Anyone tried copying MF negs/slides with a 5D2?

<p>Jamie,</p>

<p>Nice shot. The eye of the bird you posted is an example of how the camera sharpens after applying its own noise reduction (regardless of your not doing processing) that makes the image artificial - see bottom eyelashes.</p>

<p>I tried to find an example of 35mm film scanned with the Coolscan with a similar eyelashes proportions but the only one I had handy was of TMAX 400 pushed to 800.</p>

<p>Here it is----> a 21+MP scan of 35mm film iso 800 scanned with the Coolscan. Obviously you always have the film to get more detail if you upgrade your scanner years down the road (This is scanner limited and not film limited):</p><div></div>

<p>100% crop (remember it is at iso 800 and no sharpening):</p><div></div>

<p>I'll try to find an eye in the same proportions on iso 100 and scan it at 8000 dpi. I'll do that only if you promise not to eat your own hair though - I read a girl in India had to have surgery for it.</p>

<p>Clearly by your eagle shot the 5DII has an outstanding power to capture detail. It is a blessing of technology for all of us.</p>

<p>That said, it certainly does not capture as much detail as 35mm film (though it is comparable to a 4000 dpi scan of 35mm film - scanner limited capture). Also I am not sure it would be better than a flatbed that has ICE and decent parallel focus for the OP's task.</p>

<p>Here what I did was to sample down my shot to the resolution the 5DII would capture in ideal focus across the frame (not realistic) conditions with its resolving power of 2800 lines over the 2 1/4 inches of medium format (1250 lines per picture height) and sample back up to compare to the Coolscan 9000.</p>

<p>Using the eyelashes theme:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>As you can see, even with theoretically perfect results, the 5DII would be too lossy to consider it as the tool to digitilize someone's entire medium format film library.</p>

<p>A flatbed scanner could just about double the effective linear resolution of the 5DII for this task. <br>

A Coolscan could quadruple it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>To keep it in perspective, if you will print at A4 size it won't matter:</p>

<div></div>

<p>Another for a different size monitor:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>A4 is about letter size so the 5DII capture should be plenty. If later on you decide to print significantly larger you may need to evaluate and decide whether a re-scan is needed.</p>

<p>ok....now that the rampage of off topic comments have passed by.....someone above said not to use light boxes because of the flourescent tubes not being able to reproduce color corectly. I know flourescent lighting in photography is a pain, but if the light in a scanner is flourescent and it scans color slides and negatives properly................what's the problem. Or am I missing something.</p>

<p>And on a further thought.....my monitor is calibrated to produce the right colors and right luminence. Has anyone ever used a monitot to copy negs/slides. I mean, go into photoshop, create a 255, 255, 255 image, size it to your monitor screen, and you should have a perfect light table. Albiet keeping the neg flat is still a concern, but all the rest of the concerns should be eliminated. Right? Or am I missing something here also?</p>

<p>Thomas, not all flourescents are created equally. They don't give you a whole spectrum, but only light at some frequencies. A light box flourescent is probably selected to give us a decently accurate representation of color, but the DSLR or scanner has sensor sensitivities different from ours, so the images may get a color cast even though they look correct on the light table to our eyes. The scanner avoids this by matching the fluorescent type and scanning sensor of course (as well as recalibrating itself on startup).</p>

<p>A screen is almost never neutral. "Pure white" isn't. Don't forget that the calibration is (or at least should be) made in relation to the ambient light in the room. That said, I doubt there'd be much visible color cast left if you manually tweak the color balance of the resulting images afterwards. Unless accurate color representation is important to you it's certainly worth a try.</p>

<p>Janne....I calibrate my monitor in a total dark room....and I also edit my pics in a total dark room. So my white should be really close to actual white I would think. Yes?</p>

<p>Anyhow, i understand the scanner light and light table now.....thanks.</p>

<p>One more thing....forget color for now....besides 99.9% of my color is done with a digital camera these days....film for me in color is pretty much gone. But I shoot tons of B&W film in medium format. So, given that I would mostly be doing 5D copies of B&W MF negative film....color balanced light pads should be a non issue then. right?</p>

<p>Only reason I ask is altho I'm happy with my Epson 700 scanner's scans of my MF film, I'm moving into probably a smaller apartment, and ANY reduction in equipment would be a blessing. That Epson 700 ain/t exactly small. So a littlle slim 4x5 light pad would be a blessing if it worked.</p>

<p>Wow, got to say the images posted here just confirm what I experience. The current gen of DSLRs pretty much have more resolving power, not to mention less grain, than film. Its not even close, at least to me. And, yes I still have a film camera, but its MF. For scanning I have the Nikon 9000. It does a good job, but it can't pull all the detail out of the film which is a little frustrating. So, I'm not trying to bash film, it still has its place. But to say 35mm film out resolves 21+mp DSLR, well it does not reflect my experience. IMO the photos presented so far are arguments for DSLRs and against 35mm film.</p>

<p>Jamie, that eye detail is amazing. Love the crop, how does it look printed?</p>

<p>Ridiculous. There are plenty of reasons why one might wish to 'scan' film in a camera that have nothing at all to do with the foolish and ultimately personal arguments about whether a digital camera can 'beat' the performance of film. Perhaps it's time some of you film devotees simply admit you like film better, and stop trying to prove to everyone, at any hint of an opportunity, that film will always rule. Or whatever. I know you don't think that's what you're doing, but that's the way it comes across. <br>

Simple fact is, the ability to scan film very quickly to make working prints or integrate film into a digital workflow is very valuable for some. And that value has nothing whatsoever to do with the ultimate quality of the scans. A well made camera scan is capable of making pretty darn good files, but the real value, likely, is in helping to archive film in what will--for most photographers--ultimately be a digital world. <br>

So rather than taking your time degrading the quality of a lovely scan to show what a 5DII "would" have captured (!) how about addressing the topic of the thread. That is to say, to add value to the conversation about scanning MF film with a 5DII? Les and Mauro, all respect; it's clear you care a great deal about the points you're making. They're just misplaced.<br>

Ridiculous and unhelpful.</p>

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>Of course you can "scan" your MF film with a 5D2. If you expect it match the quality of a good film scan, then no, it won't</p>

<p>Anything else?</p>

<p>Earlier in the thread someone mentioned using a flash as a light source instead of a light table. Any thoughts on what a reasonable setup would look like? I have a DSLR, macro lens and flash but am stuck as how to evenly illuminate a MF slide while holding it flat.</p>