Scan of Grain Texture at 11'000ppi

[brbo]

It's not about the age. I've never seen a drum scan showing real resolution of 11k either (truth be told, we haven't seen it from Dokko scanner either, but I'd trust that he scanned a USAF resolution target at some point to verify that).

I own a drum scanner (albeit only a pedestrian Howtek 4500 - 4000dpi) and drum scanner, because of its nature of scanning, is the last scanner I'd use to get proper representation of film grain as you can see it under microscope or with grain magnifier under your enlarger set for the highest magnification (and, again, I haven't seen it from Dokko scans posted here either, 11k is probably too low). A lot of better drum scanners need to oversample (scan at like 10.000dpi) and scan at bigger than optimal aperture to keep the grain in check, consequently sacrificing real resolution.

 

[dokko]

I'm merely pointing out that you're not really putting your money where your mouth is with regard to drum scan camparison

yes, I see your point.

I didn't really start this thread as a drum scan comparison though. Originally it was about the difference of T-Max 100 and Delta 100 in XTOL and FX39II, and when the question about the scanner came up I thought I'll provide a reference with an Imacon because that's what I have access to and that's what many people know.

It would be good to have proper drum scan comparison on my website with all kind of different models. I'm quite busy the way it is though, so it's not my first priority, specially since I've seen the comparison myself already several times.

But as mentioned, I'll gladly do a scan for free if somebody wants to do a scanner comparison, which I feel is more useful for everybody since it will be an independent party.

anyway, I'll see that I can find the time to post a color negative at high resolution since the title of the thread is "Grain Texture at 11'000ppi" and not "Drum scanner comparison"

 

[0x001688936CA08]

... the title of the thread is "Grain Texture at 11'000ppi" and not "Drum scanner comparison"

Yes, I walked back (removed) my statement of "not putting your money where your mouth is" because it seemed too aggressive. I'm genuinely intrigued by what you've achieved. And yes, I appreciate your intention isn't to demonstrate your scanner against drum scanners specifically.

At any rate, drum scanners have been the state of the art for that last 20 to 30 years (as you mention on your website), so the lack of comparison is somewhat glaring against your claim of "the new gold standard of modern film scanning".

 

[dokko]

here's a zoomable image of Kodak Gold 200 at 11'000ppi:

dokko - mamooth scans

Scan at 11000ppi, Kodak Gold 200, dokkoscan

dokkoscan.com

this was shot with a consumer canon zoom lens, so obviously not the sharpest image, but should give a good idea of the grain structure of Gold 200.

I have a bit of time over the next days, so I'll try to prepare more examples.

 

[SHOLOJOV]

The Imacon scanner always adds digital sharpening, which can't be turned off. There has been quite a some discussions in forums that said that you have to set the software to -120 (the minimum) to disable it, but a simple test comparing sharpening se to 0 and -120 shows that -120 actually adds a software blur to smooth out grain (it looses image detail which can't be recovered later). the above 8000ppi sample has been scanned with sharpening set at 0, which adds a certain default digital sharpening by the scanner software. of course we can add more, but it will start to look like an image with a lot sharpening applied, which I personally dislike.

The problem is, that their scanner lens only resolves about 6000ppi for 35mm to start with.
A normal film scanned with their 8000ppi setting looks a bit sharper than the 6300ppi setting, but if you examine the files in detail, it's mainly due to a digital pixel pattern they use to make the grain look sharper rather than true film resolution.
with the Adox CMS20 II having nearly no visible grain at 6000ppi, that approach falls short.

HI guys
i use the Flextight x5, is great scanner, but i dont like the noise pixelation... i use al parameter of usm in cero but the noise never go.. and dont find the real parameters for scan 35 mm to 5.000 dpi OK. THANKS TO ALL. I USE A EVERSMART SUPREME OF SCITEX ALL paramaters in cero and film grain is natural, perfect

 

[dokko]

how does your system handle super thin negatives? Commercial scanners at mail order labs dont seem to have the ability to get anything out of those negatives that even the naked eye can see.

not sure what the mail order labs in your area use, over here it's pretty much all Fuji Frontier scanners, which do quite poorly with underexposed negatives, so that's not a very high bar to beat.

obviously there is a physical limit of what we can get out, and it's really thin negatives the image will always have a certain appearance and will never look "normal" since there's very limited information stored in the film itself. but I can confidently say that my system does better than everything else I tried.

 

[dokko]

i use the Flextight x5, is great scanner, but i dont like the noise pixelation... i use al parameter of usm in cero but the noise never go.. and dont find the real parameters for scan 35 mm to 5.000 dpi OK. THANKS TO ALL. I USE A EVERSMART SUPREME OF SCITEX ALL paramaters in cero and film grain is natural, perfect

yeah, the Imacon/Hasselblad have a strange artificial pixel pattern, which give a rather good impression on sharpness but it's not really a representation of the real grain structure.

I never had a chance to try an Eversmart Supreme, so if you have a negative you'd like to compare send me a message.

 

[Richard Man]

Love this thread and the dokko scans. I hope one day I will have a negative that's worthwhile enough and I am rich enough to get a multi-thousands dollars scan! One can dream!

 

[dokko]

Love this thread and the dokko scans. I hope one day I will have a negative that's worthwhile enough and I am rich enough to get a multi-thousands dollars scan! One can dream!

thanks for the kind words Richard.
your negatives certainly look worthwhile to me - I specially love the Xpan desert pictures!

your scans seem very good as well, but if you ever have one you'd like to print huge, drop me a note - If I have some spare time I sometimes manage to scan some negatives for free for non-commercial projects (specially 35mm and 120 since there are less time consuming on my machine than large format).

 

[Richard Man]

thanks for the kind words Richard.
your negatives certainly look worthwhile to me - I specially love the Xpan desert pictures!

your scans seem very good as well, but if you ever have one you'd like to print huge, drop me a note - If I have some spare time I sometimes manage to scan some negatives for free for non-commercial projects (specially 35mm and 120 since there are less time consuming on my machine than large format).

Thank you sir. I have an Imacon 848, which I have scanned 4x5 and printed as large as 5 feet across (typically for my transgender portraits project for the Trans Day of Remembrance events). I had a couple 4x5 scanned at a drum scan service and it's better than the Imacon for sure.

XPan format is outrageous when it's good, it's great.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I don't know the reason for the lack of a new, dedicated high-end film scanner in the last 20 years.. my guess is that the market is too small to warrant the R&D, manufacturing and support.

but yes, one reason could well be that it needs very expensive parts and tight tolerances to get to 10'000ppi and above, which means it's pretty much impossible to sell one for an affordable price.

there is a copy stand scanning solution from PhaseOne, which sells around 100'000EUR, and it doesn't reach 10'000ppi (to be fair it's designed more for versatility in mind than highest resolution)

I think you see no R&D in scanner development because this hybrid method makes no sense. If the goal is a digital file, then digital and not analog capture is best. If the goal is an analog file, analog capture is best.

 

[Richard Man]

I don't think your reasoning is correct.

 

[dokko]

I think you see no R&D in scanner development because this hybrid method makes no sense. If the goal is a digital file, then digital and not analog capture is best. If the goal is an analog file, analog capture is best.

I would phrase that as: "...because this hybrid method makes no sense to most people".

it clearly makes sense to me, and to the people I'm scanning for, which are people who love some aspects of analog film capture, but prefer/need digital post-production.

 

[Richard Man]

I would phrase that as: "...because this hybrid method makes no sense to most people".

Actually, I think most people who use a camera just don't care. The question isn't even on their minds.

Most people just use digital cameras / phones. Most (new) film users just send their stuff out and get the negs back with scans.

It's really not that complicated.

 

[Steven Lee]

We can debate and make grand estimates of the total addressable market for a high quality film scanner and whether the lack of investment is a market size issue. But I would like to point out that consumer electronics, as a segment, is in the long decline. Talent is highly concentrated. The best STEM brains prefer to work in software and finance, where companies enjoy $1M+ revenue per employee. Can't do that designing and making electronic gadgets, so no top talent for you. Seriously, can you think of any electronic device not made by Apple that's not an utter garbage?

 

[koraks]

The best STEM brains prefer to work in software and finance, where companies enjoy $1M+ revenue per employee.

Not in China, or even South Korea, where a significant chunk of the engineering of consumer electronics happens. By Western standards, their talent is grossly underpaid, which is the main reason why the locus of development has moved there. They employ their considerable talent and thorough training in making functional and most of all accessible/affordable electronics at an unprecedented scale.

Seriously, can you think of any electronic device not made by Apple that's not an utter garbage?

Loads and loads. Apple devices don't stand out in particular. If you open up $2 trinkets and analyze how they're engineered by an anonymous guy working his butt off for 16hrs/day in an artificially lit doghouse someplace in China, it's surprising how smart, creative and most of all efficient these designs are. They generally last virtually indefinitely, too, by the grace of the fact that engineering practices related to quality management and user experience are now so wide-spread that even entry-level products are actually really good.

User electronics is not in "the long decline". It's declining about as much as, say, breakfast cereal. It's a segment that's massive and pervasive and still shows enormous growth, both economically and technology-wise.

Going back to the subject matter of this thread: this is also where most of the issue is. It's hard to justify a few months worth of engineering hours to build an affordable scanner for a market that basically doesn't exist. If you undertake something like that as a business, the first thing you do is spend a couple of hours Googling on how the market works, what segments there are, how they're served and by what technologies. It's really easy to find out that the market for a decent-quality, yet affordable film scanner is virtually nonexistent.

I think you see no R&D in scanner development because this hybrid method makes no sense. If the goal is a digital file, then digital and not analog capture is best.

About 0.0000001% of the photographers alive reason this way. So that's not it. See @Richard Man's argument above. Don't confuse your own preference with consumer attitudes.

yeah, the Imacon/Hasselblad have a strange artificial pixel pattern, which give a rather good impression on sharpness but it's not really a representation of the real grain structure.

Having played a little with an Imacon recently, I can underline this. The scans look crisp, but so far, the 3200 dpi 35mm scans from my Scan Dual IV show comparable or even better resolution than the 5700dpi output of the Precision II. The latter's files do have a certain 'crispness' to them due to the noise pattern.

 

[Prest_400]

My observation regarding scanning is that the volumes are in C41 and minilab scanning with a certain sufficiency. High performance scans are much more niche.
It's of course an observation bias, but a lot of photographers and, by inertia, labs are seeking and using Fuji Frontiers. It's not the hardware itself but the color software being "magical".
I recall reading that Noritsu HS1800 might not be manufactured anymore; but labs and photographers appreciate it. Ditto for home users that procured Pakons.
That would be the first front to cover if going for a new scanner.

Years ago I recall there was some student(s) working in a scanner project but that probably was presented as a design project and stayed there. They shared some of the high level development in RFF IIRC

Personally I am doing hybrid color and keeping B&W in the darkroom, but a personal pet peeve of file output from labs is that the 3-5K high files are always "high res" and very costly. I am mostly a medium format shooter and it benefits from a higher resolution.

 

[Steven Lee]

User electronics is not in "the long decline". It's declining about as much as, say, breakfast cereal.

I love your analogy. But the thing is, consumer electronics is not supposed to feel like breakfast cereal. I am turning 50 this year and most of my life the CES show was something to look forward to. Almost every year the industry would produce something that made you think "how the hell is this possible?", I still remember the feeling of owning the first Sony walkman. Nothing in common with breakfast cereal.

I don't quite understand your positive impression of modern consumer gadgets. But in another thread you also admitted that you can't hear coil whine coming out of 80% of the monitors, so maybe you've given up expecting excellence from them. From the perspective of a life-long tech enthusiast, everything is garbage now until a software company decides to show up and teach everyone how to do it properly, which does not happen often. And the reason for this is the need for software expertise to make almost anything now ("software is eating the world") and highly uneven distribution of software/UX talent. The industry can't even make a usable microwave anymore (I was shopping for one), and even the Leica engineers still haven't figured out how to ship working code, so the market size is not the only reason.

 

[koraks]

I don't think there's a lot of sensible debate possible on the premise that "everything is crap and has gone to hell in a handbasket". Sorry to hear you're disappointed with technology. I don't think your disappointment has anything to do with the relative lack of new film scanners being introduced; this really is due to the size of this market, existing product offering and substitute products.

 

[albireo]

If the goal is a digital file, then digital and not analog capture is best. If the goal is an analog file, analog capture is best.

It is incredibly disappointing to read this misinformed, obtuse gatekeeping rubbish from you.

I mean I could almost understand if it came from your average old-guard amateur film photographer who has taken their last picture in the 70s and now does their photography via keyboard and armchair, but you, the co-author of one of the most valuable books on film photography available?

Instead of building bridges and guiding the new generation of film photographers with your immense knowledge you seem preoccupied on outlining what is "best" what is "not best" and what is the "goal" and what is not the goal and what is "analog".

Nobody cares about purity anymore. Digital is not the enemy. Digital processing is not black magic. Printing in a darkroom doesn't make you a "purer" or "better" photographer. Many people who use a film camera today don't hate digital images and digital image distribution. It is possible, and in fact EXTREMELY interesting for many, to mingle the two workflows.

I wish the purists out there realised that this hobby has significantly evolved since the time it was their hobby.

 

[koraks]

Moderator note: perhaps I should have redacted @RalphLambrecht's comment above on the premise of rule #4 ("All photography is valid"). I chose not to and instead posted a response on personal title. Either way, let's put a stop to the discussion that boils down to the question whether hybrid photography is viable. Which is to say, further contributions to that particular debate are subject to removal.