From Youtube: Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson (Via Nick Carver)

[Lachlan Young]

Ya got that right!

I'll take care of the scanning. Lets get some 123 invert and color. Otherwise for someone like me it's 5 separate steps with two or three programs to get a decent scan and result.

It's actually pretty simple - once you understand the principle that the materials operate on & if you aren't trying to correct severe colour crossover. It is perfectly feasible to build a 3D-LUT on that basis that can take an un-inverted scan, deal with the mask correctly, invert the image, set the black and white points & get the general colour in the right direction - and once set up it'll do all this in a single click. The problem is that it depends on your processing and scanning systems having decent consistency. And you need a different one for each film you use.

 

[Les Sarile]

I shot a 4 X 4 arrangement of 12233 rescharts shot with 35mm Kodak Techpan at ISO25 and processed using Kodak Technidol. I then compared the "scan" of the same frame of film using my 14MP Pentax K20D, Coolscan 4000dpi and 36MP Nikon D800 and show the results below.

Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/8372250EA44CB06/orig.jpg

Bottom left shows the arrangement of test targets. Above that shows 100% crop of the center section taken with the K20D. Above that is the 100% crop from the Coolscan 4000dpi. And above that is the 100% crop from the D800.

You'll notice the Coolscan crop is not much larger then the K20D (pixel wise) but obviously achieves much more detail.
Notice too that although the D800 has more pixels then the Coolscan, they achieve essentially the same detail.

The big 100% crop on the right is the center section of the same frame of film optically magnified using the K20D + autobellows. Clearly much more detail has been captured on the film then can be resolved by the methods used.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I think you'll see some pretty surprising conclusions here, but they track with my experience.

Personally I would quibble with his DSLR scan technique. 1. He appears to be doing no masking at all. 2. He should be using a copy stand and macro rails with the film in a proper film holder elevated off the light source. 3. The 6D has the worst in class sensor of all semi-modern DSLRs. 3a. The 6D cannot pixel shift so he's fighting bayer interpolation and he has to do an extremely large amount of captures and stitching to achieve his resolution target. And 4. Though he seems to have an understanding of Negative Lab Pro, he doesn't seem to have a strong grasp of how to use it.

All that being said, I'm just not surprised to hear that a DSLR is so close to the drum scan in IQ. You really do have to try it to see for yourself. I'm also not surprised to see that he prefers the Epson scan. Epsons do well with larger formats, and he's both wet scanning it, and taking advantage of iSRD. Dust is a huge problem with ultra high res scanning, and one I'm still trying to deal with.

Enjoy the video!

Reasonably good video, though I do agree with you that the DSLR part of the scanning left a lot to be desired, however, given his level of experience with DSLR scanning, I'd say he did attempt to give it a fair shake.

 

[Marameo]

Apparently, according to the video, the clear winner is Silverfast for inverting the negative.

 

[Smaug01]

Apparently, according to the video, the clear winner is Silverfast for inverting the negative.

Is that a plugin or can it be used stand-alone with an imported JPG?

 

[Helge]

Got any insights to add to the subject of DSLR scanning or is this just a general dislike of YouTube? Whilst I don’t particularly rate Negative Feedback, that channel, along with that of Matt Day and Nick Carver have a lot of followers, and are helping to keep the excitement of film photography going in a demographic that doesn’t use web forums. They don’t profess to be self appointed experts and are just showing how they got on with things they try out. Other people build on that and communicate their own experiences. Much like here really.

This is unfair to say the least.

There are many untalented hack photographers on Youtube I could name, but Nick Carver isn't one of them. He actually demonstrates a fairly high degree of knowledge and skill when it comes to film photography, and generally gives good advice. This is just unfortunately one of the rare cases where that isn't true, and it seems like he hadn't researched the whole process of DSLR scanning very well, or simply wasn't prepared to commit the necessary time and resources to give it a fair shake.

What knowledge and skill is that? Show me just one good insight or clever thinking from him?
Also much worse, show me just one great photograph (or even good) from him.
For a professional guy his output is incredibly bland and cliché. And not in the intentional artful Stephen Shore way either.
He seems like a guy squandering an inheritance in chasing the dream of being a generic "real photographer", being a minor YouTube celebrity meanwhile to support his ego.

But all that is really beside the point, my personal feelings and conjecture.

What is Really Bad™ is that he is misrepresenting DSLR scanning, and providing a sales pitch for something that is provably far shittier: The Epson scanners.
I'm thinking, is he getting paid by Epson?

 

[Jason Berge]

Basically your standard pseudo stealthy “humble” YouTube blowhard, à la Matt Day or Negative Feedback.
He’s an untalented idiot, with no real grasp of what he’s doing.
He knows how to spend money and make his process and life in general look casually smooth in videos, but while he is using an enormous amount of resources and thought on that, his actual output and technique is just aping, or a simulacrum of something he’s seen.
As pointed out by others here, there are too many problems with his DSLR method to even start a meaningful critique.
The real problem is that his video might induce FUD in his followers, who might just end up in paralysis.

100% agree with this.

Also, I have had a bit of a chat with him, on line, so to speak, and he got really "pissy" that people were "having a go" and in my case being "patronising".

Really doesn't want to hear that he did anything wrong, and people are being "dicks" for stating the obvious, that he presented a pile of steaming garbage, and passed it off as "expertise"

But apparently I am the one with the problem?

 

[Helge]

Maybe just say “ok millennial”?

Coming from someone who is technically one.

He’s really the archetype of that cliché.
Very ready to dish out critique and criticism in excruciating detail, thinking that is a proxy for looking intellectual.
While on the other hand thinking he can “own” and anticipate criticism and counters by constructing straw men and using cutdown, cookie cutter versions of counters to his stance, that he hastily looked up.
And then being extremely thin skinned, and lapsing into the lowest form of argument, https://blog.adioma.com/how-to-argue-pg-hierarchy-of-disagreement/ when he can feel he’s being soundly shot down.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I'm thinking, is he getting paid by Epson?

This is something I've wondered about many of the most dug-in defenders of Epson - but I think it's largely a lack of knowledge and experience of anything better and an egocentric inability to admit to this.

 

[Jason Berge]

This is something I've wondered about many of the most dug-in defenders of Epson - but I think it's largely a lack of knowledge and experience of anything better and an egocentric inability to admit to this.

I don't have a problem with the Epson stuff. I have one myself and it is perfectly good for certain uses. I wouldn't use it for anything smaller than 120 film, or for a print bigger than 16x20. But other than that it can be useful tool.

The DSLR scanning, as presented by Nick, is as I said above, a steaming pile of garbage. He is completely clueless, and doesn't like being told so, no matter how gently you do it. At this point, in the comments over on Youtube, he is just embarrassing himself.

 

[Helge]

This is something I've wondered about many of the most dug-in defenders of Epson - but I think it's largely a lack of knowledge and experience of anything better and an egocentric inability to admit to this.

Most likely, yes. I was being kind of facetious.
You can hear the magic thinking implied in the video. Variations on “But it’s a real scanner” is often heard from such persons.
The other classic is “why not just take the image with the DSLR in the first place? Usually from people who also think a single shot is going to capture “everything”.
Sure, for Instagram it can be “fine”. But the real magic with the method is taking multiple shots either at higher macro levels or with “home made” sensor shift. With stitching the secret is to have generous overlap.
That combined with multible different exposures combined to extract all the DR from the shot (longer for slide and shorter for negative), and you can have something that blows a drumscan out of the water, for a fraction of the price, and at your disposal twenty four seven.

 

[Helge]

I don't have a problem with the Epson stuff. I have one myself and it is perfectly good for certain uses. I wouldn't use it for anything smaller than 120 film, or for a print bigger than 16x20. But other than that it can be useful tool.

The DSLR scanning, as presented by Nick, is as I said above, a steaming pile of garbage. He is completely clueless, and doesn't like being told so, no matter how gently you do it. At this point, in the comments over on Youtube, he is just embarrassing himself.

Sure, if you already have it, then it could probably be useful for contact sheet equivalent or for small postings. But advising someone to go out and spend the not inconsiderable sum on a new one, which is basically what he is doing here, is very bad advice.
If you find it for a steal or have an old one, and know it real well then use it for what it’s worth.
It’s not less work to scan a roll on it, if you have the routine down and the setup ready with the DSLR method though, often it’s far more if you have to battle the holders and dust magnet the setup is.
The inverting is where there is some slight discrepancies, not by much though, and it’s a matter of time before that is corrected.

 

[Jason Berge]

Sure, if you already have it, then it could probably be useful for contact sheet equivalent or for small postings. But advising someone to go out and spend the not inconsiderable sum on a new one, which is basically what he is doing here, is very bad advice.
If you find it for a steal or have an old one, and know it real well then use it for what it’s worth.
It’s not less work to scan a roll, if you have the routine down and the setup ready with the DSLR method though.
The inverting is where there is some slight discrepancies, not by much though, and it’s a matter of time before that is corrected.

Yep,

That is what I use it for, proof sheets and small prints ( I call > 16x20 small)

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Most likely, yes. I was being kind of facetious.
You can hear the magic thinking implied in the video. Variations on “But it’s a real scanner” is often heard from such persons.
The other classic is “why not just take the image with the DSLR in the first place? Usually from people who also think a single shot is going to capture “everything”.
Sure, for Instagram it can be “fine”. But the real magic with the method is taking multiple shots either at higher macro levels or with “home made” sensor shift. With stitching the secret is to have generous overlap.
That combined with multible different exposures combined to extract all the DR from the shot (longer for slide and shorter for negative), and you can have something that blows a drumscan out of the water, for a fraction of the price, and at your disposal twenty four seven.

It has gotten a bit easier. If you want to be serious about your scans I highly recommend the Panasonic S1R. True RGB capture and a 3:2 pixel resolution of 189mp means you don't have to stitch unless you plan to go beyond 24" printers. With the crops my typical 4x5/8x10/6x7 resoltuion is 155mp, and 1:1 images are roughly 125mp. These sizes enable you to make a 360dpi (important for Epson) print up to 24". Add a couple more passes and stitching and you're well beyond the 44" size.

The S1R has a few features that make it ideal for scanning actually.
1. It can scan in 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 (native), and even XPan crops. This save a TON of cropping time later when it comes to a full roll, I cannot stress that enough. Bafflingly it does not have a 4x5 crop...
2. It tethers like a champ with it's own software that is free. What's more, the USB-C connection charges the battery, so no AC adapter needed.
3. The screen both flips up, and sideways. So when you're scanning with an L bracket you can flip the camera so as to not lose any resolution when scanning 645. If you use a copy stand like me it's harder to orient the carrier sideways, so this is quite handy.
4. The AF covers the whole sensor, and it's contrast dependent. This ensures that you get perfect focus every time. I've found this very reliable even when using pixel shift.
5. The electronic shutter, no vibration.

Pixel shift files are inherently a little bit better than bayer when it comes to noise and shadow recovery so I haven't found it necessary to do any HDR work. Even when it comes to E6 film it tends to muddle things up more than reveal any info in high density areas. Of course I also scan a lot with a single capture. There are those that say a bayer file will always be far inferior to a CCD line scanner, and in my experience the penalty is not as big as one would imagine. Turns out bayer interpolation is pretty good. The files appear detailed and crisp at 100%, and sharpen well.

This camera coupled with Negative Supply film holders has been a boon to my productivity. I'm now scanning 35mm to 8x10 and getting fabulous quality. It's a great time to shoot film I'll tell you that.

 

[blacksquare]

It's a great time to shoot film I'll tell you that.

Because you can buy digital camera body for $3,700 and use it for "scan"?
Really great time to shoot film...

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Because you can buy digital camera body for $3,700 and use it for "scan"?
Really great time to shoot film...

If you can't tell from my screen name I run a lab, and I can tell you my Fuji Frontiers cost a whole lot more than $3,700. I can also tell you that S1Rs are currently selling for a lot less than $3700, and I got mine used for a song.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

If you can't tell from my screen name I run a lab, and I can tell you my Fuji Frontiers cost a whole lot more than $3,700. I can also tell you that S1Rs are currently selling for a lot less than $3700, and I got mine used for a song.

Interesting how S1R cameras seem to be going for significantly under the new price when released, which wasn't that long ago. I'm not sure how say a FUJI GFX 50S would compare, but that doesn't have pixel shift...

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Interesting how S1R cameras seem to be going for significantly under the new price when released, which wasn't that long ago. I'm not sure how say a FUJI GFX 50S would compare, but that doesn't have pixel shift...

Their initial price was bonkers. I mean they are focusing on quality which is great, but leave the insane gouging to Leica. Their 50mm 1.4 S Pro is a sublime normal, but it's price point is just dumb. The Sigma is half the price an 95% of the performance. Maybe even 99%. The S Pro does have a better focus system, that's for sure.

Re Medium Format vs 24x36 for scanning: I have scanned once with a medium format digital back, but not the GFX so this is speculation on some level. I would guess that medium format does not offer much in the way of IQ improvements over a pixel shifting full frame camera. The resolution would be lower even with the GFX 100, and your practical resolution lower still since you have a bayer sensor. Couple that with the fact that most medium format macros only go to 1:2, and require tubes for 1:1...you may have a tough time absolutely nailing critical focus. A 70mm can do 1:1 from 35mm to 8x10 on a single copy stand, that's a huge advantage from a workflow perspective.

 

[Cholentpot]

Feeling stuffy in here...

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

I decided to buy the Nikon ES-2 Film Digitizer Set. I got a stepping ring to try it with my 12-60 lens for my Olympus E-M10 III. Worked great; sharper results than I expected from a "street sweeper" zoom lens. Then, I knew it would be worth the investment to buy a macro lens, so I did. The 30/3.5 (60 mm eq.)

What model of “stepping ring” connects the Olympus 30 mm f/3.5 macro to the Nikon ES-2?

Does this rig hold the frame at the right distance to fill the frame (as well as can be expected with the wrong aspect ratio)?

Is the film in focus across the frame at reasonable f-numbers?

 

[MattKing]

What model of “stepping ring” connects the Olympus 30 mm f/3.5 macro to the Nikon ES-2?

The ES-2 attaches directly using a 52mm filter thread.
The Olympus 30mm f/3.5 macro has 46mm filter threads.
So you will need a 46mm - 52mm step-up ring.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Not sure I understand some of the vitriol pointed at the guy. He is just saying what he would do. He has valid points for him that you may not agree with. I did find it poor that he was bashing Aztek for what seems to be a difference in color. The Aztek scan was much more accurate than the Strickland scan. I found that strange frankly and it showed a lack of understanding of what color is. Still, if he wants to scan with an Epson, so what? The point of photography is not maxing everything out, it is to make photographs....

 

[Smaug01]

The ES-2 attaches directly using a 52mm filter thread.
The Olympus 30mm f/3.5 macro has 46mm filter threads.
So you will need a 46mm - 52mm step-up ring.

It's 62 mm. So I have a 46 - 62 mm step-up ring.

 

[Smaug01]

What model of “stepping ring” connects the Olympus 30 mm f/3.5 macro to the Nikon ES-2?

46- 62 mm. Any brand.

Does this rig hold the frame at the right distance to fill the frame (as well as can be expected with the wrong aspect ratio)?

Yes.
The tube at the end of the ES-2 slides in and out, so you can set it to fill the frame. I leave a bit of room around the edges, so I have room for rotation correction.

Is the film in focus across the frame at reasonable f-numbers?

Yes, you can use any f-stop you want. I use f/8, for maximum lens sharpness and a bit more depth of field for slight focusing errors. My shutter speeds are around 1/4 sec. @ ASA 200, with the light table as the light source.

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

Thanks for those details, Smaug01. I have the camera and lens so would only need the Nikon ES-2 and adapter ring. Sounds intriguing for its low cost and low storage space compared to a film scanner. I could envisage ‘scanning’ whole rolls like that and giving the occasional special neg to a lab to scan at higher quality.