160VC old vs 160VC new vs 100UC vs Reala vs Rebel XTi

Thanks for the report, but this "test" is not really valid. Using diffent lenses (and to some extend different camera bodies) with different exposures makes the pictures not really comparable. Also, the exposures should have been standardized, relative to the rated speed. Resting a camera on a tripod may not be the same as attaching it to the tripod, especially where mirror lock up is not used. Finally, although I think this is nit-picking, your 3200 ppi scanner probably cannot resolve all of the finest detail that is partially preserved (i.e., low MTF) on the film, although to me the grain and other issues, plus the effect of the 50% MTF limit, make me inclined to agree with your basic conclusion, for most film, as a practical matter.

I agree my test is not conclusive, but for the most part it tells me with what I have what works best. This is a budget minded test which most people would have access to and funds for the equipment. No everyone can afford drum scans. My point was to show with what was available what results I could get. This test showed me its far easier to get really good results from digital then from film as far as detail is concerned. This test also showed film can show better color then digital with certain rolls. There was no practical way to use the same lens on my digital body due to the 1.6 crop factor, so I ended up using the closest thing I had which was my zoom. Most people would have this type of equipment. The Rebel XTi is the cheapest digital body Canon makes, so a lot of people will have access to this. Same with the Minolta Scan Dual 4 scanner. I guess I should have mentioned this on the first post. Im not really qualified to give a conclusive test, but Im satisfied with what I got. My scanner is good enough to go to the grain level which is what I wanted to see. And again the detail seems to be hard to get out of the grain on film scans. If I was using a 5D full frame camera, this test may have been more accurate, but most would agree that camera beats 35mm for sure.

Well to fix the 2nd set of samples, I went back to the same location and reshot the picture on the Rebel XTi. The weather was the same as yesterday, so that worked well. I pasted the new shot in with the old samples from the film pics. I also added the firehydrandt which was missing last time because it was out of focus. This time when I converted the raw file, I made sure USM was at zero. Keep in mind all XTi shots were done at 100ISO. Here is the new set of sample pics for number 2.

And for referance I took the same file as the last one and did two passed of USM. Here is that file.

In context of my last comment- I was refering to the detail in the shots from a 5D, not dynamic range and color.

Scott, thanks very much for posting the results of your testing.

I won't comment on your DSLR because this is a film forum.

 

Based on Scan Dual 4, the new 160VC is not as low contrast as

Kodak led us to believe. The 100UC is much lower contrast in most

of your scenes. Presumably you exposed all according to box ratings.

I'd like to try 100UC at EI 160 to see if contrast remains as low.

 

On the bright side, new 160VC seems to be what Fuji 160C was not

for me: an easy-to-scan high-contrast supersaturated film with

fine grain, high resolution, and good sharpness. I couldn't scan

160C worth beans, nor were Frontier prints of 160C stunningly good.

Scott, you say "My scanner is good enough to go to the grain level which is what I wanted to see", but this is not quite true. If you were to scan the film at 8000 DPI, you would notice several things: the scan would appear less grainy, the individual grains would be smaller, and the grains would be sharper. Scanning slowish negative film at 3200 DPI is also exactly the conditions in which grain aliasing can have a big effect on the appearance of grain.

 

Interesting test nonetheless, but how can we judge colour if you performed different colour correction on each roll?

Interesting point. I'd like to see a scan at 8000 dpi from 35mm. As for color, I wasn't planning to judge color on this test because of the scanning differences. Though some films were closer to the actual color then others. Funny thing was the digital file with a change in color temperture helped a bit. On the last posted examples the digital file did come the closest to the actual color of the building. But whether its accurate or not, I did like how 160VC for example showed the colors given. It would take some effort to do that with a digital file.

 

As for the 5D comment- I'll leave it at that from what I've read about it. I don't have one to show either way which is better in terms of detail resolvement, nor do I have a better film scanner either. So I'll retract that comment for now.

Addenda- if anyone hasnt seen this post yet, its some previous scans from the new 160VC I did at Christmas time. You can see them here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JHmQ

Thank you for these very informative pictures. After Kodak had sphipped thousands of free samples months ago, this is the first useful information on the new Portras I've found on the net.

 

It looks like the new Portra ist the first one to deliver good micro-contrast like the Fuji, an does not have the mushy over-smooth appearence that also plagues the Tmax100.

 

I also admit, that grain is NOT an indicator for limitation of resolution in a scan. Film grain is a mixture of big and small "dots", and also an uneven distribution of small "grains" can look like coarse grain in a scan. Actually, a high-resolution scan can be less grainy than a low-resolution one. Additionally, a high-resolution scan allows you to apply sharpening in a way, that mainly focusses on real detail, and does not cause that much increase in grain.

 

All in all, I have to say that the performance of the new 160VC is quite impressive.

 

Regards

 

Georg

The "grain" you get with desktop scanners is amazingly coarse compared to the grain you see with a microscope. A higher res scan may well give a better image even if the image appears "grainy" in a low-res scan. To really properly render grain you need to scan at around 20000 ppi, (yes twenty thousand).

I think for a fair test a drum scanner is needed.

For a fair test? I thought this was about budget available examples. Doing drum scans is hardly cheap or readily available in some locals. So instead of just taking the output of a digital camera (which is essentially free once you have the camera) and doing some slight sharpenning, I have to get a $50-100 drum scan off one picture and feed it through a noise reduction program. Does something not jive with that? It seems theres more work in getting results off of film then their is a digital file for similar results. I mean we are only talking about a low end digital SLR in this test vs a low end film scanner.

It was an interesting exercise but as mentioned before, too many variables to compare one shot to the next. In some of them I actually thought the 160VC looked much better and more detailed than the XTI.

 

I did a little comparing of a 5D against film scanned on a Nikon Coolscan V recently and I feel the scans are more detailed and if you are scanning chromes, there is no contest. But, detail isn't always the only criteria we choose a tool for. I own digital and film SLRs AF and MF so I am fortunate that I can choose what body, lens, and film/sensor I think would be the best or easiest at the time. So much of this is subjective any way and the slightest variance in processing/scanning/exposure/ad naseum can make a big difference. Thanks for taking the time to post this though. It has helped me decide to get some of the new 160VC and try it.

Not many labs do optical prints anymore. Aside from the lab I work in that can (but wont be for much longer), and the lab I send out to for custom work- most have switched to digital already. I only ask for optical prints on B&W and medium format work.

 

Just a note- my Rebel XTi has the exposure adjusted to overexpose 1/2 stop. This is partially why my sample 1 is blown out.

Oh to add- my plan is to get the Nikon 9000 scanner as I need it for 120 work as well. My flatbed scans of 120 and 4x5 leave a lot to be desired.

i have a hard time getting past the grain in the film crops. it is interfering with the detail.

 

it would be interesting to see these scanned on a better scanner, but i doubt you would see more than minor improvements. your scanner is fairly recent in technology and not far off 4000 dpi. also, at least with chromes, i don't buy into the grain aliasing argument much anymore. viewed some velvia slides under a microscope at my local photo club and compared them to scans off an older scanner. the grain was pretty much what was on the film. maybe it comes into play at high iso.

 

the new portra did well. but looking over the samples the rebel is the one by which the others are measured. consider the cracks in the paint in sample 3 which are clear in the rebel crop, soft or non-existent in the film crops.

 

also, with due respect to mr. sullivan, i would like to see those 5d and film scan crops. there's a couple 5ds at the local club now and one guy had some comparison 35mm/5d prints and, well, wow. makes me really, really want one.

I've seen some amazing 5D photos also and in a low contrast lighting, it is amazing. But, the samples I compared were most of a fair skinned brunette in a wedding dress. Lots of range to cover there. The groom was also fair skinned and haired and of course in a black tux. I really don't know enough to know a camera/film/lens that would be best for all situations. I don't think I can manipulate any of them that well. I am not very good at photoshop so combining a bunch of layers for HDR is more trouble than it's worth for me. I just shoot negative film when I need more range, slides when I want that saturation "punch" without loss of detail and digital when I'm needing speed, ease of manipulation, etc. Sometimes I just shoot whatever is handy. :-)

 

I've had to rescan some stuff after learning a little more about scanning, rescanned some again after getting a better scanner, and even rescanned a few things yet again after learning a little more about scanning. Same with processing digital images. I am learning slowly it seems, but I'm always trying to learn. That's why I made the comment about processing.

By the Way. I wouldn't mind having a 5D myself. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it.

Scott thanks a lot for this test, I wished you could add Fuji Pro 160S !

Which tripod and which head did you use !?! This can be the weekest point in the image chain, especially the head.

Rainer,

I used a pro Manfrotto with 141RC head and 455B legs. I think its fine for 35mm.

Hi, this is what the head looks like in this image CHAIN, well..

 

SPECIFICATIONS:

 

 

Maximum Load Capacity 6.0 kg (13.3 lbs);

 

Head Height 13 cm (5.2 inches);

 

Pan 360? ;

 

Tilt -30? +90? Frontal Tilt, -90? +30? Lateral Tilt;

 

Weight 1.0 kg (2.3 lbs);

 

oops is this correct, same weight as initial Arca Swiss Monoball ?

 

Scott, have you used Mirror Lock Up and Self Timer ?

Which film was shot with which lens?

 

to the others: nothing can be said against the EOS 400D, Rebell XTi at US$799.

for that amount of money one could do 10 drum scans. Not enough money for a Nikon 4000/5000 film scanner let alone a 6300ppi scanner or a 8000ppi scanner.

new 160VCnew looks visibly improved :-)

Rainer,

Not all shots were locked down on the tripod. Some where just rested on the head since I didn't have a plate to use with the camera. This accounts for some blurr on some shots. No I didn't use mirror lockup, but on the Elan 7 I think I used the timer. No on the other cameras. Film may have better rez on a better scan, but to me the Rebel XTi still looks more detailed and gives better results for the money. Yes I like the new 160VC. Its a good film. I'd like to see how it compares to Gold 100.

Scott, thanks again!

Q1: Based on "Sample5pics.jpg" I guess Kodak 100UC still is slightly sharper and finer grained than the new 160VC in a outdoors OVERCAST FLAT LIGHTING use case.

 

your 3200ppi is good enough! equals a more than 9x enlargement/print. Kodak published in Datasheet E4040 3points difference between these two film's PGI (53 vs. 56) in a 8x10 print.

This is LESS than the 4points = just a noticeble difference, though.

But the overall winner could be 100UC at E.I 100 (=Rank one on Les Sariles Repro indoors contest). Well, color film is all about color, you are the assessor...

 

Q2: which is the LETTER CODE imprinted on the new films ?

e.g. 160VC-2 160NC-2

or can we be sure that Portra with EXP later than 2008/08 ordered from Adorama or bhphotovideo is the Mk II flavor?

--rainer

 

P.S.: If I would venture a guess, Gold 100 is grainy as hell. But possibly a "nice & sexy" grain(?)

100UC may be finer grained, but I think 160VC does the contrast and color the way Id like it. The 4x6 pgi is 31 vs 34. And yes its listed 160VC-2. As for Gold 100, yes its grainy- but it produces the best color on film Ive seen. Its also sharp. Its pgi 45.