demonstrated equal result than with a Howtek drum
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158728-Howtek-8000-Drum-vs-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&p=1557984&viewfull=1#post1557984

But it’s a cruel joke for 135 formats.

For 35mm you have to nail the focus and editing proficiently, anyway for a multi-format user I'd recommend a best buy combo for total performance in all formats from 35mm to 8x10":

>>>> Owning an Epson and a 35mm Plustek at the same time, you may have 2 machines scanning at the same time one in MF/LF and the other in 35mm, scanning twice faster many times. Still this is relatively low budget compared to cost and nighmares from drums and other ancient pre-press gear.


Low peformance of the Epson is a urban legend, if you don't belive it ask Alan, with the Epson he totally matched a first rate 4000dpi drum scanning service, easily, only scanning and editing proficiently.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here is another comparison showing focus based on height adjustments of the Epson V850 Pro 4x5 film holder. No sharpening was applied. This is another photo on different type film. Tmax 400 instead of the previous Tmax 100. While you can;t see the difference looking at the whole picture, the sharpness is very obvious when zoomed in. The scanner comes with two holders for each format. So you have to check the correct height for each one. The two 4x5's were actually different. One was best focused at Middle of 5. The other was best focused at the 4th of 5, second from bottom.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Scan width with the "super-resolution" lens is 5.9", this lens is mounted when a holder is detected in "the middle edge on the hinge side of the scanner".

Can you set up and scan a 5x7 with a single scan? Which holder have people used or modified?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Can you set up and scan a 5x7 with a single scan? Which holder have people used or modified?

I just found this in the V850 manual.

"You can scan film up to 5 × 9 inches (127 × 229 mm) with the optional Epson fluid mount."

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The pakon is inferior to the plustek, IIRC.



The focus, the stitching, the color inversion, dust...

The epson detects/corrects dust in the infrared dedicated channel working perfect specially for color film.





This is a urban legend, coined by people not knowing how to focus the epson and having little skills in image edition.

With a 1.2mm curling the Epson losses half of its performance, see this graph, resolution falls from 7 microns to 14:

View attachment 249008



New ANR glass holders allow perfect flatness and adjustable focus, allowing a proficient user to make totally Pro scans, specially for MF and LF, for LF it shines.

Here's the adjustment instruction for the Epson V850 Pro film holders. There's a full range of 2mm in .5 stops although you can set the slider between the stops. You really can't tell the focus difference though and would be better off using the stops so they don't slide accidentally. You could tape them into position.

 

[138S]

I just found this in the V850 manual.

"You can scan film up to 5 × 9 inches (127 × 229 mm) with the optional Epson fluid mount."

A DIY choice for 5x7" is hacking an old 4x5" holder taking two 4x5" sheets. You remove the separator between the two receptacles, and then you place an ANR to substitute the doors that clamp the negatives.

 

[Acticus]

The digital vs film debate is over. Regarding image quality, in general, FF has better optic image qualty than film since around 10 years ago, but film MF today surpases in image quality any Pro digital camera, including digital back costinf $40k.

Luminous Landscape did a 4x5 film vs medium format digital several years ago. It was about a tie, if I recall.

 

[Acticus]

Simply said, digital's got no soul! I feel qualified to say that, as I've been shooting digital for about 30 years. Regarding the archival nature of digital vs film, those in the know use film! See:

http://plastics-themag.com/Humanitys-data-stored-in-a-Norwegian-bunker

 

[George Mann]

The digital vs film debate is over. Regarding image quality, in general, FF has better optic image qualty than film since around 10 years ago

My own tests show the opposite. My Ektachrome slides clearly trounce all small format digital cameras in resolve of fine detail and you-are-there realism!

 

[George Mann]

Digital is better, obviously.

Higher resolution

both mine and Hennings tests show otherwise.

higher dynamic range overall

At low frequencies yes. At high frequencies, film is superior.

 

[138S]

My own tests show the opposite. My Ektachrome slides clearly trounce all small format digital cameras in resolve of fine detail and you-are-there realism!

both mine and Hennings tests show otherwise.
At low frequencies yes. At high frequencies, film is superior.

It depends on the kind of film, on the digital camera and on scene "micro-contrast"

I you use Adox CMS 20, of course film is quite superior. CMS 20 datasheet says it can resolve (high contrast) 800 lp/mm, that Porsche slide shows it amazingly well. But this is microfilm (developer) adapted to pictorial usage, and not pictorial film.

Instead if you take TMX it has extintion by 65 lp/mm in low contrast conditions, but a Nikon D850 has 8256 pix in 36mm, this is 115 pixel pairs per mm.

With an insanely high "micro-contrast" that is not common in a scene and no lens easily allows then film is superior, because me make work the very small crystals fraction that have very low sensitivity (say ISO 2), and those crystals are smaller than today's pixels. But when the crystals working are those (say) ISO 100 sensitive then the pixels are smaller and sharper.

Film has a mixture of crystals of different sizes/sensitivities. Resolving power has to be evaluated in that context, this is is resolving power related to sensitivity. CMS 20 may be ISO 3 or 6 (?) pushed to 12 or 20...

Anyway with film you increase format easily for top notch image quality, and film beauty rocks for those loving film. 8x10" is my preferred format, a good friend of me is a top notch digital Pro, but when he sees my amateur results... LOL... . Of course he won't move to film for his Pro work, but he grasps his head when he realizes what old technology can do.

 

[BradS]

Someone bring out the excavator and dig up the dead horse...apparently we’re not done beating it.

 

[138S]

Someone bring out the excavator and dig up the dead horse...apparently we’re not done beating it.

Horses are beautiful animals, no reason to kill them, nor to beat them.

The film vs digital debate is over since many years ago, today world is digital and 99.999% of the Pros use digital cameras. Digital won.

Still those of us that love and use film we have hardcore motivations for it. Also some people like Spielberg, Tarantino or Nolan still use that for +$200 million budget productions.

There is not much to debate, still some should learn that digital and film are different mediums that cannot be compared directly or better said a comparison requires a context... because each behave different depending on the situation. Digital has sensitive pixels of well a defined size for each sensor, while film has a mix of sensitive particles of very different sizes (Monodisperse CMS, an exception), so depending of which particles from film we target in our test behaviour is to change.

So saying film is better than digital (or the counter) makes no sense, if we don't say the situation. I know something, I get fun with film.

 

[George Mann]

Instead if you take TMX it has extintion by 65 lp/mm in low contrast conditions, but a Nikon D850 has 8256 pix in 36mm, this is 115 pixel pairs per mm.

As you stated, in low contrast situations as I had previously stated, but also under "ideal" levels of illumination.

It's at mid, and especially high contrast situations that film has the advantage regardless of how well the scene is illuminated.

 

[George Mann]

So saying film is better than digital (or the counter) makes no sense, if we don't say the situation.

They both earned their place.

 

[Helge]

I’ve stopped engaging with 138S in these matters.
He clearly has a hoppy horse he has to go ride till it drops and then beat with a stick some more.
Even if said horse is a figment of his own imagination.
Let me just suffice to say buyer beware.
That is, don’t buy his BS and FUD.

Consider this:
The sensor in every camera is made with a photographic process not very much different in steps and principles than what silver halide photography is based on.
Sure, there is photo resist and acid instead of silver halide and fixer. And the medium is by design very high contrast.
But a mask and basic analog photography principles are still used.
Of course this is an analogy that shouldn’t and couldn’t be stretched too far.
But still interesting that masks and photo resist hasn’t been replaced with dynamically reconfigurable matrices or digitally controlled electron “etching”.

And, also consider that a system can almost never surpass that technique or medium in resolution, on which it is based or made by.

Silver halide photography can reach exceptional resolution and dynamics, not to speak of the amazing colour resolution due to the techniques developed at Kodak in the mid to late 20th century.
As a fundamental film photography can probably never be surpassed in quality by anything but it’s own spiritual and technological descendant.
CMOS sensors are not that.

 

[flavio81]

I shoot FF digital, and I'm learning about printing digital negatives etc. A question that I have though is, what are the differences between a scanned 35mm negative, and a full frame digital file? Why would someone prefer to start with a scanned digital file, instead of a straight digital file?

In general, and in my opinion, film cameras are nicer to use than digital cameras. They can be smaller, and/or better built, and/or with better viewfinders, etc. It's more exciting to use a film camera.

 

[flavio81]

Digital is better, obviously.

Higher resolution, higher sensitivity, lower grain/noise, more shadow detail, higher dynamic range overall, no reciprocity failure, possibility for live-view to zoom in on an image and really fine-tune the focus.

Very misleading..

Higher resolution? Not if you use very high resolution film like the one ADOX sells. Or even Acros 100 on medium format. In any case i think both film and digital give enough resolution for practical purposes.

And medium format digital is a joke. You don't get things like 6x7 or 6x9 full frame sensors, so it isn't really the same as medium format using film. Crop factor kills the nicer things about MF.

higher sensitivity? Yes. Digital is better here.

higher dynamic range overall? No, film has more dynamic range if you take info account highlights.

no reciprocity failure? Misleading. Try doing a 2 hour exposure with a digital camera. You have sensor noise problems at those lengths of time,and battery problems. And there are films with great reciprocity characteristics than can do hour-length shoots.

possibility for live-view to zoom in on an image and really fine-tune the focus? That's a workaround for when you don't have a proper, high quality viewfinder like you would on a pro film SLR.

I do own a DSLR (Canon 5D) but I haven't used it for a full year. I use my film cameras instead. The digital camera gives me great digital files, they look beautiful. But the experience isn't as pleasant.