I agree with you. The V850 is the model SF will do the two scans on. So that makes the claim Silverfast can improve its dMax even less credible and just seems like a selling point. I've never seen anyone post a photo using the two scans approach that you couldn't increase shadow details using the shadow slider in a post scan editing program of a single scan.Alan, I'm not sure which Epson you're talking about, but their V8xxx models have Dmax 4.0 without having to slow down, so why bother?
@Ko.Fe. I'm still trying to decide which scanning software to use. In what ways do you find that SF is better than VS?
How can multi exposure improve the dMax of the scanner?
Silverfast: What's the difference in the two scan times? Are they adjustable? Does SF combine the two scans into one resultant file or does it provide two separate files?Alan, it improves DMax by extending dynamic range in the same way HDR photography of a DSLR does it.
With M-E the scanner takes two scans of the same image, each at different exposure, later both images are combined.
the longer exposure image (probably) has the highlights blown but the shadows have better detail, so this image provides the detail for the shadows.
Multi-Exposure solves shorcomming in the electronics capability, when making the Analog to Digital conversion (this is taking the voltage accumulated in each pixel and converting it to a digital value) it is difficult to have top precission and top speed at the same time. Multi-Exposure solves that, allowing to get an optimal result close to what is possible in that scanner.
Probably some Pro scanners can take both shots for a row (the short and the long exposure) before advancing the carriage, in the Epson case it is necessary to make to passes to get two scans which is not as nice, but still M-E provides a powerful enhacement for deep Velvia shadows, DMax is increased and noise in the very dense areas is decreased impressively, many times avoiding to need for a drum scan or flextight.
The Epson V850 preforms impressively well with very dense Velvia, at least in (say) 95% of the times we don't need more, but there can be situations in what we may require a drum job to recover better ultra dark slides, mostly coming from a quite flawed exposure in the taking.
Epsonscan: Is there a way to adjust the scan times using Epsonscan?
Silverfast: What's the difference in the two scan times? Are they adjustable?
Does SF combine the two scans into one resultant file or does it provide two separate files?
Something doesn;t make sense. So by running the scan slower, the scanner performs better than the manufacturer's specs? That means for the V850, Epsons spec'd dMax of 4.0, or whatever it really is, is improved? Why didn't Epson just run the scan slower to begin with? It just doesn't seem likely that SF improved Epson's own design. It seems that slower speed would just distort the signal one way or the other. Or combining two scan like an HDR without any fine controls is just going to get you one mess of a picture.Yes, you go to Proffesional mode, Configuration and Color, there you have the AutoExposure Level slider. It provides and indirect control on exposure, but no direct control.
See it here: https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2013/06/02/scanning-and-editing-color-negative-film
Until I know you cannot control the multi-expoure adjustment, you activate it or you disable it. It has an optimized hardcoded behaviour. I don't know what difference there is between the two scan times.
You get a single regular file, but with better effective dynamic range with way lower noise in the shadows. But save it in TIFF 16bits/channel, if not much of the benefit from multi-exposure can be lost.
Something doesn;t make sense. So by running the scan slower, the scanner performs better than the manufacturer's specs?
That means for the V850, Epsons spec'd DMax of 4.0, or whatever it really is, is improved?
Why didn't Epson just run the scan slower to begin with?
Frankly, I still think it's a lot of hype from SF.
and for the conversion an optimized color map is used for each film type
BTW I'd love to understand how this feature works and why it's needed. I've seen the color profiles of negative stocks used for simulations, i.e.
Different films have different characteristics respecting contrast and basic hue (starting filter settings).Why does a good scanner need to know which film stock it's scanning? It should not need a "map", what is it mapping from and to? A scanner shouldn't have its own color "signature" and the original negative is right there, so just acquire and digitize the color as truthfully as possible and transfer it into a computer. I know next to nothing about wet printing from color negs, but an RA4 paper doesn't care which emulsion you're printing from. Why would a scanner care?
Or if the electronics of the scanner uses a continuous spectrum light source and the electronics compensate for the difference from say a tungsten or cold light source used for printing.Different films have different characteristics respecting contrast and basic hue (starting filter settings).
In addition, I don't know that there are any scanners that use a light source that matches the tungsten or halogen light sources that colour negative films and RA4 papers are designed around.
I expect that all scanning systems - both dedicated scanners and camera based digitization would work better if the light sources used were the same continuous spectrum sources used in colour printers and enlargers.
@138S Thanks, that makes perfect sense. In this case though, why not have a single "C41 profile"
It is not possible... because the color dyes in each film reacts different to the illumination light in the scanner and to the R-G-B color filters that pixels have over them.
You need a continuous spectrum light source - preferably with the same colour temperature as the light sources used in optical enlargers and printers.... and to make it possible one needs to construct a film scanner with a specialized light source (similar to a C41 enlarger?) which makes the color dyes react similarly? I'm quite certain we don't need a special "C41 sensor" in our hypothetical perfect scanner, but the negative+light source combination is puzzling.
+1 to everything @MattKing said.You need a continuous spectrum light source - preferably with the same colour temperature as the light sources used in optical enlargers and printers.
You need some means of adjusting the colour of that light source in a way that mimics the effect of the colour printing filters used in optical enlargers and printers. It is those colour printing filters that allow adjustments for different negative film stocks. They also allow adjustment for different color temperatures of ambient light at the scene, but that can be done in post processing as well.
You don't need a special C-41 sensor, but you need some combination of sensor hardware, firmware and software to take the non-linear, inverted colours from the masked C-41 negative - which are designed to be printed on the non-linear RA-4 colour paper - and to invert them and render them as natural looking positive colours in the manner that RA-4 paper does.
The package of sensor hardware, firmware and software will need to be modified extensively if you want to use it for scanning transparency film. You may also want to modify the light source, but you can probably do that with filtration if it is continuous spectrum.
A proper scanner + good scanning software should address all these issues.
Yes. But unfortunately nobody built a proper scanner yet. And, by the way, a proper scanner doesn't need any software.
@Les Sarile Hehe, I owned one many years ago, IIRC it was 5000 ED. Using it was like pulling teeth. I'll see how this OpticFilm 120 Pro fares, and if it's anything resembling my Coolscan experience, I'll build a proper scanner for myself. @PhilBurton is right, DSLR is not it.
To answer your question: I absolutely love my DSLR workflow for 35mm B&W. But medium format is another matter: I shoot color in MF. Stitching is annoying, and I only get 6000x6000 image out of it (I know Portra 160 is capable of more). Also, color inversion and orange mask removal for color negatives is very time consuming. I have not figured out how to automate color inversion, for some reason every shot requires separate level adjustment for each channel.
Speed. Digitizing a roll of film shouldn't take longer than a minute. 2-3 seconds per frame sounds about right. For B&W my existing DSLR-based setup is already miles ahead of that Nikon. I can do about 4 rolls per hour. Scanning must take less time than developing. Call it the Bormental Rule
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?