Flat bed vs DSLR scanning

[Scotthenrylabonte]

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

 

[MattKing]

Moved to the Scanning and Scanners sub-forum - this is a Hybrid topic, not an analog/Darkroom topic.
It would be worthwhile to read through some of the very numerous existing threads in the Scanning and Scanners sub-forum on this topic - there is already lots there.
Three important issues - for high quality camera scanning one needs a good light source, accurate and precise alignment and a much better than average true macro optic - not just a lens that focuses closer.

 

[Scotthenrylabonte]

Thank you

 

[McDiesel]

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

Nope. If money is of no concern, camera scanning is the new drum. Another requirement is a somewhat higher skill requirement for an operator.

 

[Scotthenrylabonte]

Why are the systems so expensive, scanners are way more complex

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

If you're going to scan 35mm negatives/slides primarily, check out Nikon ES-2 adapter. It makes scanning as easy as practically possible.

 

[Scotthenrylabonte]

deleted above

McDiesel are you still selling that hasselblad 100mm 3.5 cf, I just joined the community so I can’t comment on the classifieds yet

 

[McDiesel]

Why are the systems so expensive, scanners are way more complex

Because the scanners manufactured today represent the 15-20 year old technology frozen in time, made by 3rd tier manufacturers who can only afford 3rd tier talent and the cheapest parts. To give an example, a high quality macro lens alone is more expensive than most scanners.

Also, the concept of a mechanically dragged line CCD is as obsolete in 2022 as a horse carriage. Basically, complexity is not a cure for obsolescence.

 

[McDiesel]

@Scotthenrylabonte It was sold on eBay for a much higher price within an hour of listing.

 

[MattKing]

The best scanners are used by the motion picture industry - and you can't come close to affording them!

 

[McDiesel]

The best scanners are used by the motion picture industry - and you can't come close to affording them!

Nope. Motion picture has lower quality bar than cultural heritage applications. The best system money could buy is a camera-based PhaseOne system.

 

[Scotthenrylabonte]

@Scotthenrylabonte It was sold on eBay for a much higher price within an hour of listing.

this saddens me

 

[McDiesel]

@Scotthenrylabonte there's a CFI version on KEH right now. In fact, their Hasselblad inventory has been on fire lately. Take a look!

 

[Scotthenrylabonte]

@Scotthenrylabonte there's a CFI version on KEH right now. In fact, their Hasselblad inventory has been on fire lately. Take a look!

The keh one is at bargain quality, I’m going to keep my eyes open.

 

[MattKing]

Nope. Motion picture has lower quality bar than cultural heritage applications. The best system money could buy is a camera-based PhaseOne system.

When it comes to scanning "best" depends on how you weight different values.
I get my best results optically.

 

[McDiesel]

When it comes to scanning "best" depends on how you weight different values.

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.

 

[MattKing]

Remember, the OP said "money is no object", in that case it really doesn't.

Actually, that was what you said . The OP said:

Why are the systems so expensive, scanners are way more complex

And by the way, I'd hazard a guess that if a modern, efficient and reasonably priced scanning solution does appear, it will make even more use of lasers than the PhaseOne system. I doubt there is enough potential return on capital though to bring such a thing about.

 

[McDiesel]

@MattKing Well.. @AndrewBurns is working on it!

 

[gone]

A scanner is a lot bigger than a camera, so there's more material, which costs more money.

But I think it's really just the marketplace at work. They sell a gazillion digital cameras and only a few scanners. Guess which one will cost more?

 

[grat]

Also, the concept of a mechanically dragged line CCD is as obsolete in 2022 as a horse carriage. Basically, complexity is not a cure for obsolescence.

I'd be curious what you think a viable alternative is-- ideally, something that can scan anything from 35mm frames up to 8x10 negatives / positives. This is the same problem DSLR "scanning" faces-- for a single 35mm frame, it's fantastic. But the larger the film format, the more images that are needed to stitch together to produce a single high-resolution result.

 

[warden]

Nope. Motion picture has lower quality bar than cultural heritage applications. The best system money could buy is a camera-based PhaseOne system.

I recall seeing that Steidl has started using that system.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I still use a scanner, two in fact. For 35mm my Nikon makes scanning a hands-off piece of cake. The scanner does all the work while I am doing something else. Does the whole roll in one go. It doesn't do it fast but it requires less of my time. Better results can be had camera scanning, but for what purpose? If you are just posting online then there is no point really. If you want to print your negs large then camera scanning becomes a viable endeavor. I do that as well but only when it is worth the grief of setup. Keep in mind too that every increase in resolution you are trying to achieve results in more complicated technical challenges. If you want to get to the point of resolving the actual grain of the film, it is pretty complex.

For larger negs, using a scanner is just way easier. Stitching multiple images with a camera scan to achieve the resolution that a scanner can muster with no effort is a real PITA. But again if you want super high resolution and you want to put in the time, camera scanning can deliver. I don't think it is worth it if you want to use it as your sole option and you aren't going to print big. Even an Epson is fine for the size of prints people normally do.

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.

 

[McDiesel]

I'd be curious what you think a viable alternative is-- ideally, something that can scan anything from 35mm frames up to 8x10 negatives / positives. This is the same problem DSLR "scanning" faces-- for a single 35mm frame, it's fantastic. But the larger the film format, the more images that are needed to stitch together to produce a single high-resolution result.

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).

 

[madNbad]

There are basically four camps of how to convert a negative: wet printing, dedicated scanner, flat bed scanner or digital camera.

Not so very long ago, wet printing was the only way to view a positive print. It takes space, specialized equipment, a lot of water and a lot of skill to produce consistently good prints. It may have been on this forum but a younger user replied many of their peers considered darkroom work to be a completely different part of photography and many of them weren't interested.

Dedicated scanners were developed as the bridge to ease the transition from film to digital imaging. From the mini-labs with their high speed duplicating machines to the high end Nikons almost all but a remaining few were left in the dust of history once digital cameras became the norm. They do produce great results but are often slow and older high end models may not perform with modern operating systems.

Flat bed scanners still offer the larger format users their best choice for digitizing sheet negatives. Camera scanning 4x5 or 8x10 can be done but it seems so much simpler to lay the negative on the glass.

Camera scanning is the recent trend. Works well for both 135 and 120 format if and that's a big if, you have the right equipment. Setups rang from an LED pad in a shoe box with an adapted lens found at a charity shop to dedicated systems using medium format sensor and high end macro lenses. Camera scanning is fast and once you have obtained a sufficient way to keep the negative flat and the camera aligned, the camera is the main replaceable part. The draw backs are, keeping the camera stable, keeping the negative flat, no dust or scratch removal, works best with smaller format films.

I know I'll hear a lot about ICE and dust removal or any number of other things regarding this break down of methods but what I'm trying to show for every short coming a method may have, there are also positive with each.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Where camera-style digitization can really excel is reels of cinema film. If I want to flatbed scan several lengths of motion picture footage to make a hilarious gif, I first have to cut the film (argh!) and manually isolate each frame be it pre- or post-scan. Individual frames come naturally from a camera scanning setup... but digitizing an entire 100' reel of 16mm film by hand is a bit daunting.

You could do something similar on a flatbed with an appropriate film holder and an ImageMagick script to accurately isolate & save individual frames... but you still have to cut the film off of the reel.