Basic scanning advice

[AndyH]

My film shooting has gotten, or, I should say, returned to the level where I'd be saving some considerable funds by going to a hybrid model of developing film and scanning it myself (I currently have it developed and scanned at a local shop). I have plenty of tanks, reels, and film holders from my film days, and I've studied the C-41 process enough to think that I'll be able to develop without much trouble or chemical wastage. Black and white is second nature after all these years. I shoot mostly 120, with some 35mm and 4x5 as well.

But I am at a loss when thinking about how to get started in scanning. I process my digital stuff in Lightroom/Photoshop, and I'm reasonably proficient with it, so I'd like to go with that model for printing. Currently I can print up to 8x10 at home, and I get larger prints done at Costco or my local shop. That means I'd like to have a high resolution image to start with, preferably TIFF, RAW, or something of similar quality. I suppose a high resolution JPEG would be acceptable, if that's all that is easily available.

I've been looking at review and other information online for the past couple of days, and I'm more confused than ever. Resolution is, of course, given in DPI, but it is difficult to tell what formats are supported in some of the descriptions. The price differences between various models and makers seems very large for similar resolutions and I'm not sure what added features additional money will buy. I'm trying to keep the capital expense reasonable, as my budget is somewhat limited.

I've also looked at DSLR copying as an alternative, but I shoot APS format digital and I'm not sure I'll get the quality I need. The process also seems very slow.

I'd appreciate any advice or links to resources for a total newbie to this hybrid realm.

Thanks in advance!
Andy

 

[Ariston]

I think most of the Epsons have you covered, if you are sticking to 35mm and medium format. The lower end models do not cover large format, though. I have a v550 I've been happy with, and I simply stitch for large format. I'm pretty sure Epsons scan to raw, though I stick with JPEG.

One thing to note is that you can use different scanning software if you are unhappy with the manufacturer's. I've never used it, but a lot of people swear by Silverfast.

 

[AndyH]

I think most of the Epsons have you covered, if you are sticking to 35mm and medium format. The lower end models do not cover large format, though. I have a v550 I've been happy with, and I simply stitch for large format. I'm pretty sure Epsons scan to raw, though I stick with JPEG.

One thing to note is that you can use different scanning software if you are unhappy with the manufacturer's. I've never used it, but a lot of people swear by Silverfast.

Thanks for the advice. I was looking at the Epsons as I've had good experiences with their printers.

Andy

 

[Les Sarile]

As a point of reference, how would consider the quality you get from Costco scans - 35mm and MF?
Do you already have a 1:1 macro for your DSLR as well as a lightbox?
Do you shoot a lot of color film - 35mm and MF?

 

[AndyH]

I’ve never sent scans to Costco; I use my local shop or The Darkroom in San Clemente. Very satisfied with the quality. I shoot about 60/40 color to B/W, but often convert color images In Lightroom. I have a DX macro lens.

Any suggestions?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

My film shooting has gotten, or, I should say, returned to the level where I'd be saving some considerable funds by going to a hybrid model of developing film and scanning it myself (I currently have it developed and scanned at a local shop). I have plenty of tanks, reels, and film holders from my film days, and I've studied the C-41 process enough to think that I'll be able to develop without much trouble or chemical wastage. Black and white is second nature after all these years. I shoot mostly 120, with some 35mm and 4x5 as well.

But I am at a loss when thinking about how to get started in scanning. I process my digital stuff in Lightroom/Photoshop, and I'm reasonably proficient with it, so I'd like to go with that model for printing. Currently I can print up to 8x10 at home, and I get larger prints done at Costco or my local shop. That means I'd like to have a high resolution image to start with, preferably TIFF, RAW, or something of similar quality. I suppose a high resolution JPEG would be acceptable, if that's all that is easily available.

I've been looking at review and other information online for the past couple of days, and I'm more confused than ever. Resolution is, of course, given in DPI, but it is difficult to tell what formats are supported in some of the descriptions. The price differences between various models and makers seems very large for similar resolutions and I'm not sure what added features additional money will buy. I'm trying to keep the capital expense reasonable, as my budget is somewhat limited.

I've also looked at DSLR copying as an alternative, but I shoot APS format digital and I'm not sure I'll get the quality I need. The process also seems very slow.

I'd appreciate any advice or links to resources for a total newbie to this hybrid realm.

Thanks in advance!
Andy

In terms of printing, DPI and PPI are related, but not the same thing. If you think of PPI (or pixels per inch) and let the printer print at whatever DPI it needs to in order to render how many pixels per inch you need, things are a lot simpler. In scanning, things are referred to DPI, however, in the scanning realm, DPI and PPI are basically the same thing, so for example, if you have a 4x5 sheet of film and you scan it in at 300 DPI and print it at 300 PPI, you haven't grown or shrunk the image, it should put an image that is the same size as the negative on the paper. The confusing part, is much printing software refers to PPI as DPI, when in fact, under the covers the printer may be laying down 1200 or 2400 dots per inch to render the DPI you've selected in the printing software. Generally, in the printer software, if you see DPI and it's in the 240-600 range, it's most likely actually referring to pixels per inch, and not how many dots per inch the printer is actually going to put on the paper. The actual dots per inch will be a lot higher than that in order to render that many pixels per inch. A pixel is a full color, whereas a printer dot might just be one color, so the printer usually (when working in full color) has to lay down a lot of dots of different colors to get a single full color pixel on the paper.

All that being said, in terms of full color pixels per inch rendered onto the paper, you actually need a lot less resolution than you'd think. Much beyond 240-300 pixels per inch, you'll be pretty hard pressed to see much of a difference in sharpness or fine detail without putting it under a magnifying glass. Using that logic, an 8x10 inch print then is 8x300 by 10x300 or 2400x3000 pixels, which is just a shade over 6 megapixels. Yep, 6 megapixels. No really... 6 megapixels. A nice big 16x20 needs ~30MP (6000x4800 pixels to be exact). So, if you're shooting 120 roll film and you're going to print 8x10, assuming you're shooting 645, you'll need at least 1200 dpi from your scanner. Most scanners are easily that, if not 2400dpi or more. You don't actually get that much resolution from a flatbed (that is a whole other discussion), but hopefully you get my point. For 4x5 film, you'll need to get something that can actually scan that size, and most lower end models don't. Assuming you can, you need even less resolution at the scanning stage, as a 4x5 printed at 8x10 at 300 PPI only needs a minimum of 600 DPI from the scanner.

I personally like to scan in at whatever the native resolution of the scanner is, and keep the scanned image at that resolution for as long as possible for all the post work, but then scale a copy of that down to the print resolution in pixels per inch that I'm going to print with, and do any final output specific things at the output resolution (like sharpening, etc).

The best thing to do, is figure out what output size you will be mostly printing out, figure out how much resolution you need in pixels per inch to cover that, then work backwards from there for each film frame size to figure out how many pixels per inch you need to scan at to cover that in terms of minimum resolution.

Keep in mind, that often times, you can get away with less resolution than that at the scanning stage if you're smart about sharpening the important parts of the image when printing.

 

[Les Sarile]

I’ve never sent scans to Costco; I use my local shop or The Darkroom in San Clemente. Very satisfied with the quality. I shoot about 60/40 color to B/W, but often convert color images In Lightroom. I have a DX macro lens.

Any suggestions?

Do you know what they use to scan - Fuji or Noritsu?
DSLR copy/scan is easy if you have the hardware already - macro, lightbox and post tools. With the right setup you can make a copy/scan in seconds. Traditional B&W and color slides are easy as it only requires an inversion in post. Maybe multiple scans to achieve highlights and shadows. Color negatives can require a lot of post work to get right. I would suggest you try a few DSLR copy/scans so you can understand the process particularly the post work required for color negatives.
I consider myself very competent with post work but it takes me many minutes to get color negative conversion to come out right but that is probably because I have a Coolscan to compare to.
With DSLR copy/scan, there is no dust and scratch removal (ICE) and this can easily add many more minutes to the post work for each frame. Of course ICE doesn't work on traditional b&w film but it does on the other types.

If post work is not to your liking, I would suggest an Epson V7XX/V8XX since you use multiple formats.

In either case, I believe you can achieve better results then cheap minilab scans.

 

[Les Sarile]

All that being said, in terms of full color pixels per inch rendered onto the paper, you actually need a lot less resolution than you'd think. Much beyond 240-300 pixels per inch, you'll be pretty hard pressed to see much of a difference in sharpness or fine detail without putting it under a magnifying glass.

Magnifying glass on paper prints will only show you the texture of the paper . . .
This of course depends on the type of paper. Super glossy paper can display more details while textured paper will blend it away. I have some 20" X 30" optical poster prints on glossy paper that can almost display the details you can see on-screen from good quality 35mm film scanned on my Coolscan at 4000dpi.

 

[Ariston]

From what I understand, DSLR scanning can be faster, though I did not take to it because I would have to set up and take down too much and, as Les mentioned, the color negative conversion was beyond my skill.

I believe DSLRs can give higher resolution, too, since there are 30+ megapixel cameras out there. But I like to remind people that my 60-inch 4k TV is sharper than my eyes can detect, and I never print to 60 inches! And 4K is equivalent to fewer than 12 megapixels. So, my 12 megapixel camera and low-end Epson scanner are already more than my skills can take advantage of, and more than my printing sizes need.

 

[AndyH]

In terms of printing, DPI and PPI are related, but not the same thing. If you think of PPI (or pixels per inch) and let the printer print at whatever DPI it needs to in order to render how many pixels per inch you need, things are a lot simpler. In scanning, things are referred to DPI, however, in the scanning realm, DPI and PPI are basically the same thing, so for example, if you have a 4x5 sheet of film and you scan it in at 300 DPI and print it at 300 PPI, you haven't grown or shrunk the image, it should put an image that is the same size as the negative on the paper. The confusing part, is much printing software refers to PPI as DPI, when in fact, under the covers the printer may be laying down 1200 or 2400 dots per inch to render the DPI you've selected in the printing software. Generally, in the printer software, if you see DPI and it's in the 240-600 range, it's most likely actually referring to pixels per inch, and not how many dots per inch the printer is actually going to put on the paper. The actual dots per inch will be a lot higher than that in order to render that many pixels per inch. A pixel is a full color, whereas a printer dot might just be one color, so the printer usually (when working in full color) has to lay down a lot of dots of different colors to get a single full color pixel on the paper.

All that being said, in terms of full color pixels per inch rendered onto the paper, you actually need a lot less resolution than you'd think. Much beyond 240-300 pixels per inch, you'll be pretty hard pressed to see much of a difference in sharpness or fine detail without putting it under a magnifying glass. Using that logic, an 8x10 inch print then is 8x300 by 10x300 or 2400x3000 pixels, which is just a shade over 6 megapixels. Yep, 6 megapixels. No really... 6 megapixels. A nice big 16x20 needs ~30MP (6000x4800 pixels to be exact). So, if you're shooting 120 roll film and you're going to print 8x10, assuming you're shooting 645, you'll need at least 1200 dpi from your scanner. Most scanners are easily that, if not 2400dpi or more. You don't actually get that much resolution from a flatbed (that is a whole other discussion), but hopefully you get my point. For 4x5 film, you'll need to get something that can actually scan that size, and most lower end models don't. Assuming you can, you need even less resolution at the scanning stage, as a 4x5 printed at 8x10 at 300 PPI only needs a minimum of 600 DPI from the scanner.

I personally like to scan in at whatever the native resolution of the scanner is, and keep the scanned image at that resolution for as long as possible for all the post work, but then scale a copy of that down to the print resolution in pixels per inch that I'm going to print with, and do any final output specific things at the output resolution (like sharpening, etc).

The best thing to do, is figure out what output size you will be mostly printing out, figure out how much resolution you need in pixels per inch to cover that, then work backwards from there for each film frame size to figure out how many pixels per inch you need to scan at to cover that in terms of minimum resolution.

Keep in mind, that often times, you can get away with less resolution than that at the scanning stage if you're smart about sharpening the important parts of the image when printing.

Do you know what they use to scan - Fuji or Noritsu?
DSLR copy/scan is easy if you have the hardware already - macro, lightbox and post tools. With the right setup you can make a copy/scan in seconds. Traditional B&W and color slides are easy as it only requires an inversion in post. Maybe multiple scans to achieve highlights and shadows. Color negatives can require a lot of post work to get right. I would suggest you try a few DSLR copy/scans so you can understand the process particularly the post work required for color negatives.
I consider myself very competent with post work but it takes me many minutes to get color negative conversion to come out right but that is probably because I have a Coolscan to compare to.
With DSLR copy/scan, there is no dust and scratch removal (ICE) and this can easily add many more minutes to the post work for each frame. Of course ICE doesn't work on traditional b&w film but it does on the other types.

If post work is not to your liking, I would suggest an Epson V7XX/V8XX since you use multiple formats.

In either case, I believe you can achieve better results then cheap minilab scans.

Very helpful. I'm fairly familiar with printer output resolution but my concern is mostly with my digital processing work than with the gross number of pixels. I do a lot of digital processing, and would prefer to work in something other than JPEG because I'd rather work lossless. I do a fair amount of digital manipulation and alternative versions of many before printing. I just don't get the same results when manipulating a JPEG that I can produce from a digital RAW file. I'd like to work with the original data or as close to it as possible. I want the maximum amount of digital data to work with, not just "enough" data for printing to my preferred size. I print quite a few at 8x10 for friends and family, but anything bigger requires a trip to Costco or my local shop. They both do a spectacular job, especially for the price.

 

[AndyH]

Magnifying glass on paper prints will only show you the texture of the paper . . .
This of course depends on the type of paper. Super glossy paper can display more details while textured paper will blend it away. I have some 20" X 30" optical poster prints on glossy paper that can almost display the details you can see on-screen from good quality 35mm film scanned on my Coolscan at 4000dpi.

I've been printing since about 1965, and have adapted to the world of digital printing fairly well. I generally print on matte paper, but often use glossier surfaces for my B/W work. "Almost as good as my screen" is not what I want, coming from the original wet enlargement film world. Any specific recommendations in this regard?

Andy

 

[AndyH]

From what I understand, DSLR scanning can be faster, though I did not take to it because I would have to set up and take down too much and, as Les mentioned, the color negative conversion was beyond my skill.

I believe DSLRs can give higher resolution, too, since there are 30+ megapixel cameras out there. But I like to remind people that my 60-inch 4k TV is sharper than my eyes can detect, and I never print to 60 inches! And 4K is equivalent to fewer than 12 megapixels. So, my 12 megapixel camera and low-end Epson scanner are already more than my skills can take advantage of, and more than my printing sizes need.

I've tried a couple of images using my DX7100 and macro Nikkor, but you're certainly correct that the process is clunky. The sensor on my digital Nikon has 24MP, which is more than sufficient for digital work. I'm pretty good with digital processing, and the color conversion and negative reversal don't pose significant challenges for me. Which Epson scanner do you use?

Andy

 

[Ariston]

I've tried a couple of images using my DX7100 and macro Nikkor, but you're certainly correct that the process is clunky. The sensor on my digital Nikon has 24MP, which is more than sufficient for digital work. I'm pretty good with digital processing, and the color conversion and negative reversal don't pose significant challenges for me. Which Epson scanner do you use?

Andy

I have the v550.

 

[Les Sarile]

I've been printing since about 1965, and have adapted to the world of digital printing fairly well. I generally print on matte paper, but often use glossier surfaces for my B/W work. "Almost as good as my screen" is not what I want, coming from the original wet enlargement film world. Any specific recommendations in this regard?
Andy

Perhaps my previous statement needs clarification. A 20" X 30" optically enlargement on glossy paper cannot show all the detail achieved by a Coolscan at 4000dpi scan of good film - provided the detail was captured on it.

As far as actual detail that a Coolscan 4000dpi can achieve off 35mm film compared to DSLR, below you can see the comparisons to 14MP Pentax K20D and a 37MP Nikon D800.

Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/8372250EA44CB06/orig.jpg
In order to ensure the results are not limited by the source film, I used Kodak Techpan @ ISO25 processed in Technidol. In order to ensure there is sufficient real detail to distinguish, I used a 4 high arrangement of 12233 resolution chart as the target. This was done with optimal conditions and I took many shots under different apertures and picked the best one for copying/scanning.
The 100% crops for the K20D, Coolscan and D800 are shown on the left and the large 100% crop to the right shows the center of the target and optically magnified using my bellows+macro lens. It is clear that there is much more detail not resolved by these methods. The 14MP Pentax is not close to the other two. Even though the D800 provides more pixels (7360 x 4912) then the Coolscan's 4000dpi (5500 X 3700), they are actually quite similar.

Depending on the quality of your film, the detail captured on it and method of scanning/copying, the only way you can see them fully on prints will be to make very large prints.

 

[AndyH]

Perhaps my previous statement needs clarification. A 20" X 30" optically enlargement on glossy paper cannot show all the detail achieved by a Coolscan at 4000dpi scan of good film - provided the detail was captured on it.

As far as actual detail that a Coolscan 4000dpi can achieve off 35mm film compared to DSLR, below you can see the comparisons to 14MP Pentax K20D and a 37MP Nikon D800.

Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/8372250EA44CB06/orig.jpg
In order to ensure the results are not limited by the source film, I used Kodak Techpan @ ISO25 processed in Technidol. In order to ensure there is sufficient real detail to distinguish, I used a 4 high arrangement of 12233 resolution chart as the target. This was done with optimal conditions and I took many shots under different apertures and picked the best one for copying/scanning.
The 100% crops for the K20D, Coolscan and D800 are shown on the left and the large 100% crop to the right shows the center of the target and optically magnified using my bellows+macro lens. It is clear that there is much more detail not resolved by these methods. The 14MP Pentax is not close to the other two. Even though the D800 provides more pixels (7360 x 4912) then the Coolscan's 4000dpi (5500 X 3700), they are actually quite similar.

Depending on the quality of your film, the detail captured on it and method of scanning/copying, the only way you can see them fully on prints will be to make very large prints.

Very helpful. My favorite films are Portra and Tri-X, and my favorite format is 6x6cm on my Hassy and Rollei, so I have plenty of source data. From what I've read in this thread, I'm leaning toward the Epson 550, unless someone can sell me on the capabilities of the higher end Epsons. Are there any other brands worthy of consideration?

Andy

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The V550 and the slightly more expensive V600 are very similar. The V600 has one additional advantage. It scans old prints and will correct for scratches. Both units will scan film and correct for dust using ICE process although ICE doesn't work on most B/W film. See this link for comparison. https://www.secretasianman.com/epso...ning resolution of,depth which is really good.

Epson has re-built equipment that they warranty from the factory. Currently they have a V550 for $120. Something you might want to investigate.
https://epson.com/Clearance-Center/...to-Color-Scanner---Refurbished/p/B11B210201-N

Adorama has a refurbished by Epson V600, for $159. Also a good price.
https://www.adorama.com/iesv600r.ht...s1KYfAs6MzUGkVHciMnO1Ug83aIN6nIkaAjdxEALw_wcB

For reference I use a V600. You can see my 35mm and 120 shots on my Flickr page below. Good luck.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Oh, the V600 will also color correct old photos as well as remove scratches.

 

[AndyH]

The V550 and the slightly more expensive V600 are very similar. The V600 has one additional advantage. It scans old prints and will correct for scratches. Both units will scan film and correct for dust using ICE process although ICE doesn't work on most B/W film. See this link for comparison. https://www.secretasianman.com/epson-v550-vs-v600/#targetText=Epson V550 vs V600 – Specifications,are relatively bulky and heavy.&targetText=With a scanning resolution of,depth which is really good.

Epson has re-built equipment that they warranty from the factory. Currently they have a V550 for $120. Something you might want to investigate.
https://epson.com/Clearance-Center/...to-Color-Scanner---Refurbished/p/B11B210201-N

Adorama has a refurbished by Epson V600, for $159. Also a good price.
https://www.adorama.com/iesv600r.ht...s1KYfAs6MzUGkVHciMnO1Ug83aIN6nIkaAjdxEALw_wcB

For reference I use a V600. You can see my 35mm and 120 shots on my Flickr page below. Good luck.

Thanks! I like your work a lot, and the scanned film images look great on my screen. I generally do my retouching in photoshop, so I think I'll be looking at the 550 model.

I knew I'd get good advice here, and I certainly have.

Andy

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Very helpful. I'm fairly familiar with printer output resolution but my concern is mostly with my digital processing work than with the gross number of pixels. I do a lot of digital processing, and would prefer to work in something other than JPEG because I'd rather work lossless. I do a fair amount of digital manipulation and alternative versions of many before printing. I just don't get the same results when manipulating a JPEG that I can produce from a digital RAW file. I'd like to work with the original data or as close to it as possible. I want the maximum amount of digital data to work with, not just "enough" data for printing to my preferred size. I print quite a few at 8x10 for friends and family, but anything bigger requires a trip to Costco or my local shop. They both do a spectacular job, especially for the price.

For that, 16 bit tiff in a big color space like prophoto is the way to go. Also, scan at 16 bit per color.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

For that, 16 bit tiff in a big color space like prophoto is the way to go. Also, scan at 16 bit per color.

I also scan to tiffs at 16 bit (and 2400 bit resolution) with my V600. However, the scanning process of film is so different than digital. RAW with film is not the same. Nor is color space. FIrst off, each film has its own color palette. So association to any digital color space does not seem to fit. Also, the flat beds are frankly so archaic, that you have to apply all sorts of color manipulation and level changes, heavy sharpening, etc to even get somewhat normal looking color scheme that are somewhat sharp. SO how would they even match any known color space? ALso, the scans are so rough, 8 or 16 bit probably wouldn't be noticed. Ditto with tiff vs jpeg. Has anyone actually tried a test to see a difference or not?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I also scan to tiffs at 16 bit (and 2400 bit resolution) with my V600. However, the scanning process of film is so different than digital. RAW with film is not the same. Nor is color space. FIrst off, each film has its own color palette. So association to any digital color space does not seem to fit. Also, the flat beds are frankly so archaic, that you have to apply all sorts of color manipulation and level changes, heavy sharpening, etc to even get somewhat normal looking color scheme that are somewhat sharp. SO how would they even match any known color space? ALso, the scans are so rough, 8 or 16 bit probably wouldn't be noticed. Ditto with tiff vs jpeg. Has anyone actually tried a test to see a difference or not?

Yes. There is a difference, however, how you scan does matter. There are a number of colorspaces that can in fact contain every color humans can see, and can contain anything film can represent, so if you’re having trouble with that, your chosen colorspace is too small.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes. There is a difference, however, how you scan does matter. There are a number of colorspaces that can in fact contain every color humans can see, and can contain anything film can represent, so if you’re having trouble with that, your chosen colorspace is too small.

There seems to be more than enough color space in sRGB to handle scans. No one will ever notice the difference with scanned film. The post processing that goes on after scans is so rough, no one can ever tell. The biggest problems with scans are that they are rough. You have to sharpen beyond belief. The colors especially with negative color film is often different than reality. Just getting them too look somewhat normal is the main problem. Worrying about matching some color space or missing a few colors is the least of the problems when I scan. The scanning process is just not fine enough to pick up differences that a human will notice. Maybe your experience is different.

 

[PhilBurton]

I also scan to tiffs at 16 bit (and 2400 bit resolution) with my V600. However, the scanning process of film is so different than digital. RAW with film is not the same. Nor is color space. FIrst off, each film has its own color palette. So association to any digital color space does not seem to fit. Also, the flat beds are frankly so archaic, that you have to apply all sorts of color manipulation and level changes, heavy sharpening, etc to even get somewhat normal looking color scheme that are somewhat sharp. SO how would they even match any known color space? ALso, the scans are so rough, 8 or 16 bit probably wouldn't be noticed. Ditto with tiff vs jpeg. Has anyone actually tried a test to see a difference or not?

Alan,
Can you explain the points above that I have underlined.
About color palettes. Do you mean each individual film or classes of film, e.g. Kodacolor or Ektachrome?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

By color palette I mean each film captures and displays color differently. They're made differently. For example, Portra films (for portrait) have a natural color look. That keeps flesh tones looking like flesh tones, very important in portrait photography. On the other hand, Ektar 100 a negative film, or Velvia 50 a positive transparency slide film, have more saturated colors that "pop". This adds a lot of flavor to landscape photography for example. But they don;t do such a good job with people. The flesh tones come out too red. Ektachrome is sort of in the middle. It doesn't matter if it's negative color film or transparency (slide) film. Each film has a different color pallete, different color flavors.

When I scan, I never try to post process the colors to match the original transparency (I normally use Velvia 50). What I do is process to get the colors to look "normal" for that film and then let it go. If I'm happy with the results, no one will know I didn;t match the film color exactly. Anyway, who cares if i do or don't. If you're shooting negative color film, it would even be harder to match the "original" because there is no original. It's an negative. So getting caught up in color space, 8 vs 16 bits (although toning might help in 16 bits), or trying to match original film, or missing a few color out of any particular color space, doesn;t seem to me to matter. I could be wrong and welcome other opinions.

 

[alanrockwood]

Perhaps my previous statement needs clarification. A 20" X 30" optically enlargement on glossy paper cannot show all the detail achieved by a Coolscan at 4000dpi scan of good film - provided the detail was captured on it.

As far as actual detail that a Coolscan 4000dpi can achieve off 35mm film compared to DSLR, below you can see the comparisons to 14MP Pentax K20D and a 37MP Nikon D800.

Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/8372250EA44CB06/orig.jpg
In order to ensure the results are not limited by the source film, I used Kodak Techpan @ ISO25 processed in Technidol. In order to ensure there is sufficient real detail to distinguish, I used a 4 high arrangement of 12233 resolution chart as the target. This was done with optimal conditions and I took many shots under different apertures and picked the best one for copying/scanning.
The 100% crops for the K20D, Coolscan and D800 are shown on the left and the large 100% crop to the right shows the center of the target and optically magnified using my bellows+macro lens. It is clear that there is much more detail not resolved by these methods. The 14MP Pentax is not close to the other two. Even though the D800 provides more pixels (7360 x 4912) then the Coolscan's 4000dpi (5500 X 3700), they are actually quite similar.

Depending on the quality of your film, the detail captured on it and method of scanning/copying, the only way you can see them fully on prints will be to make very large prints.

One fact that is not always fully appreciated is that a 36Mpixel camera (for example) is not a true 36Mpixel tricolor imaging device. Instead it is three interleaved imaging devices, e.g.18Mpixel green, 9Mpixel red, and 9Mpixel blue. This means that it cannot reproduce what a true 38Mpixel imaging device can supply. This is because digital cameras (with very few exceptions) use a Bayer sensor. What the camera has to do is to try to fill in the missing information to provide a pseudo 36Mpixel image, but in doing so it has to use some sort of educated-guess algorithm, which is almost certain to fail under certain conditions. This is just another way of saying that it is impossible to fill in the missing information in a risk-free way.

In contrast, a scanner does provide the true Mpixel rating. For example, a 4000dpi scanner produces a true 24Mpixel tricolor image. In some cases optical limitations may mean that you don't get the fill benefit of all of the sensor megapixel rating. Flat bed scanners are notorious for this.