Scanner with 8K resolution

[Jud23]

Hello
Does anyone know Filmscanners with a resolution of 8K?
If not, which scanners have a resolution of 4K?
I need the best resolution for a project.

Best regards and thanks in advance

 

[nbagno]

Howtek HR8000, Scanmate 11000, ICG 365, Heidelberg Tango, to name a few.

 

[Jud23]

Thank you so much

 

[138S]

Hello
Does anyone know Filmscanners with a resolution of 8K?
If not, which scanners have a resolution of 4K?
I need the best resolution for a project.

Best regards and thanks in advance

Here you have many scanners tested: https://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html

If you ask 8k in the long side of the 35mm frame then you need 8000/1.5 = 5333 dpi , for 4k you requite 2666dpi

Most (or many) scanners will scan 6400dpi, another thing is how many dpi effective they deliver, you will find it in the www.filmscanner.info.

In particular fine Drum scanners, Hasselblad X1 or X5 and and some High end Pre-Press Flatbeds (Scitex Creo) will deliver top optical performance, but they are expensive, or scanning scanning service is quite expensive, while many times the shot won't contain optical quality enough to make worth spending too much money.

To say it clear, if you shot handheld you probably will have some shake in the image, also the scenes are mostly in the DOF and not much in perfect focus, so 95% of the times a cheaper scanner will deliver a similar result than an expensive one, you may see this; https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/

If you want top quality for cheap then upgrade the format, usually it is much cheaper to shot Medium Format than shooting 35mm and later having to spend a lot of money in Pro scan services, if you shot MF you will get insane amounts of image quality with a cheap scanner like the Epson V800, to equal that quality from 35mm film you will need (in a row) to use a very slow film a very expensive lens and a very, very expensive scanning.

So... If you require top quality then go to Medium Format, this is cheapest way to obtain rocking quality, drawback is that MF cameras are less agile and you usually shot less frames, so it may require a more proficient camera usage, but if wanting image quality MF is the way to go. Sebastião Salgado moved to 6x4.5cm for the Genesis project...

 

[Chan Tran]

When you say 8K or 4K you must specify what size of film.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

8k is not very high resolution for imaging purposes. In 16x9 TV terms that 7,680 x 4,320. A Coolscan 9000 easily out does that with medium format, but comes in just under 8000 pixels in the long dimension for 35mm.

However, people are switching to camera scanning generally, and it's a workflow I recommend. Get a camera with a pixel dimension greater than 8000 in the long dimension and you're there. The traditional line scanner that will do this with 35mm would be the Imacons, but they're basically obsoleted by good camera scanning rigs. Emphasis on the good rig part, meaning pixel shifting camera, high quality light source, and holder. You can even wet scan with a camera and it works well.

IMHO the Coolscans are not yet obsoleted by camera rigs because ICE is amazing and works well. Drum scanners are kind of another thing. They're very good, but very expensive, and a very big PITA to use.

 

[Jud23]

Thank you! That was interesting! I am going to scan 35mm negatives.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What are you doing with the scans?

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello
Does anyone know Filmscanners with a resolution of 8K?
If not, which scanners have a resolution of 4K?
I need the best resolution for a project.

Best regards and thanks in advance

Hallo Landsmann ,

as it sounds that you just need these highest-quality-possible scans for one project, buying the needed scan-equipment does not make sense.
Using a professional scan-service is your best option. And as you are living in Germany, you have luck as there are several excellent top-quality scan-services here in Germany.
From my own experience, I can highly recommend the following scan-services to you:
1. https://www.high-end-scans.de/
2. https://www.fineartdrumscanning.de/
3. https://www.skyline-panorama.de/trommelscan/
If you you don't mind shipping across borders, I can also highly recommend Tim Parkin in the UK: http://www.drumscanning.co.uk/

All of them are working with real drumscanners. This scanner type is not only surpassing your 8k request / need, drumscanners also deliver extremely high dynamic range (up to 12 stops with reversal film, and up to 19 stops with negative film), and the ability to record the film grain in a very natural way (there is very little difference in grain appearence between a drumscan and an optical print).
Because of the extremely high dynamic range offered by drumscans they are also the perfect solution for "saving" significantly underexposed or overexposed shots.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Jud23]

Thank you so much!
I need the scans to compare analog and digital photography.
I am not sure yet whether to scan on my own or using a service. I would rather want to use a service but my teacher wants me to scan on my own.
I'll see what I can get.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Are you sure your teacher wants you to scan in 8K? Or does he want the final image to be 8K? I can't imagine your teacher wants you to spend so much money on this school project, as outside drum scan will cost a lot of money. . He may want you to scan at a lower resolution and then just uprez to 8K in post processing so the final image is a full 32mg, which is what 8K will give you.

 

[Henning Serger]

Thank you so much!
I need the scans to compare analog and digital photography.

Oh, you are opening up a huge can of worms...... I really know what I am talking about, because I am running a photo test lab, and have done and are doing such tests for a very long time now.
If you compare scans to digital files, you are doing a "digital vs. digital" comparison (digital device scanner vs. digital device camera). And not an "analogue vs. digital" comparison.
For a true "analog vs.digital" comparison you have to compare
- optical prints from film to digital prints
- projected transparencies (slide projector) to projected digital files (with a digital projector / Beamer).

From my own test results (thousands of test pictures over the years) I can ensure you that the resolution using optical enlarging and slide projection even significantly surpass drumscan results. And slide projection is a league of its own, as digital projectors can only deliver 4k (tiny 8 megapixels).

For a very good introduction to this topic have a look here:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

I am not sure yet whether to scan on my own or using a service. I would rather want to use a service but my teacher wants me to scan on my own.

Looks like your teacher has very little knowledge about the topic (and also overestimates the financial resources of his students completely).
If you want help, feel free to contact me here via the conversation function.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Oh, you are opening up a huge can of worms...... I really know what I am talking about, because I am running a photo test lab, and have done and are doing such tests for a very long time now.
If you compare scans to digital files, you are doing a "digital vs. digital" comparison (digital device scanner vs. digital device camera). And not an "analogue vs. digital" comparison.
For a true "analog vs.digital" comparison you have to compare
- optical prints from film to digital prints
- projected transparencies (slide projector) to projected digital files (with a digital projector / Beamer).

From my own test results (thousands of test pictures over the years) I can ensure you that the resolution using optical enlarging and slide projection even significantly surpass drumscan results. And slide projection is a league of its own, as digital projectors can only deliver 4k (tiny 8 megapixels).

For a very good introduction to this topic have a look here:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/



Looks like your teacher has very little knowledge about the topic (and also overestimates the financial resources of his students completely).
If you want help, feel free to contact me here via the conversation function.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning: here's a comparison done on another site of one of my Tmax 100 4x5 photos scanned with my V850 vs. another forum member's Howtek 8000. What's your opinion?
https://www.largeformatphotography....-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning: here's a comparison done on another site of one of my Tmax 100 4x5 photos scanned with my V850 vs. another forum member's Howtek 8000. What's your opinion?
https://www.largeformatphotography....-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek

Alan, the following aspects should be considered:
1. The best method for doing comparisons of detail rendition is using testcharts with test-pattern which allow to directly quantify the resolution. These charts offer resolution patterns in different grades of fineness of detail down to the diffraction limits of the used lenses. These charts also allow for really correct focussing (correct focussing is one of the most overlooked problems / challenges in such tests). They also allow to measure the detail object contrast, which also plays an important role.
2. The details you have enlarged in your picture are of very low detail contrast.The lower this contrast, the lower the resolution in general, and the lower the differences between the used mediums.
3. The bigger the used format, the lower are generally the differences between different tools used in the imaging chain. Or in other words: The relative difference in detail rendition between a V850 scan and a drumscan is much much bigger with 35mm and medium format film compared to large format.
4. The large format scans I have evaluated from the ICG370 HS and Heidelberg Tango drumscanners have shown more detail than the Howtek scan you have presented.
5. Here some examples of a V700 (with the same resolution as the V850) vs. a Heidelberg Tango: https://www.fineartdrumscanning.de/bilder/ .

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Tel]

Henning, thanks for posting that link. It really shows the depth of detail captured in a film photograph. Equally astonishing is the variance of rendition of color and contrast between different scanners.

 

[KenS]

Henning: here's a comparison done on another site of one of my Tmax 100 4x5 photos scanned with my V850 vs. another forum member's Howtek 8000. What's your opinion?
https://www.largeformatphotography....-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek

I 'invested' I an Epson V850 Pro a few years ago..It came with Viewscan software.. and I am NOT disappointed with my scans (which are mostly used for the so-called 'Archaic print processes' after printing the resulting scan onto Asahi's Pictorico film)

The "Viewscan" company were somewhat reluctant to 'upgrade' to their newest version ( suspecting and indicating and that had a "pirated" version). Until the he 'threat' of a law suit (in my home town) managed to (eventually) have them provide my 'free upgrade' after I had upgraded my Mac's OS. (when the Covid 'problem' had shut down their office in Florida)'

Since I no longer expose 35mm film I'm afraid i cannot 'judge' just how well my Epson 850 'Pro' will provide results from that format
(unless I do a 'search' for any 35 mm. film exposed some 25 to 30-odd years ago. BUT. if you send me a 'strip' I am willing to scan a few frames and send you the results on CD

Ken

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, the following aspects should be considered:
1. The best method for doing comparisons of detail rendition is using testcharts with test-pattern which allow to directly quantify the resolution. These charts offer resolution patterns in different grades of fineness of detail down to the diffraction limits of the used lenses. These charts also allow for really correct focussing (correct focussing is one of the most overlooked problems / challenges in such tests). They also allow to measure the detail object contrast, which also plays an important role.
2. The details you have enlarged in your picture are of very low detail contrast.The lower this contrast, the lower the resolution in general, and the lower the differences between the used mediums.
3. The bigger the used format, the lower are generally the differences between different tools used in the imaging chain. Or in other words: The relative difference in detail rendition between a V850 scan and a drumscan is much much bigger with 35mm and medium format film compared to large format.
4. The large format scans I have evaluated from the ICG370 HS and Heidelberg Tango drumscanners have shown more detail than the Howtek scan you have presented.
5. Here some examples of a V700 (with the same resolution as the V850) vs. a Heidelberg Tango: https://www.fineartdrumscanning.de/bilder/ .

Best regards,
Henning

Thanks for the analysis and suggestions. At this time I don't do any printing and planned to have it professionally scanned when I do for wall-mounted prints. So I'm pretty satisfied with the V850. It seems a little better than my V600. The only printing I might also do is for a personal photobook that will use medium format and 4x5's. So the print size won't be larger than maybe a double spread in the book. Most probably just on one page. I think the V850 should suffice for medium format film scans for the book. What do you think?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I 'invested' I an Epson V850 Pro a few years ago..It came with Viewscan software.. and I am NOT disappointed with my scans (which are mostly used for the so-called 'Archaic print processes' after printing the resulting scan onto Asahi's Pictorico film)

The "Viewscan" company were somewhat reluctant to 'upgrade' to their newest version ( suspecting and indicating and that had a "pirated" version). Until the he 'threat' of a law suit (in my home town) managed to (eventually) have them provide my 'free upgrade' after I had upgraded my Mac's OS. (when the Covid 'problem' had shut down their office in Florida)'

Since I no longer expose 35mm film I'm afraid i cannot 'judge' just how well my Epson 850 'Pro' will provide results from that format
(unless I do a 'search' for any 35 mm. film exposed some 25 to 30-odd years ago. BUT. if you send me a 'strip' I am willing to scan a few frames and send you the results on CD

Ken

I'm a little confused. Do you want a strip of 35mm film to test your scanner for yourself or to provide me with sample scans?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

An all analog imaging chain still has a lot of life left in it, and can produce excellent images. An analog/digital hybrid chain can also produce images that meet or exceed the requirements of many if not most imaging uses. A digital imaging chain also produces images that meet or exceed many if not most imaging uses.

the main takeaway is once you surpass that “minimum acceptable image” bar there isn’t much point trying to determine which is technically best. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses, and one may be better suited for a particular workflow than another, or may have a particular attribute that may meet a specialized requirement better, but outside of that, whether anyone is willing to admit it,, the “minimum acceptable image” is a pretty low bar for the vast majority of use cases.

 

[Jud23]

Thank you so much for all your interesting posts!
What do you think about using the Nikon LS-5000 to scan 35 mm negatives? I know it's not 8K, but it is still over 4K.
Do you think it is enough to scan 35mm negatives without quality loss? Do you think 16 Bit is enough?

 

[Oren Grad]

What do you think about using the Nikon LS-5000 to scan 35 mm negatives? I know it's not 8K, but it is still over 4K.
Do you think it is enough to scan 35mm negatives without quality loss?

No, not even close.

I had Nikon 5000 and 9000 scanners, sold them recently and replaced them with a copy stand-based setup with a Sony A7RIV camera and a macro lens. The A7RIV even in single-shot mode is a clear improvement over the Nikon 5000/9000 for 35mm, but still doesn't fully capture the grain character even of Tri-X, let alone finer-grained films. The high-resolution multi-shot modes add a modest increment of image fidelity compared to single-shot capture at the cost of substantial additional hassle in capture and processing, but still don't exhaust what's in the film. But of course an A7RIV with lens, light source and stand costs more money than many people can afford to spend for a copy setup, and as with scanners, substantial practice is required to learn to use it most effectively. I wouldn't advise you to go buy one or even rent one just for this assignment.

You should take a step back and think this through more carefully. Any scanning method that is reasonably within your reach in terms of both cost and learning time is going to throw away a lot of information from a negative or transparency and not do full justice to the qualities and potential of film as a medium. So what exactly is your instructor trying to accomplish?

Many people find that consumer-grade scanners produce digital files that are adequate for their purposes. It's perfectly sensible to ask "how does the character of images produced by a film scanner that I can afford compare to the character of direct digital capture using digital cameras that I can afford, and which is a better match to my tastes and practical needs?" Answering that question is something you could reasonably do. Just don't imagine that you would be "comparing analog and digital photography" in any general way.

 

[PhilBurton]

An all analog imaging chain still has a lot of life left in it, and can produce excellent images. An analog/digital hybrid chain can also produce images that meet or exceed the requirements of many if not most imaging uses. A digital imaging chain also produces images that meet or exceed many if not most imaging uses.

the main takeaway is once you surpass that “minimum acceptable image” bar there isn’t much point trying to determine which is technically best. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses, and one may be better suited for a particular workflow than another, or may have a particular attribute that may meet a specialized requirement better, but outside of that, whether anyone is willing to admit it,, the “minimum acceptable image” is a pretty low bar for the vast majority of use cases.

An anecdote. Supposedly when Kodak was developing either 110 or 126 format film, their goal was the worst image quality that was still acceptable. (my words).

 

[PhilBurton]

No, not even close.

I had Nikon 5000 and 9000 scanners, sold them recently and replaced them with a copy stand-based setup with a Sony A7RIV camera and a macro lens. The A7RIV even in single-shot mode is a clear improvement over the Nikon 5000/9000 for 35mm, but still doesn't fully capture the grain character even of Tri-X, let alone finer-grained films. The high-resolution multi-shot modes add a modest increment of image fidelity compared to single-shot capture at the cost of substantial additional hassle in capture and processing, but still don't exhaust what's in the film. But of course an A7RIV with lens, light source and stand costs more money than many people can afford to spend for a copy setup, and as with scanners, substantial practice is required to learn to use it most effectively. I wouldn't advise you to go buy one or even rent one just for this assignment.

You should take a step back and think this through more carefully. Any scanning method that is reasonably within your reach in terms of both cost and learning time is going to throw away a lot of information from a negative or transparency and not do full justice to the qualities and potential of film as a medium. So what exactly is your instructor trying to accomplish?

Many people find that consumer-grade scanners produce digital files that are adequate for their purposes. It's perfectly sensible to ask "how does the character of images produced by a film scanner that I can afford compare to the character of direct digital capture using digital cameras that I can afford, and which is a better match to my tastes and practical needs?" Answering that question is something you could reasonably do. Just don't imagine that you would be "comparing analog and digital photography" in any general way.

Another consideration is workflow. I have the Nikon 5000 scanner and the SF-210 batch feeder, which has a 50 slide capacity. Considering that I have thousands and thousands of slides to scan, using the batch feeder is the only practical approach. Feeding slides by hand one at a time into any DSLR-based scanning rig is simply not an option. Of course, I am going to keep all my slides and negatives to do selective re-scanning just in case I get a real high-res DSLR, e.g. Nikon 860. It happens that I already own the Nikon 55 mm f.28 Micro-Nikkor.

 

[Oren Grad]

Another consideration is workflow....

Yes! We all have to make compromises for reasons of practicality, and that means figuring out which tradeoffs serve us best among the options that we can afford, taking into account methods and workflow as well as hardware. I think Adrian's comments are in the same spirit.

 

[Jud23]

OK thank you very much for your answers.
One question again: How do you judge the quality of a scanner besides resolution and bit depth?
Is there any parameter that matters besides that when it is about telling how much quality loss you will have?
Or can you generally say that the more resolution the negative is scanned with the lower the quality loss is?
I know there is also the MTF of the scanners that would be important but you rarely find those online, you would have to figure that out yourself.