Do Autofocus Scanners Have Trouble Focusing on B&W Film?

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,778
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
albireo said:
I'd disagree that what you're describing explains what you're seeing in post #7.
Click to expand...

I dunno. #7 downscaled to mimic a 3200dpi scan would look like this:


That's not stellar, but what kind of film are we looking at and what kind of detail is in the actual negative? If this is e.g. something like FP4+ and it happens to be shot at a very tiny aperture, or we're looking at an area that's just not perfectly in focus, this is fairly normal.
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,407
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
I'm not home at the moment, so won't be able to upload a 3200dpi sample for a comparison. Based on what I see on my phone that looks suboptimal.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,778
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Suboptimal, yes, but not outrageously bad. The question is where the most improvement is to be gained - in the negative or the scan.

Btw, I also use a Minolta 3200 dpi scanner, so I'm familiar with that kind of output. I'll try to dig something up, maybe.

Edit: OK, here's some junk I pulled from my hard drive, scanned with an old Minolta Scan Dual IV. Ignore the dust.


Full frame 35mm:


100% crop:

(Kodak Vision3 250D, so let's say 'moderately fine grain')

Had to dig a little deeper for B&W...full frame 35mm:


100% crop:

Fomapan 100 in Moersch Finol; I think I shot this with a Tamron 17-35, which isn't exactly the sharpest pencil in the box at all times (this was on one of its better days).

Subjectively I'd say these are a little better than the example in #7, BUT: subject matter, film choice, taking lens and shooting conditions make a lot of difference. I heartily admit that I find it difficult to point out which part of the difference is exactly due to which factor. Which would put us back at boring test charts again!
 
Last edited:

Steven Lee

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
1,420
Location
USA
Format
Medium Format
Not sure if this is helpful, but here's my contribution of comparing color vs B&W grain appearance of two ISO 200 films: Fuji C-200 and Fomapan 200. I will use PNG in my attempt to avoid JPEG artifacts.

Color


B&W


These scans are both 5000 pixels on the wide side. I never measured the true DPI of my setup. The 100% crops are in the following post below.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,778
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Steven Lee said:
These scans are both 5000 pixels on the wide side.
Click to expand...

That would make this about 3500dpi, although true resolution might be different. But your scans are resolution-wise comparable to the 3200dpi scans I posted, and indeed, they seem quite similar in terms of how the grain renders, especially the color scans. On the B&W scan, my result looks a little cleaner, but that's mostly because Fomapan 100 in Finol (which is much like Pyrocat) is pretty smooth. If I scan Foma 200 in a non-staining developer, I get results very much like the scan you posted.
 

Steven Lee

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
1,420
Location
USA
Format
Medium Format
@koraks agreed! Our scans show very similar grain appearance, and the choice of a developer played a bigger role than the scanning technique. Which reminds me to devise a better system to tag my scans with the developer. I never tried staining developers, but I've been developing Delta 100 and Fomapan 100 in Ilfosol 3 and loved the results: grain gets sharper and better defined, but finer. I can't share it here since I cannot recall which scans were done with Ilfosol vs my regular Xtol. I need to look into my film logs to find that info. Which proves how little these minutiae technicalities actually matter
 

Radost

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
1,655
Location
USA from Ukraine
Format
Multi Format
No they don’t!
 

Radost

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
1,655
Location
USA from Ukraine
Format
Multi Format

Check your UNsharp masking. The secret sauce of SilverFast.
 

Les Sarile

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
3,425
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Format
35mm

If you think you're not getting the detail out of your film with your scanner, you might consider getting something like this cheap 40X microscope. Bought it many years ago now but it might be under a different name or brand. I find that if I can see the detail on the film then my 4000dpi Coolscans will be able to resolve that same detail. Came in handy a couple of times when film owners would blame my scanner for providing out of focus scans. With this, they can see with their own eyes the image on their film is out of focus! Maybe one of these days, Adobe AI tools will be able to refocus shots taken from the past.

Film scanning tool by Les DMess, on Flickr
 

snusmumriken

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,488
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm
Radost said:
Check your UNsharp masking. The secret sauce of SilverFast.
Click to expand...

Do you mean check that it's 'off'; or check that it is 'on', and set to particular values? (In which case, what?)

Currently, until you or someone persuades me otherwise, I do all sharpening post-scanning. I find that the radius and amount of sharpening required vary depending on the size of the image, so for files that are going to be viewed on-screen I opt to size them first, then sharpen by eye on-screen at full size.

I have noticed that some sharpening tools are better than others. Are you saying that the Silverfast one is particularly good?
 

snusmumriken

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,488
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm
In case further examples help the OP, I have dug out three that are as good as I have ever got with cheap scanners and 35mm film at hand-held camera speeds. I used a Plustek 8300i for the first two, the third was scanned on an older Epson 5400. (EDIT: No sharpening applied.) My conventional prints of the b/w ones have appreciably more detail and sharpness than these scans, and the same is true for a lab print of the colour one. Films were TMX 5052, grainier Double-X 5222, and Kodak Gold 200. (Incidentally, the first and third were taken with a Rollei35 .)



 
Last edited:

Alan Edward Klein

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,448
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Sharpening occurs after the scan even by the scan programs. So there's no reason to apply them for the scan unless the scan program provides some exceptional sharpening. The other issue is that once you apply sharpening for the scan, you have to rescan if you want to change it. The same with other edits done during the scan. That's why I prefer to scan "flat" and apply most edits to the post scan editing program. The only setting I might apply for the scan is levels (white and black points).
 

Radost

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
1,655
Location
USA from Ukraine
Format
Multi Format

I scan RAW.After I use SIlverFast HDR for post. It sets unsharp masking to Auto. I use that most of the time. Sometimes I boost it to a level sharper.
Silver fast is a lot better from other scanning softwares exactly because of its unsharp masking.
 

Radost

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
1,655
Location
USA from Ukraine
Format
Multi Format
By the way I have rescanned Noritsu and frontier scanned negatives with PIXAS and the PIXAS gives me better results.
I feel labs have an auto settings that reduce grain. I can get a lot more defined grain with my scanning.
 

Alan Edward Klein

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,448
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Radost said:
I scan RAW.After I use SIlverFast HDR for post. It sets unsharp masking to Auto. I use that most of the time. Sometimes I boost it to a level sharper.
Silver fast is a lot better from other scanning softwares exactly because of its unsharp masking.
Click to expand...

Most editing programs like Lightroom, PS, etc have Unsharp Masking. So you can apply it to the raw scan selecting the sharpening settings and changing them without having to rescan. If you set it with the scan software, your scanned image is stuck with the resultant setting.
 

Alan Edward Klein

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,448
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Radost said:
By the way I have rescanned Noritsu and frontier scanned negatives with PIXAS and the PIXAS gives me better results.
I feel labs have an auto settings that reduce grain. I can get a lot more defined grain with my scanning.
Click to expand...

The sharpening setting applied by the scan program does not change the properties of the scan. That's defined by the scanner's hardware itself. The sharpening by the scan software if used is applied after the scan. This can more effectively be done by your post scan editing software.
 

Radost

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
1,655
Location
USA from Ukraine
Format
Multi Format

As I said I scan raw with iSRD . I just like post editing the raw scan with SilverLeaf HDR post processing archival software. It is specialized for analog pictures. And gives me a lot of options.
I am not paying for Lightroom.
 
OP
OP

agentlossing

Member
Joined
May 11, 2023
Messages
47
Location
Seattle
Format
35mm
Does consensus seem to be that Silverfast unsharp masking is better/easier for film than other software sharpening processes? I've been scanning without it (or greatly reduced) but I'm not super satisfied with the sharpening methods in Lightroom or DXO as they apply to film scans. Maybe I need to utilize Silverfast unsharp masking more often, at higher strengths.
 

Radost

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
1,655
Location
USA from Ukraine
Format
Multi Format

To me the SIlverFast unsharp masking look a lot better and do not make the pictures look digital.
I am happy with the auto sharpening 99% of the time. I think it does a great job.
Not scientific. But also maybe the fact that I had to start paying for Lightroom all the time Made me imagine it.
But seriously I like silver fast HDR for post. Makes it easy. A little different white balancing color film but when you get a hang of it it is easier.
 
OP
OP

agentlossing

Member
Joined
May 11, 2023
Messages
47
Location
Seattle
Format
35mm
iHDR is an upgrade which costs extra, correct? My version is what came with the scanner. Their upgrades are pretty pricey for me.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,778
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
agentlossing said:
Does consensus seem to be that Silverfast unsharp masking is better/easier for film than other software sharpening processes?
Click to expand...

Depends on whose consensus you ask for. I wouldn't be part of that particular consensus, I suppose.

Sharpening as part of the scanning workflow makes no sense to me, because in my mind, sharpening is part of the optimization process for a certain output. Scanning is an input activity; it should in my mind yield the most neutral image data that can then be used for whatever purpose intended.

By the time the image is then made up for that specific purposes sharpening can be part of the process and is typically one of the very lasts steps in the chain.

Btw, entire tomes have been written on sharpening and the many ways it can be approached. If you do a Google search in this, I'm sure there's plenty to keep you happy for a week of intensive reading and experimentation.
 
OP
OP

agentlossing

Member
Joined
May 11, 2023
Messages
47
Location
Seattle
Format
35mm
I usually treat sharpening as one of the last steps as well, but in my mind, sharpening of a film scan is a little different. Sharpening the effect of the grain (grain clumps, more technically, but you get what I mean) by itself seems like a resolution thing to me, as in, I am obtaining a file with sharper native characteristics. The other kind of sharpening would be somewhere between grain sharpening and contrast enhancement, in other words something that sharpens the larger elements in the image, the things that were actually in the scene and not part of the inherent medium of film. If that makes any sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…