How do 'Scans' from Medium Format DSLRs stand up against FlexTight?

[Stephen McAteer]

I'm looking into possibly getting a Fuji GFX 100 for scanning negatives.

Does anyone have first-hand experience of how 'Scans' from it might stand up against, say, a Hasselblad FlexTight?

Thanks in advance.

 

[koraks]

I'm going to copy in @dokko to this conversation because this seems to be something he might have some insights on.

I'll also move the thread to a more suitable forum category.

 

[Stephen McAteer]

@koraks Thank you.

 

[Romanko]

Here:

scanning - the last word

blog.kasson.com

 

[Stephen McAteer]

@Romanko — Great information there, thank you.

 

[MattKing]

There is some discussion in a couple of threads here about how (relatively speaking) poor the available macro lens options are for the Fuji GFX.
With camera based digitization, the quality of the lens is one of the most important criteria.

 

[Stephen McAteer]

@MattKing Thanks Matt. I'll go and look for those threads.

 

[dokko]

generally speaking, camera scans with high-resolution sensor cameras, like the GFX100 with a good macro lens can reach results comparable to an Imacon resolution wise.

the main advantage is obviously much faster scanning speed.
plus, you get less distortions and color fringing.

the main problem for all camera scanning solution in my experience is the color conversion for color negative film.
All the the different software packages I've tried struggle to really get the colors right like in a true analog darkroom print. sometimes they work quite well, but if they struggle I always find it very difficult to manually improve things.

FlexColor for the Imacon is not perfect either, but offers solid preset choices and a lot of control over how the colors are rendered. Plus, the FlexTouch feature is a very well implemented dust and scratches reduction option.

It's hard to recommend an Imacon in todays world though, considering that it's been out of productions for years and repairs and maintenance are rather unclear for the future.

 

[Stephen McAteer]

@dokko Thanks for that.

I agree with you that colour negative conversion is difficult. I only recently began using Portra instead of Tri-X and it's been a headache. When you get it right though, the results are great.

As for the GFX100 — I did some research and it seems that getting a good macro lens for this camera is a problem. [I would be scanning 35mm & 120, so maybe the native Fuji lens would do. I need to read more about this.]

An Imacon would be another possible solution but prices are huge, plus they're out of production as you say. [There's also maintenance to consider.]

Anyway, I'll update this thread if I find out anything that hasn't been said elsewhere already.

Cheers.

 

[xkaes]

All of my macro work with digital cameras is done with older manual focus lenses -- not only because I already have them, but because auto-focus has a problem with macro shots. While that's not the case with flat subjects, such as films, there are lots of great manual focus lenses that you could use with a cheap adapter.

 

[Steven Lee]

All of my macro work with digital cameras is done with older manual focus lenses -- not only because I already have them, but because auto-focus has a problem with macro shots.

This used to be true for DSLRs, but the opposite is true with mirrorless cameras with on-sensor PDAF. When you have 4+ rolls of 36exp each and you want to take advantage of 50MP+ sensors, autofocus will beat any human because humans are lazy and not consistent. You can't 100% perfectly nail focus 144 times in a row.

@Stephen McAteer GFX platform is not ready for film scanning. Sony A7R IV or V with Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Art Macro will beat it. I have owned both and sold the GFX. Awesome platform. Awful tethering options. Awful lens choice for film scanning.

In terms of color, I can easily match the output of Flextight X5. I spent a ton of money with my local lab giving me raw uninverted scans from their Flextight X5 and they are not superior to Sony A7R IV in any way. Look at my posting history, I shared some of my samples earlier. I am not aware of any solution under $15K, new or used, which can beat the Sony + Sigma + Negative Supply combination. When/if Fujifilm releases a comparable 1:1 macro lens for GFX, I'll switch back.

The previous paragraph covers the hardware. But software and image editing skills play a huge role. You have to get that covered if you go the camera scanning route. There's ROI considerations too. Let's be honest, 99% of our images are not that great and will never be enarged that much. But for a few lucky masterpieces you can send your film to @dokko. His custom machine appears to be magnificent and will beat any hardware you can realistically hope to buy!

 

[Stephen McAteer]

@Steven Lee Thanks very much for this information Steven.

I hadn't thought of the A7R series but I will go now and look into them [I've only ever owned Nikon / Canon DSLRs].

As you say, the GFX seems to have some problems as regards using it for digitisation. It's a little disappointing. Maybe the next generation will be better.

I have a reasonable understanding of how to use Photoshop for converting negative 'Scans', though Negative Lab Pro seems to get good reviews — I have a trial installation here which I haven't really explored yet, mainly because I'm not very familiar with Lightroom but I'll work on that.

[Thinking about the A7R — would it be realistic to use pixel shift for extra resolution, or is it not worth the hassle do you think?]

Anyway, thanks again.

 

[Romanko]

would it be realistic to use pixel shift for extra resolution

I tried pixel shift with A7R and it worked. I used Sony software to produce a high-resolution image from multiple pixel-shifted files. I am not sure why anyone would need a 200MP resolution scan. If you dig into Jim Kasson's web site (see post #4) you will find plenty of information on pixel shift.

 

[Stephen McAteer]

I tried pixel shift with A7R and it worked. I used Sony software to produce a high-resolution image from multiple pixel-shifted files. I am not sure why anyone would need a 200MP resolution scan. If you dig into Jim Kasson's web site (see post #4) you will find plenty of information on pixel shift.

Yes — I don't think I have any use for a 200MP scan. Just wondered if it was do-able I suppose. Jim Kasson's site has lots of interesting information thanks.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Stephen McAteer Yes, as @Romanko pointed out, pixel shifting works. But if a single-shot 60MP scan does not give you enough resolution I would recommend multi-shot stitching instead. Stitching is immune to micro-vibrations [1] and gives you more usable resolution.

[1] The latest Sony cameras have a feature called motion compensation to address this. But mine doesn't. Wind gusts or heavier cars driving by cause my house to vibrate which makes pixel shifting ineffective. My office is upstairs which probably adds to it.

 

[Stephen McAteer]

@Stephen McAteer Yes, as @Romanko pointed out, pixel shifting works. But if a single-shot 60MP scan does not give you enough resolution I would recommend multi-shot stitching instead. Stitching is immune to micro-vibrations [1] and gives you more usable resolution.

[1] The latest Sony cameras have a feature called motion compensation to address this. But mine doesn't. Wind gusts or heavier cars driving by cause my house to vibrate which makes pixel shifting ineffective. My office is upstairs which probably adds to it.

@Steven Lee Thanks Steven. I hadn't heard of motion compensation. Sounds ideal for this particular application. New cameras are amazing.

I use 120 film these days, so stitching might be useful for super-big prints if I ever want to make them.

Realistically though, I don't think I need bigger than 60MP scans — looking at the pixel dimensions of an A7R V image, straight out of the camera I'd have a ~20" x 20" image from a 6x6 negative, which is plenty big enough for me.

Cheers.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Stephen McAteer Yep, here's a full-sized one-shot scan of a 6x6 HP5+ negative so you'll know what to expect.

 

[_T_]

The 240Mp of the pixel shifted resolution of the sony sensor would be capable of resolving features of 2 microns from a 35mm frame at 1:1, but finding a lens that is capable of achieving this at the required magnification is another matter.

None of the currently available macro lenses designed for use with digital cameras are capable of more than 1/3 of that resolution. Same for vintage manual focus camera lenses.

You can do a little better with certain lenses designed for use with bellows, but getting them adapted to focus at 1:1 can be a problem.

There’s really not a lot of options in this sphere. Most lenses designed for 1:1 are made with general macro photography in mind where 2 micron resolution is not a concern, and most lenses that can resolve near 2 microns are only designed to be able to do so at magnifications near 10x or so.

 

[Stephen McAteer]

@Stephen McAteer Yep, here's a full-sized one-shot scan of a 6x6 HP5+ negative so you'll know what to expect.

Thanks Steven. Looks good. Definitely big enough.

 

[Stephen McAteer]

The 240Mp of the pixel shifted resolution of the sony sensor would be capable of resolving features of 2 microns from a 35mm frame at 1:1, but finding a lens that is capable of achieving this at the required magnification is another matter.

None of the currently available macro lenses designed for use with digital cameras are capable of more than a 1/3 of that resolution. Same for vintage manual focus camera lenses.

You can do a little better with certain lenses designed for use with bellows, but getting them adapted to focus at 1:1 can be a problem.

There’s really not a lot of options in this sphere. Most lenses designed for 1:1 are made with general macro photography in mind where 2 micron resolution is not a concern, and most lenses that can resolve near 2 microns are only designed to be able to do so at magnifications near 10x or so.

@_T_ Useful information thanks. The Sigma Art Macro gets a favourable mention on here. [Macro lenses are an entire world of their own it would seem. So much to learn…]

 

[GLS]

I've been pretty pleased with the results from the A7RIV + Sigma 70mm ART macro, using pixel-shift. A strong continuous light source (to maintain fast shutter speeds), good copy stand and strict control of micro vibrations are required to minimise the comb-like edge artifacts in the pixel-shifted 240 MP images though.

 

[Stephen McAteer]

@GLS Okay thanks for that. The A7R series sounds good.

 

[_T_]

A strong continuous light source (to maintain fast shutter speeds), good copy stand and strict control of micro vibrations are required to minimise the comb-like edge artifacts in the pixel-shifted 240 MP images though.

They make anti vibration foam mats for sound isolation applications in professional recording studios that would probably be a big help with micro vibrations if you put some under the legs of the table and between the table and the copy stand.

 

[Stephen McAteer]

@_T_ Thanks. I'll Google those.