Recent versions of Affinity Photo have done a very nice job of stitching for me. Suggest shooting in manual (fixed shutter speed / aperture) so it doesn't have to finagle the range for each exposure, and a 10-20% overlap doesn't hurt.
Film scanning with APS-C sensor DSLR - worth the bother?
-
H
- Thread starter Horatio
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Lenses and helicoids for Bronica S2 and related series
- Started by hsandler
-
For Sale PENTAX SPOTMATIC SPII
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Trade For Trade, Nikon D750 DSLR for Leica lllf
- Started by dankapsner
Forum statistics
I use a Micro Nikkor f2.8/55mm (AI) with a set of extension tubes, and can move in to just a few inches from the lens. A black card surrounds the lens to block camera body reflections from the surface of the negative. The D700 is mounted on a vertical copy stand with the negatives in a film holder laid on top of a light box. Two recent enhancements to this setup are a Beseler Negatrans so I can quickly position each frame in a filmstrip just by turning the knob... plus a Manfrotto 454 positioning plate to adjust the camera for precision focussing. At macro distances it's often more effective to focus by moving the whole camera rather than by adjusting the helical on the lens. The copy stand has a positioning knob, of course, but it's not very exact and tends to slip, so I lock that in place once the camera is set up.
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 41
- Format
- Medium Format
Ive done some DSLR scanning with an 18MP Canon APS-C DSLR, so same resolution as the 60D. However, I was using a dedicated macro lens with which I was able to fill the frame with a 35mm frame. I was able to compare the results to those from an Epson V700, which is quite a bit better than the OP's V600. In general, the DSLR shots captured moderately more detail than the V700. There were a few places where detail was worse with the DSLR due to the film curving away from the focal plane, but overall it was better. Noise was also generally a bit lower with the DSLR captures. In terms of colour however, and ease of doing the processing necessary for colour negatives, I would choose the Epson. I actually scan negatives in positive mode on the Epson, so still have to do a reversal process, but the capture is much more linear with the Epson, whereas the profiles used by raw processing software distort the colours significantly, making this job harder. There are ways around this, but most of them involve purchasing software.
So whether you will be able to improve on your V600 with your APS-C DSLR will very much depend on your lens and how close you can get with it (there are many other factors as well, but this will be one of the main limiting factors). If you can fill around a third of the DSLR frame with the 35mm frame then I'd say you would roughly equal the scanner in terms of detail. Any bigger than this and you will start to see an improvement.
With 120 film, even assuming you can fill one dimension of the DSLR frame with the film frame, you will struggle to get any better than your V600. Maybe a bit better with 645, but probably worse with 6x6 and larger, unless you stitch multiple shots.
There are many other aspects of image quality to consider, such as evenness of illumination, film flatness, dust, flare, reflections, as well as convenience and speed, but these will all depend on your particular set up and process.
So whether you will be able to improve on your V600 with your APS-C DSLR will very much depend on your lens and how close you can get with it (there are many other factors as well, but this will be one of the main limiting factors). If you can fill around a third of the DSLR frame with the 35mm frame then I'd say you would roughly equal the scanner in terms of detail. Any bigger than this and you will start to see an improvement.
With 120 film, even assuming you can fill one dimension of the DSLR frame with the film frame, you will struggle to get any better than your V600. Maybe a bit better with 645, but probably worse with 6x6 and larger, unless you stitch multiple shots.
There are many other aspects of image quality to consider, such as evenness of illumination, film flatness, dust, flare, reflections, as well as convenience and speed, but these will all depend on your particular set up and process.
I have an 80d and I'm starting with dslr scanning. What lens do you think I Should I look for buying? And do you have some 35mm photos scan with the 80d that you can show? Thanks
for a lens, I currently use the sigma 70mm macro art lens and have no plans to change that any time soon.. It is excellent. If you’re going to spend money, spend it on the lens. The canon 100mm macro is good if you’re going full frame, but it’s less resolution in the center than the sigma, so isn’t as well suited for APS-C. I’d only get it if I was planning to move to full frame, but even then, the Sigma is probably at least an equal, if not better, though I’ve not tested that due to lack of equipment.
for samples, I’d have to look. I’ve been on the 90D for a while at this point, and I’ve rescanned most of my stuff with it, so I’d have to dig around a bit.
Film flatness is easily handled with a glass holder. And why wouldn’t you do stitching‽
Sure, one shot for contact print like stuff, but macro and stitch if you have any serious intentions with the photo.
hanks! But that lens are a bit expensive for me, do you think a Canon 60mm USM macro or the 100mm macro USM are a good choice? Also if you have some with the 90D It would be great too
The canon 100mm macro is more money than the sigma, and the cost difference between the sigma and canon 60mm macro is less than $200.
If you buy it knew, but I was thinking on getting a used one and the sigma are more rare to find. And not the L version of the 100 mm the other one that is cheaper
I just answered this question over on the Large Format forum. I'll cut and paste it here.
I've been using PTgui for about 17 years. Back then stitched panos were pretty new and the few other options available were useless. There are many more options now, in fact pano stitching is built in to most programs like ON1, PS etc. But there is one big difference between them and PTgui. That is that with PTgui you can manually apply control points, it's not normally required but for example if you have a photo with a lot of fuzzy water, or other areas with no real detail, I find that most programs struggle to lock onto what parts of each image should match. PTgui can struggle with this as well, but with it you just go in and create a few control points manually to give it a hand.
PTgui also allows a lot of control over the image placement, rotation of the pano, fixing of panos that point up or down and also format of the output. For example you can output to a layered PSD file where each image is on it's own layer with a mask. Thus if there are some funnies you can get in there and tweak things.
[link to PTgui was here but as a newbie it seems I'm not allowed to post it]
Oh, and the gotcha I mentioned above (in a previous post)? If scanning roll film DON'T include the lettering on the edges. The pano software (all 3 I tried) sees "PORTRA" in one place and two frames away sees another "PORTRA" and thinks that they are matching parts of separate frames, the results are interesting if not that useful
I was tearing my hair out about this and with the other two programs I could do nothing about it as there was no information supplied. Then I looked at the control points automatically produced in PTgui and saw dozens of them clustered around these letters and numbers and realised the problem.This pic shows a heap of good control points on the rocks but some up on the lettering as well.
This actual example would be OK because they are adjoining frames, I couldn't find an example of a bad match, but you get the idea.
All that said it does seem to be a problem with using RAW files as much as the lettering, so I just convert them to TIFF and either don't shoot the lettering or crop it out before feeding the images into PTgui.
YMMV, but I would give it a try...I just had a look at their site, it costs US$154 these days, yikes. Panos (normal ones) are a big thing with me so I don't mind spending a few $, but that's a lot. Still, it's cheaper than buying a scanner
EDIT: The other programs I use are Affinity, ON1 and PS and to be honest they work just fine most of the time and you probably already own one of them. If not buy Affinty.
Last edited:
I use the 90D with the 100mm USM Macro (not L), and it produces some nice images. Most of mine has been 120 or 4x5 film, though.
As for stitching, if you use the camera on a tripod, leveled, and the photo on a level surface and move the photo around, most of the complications of panoramic stitching go away. Keep the exposure the same on all frames, and use manual focusing (requires a very flat surface for scanning), and you can stitch with just about anything. I use Affinity Photo which does a good job out of the box.
As for stitching, if you use the camera on a tripod, leveled, and the photo on a level surface and move the photo around, most of the complications of panoramic stitching go away. Keep the exposure the same on all frames, and use manual focusing (requires a very flat surface for scanning), and you can stitch with just about anything. I use Affinity Photo which does a good job out of the box.
well, what you go with is up to you. A very good lens is a sound investment, so if it were me, I wouldn’t skimp.
I just answered this question over on the Large Format forum. I'll cut and paste it here.
I've been using PTgui for about 17 years. Back then stitched panos were pretty new and the few other options available were useless. There are many more options now, in fact pano stitching is built in to most programs like ON1, PS etc. But there is one big difference between them and PTgui. That is that with PTgui you can manually apply control points, it's not normally required but for example if you have a photo with a lot of fuzzy water, or other areas with no real detail, I find that most programs struggle to lock onto what parts of each image should match. PTgui can struggle with this as well, but with it you just go in and create a few control points manually to give it a hand.
PTgui also allows a lot of control over the image placement, rotation of the pano, fixing of panos that point up or down and also format of the output. For example you can output to a layered PSD file where each image is on it's own layer with a mask. Thus if there are some funnies you can get in there and tweak things.
[link to PTgui was here but as a newbie it seems I'm not allowed to post it]
Oh, and the gotcha I mentioned above (in a previous post)? If scanning roll film DON'T include the lettering on the edges. The pano software (all 3 I tried) sees "PORTRA" in one place and two frames away sees another "PORTRA" and thinks that they are matching parts of separate frames, the results are interesting if not that useful
This pic shows a heap of good control points on the rocks but some up on the lettering as well.
This actual example would be OK because they are adjoining frames, I couldn't find an example of a bad match, but you get the idea.
All that said it does seem to be a problem with using RAW files as much as the lettering, so I just convert them to TIFF and either don't shoot the lettering or crop it out before feeding the images into PTgui.
YMMV, but I would give it a try...I just had a look at their site, it costs US$154 these days, yikes. Panos (normal ones) are a big thing with me so I don't mind spending a few $, but that's a lot. Still, it's cheaper than buying a scanner
PTgui is quite good and worth the money if you’re going to be doing that a lot.
18 Mpixels is about 3500V x 5250H (18.375 Mpixels)
A scanner can do 4800 pixels/in, so about 4800V x 7200H
The problem with the scanner is it is reeeaally sssllooowww at the 4800 scan density! 8 minutes for single pass of the scanner across all the negs in the film holder, or net 40 sec per image resulting.
Last edited:
Do you have an email or some way I can talk to you, I'm new to the forum so I can't send you a message and I don't want to post more messages on this post. I just have some questions just to not make a mistake when buying the lens. Thanks.
sure. https://www.simplephotographyservices.com/. There’s a contact us page. I think my profile also has a link to my website. I’m also not that hard to find online. I maintain the same profile picture across my various online profiles, so if it’s not the same picture as here, it’s probably not me.
you’ll need to identify yourself, as I get a lot of contact and email, and it’s easy to miss stuff.
Copying slides or negatives is one application which there is little difference between APS-C or FF sensor. Most APS-C have sufficient pixels for good copying. DOF isn't a factor. Noise isn't a problem either as the lowest ISO can be used.
in 'the old days', slide copying entailed the use of holders which allowed you to image a full slide and copy 24x36mm transparency to 135 (24x36mm) at 1:1
Today, does someone know of a 1:1/6 reproduction ratio slide holder, so 24x36mm can be copied onto 15 x 22.5mm image area?
Today, does someone know of a 1:1/6 reproduction ratio slide holder, so 24x36mm can be copied onto 15 x 22.5mm image area?
I use a Durst Slide copier, adapt my Fujifilm XT-2 and use a 75mm enlarging lens. I am able to get the whole 35mm slide/negative. There is just enough height on the bellows assembly to digitize a 120 negative (square at max. ht). I think in theory I should be able to get up to 6x9 cm. I use a 50mm lens for half frame 35mm.
I use a Canon 5DS R and can achieve 350+M pixels scan of 120 negatives without problem.
It just needs a (very) good lens, especially over 1:1.
I did it before with a smaller sensor without problem, and somehow it is working better because it's more complicated to find a lens that perfectly cover the whole FF sensor without problems in corners.
I describe my process in this article if it can help others.
It just needs a (very) good lens, especially over 1:1.
I did it before with a smaller sensor without problem, and somehow it is working better because it's more complicated to find a lens that perfectly cover the whole FF sensor without problems in corners.
I describe my process in this article if it can help others.
.. I have used a Sony 6300 mirrorless (24mp) with a Nikon 60mm micro Nikkor (via a dumb adaptor) to copy a large batch of small, vintage,
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |