Flat bed vs DSLR scanning

JerseyDoug · Jun 16, 2022

McDiesel said:
Good question. I do not know. My personal experience is limited to under-10K solutions and the bottleneck I am seeing is the scanning lens, not sensors. I suppose we can experiment with a 16-shot pixel shifted 150MP sensor but I am not familiar with digital medium format. When I had a Fuji GFX I couldn't find a suitable autofocus macro lens for that platform, that's what led me to PhaseOne. Their sales team started quoting me for the components and I stopped them at the $55K mark (they were not done).

The same enlarging lens with a flat enough field and sufficient resolution to make a good darkroom print can make an equally sharp scan with a digital camera for an inkjet print of the same size. I only scan B&W film. My maximum enlargement ratio for 35mm negatives is 8X. A scan made with my 50/2.8 Schneider Componon-S lens on a 24 megapixel X-trans sensor can produce an 8x10 inkjet print that represents the film grain more clearly than an 8x10 darkroom print I made from the same negative 50+ years ago.

JerseyDoug · Jun 16, 2022

Unfortunately, the best camera scanning setup I have found for 35mm negatives is in short supply and typically priced accordingly. The Leitz BEOON is very compact and very sturdy. Once the focus is locked, setting it up is as simple as taking it out of the small box under my work table, wiping down the Logan light box on the table with the Ilford anti static dust cloth I keep on the BEOON as a dust cover,, putting the BEOON on the light box and turning on the light. It takes all of 15 seconds to be ready to scan the first frame. Nothing to align and nothing to focus after once done.

SCHWARZZEIT · Jun 17, 2022

McDiesel said:
Remember, the OP said "money is no object", in that case it really doesn't. Absurd resolution, absurd dynamic range, absurd focusing accuracy, absurd price. That's the PhaseOne system. It uses freaking lasers to self-align the focus plane and installation on a concrete slab is highly recommended for perfect stability Truly the best without any compromises, they made no trade-offs with this product.

The Phase One reprographic system for cultural heritage digitization is based around the iXG and iXH cameras with 101 and 151 MP sensors respectively. It’s designed for mass digitization with full control of the camera and the column of the copy stand through the Capture One CH software. You are right that it’s very expensive. But it’s not a no-compromise solution for highest quality film scanning. There are only three lenses available for this system. The macro lens they use for higher ppi film digitization is based on the Schneider Apo-Digitar 5.6/120 M. With both extension tubes on the iXH the system maxes out at approximately 5600 ppi.
None of the standards for cultural heritage film digitization dictates higher than 4000 ppi film scanning. So it’s good enough for the highest standards in that field. With the 151 MP sensor the iXH can digitize any film format up to 6x9 cm at 4000 ppi in a single capture.

The camera doesn’t self-align with a laser. Though you can use a laser alignment tool to align this system just like with other cameras on a copy stand.

Phase One also markets their general purpose XF camera with a digital back and the SK 120mm LS Macro Blue Ring lens for film digitization. That lens can reach 1x magnification on the XF. With an IQ4 150MP it can go up to almost 6800 ppi. It’s a very sharp lens but has too much curvature of field and chromatic aberrations towards the corners to be a high-quality solution for film scanning.

After testing Phase One’s systems I built my own system around a Phase One IQ4 150MP digital back. I call it the HXY scanner which I use commercially for highest quality film scans along with an ICG 370HS drum scanner.

SCHWARZZEIT · Jun 17, 2022

Patrick Robert James said:
And like Matt said above, your best results will come with optical printing if you know what you are doing, unless you go all the way down to the grain level with camera scanning, but that requires a pixel density of well over 10,000 ppi from my experience with color neg. And I don't think the optimal is reached until maybe 15,000 is hit. Black and white won't need as much.

But that is my experience. People's opinions will vary depending on how much experience they have. Camera scanning is all the rage these days, but it has a lot of limitations and the quality isn't always that great if you don't know what you are doing.

Your numbers match my experience. In most cases 10,000 ppi with high sampling efficiency is enough to capture the full image content of color films. However, I’ve seen negatives where a 14,000 ppi scan could resolve additional details, typically high contrast features. Then there is Adox CMS 20 where a scanning resolution of more than 20,000 ppi can be necessary to get all the image content captured.

McDiesel · Jun 17, 2022

@SCHWARZZEIT can you share more details about your scanning rig, particularly the optics and the control/tethering software? Looks like you were in my shoes and you continued pushing past where I had given up. Thanks.

SCHWARZZEIT · Jun 18, 2022

As a provider for high-end film digitization the performance of my HXY scanner is a unique selling point of my service. I hope you understand that I’m not going to disclose details on the exact components I’ve used to build it. But I can share some broader information.

It’s a very large rig with a 0.9 x 1.2 meter footprint and more than 2.3 meter height. The copy stand is H-shaped with two columns and the camera hanging on a crossbeam that can slide along the z-axis between both columns. It is more rigid than a single-column setup. The film carrier sits on two adjustable rails of the capture stage for XY-positioning. The mechanical operation is fully manual. The optical system is highly optimized for the magnification range relevant to film scanning. Regarding software, I’m shooting tethered to Capture One.

The closest solution you can buy commercially in a money-is-no-object scenario would be the DT XY with a DT RCam, Rodenstock HR Macro 105mm lens and Phase One IQ4 digital back.

-Dominique

Lee Rust · Jun 19, 2022

I've settled on an arrangement that works adequately for 35mm film... 12Mp Nikon D700 with 55mm f 2.8 macro lens and extension tubes, mounted squarely on a standard copy stand over an LED light box. The secret sauce is a negative carrier that allows speedy and consistent positioning of each frame... for me it's a Beseler Negatrans secured to the lightbox. With this setup I can digitize an entire 36 exposure filmstrip in about 15 minutes.

jtk · Jun 23, 2022

A couple of decades ago I was paid fairly big money (paid the rent!) to make internegatives from frames of16mm newsreel footage of hero-athletes, then print them 6X9-ish. Client used them to print flipper-book "animated baseball cards" to sell at convenience stores . It didn't occur to me that I was ripping off whoever it was that owned the original footage, but I wasn't blamed when the lawyers intervened. Canon F1, copy stand, bellows, 55mm macro...X-ray viewer light box with Macbeth daylite tubes.

Ko.Fe. · Jun 23, 2022

Scotthenrylabonte said:
Aside from the cost of the dslr are there any draw backs to scanning with your camera ?

No dust and scratch reduction. No automatic conversion from negative. Bulk.

To beat the scanner I would only go with recent Nikon DLSR which has film holder and lens attachment and in-camera "scanning" firmware. But camera like this might increase chances on ditching of film .

McDiesel · Jun 23, 2022

@Ko.Fe. Mostly agree with you, except this one bit: "Automatic conversion" is not intrinsic to scanners. In fact, you can use any software you want regardless of your choice of hardware, and tons of scanner owners prefer Negmaster or Negative Lab Pro to Silverfast or ViewScan, and the same tools can be used with cameras. BTW, Nikon's built-in conversion is a turd.

Ko.Fe. · Jun 23, 2022

McDiesel said:
@Ko.Fe. Mostly agree with you, except this one bit: "Automatic conversion" is not intrinsic to scanners. In fact, you can use any software you want regardless of your choice of hardware, and tons of scanner owners prefer Negmaster or Negative Lab Pro to Silverfast or ViewScan, and the same tools can be used with cameras. BTW, Nikon's built-in conversion is a turd.

I never tested Nikon, I just trust them and those

As for scanners, I'm staying apart from tons of unknown to me bodies and just happy with Epson software on my flat and Silverfast for my PlusTek.

albireo · Jun 23, 2022

McDiesel said:
BTW, Nikon's built-in conversion is a turd.

The conversion routines in Nikon Scan make NLP results look cheap and tacky amateur conversions. I mean, anyone can see the terrible results NLP gives, but the instagram hype is too strong, and so every Tom Dick and Harry ends up using it. I personally would never let NLP close to my precious negatives. Colorperfect for instance is leagues ahead, but the guy behind it is not good at social media marketing, so his product remains semi-unknown. pity.

But honestly, Nikon Scan does a better job that even Colorperfect on well exposed C41 - I'm hardly using Colorperfect anymore these days. The only issue Nikon Scan has is clipped highlights in some difficult negatives. For those I have my standard Vuescan Raw 16bit/channel linear +Colorperfect workflow.

albireo · Jun 23, 2022

One more thing. Not only Nikon Scan is fantastic at inverting colour negatives (I actually couldn't believe my eyes when I saw my first conversion), it is absolutely phenomenal at driving the ICE infrared channel in the Coolscan. Just miraculous. Much better than Vuescan. I am almost contemplating stopping using Vuescan for colour negatives. Nikon Scan does an unbelievable job on scratches and dust with no discernible other effects on the scans.

brbo · Jun 23, 2022

I'm pretty sure @McDiesel was talking about Nikon's in-camera inversion in some of their DSLRs (which DO look awful) and not Nikon Scan scanner software.

albireo · Jun 23, 2022

Thanks @brbo for the correction and apologies to @McDiesel for my mistake.

Bronson Dugnutt · Jun 23, 2022

I rarely camera scan but have given the D850's negative conversion a try on an LED lightbox. It can be finicky about the rebate area as it determines color correction, choice of light source is important, no dust removal, and you only get an OOC jpeg. That said, it gives slightly better resolution than a V800 flatbed scan and appears to be easily correctable by taming the red curve.

(D850 OOC negative correction, V800 epsonscan)

A bit of a novelty feature if you routinely perform manual or tool-assisted inverts of negatives.

projectbluebird · Jun 23, 2022

Ko.Fe. said:
No dust and scratch reduction. No automatic conversion from negative. Bulk.

To beat the scanner I would only go with recent Nikon DLSR which has film holder and lens attachment and in-camera "scanning" firmware. But camera like this might increase chances on ditching of film .

Bulk? Even a monster DSLR takes up less space than a flatbed - and if you’re using a copy stand for negatives only, it can still be a smaller footprint. In my experience, retouching digitally (with photoshop or similar) is hands-down preferable to spotting prints by hand or retouching the negative itself (though I do still have my full set of SPOTONE inks purchased many years ago, new!) As for process automation, darktable offers full scripting - if you’re into that sort of thing.

I’ve only recently switched to camera scanning my negatives, but I have used various models of Nikon coolscans, and Epson Vxxx flatbeds - even with equipment I had on hand (unoptimized) I see sharper grain resolution than the Epsons, and comparable to Coolscan - in a fraction of the time.

YMMV, of course.

JerseyDoug · Jun 23, 2022

I have an Epson V600, a Plustek 8100 and a very compact camera scanning rig I use with a Fuji X-T20. For 35mm B&W I much prefer the results from the camera scan. For my very few 35mm color scans I use the Plustek because it is what I am accustomed to (also because NLP only works with Lightroom and I won't use Adobe software).

120 negatives are another story. The Plustek is only for 35mm so my only choices are the V600 and the camera scanning rig. And because of my 120 negatives' square format my 24 megapixel camera scans (4000x6000) for 35mm are reduced to 16 megapixels (4000x4000) for 120. To do justice to the larger negatives I have to take six shots with the digital camera rig and stitch them together for a roughly 80 megapixel (9000x9000) file. This has been such a PITA that I've given it up and just use the V600 for MF.

DPVisions · Jun 25, 2022

This is my latest work in progress of a DIY automated XY film scanning station film or glass negatives. Camera will remain stationary above the table and linear actuators will move the film base into position. A light table will be mounted on top of actuators then film.

Film scanning business end:
Fuji GFX 50S Camera
Fuji 45mm Extension Tube
Novoflex BALPRO 1 Universal Bellows
Novoflex BALPRO Adapter for Fujifilm G-Mount Cameras
Novoflex BALPRO Copal #0 PROCCOPAL-0 Lens Adapter
Rodenstock APO-Rodagon-N 90mm f/4 Enlarging Lens

XY film stage:
Nema 17 stepper motors
300mm VSlot linear actuators
VSlot aluminum extrusion framing
Arduino Uno
Raspberry Pi

Adrian Bacon · Jun 27, 2022

Scotthenrylabonte said:
Aside from the cost of the dslr are there any draw backs to scanning with your camera ?

Not really, though for best results, it's best to have a dedicated setup, and if you put together your own solution, it takes a fair amount of technical prowess to get good results.

That being said, it's waaaaay faster, and depending on your setup, can deliver results way above what most dedicated film scanners can even dream of.

albireo · Jun 27, 2022

Adrian Bacon said:
can deliver results way above what most dedicated film scanners can even dream of.

Can you show some examples of really well made DSLR scans? A 120 negative would be great. The vast majority of the DSLR scans I see around the web are so mediocre, so riddled with basic flaws that even a much maligned $200 V550 can do vastly better in knowledgeable hands.

But of course I cannot exclude that fantastic results such as those you speak of are possible by people without a full-time film scanning job.

runswithsizzers · Jun 27, 2022

darr said:
[...]

If you want to read the article I wrote about how I digitize:

Digitizing Film Part 2: Software, Contact Sheets, Bracketing, Stitching, Workflow | photoscapes

I perform several tasks while creating image files, including bracketing, blending, and stitching larger film sizes.

photoscapes.com

Digitizing Film Part 1: Copy Stands, Film Holders, Medium Format | photoscapes

Curious how I digitize film? In this post, I share the tools I use—without sales hype—plus links for specs. My digitizing process will follow in a future post.

photoscapes.com

I plan on writing a part three as soon as my home gets finished with construction after storm damage. I have been digitizing for a few years and also use a medium format digital back for really large printing.

Nice article. Thanks for sharing.

Alan Edward Klein · Jun 27, 2022

Here's a comparison between an Epson V850 flatbed and a Howtek 8000 drum scanner. They apparently compare very favorably. Sorry, I don't have a DSLR sample from the same 4x5 negative, but I thought the results from my test may be of value to some people.

Howtek 8000 Drum vs. Epson V850 flatbed scanners

Here's a comparison between Howtek HiResolve 8000 drum scanner and Epson V850 flatbed. Negative is mine, Tmax 100, processed normal by North Coast Photo dip and dunk with Clayton F76+ developer (similar to Kodak D76). Taken on a Chamonix 45H-1, Schneider Symmar APO 150mm with B+W orange...

www.largeformatphotography.info

McDiesel · Jun 27, 2022

albireo said:
Can you show some examples of really well made DSLR scans? A 120 negative would be great. The vast majority of the DSLR scans I see around the web are so mediocre, so riddled with basic flaws that even a much maligned $200 V550 can do vastly better in knowledgeable hands.

But of course I cannot exclude that fantastic results such as those you speak of are possible by people without a full-time film scanning job.

Here's a 26MP camera scan of a 35mm negative of HP5+ developed in Ilfosol 3, showing nicely packed grain. If you have access to a high-end B&W printer you'll be quite pleased with the output. I would even argue that this is overkill for 99.9% of use cases.

Unfortunately I have not done 120 format with comparable quality (optimal aperture, tripod, max. resolution, high-detail target, etc) But here's a real life handheld snapshot with FP4+ IIRC. I downsample all my scans to around 5,000-6,000 pixels on the wide side to have manageable file sizes and option to print up to 20-24".

Adrian Bacon · Jun 27, 2022

albireo said:
Can you show some examples of really well made DSLR scans? A 120 negative would be great. The vast majority of the DSLR scans I see around the web are so mediocre, so riddled with basic flaws that even a much maligned $200 V550 can do vastly better in knowledgeable hands.

But of course I cannot exclude that fantastic results such as those you speak of are possible by people without a full-time film scanning job.

Can you define "mediocre" and "basic flaws"? There's really two issues at hand... 1) the actual digitization of the negative into raw samples, and 2) what you do with said samples to arrive at a positive image.

I suspect that much of what you see as flaws or mediocre has more to do with number 2 than number 1, and if that's the case, different scanner hardware won't help you much.

All that aside, there are a couple of points I'd like to highlight.

1. If scanning 120 film, even high resolution full frame DSLRs are just starting to touch 2400-3200 DPI resolution, which is still well within what something like an Epson V850 can deliver in terms of raw resolution, but, the DSLR rig is still significantly faster.

2. If scanning 35mm film, any camera in the 20-30MP range will easily deliver 3800-4800 DPI, and it just goes up from there.

3. No matter what hardware you use, film flatness is an issue. I'm using very good film holders and this is still something that rears it's ugly head.

4. "Good results" tends to be pretty subjective. Clearly what many people on the internet find to be acceptable, others take issue with.

If you want to see samples, I suppose I can go through my archives and see if there's some stuff I can post as samples. Are you looking for BW or Color neg? I can't share customer work, and it may take a bit for me to get to it as I've actually been quite busy (as you can see by my level of even hanging out around here, only so many hours in a day).

Flat bed vs DSLR scanning

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency