Can scanned 35mm look as good as a 12MP Digital SLR?

I don't shoot film because I think it is better in some analytical metric. I shoot it because I prefer it as an artistic medium. Like a club dj with his lp records or a guitarist with his vacuum tube amplifier. I am more satisfied by the rendering of light as captured on film. That is all.

glhs116 said:

I don't shoot film because I think it is better in some analytical metric. I shoot it because I prefer it as an artistic medium. Like a club dj with his lp records or a guitarist with his vacuum tube amplifier. I am more satisfied by the rendering of light as captured on film. That is all.

Click to expand...

That's statement that I can understand and agree with completely.

Okay, so this topic has gone a bit stale, but I gotta comment because for once I actually have a lot of experience on the subject. I've been scanning through my 35mm slides and negatives, off and on, since I bought an Epson 3170 about seven years ago. The 3170 certainly does a good enough job for web use and for smaller sized prints. A couple years ago I upgraded to a clean, used 4990. I didn't want to spend the bucks on a v7xx series and I'm glad I didn't since apparently the improvement in scan resolution between the two is minor.

But I've been on something of a quest, trying to get duplicates of my 35mm images at maximum level of detail, without having to send them out to be drum scanned. My budget simply won't allow it. So what I ended up doing was cobbling together a slide duplicator setup that I can use with my 10.1mp EOS DSLR. 10.1mp equals a 3888x2592 pixel image with my camera, and this translates into a resolution of about 2740 ppi, which is better that can be achieved with any flatbed scanner I know of, their vastly overblown resolution claims notwithstanding. At the heart of my dupe rig is an old pre-AI Micro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, which is one of the sharpest lenses I own. This outfit has enabled me to duplicate my slides at resolutions that, in some cases, are resolving the emulsion's grain. Specifically late 1980s-early 1990s Fujichrome and Ektachrome 100. So since I'm resolving grain at 2740 ppi, there is really no point in trying to achieve anything beyond that. But I've also found that Kodachrome 25 and Velvia 50 grain is finer than my rig can resolve. Kodachrome 64 is borderline, I'd have to say. I have a roll-film stage for this rig, and I also dupe negatives with it. B&W is easy, color can be a bit more tricky. I've figured out a couple of different methods for getting C-41 images reversed properly to show accurate color, except for Ektar. With Ektar, I haven't been able to get rid of the proper amount of orange in the duped negative, or cyan in the reversed image. Annoying. Ektar's grain, however, is also fine enough to challenge my dupe rig's capabilities.

Still, you mention monitor resolution. Well, even a hi-res monitor doesn't display much. The one I'm using right now is 1680 x 1050 pixels, which is a very low resolution for scanned images. I have a 3.1mp Fuji digicam that is perfectly capable of producing images that way exceed the resolution needs of my monitor. So if that's all you're looking for, then your average scanner that will scan film will be sufficient. Like an Epson V500, or like my old 3170.

Now, getting to the point of whether or not a film image can hold resolution against digital, well, that depends. For example, I am thinking of a photo that I took using a Canon 50mm f/3.5 macro lens -- a very sharp optic -- and Fujichrome 100 film. Recently I was able to closely duplicate the scene using my 10.1mp EOS. I was quite surprised at just how much detail the digital image was able to resolve that the slide was not. (I can supply the comparison pics if anyone is interested) However, I have since shot other photos, also using some classic old Canon lenses, like the 50mm f/1.4 SSC and 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, and using Fuji Velvia and also Kodachrome 64 shortly before the December deadline -- when was that, last year? I have duped these slides with my rig, and all I can say is that my DSLR doesn't have enough megapixels to resolve those images. Since the OP was asking about 12mp, well I dunno. Maybe you can resolve Velvia or K25 at 12 mp. But I suspect it will take more than that. Far as that goes, my 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor will have an upper resolution limit as well, but I suspect it's considerably higher than 10mp or 12mp.

A few dupes of some of my more recent images:

Velvia 50:

Canon F-1, Canon 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical @ f/1.2
Dead Link Removed

Canon F-1, Canon 50mm f/1.4 SSC


Kodachrome 64:

Canon F-1, Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 @ 300mm -- note the detail in the antennae atop the taller building.


Canon F-1, Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 Macro

If your setup allows you to move the camera or film laterally, you might experiment with a bellows or extension tubes to get more like 5000 ppi and see if you can tell the difference. I find that's about the limit of my system, using a Canon 5DII and at that resolution a Canon 35mm/f:2.8 Macrophoto lens and glass neg carrier on a lightbox. When I need that much resolution, I might shoot 9 overlapping images and stitch them to get the full frame from 35mm. More often than not, though, I dupe at that resolution to get a crop and don't need to stitch the whole frame.

All these comparisons are from a top-end digital camera to a low-end CCD scanner. These results pale in comparison to a drum scanner. Camera manufacturers are trying to eke out every last drop of quality out of their CCD' while scanner companies like Epson do not. Neither can compare to what can happen with a PMT. 12 MP is not very impressive. I get 320 MP out of a 4x5. Now before everyone gets their hackles up, I know that the lens resolution doesn't go that far. But it doesn't go as low as 12. Maybe more is the 80-150 range.

It's more sensitive. It's sharper, etc. And one thing that really annoys me is that I like depth of field. All the digital lenses (and the chips) are designed to work at very low f-stops. I like f45 on my Rodenstock Sironar S, which is indistinguishable from f22. I don't like blurring out everything else in the background. For this that do, it's no issue. But I don't want to shoot at f8 or 5.6.

Lenny

Hi Lenny

lenny said:

All these comparisons are from a top-end digital camera to a low-end CCD scanner. These results pale in comparison to a drum scanner. Camera manufacturers are trying to eke out every last drop of quality out of their CCD' while scanner companies like Epson do not. Neither can compare to what can happen with a PMT.

Click to expand...

well ... gee ... depends on the CCD scanner. I thought some of the discussions above had included the Nikon coolscans and there the comparison to drum is not quite "pale" but another step higher.

At the ultimate blowup stage one would want to pick the drumscan but at x10 enlargement its not going to be something that leaps out at you (in my experience).

clearly that does not hold true when comparing the Epson flatbeds with the drum scans.

But then I've already (earlier) come down on the side of scanned 35mm can look as good (even perhaps better than a 12MP DSLR (especially if considering black and white).

Merry Christmas

One point that is worth highlighting is the evolution of film itself.
I have slides taken on old Velvia and new one, same lens and camera.
The new one beats the old one hands down in definition and apparent grain, when scanning.

As well I have slides taken with Astia and Provia 100 of nearly 10 years ago, and ones taken with the latest examples of those films - yeah, I know Astia is gone but that was recent and Provia is still around. The new ones beat anything before, when scanned.

The same applies for example to things like Reala and Ektar: Reala is a bitch to scan while Ektar is sheer pleasure.
Another example is Fuji Xtra-400 colour negative: a few years ago it was a marginal film, now it scans as good as anything I ever did with Ektachrome 64, and heaps better than old Kodak Gold in colour, resolution and "grain".

If I look at the actual film and compare, I notice that older film used to have a very "rough" emulsion side.
This invariably causes scan aliasing, which a lot of places out there confuse with "grain".
New film is "shiny" on both sides, to the point where it is almost impossible to identify the emulsion side other than by the letters and numbers on the edges.
Invariably, with these I get very smooth scans with almost no "film grain". And very little need for "cleaning" the grain in post.

Another example, taken from above: I used to hate Provia 100 as it had horrible scanning properties. While Astia always scanned incredibly smoothly.

Since Fuji discontinued Astia, they came out with Provia RDP-III which is incredible for scanning! I've since tried my Astia custom Neat Image noise sampler, with Provia 100: it matches the grain "noise" pattern between 95% and 99%.
That is plenty enough to tell me that a lot of what Fuji did with Astia is now in Provia. So I am now using Astia's Neat Image filter to "clean" Provia images, with amazing results!

All these changes happen with little fanfare or information from the makers, and all of them have the potential to change completely the quality of results with film and scanning.

And then we have printing with conventional enlargers: won't even go there!

Nuno: I like your pictures. What scanner do you use? What do you think of the Portra 160 and 400 film? Thanks. Alan

Oh boy, get pen and paper ready!

35mm I use a Coolscan VED with Nikonscan for colour and a Primefilm 7250Pro with vuescan for B&W. For medium format a Coolscan 9000ED with Nikonscan. Most if not all colour corrections are done at the scan lighting level. As little as possible in post-processing (PP), only final touch-ups.

PP is done with Neat Image and custom noise filters I've created from typical film strips, then I use Focus Magic from inside Irfanview to sharpen and save at least two sizes: one full size for printing, another reduced using Irfanview's Lanczos and sharpening for show on the net.
For the basket cases - need to tilt/crop/clean up marks - I use Picture Window Pro which I consider the cheapest and best 16-bit image editor I've ever used. This is done between Neat Image and Focus Magic.

Most of the work is automated into jobs with the given tools. I also copy the saved image info from the Nikon F6 and the F100 into csv files, which I then use to feed into exiftool in Windows to create the EXIFs. Haven't fully automated this one yet, but I'm studying Windows Powershell to see if I can use it to do via script, using a custom image naming convention. If that fails, I'll go back to using Unix shells via Cygwin which is still the easiest way to run shells in Windows.

The Windows box is a more or less vanilla AMD Athlon64 X2 core with 4GB of memory on a ASRock mobo running XP Pro SP3. All 32-bit, I don't need 64-bit (yet...) for my images.

For digital I use Capture One 6 home edition for the EVIL cameras and Nikon's NX2 for their dslrs. Other than that, very much the same PP: Neat Image if/when needed, Focus Magic inside Irfanview for the final stuff, PitureWindow Pro in the middle for the basket cases.

Almost forgot: the latest Portra 160 and 400 is amazing! Kodak has done a lot of work to make it easier to scan, with the result it's one of the best anyone can pick. I use it in both MF and 35mm. Once again: the latest. If you have some 15yo stock in the freezer, that likely won't be as good!

Another that I like a lot is the latest Fuji Pro800Z in both MF and 35mm: it scans beautifully, with a smooth grain pattern that Neat Image can clean dirt easy. I even use it outdoors now, it's that good.

Whew!
HTH

eric rose said:

I hate to be the dissenting vote here but in my experience my Nikon D700 produces files in RAW that are every bit as good and in some cases (colour)

Click to expand...

sure ... no doubt ... but the question being answered was "can film be as good as DSLR". So if the answers seem to be skewed in that direction I guess that's the fault of the question.

Nuno: Quite a complicated precess. I wish I had a good scanner. I'm using the Epson V600 flat bed. 120 is passable but 35mm a lot less so. Maybe I'm not using it to the best of its ability.

What is this Focus Magic from Irfan? I have to check it out - never heard of it. I scanned my first roll of 120 Portra. But UPS lost it apparently shipping back from the developer. Thanks for the info. Alan.

I have a Plustec 7600i SE and I think it's great. As far as film vs digital goes they are both capable of great quality. I use both formats as they both have qualities that I enjoy. I suppose I would choose film if I were going to limit myself to one format. Mostly because I want the negative and I like to buy stuff from American companies especially if they use American labor.

nolanr66 said:

I have a Plustec 7600i SE and I think it's great. As far as film vs digital goes they are both capable of great quality. I use both formats as they both have qualities that I enjoy. I suppose I would choose film if I were going to limit myself to one format. Mostly because I want the negative and I like to buy stuff from American companies especially if they use American labor.

Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this scanner to get my 35mm B&W onto my personal website and sharing online. I have debated getting a Plustec 7600i SE or having a local shop scan the negs for me. Do you have any B&W samples I could see? Thanks!

Sorry but I do not have any B/W photos for you. I have had several problems with traditional B/W. The first is when I scan the 35mm film the grain becomes to much for my taste. I must admit I have not tried it on the Plustec however. It does have a grain reducer option with the scanner. The second problem I have is our Pro Lab (Bay Photo Lab) quit processing B/W film. Anyway I am only shooting C41 film these days.

All is not lost, Nolan. Kodak's BW400CN is ISO 400 B&W film that is meant to be developed using C-41 chemistry. Best of all, the images it renders are very nice. Very fine grain, smooth textures, great tonality. Plus, it scans very well -- at least with my Epson 4990. I've only shot a few rolls of the stuff, but I'm impressed with it.

I agree. The BW400CN is a favorite film of mine. I shot 3 rolls of it recently at my daughters wedding and found it to be a perfect film for that..

The film you are speaking of, and all the ones in its class, does not have a decent dynamic range. People make photographs from all kinds of film, digital, and alternative methods. Its art so its all valid. But you can't tell me that film is high quality. It just isn't.

Lenny

Alan Klein said:

Nuno: Quite a complicated precess. I wish I had a good scanner. I'm using the Epson V600 flat bed. 120 is passable but 35mm a lot less so. Maybe I'm not using it to the best of its ability.

What is this Focus Magic from Irfan? I have to check it out - never heard of it. I scanned my first roll of 120 Portra. But UPS lost it apparently shipping back from the developer. Thanks for the info. Alan.

Click to expand...

I've heard good things about the V600. Could be just a focusing issue, that is quite common in flatbeds. I had to take my Epson 4990 for service to get the focusing adjusted, it was hopeless before that. But indeed, there is just no comparison with the results I get with dedicated film scanners.

Actually, I use more or less the same process for dslr as I use for film, as explained. It's the only way to get truly great prints.
Yes, I do print my photos. If I only showed them on the net at typical net sizes, I wouldn't need more than 4Mpixels of definition. Nor does anyone else, btw.
Focus Magic is not from Irfanview. They are two different products.
Here is a link to Irfanview:
IrfanView - Official Homepage - one of the most popular viewers worldwide
Here is one for Focus Magic:
Recover Detail and Sharpen Your Blurred Photos
Focus Magic works as a standalone product or as a Photoshop plug-in, which makes it usable by any software that is compatible with those.
It is without a doubt the best sharpening tool out there, and I've used most of them. The USM sharpening that most "experts" talk about is useless, compared to this thing.

nolanr66 said:

I agree. The BW400CN is a favorite film of mine. I shot 3 rolls of it recently at my daughters wedding and found it to be a perfect film for that..

Click to expand...

One of the best films to scan, btw. It has great and uniform grain pattern, easy as peanuts to eliminate through a noise filter.And it has the "shiny" two sides of modern film which makes it eminently suitable to scan with "hard light" scanners. It also can be used with D-Ice's infrared light to get rid of scratches and dirt, unlike most other b&w film. And it can be developed in any C-41 place, which is just about every film processing shop nowadays. By contrast classic b&w needs dedicated film development facilities that are, quite frankly, best handled at home.

lenny said:

The film you are speaking of, and all the ones in its class, does not have a decent dynamic range. People make photographs from all kinds of film, digital, and alternative methods. Its art so its all valid. But you can't tell me that film is high quality. It just isn't.

Lenny

Click to expand...

It actually has more dynamic range than a normal b/w film. Because of that, it can look very flat if shot in flat light.

It's generally not my cup of tea either, but I wouldn't call it a less-than-high-quality film that is low in dynamic range. It's a tool to use or to not use, depending on the situation.

I'm with Doha Sam: I have an Epson V700 scanner and love it. I use Vuescan to control it but there are many other packages out there to try if you don't like that one. I love the convenience of digital, especially when I am on a mission, but I would never stop shooting with my Cambo or myMF rigs for sheer fun. Your 35mm work, as long as it is properly scanned, can look quite wonderful on screen, although many people prefer to scan their silver prints. I prefer my Nikon film and slide scanner to the Epson scanner at least for slides. scan for the highest res you can for the original file and resize for web. You just never know when you'll want to make a book or a bigger print than your darkroom can handle and you can send off your adjusted files to West Coast or Dorian.
Hope that gives you encouragement and Happy New Year!

bob carnie said:

You are wasting a lot of Bandwith with all your plug in nonsense. I think Lenny has forgotten more about photography than you know.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Bob.

Indeed I have actually tested this film, and I am sorry to report that it is simply a joke in comparison with normal b&w film. All you have to do is look at it to see the difference...

I looked at it because being dye-based, it should have almost no visible grain. That would be great for scanning. I won't say it is unusable, but a properly developed negative has far more range than this stuff. Almost double the amount. There's no comparison....

Lenny

lenny said:

Thanks, Bob.

Indeed I have actually tested this film, and I am sorry to report that it is simply a joke in comparison with normal b&w film. All you have to do is look at it to see the difference...

I looked at it because being dye-based, it should have almost no visible grain. That would be great for scanning. I won't say it is unusable, but a properly developed negative has far more range than this stuff. Almost double the amount. There's no comparison....

Lenny

Click to expand...

True grain is not a problem in scanning. What is a problem is the aliasing noise caused by uneven emulsion surfaces, when using "hard-light" scanners - the majority of dedicated film scanners with the possible exception of the Coolscan 5000 and the 9000.

Most traditional b&w film has this rough emulsion side and that makes it unsuitable for scanning with "hard-light" scanners.

Please re-read what I posted about this film. I never said it was a "high-quality" b&w film. What I said - and it is written below for anyone to see - is that it is one of the best b&w films to scan.
If you can't fathom the "small" difference, then maybe you should stop the deriding comments and think twice before posting?

As for the "range": which is it? Density range? Dynamic range? There is a fundamental difference when scanning, you should know that. Just saying "range" means nothing and proves nothing.

How does this affect its use for scanning?

Don't bother, I'll explain: a low density range film makes it easier to scan. This is not an indication that a film has a bad dynamic range: it might actually compress its sensitivity (dynamic) range into a narrower density range, without necessarily losing the edges. Not a problem for scanning. In fact, it is an advantage. Although of course one better have a 16-bit scanner at hand if one wants to "uncompress" that dynamic range.

Once more, in case it's still not clear:

- one thing is scanning film and a film's suitability to scanning so it can be used in a digital comparison, which was the subject of this thread.
- another totally different one is a film's high quality for pure, traditional photography.

The two are completely different, although not necessarily completely exclusive. In fact in most cases with modern film, they are not.

When it comes to latitude both Kodak BW400CN and Portra 400 are two exceptional films.

Link to larger version -> Kodak BW400CN latitude

Link to larger version -> Kodak Portra 400 latitude