Seeking to digitize medium format with VueScan

I'm looking to digitize 14 medium format negatives. I have been using VueScan myself with a Coolscan IV to digitize every 35mm, 110, Instamatic negative and slide I can get my hands on. Unfortunately the Coolscan IV is too small for medium-format and the results with my flatbed scanner are absolutely inadequate.

 

I could certainly go to a local lab and have them digitized, but I really want to receive back VueScan raw files.

 

Is anyone familiar with a processor that digitizes negatives commercially using VueScan? Alternately, where a guy could rent a suitable scanner to be used in Minnesota?

To get something closer to your Coolscan scans is easier with larger formats, because, well,... they're larger formats.:)

 

I do have a larger format film scanner now, but earlier on I got fair results with some of the better flatbed scanners, notably the CanoScan 9050 and even with the Canoscan 9000.

 

here is a flatbed scan (9050, I think) of a Rolleiflex 6x6 slide of a bulldozed site area that we were trying to salvage something from.

I should add that in the past, regardless of the claimed resolution of flat-bed scanners, they seemed to really top out at about 1700 ppi.*

 

_________

* split-infinitive alert. Get serious- English (underneath all the romantic vocabulary) is still a Germanic language and the so-called "English grammar" you were taught in high school by Miss Coyne is useless.

Edited February 6, 2021 by JDMvW

I'm looking to digitize 14 medium format negatives. I have been using VueScan myself with a Coolscan IV to digitize every 35mm, 110, Instamatic negative and slide I can get my hands on. Unfortunately the Coolscan IV is too small for medium-format and the results with my flatbed scanner are absolutely inadequate.

 

I could certainly go to a local lab and have them digitized, but I really want to receive back VueScan raw files.

 

Is anyone familiar with a processor that digitizes negatives commercially using VueScan? Alternately, where a guy could rent a suitable scanner to be used in Minnesota?

Have you asked the lab if they can scan the images flat without adjustments?

To get something closer to your Coolscan scans is easier with larger formats, because, well,... they're larger formats.:)

 

I do have a larger format film scanner now, but earlier on I got fair results with some of the better flatbed scanners, notably the CanoScan 9050 and even with the Canoscan 9000.

 

here is a flatbed scan (9050, I think) of a Rolleiflex 6x6 slide of a bulldozed site area that we were trying to salvage something from.

[ATTACH=full]1375066[/ATTACH]

I should add that in the past, regardless of the claimed resolution of flat-bed scanners, they seemed to really top out at about 1700 ppi.*

 

_________

* split-infinitive alert. Get serious- English (underneath all the romantic vocabulary) is still a Germanic language and the so-called "English grammar" you were taught in high school by Miss Coyne is useless.

 

Thanks, I was hoping to find quality in proportion to the Coolscan. My crummy flatbed (HP ScanJet 5370c) tops out at 1200 dpi. I also don't get the IR channel for dust and scratch removal assistance.

Thanks, I was hoping to find quality in proportion to the Coolscan.

That would be a Coolscan 8000 with a pricetag to make your eyes water, and finding one that actually works could also be problematic.

 

The alternative is one of Epson's 2nd rate flatbed offerings, or maybe an old Polaroid 120 Sprintscan - again if you can find one in working order.

 

Or, if you have a decent digital camera, consider digital copying and stitching two or more digital copies together.

 

There's a thread on the subject right next to this one at the moment. And dozens of others scattered around PN if you do a search.

but I really want to receive back VueScan raw files.

???

Vuescan doesn't produce raw files, as in camera RAW. It outputs TIFFs as its highest quality, and any good scanning service can supply you with high bit-depth TIFFs as the output file. In fact you'd hope they'd do that by default.

Edited February 7, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

I'm looking to digitize 14 medium format negatives. I have been using VueScan myself with a Coolscan IV to digitize every 35mm, 110, Instamatic negative and slide I can get my hands on. Unfortunately the Coolscan IV is too small for medium-format and the results with my flatbed scanner are absolutely inadequate.

 

I could certainly go to a local lab and have them digitized, but I really want to receive back VueScan raw files.

 

Is anyone familiar with a processor that digitizes negatives commercially using VueScan? Alternately, where a guy could rent a suitable scanner to be used in Minnesota?

 

Vuescan raw files are 16bit depth tiffs, gamma 1, without inversion to positive and without any scanner image settings applied. Ask scanning providers whether they can provide such scans and for how much. Vuescan itself is not necessary to produce such files, or, locate any film user groups in Minnesota and see if someone has a mf scanner and would do you a favor.

Vuescan raw files are 16bit depth tiffs, gamma 1, without inversion to positive...

Except gamma 1 is meaningless when applied to a digital copy from film.

Negative film has a contrast index of between 0.5 and 0.7, while slide film's 'gamma' is much higher.

 

Also, the bit depth depends on the scanner hardware. If the scanner only has a 10 or 12 bit A/D converter, then that'll be the maximum bit depth. Albeit wrapped up in a 16 bit/channel file.

 

Plus Vuescan will look at the white and black-point 'densities' of any file thrown at it, before aligning, normalising and adjusting the channel levels.

 

I know what you're saying Don, but it's all purely academic without knowing the specifics of the scanner hardware and film type.

Ask scanning providers whether they can provide such scans and for how much.

Agreed. And if they can't, find another provider.

Edited February 7, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

Except gamma 1 is meaningless when applied to a digital copy from film.

Negative film has a contrast index of between 0.5 and 0.7, while slide film's 'gamma' is much higher.

 

Also, the bit depth depends on the scanner hardware. If the scanner only has a 10 or 12 bit A/D converter, then that'll be the maximum bit depth. Albeit wrapped up in a 16 bit/channel file.

 

Plus Vuescan will look at the white and black-point 'densities' of any file thrown at it, before aligning, normalising and adjusting the channel levels.

 

I know what you're saying Don, but it's all purely academic without knowing the specifics of the scanner hardware and film type.

 

Agreed. And if they can't, find another provider.

 

 

According to the User Guide "The image gamma value is 1.0 when there are two bytes (16-bits) per sample...Raw files saved with gamma 1.0 will look dark, but this is normal."

 

My scanner hardware is a Nikon V which is 14 bit, its maximum bit depth. I know what you're saying and don't disagree. I've never worked with scanners that are commonly used by photo service shops (for example a Noritsu), but asking the shop for 16bit depth gamma 1 tiffs with no conversion to positive and no 'corrections', what they would produce is what Ed Hamrick calls a raw file.

According to the User Guide "The image gamma value is 1.0 when there are two bytes (16-bits) per sample...Raw files saved with gamma 1.0 will look dark, but this is normal."

 

No, it's not normal per se, only when color management isn't provided only normal without proper color management! A profile that defines a linear capture absolutely shouldn't (and doesn't ) look too dark. A linear encoded image assumed to be gamma corrected would look too dark. Easy for anyone to see here if they wish. Here's a linear capture from an old Kodak DCS 660 camera and it's ICC profile. Open and assign that profile; not dark. Open and Assign a gamma corrected profile (say sRGB), it looks dark:

 

http://digitaldog.net/files/KodakLinearCapture.jpg

 

Both this capture (TIFF) and Profile are here:

Dropbox - Kodak Linear image and profile - Simplify your life

The RGB values of every pixel above in both examples is identical.

The 'dark' appearing image isn't too dark in reality, it's dark when it isn't properly previewed. Just as an image looks 'too dark' if your display brightness is way, way too low.

jroos, it is not worth the expense of buying the medium-format equivalent of your Nikon film scanner for just 14 frames. You're talking minimum $1299 for a Nikon CS8000, double that for the similar 9000. Competitive Polaroid, Microtek and Minolta medium-format scanners were about as good, but scarcer than hens teeth nowadays. Some larger cities offer rental darkroom/scanning facilities, usually featuring the high-end Hasselblad Flextight scanners: these can be a bit fussy to operate and don't have the ICE feature.

 

Perhaps consider visiting the Minneapolis Photo Center, a sort of membership/coop setup offering use of various darkroom and scanning systems at very reasonable rates, including the excellent Nikon CS9000 film scanner which their website lists at a cost of $35 per day for non-member rental. You could also inquire whether a member or staff there would be willing to do these few scans for you for a negotiated fee. Or they might be able to give you a good referral to a local scanning service.

Edited February 8, 2021 by orsetto

No, it's not normal per se, only when color management isn't provided only normal without proper color management! A profile that defines a linear capture absolutely shouldn't (and doesn't ) look too dark. A linear encoded image assumed to be gamma corrected would look too dark. Easy for anyone to see here if they wish. Here's a linear capture from an old Kodak DCS 660 camera and it's ICC profile. Open and assign that profile; not dark. Open and Assign a gamma corrected profile (say sRGB), it looks dark:

 

http://digitaldog.net/files/KodakLinearCapture.jpg

 

Both this capture (TIFF) and Profile are here:

Dropbox - Kodak Linear image and profile - Simplify your life

The RGB values of every pixel above in both examples is identical.

The 'dark' appearing image isn't too dark in reality, it's dark when it isn't properly previewed. Just as an image looks 'too dark' if your display brightness is way, way too low.

 

I didn't post to this thread too defend Ed Hamrick's description of his sw, but to offer advice to the OP.

 

FWIW, here's a vuescan raw file (reduced for display) and what resulted when it was inverted by the Color Perfect plugin, otherwise, no adjustments by me.

 

raw

 

 

Color Perfect

 

Vuescan raw files are 16bit depth tiffs, gamma 1, without inversion to positive and without any scanner image settings applied. Ask scanning providers whether they can provide such scans and for how much. Vuescan itself is not necessary to produce such files, or, locate any film user groups in Minnesota and see if someone has a mf scanner and would do you a favor.

 

Just to clarify, you mean 16bits per channel? That's what the Coolscan outputs and how VueScan saves it.

 

This is good to know. I never had any misconceptions that Vuescan raw was anything very special, just very different from what I've received from local providers in the past. The last time I bothered to pay to have film digitized I was extremely disappointed with the off-color low quality jpegs I got back. However, it has probably been 15 years.

Vuescan 'raw' isn't anything special whatsoever. It is simply ugly and without any corrections. Now IF you want to do all this work after scanning in say Photoshop, OK. But a good scanning interface has tools to do all this at the scan stage. I've either owned or reviewed dozens upon dozens of scanners over the decades including several desktop drum scanners like Howtek and ScanView. With good, powerful scanning software, you can do ALL the global 'corrections' at the scan stage and end up with high bit (what some are calling but usually isn't "16-bit") data. A scan that actually looks like the scan operator actually wants in the first place.

Just to clarify, you mean 16bits per channel? That's what the Coolscan outputs and how VueScan saves it.

 

This is good to know. I never had any misconceptions that Vuescan raw was anything very special, just very different from what I've received from local providers in the past. The last time I bothered to pay to have film digitized I was extremely disappointed with the off-color low quality jpegs I got back. However, it has probably been 15 years.

 

The User Guide: VueScan User's Guide

 

What is in the Guide is all I know about Vuescan.

 

Appendix A, File Formats may be useful.

 

I find Vuescan raw useful as a digital archive of the negative. The odds of buying a better scanner than the V is rather low these days, so what I have is what there will be. At the same time as producing the raw, I also create a small jpeg as an index image or "contact" file for reference.

 

North Coast Photo makes good quality digital files.

I've been using an Epson Perfection 2450 flat bed scanner for 4x5 and medium format negatives for years. I find it perfectly adequate. I also use Vuescan. It scans at 2400 ppi, which is good for about 17 inch print from a 2 1/4 negative. Mine has proven to produce satisfactorily sharp images. All the large and medium format images in my portfolio here were made with the Epson.

FWIW, here's a vuescan raw file (reduced for display)....

The issue is that the limited density range (~0.15D to 2.2D) of a properly developed B&W negative can't actually fill a 16 bit expanse.

 

The negative's density range equates to a brightness ratio of only just over 100:1, while a 16 bit digital 'ratio' is 65,535:1. Therefore all of the negative's tones are compressed into about 1/600th of the capacity of the digital file.

 

If the negative's reference level were to be shifted to its brightest value, instead of its darkest; then we'd have an extremely light and pale 'raw' file, instead of an impenenetrably dark one.

 

Anyway. In short, that's what I meant by the 'gamma 1.0' label being meaningless. Because the film's contrast ratio is totally mismatched from that of any final display gamma requirement. Print, monitor or whatever.

The Vuescan raw file isn't for display, but for archiving the negative as a digital file. For display, I load it into Photoshop and CF Systems' Color Perfect plugin (I assume Negative Lab Pro is used for the same purpose, but I haven't tried it yet), to get (to quote Digitaldog) "A scan that actually looks like the scan operator actually wants in the first place". In fact, at the same time I do the raw scan (both from the same pass), I can create a jpeg, or a tiff (16 or 8 bit) with all the adjustments necessary, including sharpening, color corrections, grain reduction and anything else, and send it to a printer, but instead I just make a small index file so I can see the positive in the Lightroom catalog because I own Photoshop and Lightroom and prefer to do post in those apps rather than any scanner software.

 

The odds of there being a new scanner on the market better than my Nikon is about zero, however the odds of improvements in image editors is highly likely. No need to rescan, just load the raw file into the new improved image editor. If my scanner dies, I'll have to use a digital camera for 'scanning' 35mm film.

 

Like sjmurray (above) every image in my portfolio is from a Vuescan raw file, as are all but one of mine in the NW forum (the one is in Snowjob and was shot with a Fuji X-e1 and a Minolta 24mm lens).

 

Whether gamma 1.0 is the correct designation or not matters little to me. I'm looking to eliminate as much effort as possible in doing post on film files. Doing it on the example I posted (which only needs a few clicks on the gamma, lightness and shadow sliders in CP to finish it) means I would have to mess with elimiinating a magenta cast and some blown highlights in the white jacket, but I don't have those issues doing it my way.

For just 14 frames, if you want to mail them to me, I'll scan them for you on a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 w/Vuescan. I can't do it until March because I'm away from home, but otherwise I'd be happy to help out.

I'm looking to eliminate as much effort as possible in doing post on film files.

And yet, this 'raw scan' ensures that's going to be the case. When you could simply scan as high a resolution as the scanner provides while making this high bit scan look as good as possible globally; assuming, the TOOLBOX in the scanning software has the tools and controls to do so. In the past, some, few products (I'm thinking LInoColor or ScanView) could and in some cases, with tools superior to Photoshop.

Whether gamma 1.0 is the correct designation or not matters little to me. I'm looking to eliminate as much effort as possible in doing post on film files.

Don, what's wrong with 'gamma 1.0' and 16 bit files is that it doesn't necessarily mean you're preserving the most tonal quality from your negatives.

 

It doesn't matter if the information is wrapped up in a 16 bit file, if only 7 or 8 of those bits are used. More importantly, it's which of those 16 bits are used.

 

Let me explain: Your B&W negative is basically a collection of density variations as far as a scanner is concerned; and you want to preserve as much differentiation between densities (tones) as possible.

 

Now, starting at bit value 1 - bit value zero is irrelevant - and progressing to bit value 2 in linear (gamma 1) space represents a halving of density value. Say, from 2.2D to 1.9D. That's a huge step, and no finer density values in between can be captured.

 

Going from bit value 2 to bit value 3 again represents a huge reduction in density; from 1.9D to 1.75D. Bit value 3 to 4 takes us down to a density of 1.6D. That's two whole stops of brightness value gone in only 3 digitisation steps. In short posterisation!

 

OTOH, if the digitisation starts top-down instead of bottom-up. We've got 32,768 digital levels of brightness/density, or tonal discrimination, between the base density of the film and the first stop, 0.3D, of image density.

 

Working downwards, a density increase of 0.3D would allow over 16,000 tonal values in between, and the next 0.3D another 8,000, and so on.

 

By the time we reach Dmax, at about 2.4D above base+fog, we've still got over 250 digital levels to play with.

 

And that's why a 'top-down' bright and pale 'raw' file would be much better than a dark and dense one.

 

Unfortunately, from your sample, it appears that Vuescan saves its 'raw' files in a bottom-up, dark and dingy, fashion, rather than top-down.

 

So, if possible you should increase the brightness of those 'raw' scans as much as possible for archival use. Otherwise any advantage of a 16 bit file depth is just wasted.

 

FWIW, it would make far more efficient use of file space, and give better tonal quality, if a log-law 'gamma' was applied in analogue form before the A/D stage of any scanner/digital camera. But that would be too much to hope for!

Edited February 10, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

I'm looking to digitize 14 medium format negatives. I have been using VueScan myself with a Coolscan IV to digitize every 35mm, 110, Instamatic negative and slide I can get my hands on. Unfortunately the Coolscan IV is too small for medium-format and the results with my flatbed scanner are absolutely inadequate.

I've got the SuperCoolscan 9000 which supports MF and I run it with VueScan. If you're still looking and willing to risk sending me the negs I'm happy to scan them for you and return the tiff scan files. You can find my contact info from my photo.net profile.

 

Here is one of my most recent MF (645) scans (and subsequent LR processing). It was shot, developed and scanned last month (January 2021) on Kodak Pro100 color neg film. Note that the film had a use-by date of Feb 2000 so it was 20 years out of date, and I haven't kept it refrigerated over those years.

 

IF the DR of the scanner isn't sufficient to capture the entire range of data, then encoding and bit depth is moot; you're not capturing all those tones.

IF the DR of the scanner is sufficient, you can and the bit depth plays a role in editing that image after scanning. Gamma doesn't.

DR of scanners is a lot of marketing hype too. I recall seeing (at the time in the 90s) desktop film scanners and even more difficult to believe, consumer flatbed's stating DR in the 3.8/4.0 range up there with dedicated PMT drum scanners. Hogwash. Well there are zero 'rules' in how one measures this. At what point do you dismiss noise for data? Marketing can fudge the figures. And they did. So yes, what's wrong with 'gamma 1.0' and 16 bit files is that it doesn't necessarily mean you're preserving the most tonal quality from your negatives, and you can substitute gamma and bit depth above; what's the DR of the film, and does it exceed the capabilities of the scanner?

The number of bits does (in theory) limit DR. It's really moot. It's not difficult to make a scanner that encodes the numbers into finer values. It's not anywhere as easy to make one with a DR sufficient to capture some film(s).

Dynamic range, 24 bit vs 36 bit

I currently scan with Epsonscan software and set the black and white points just past the ends of the histogram. In the past, I had scanned at 0-255 and adjusted those points (levels) in post. Someone said that it's better to set them for the scan. You get more data that way of the photo's exposure range.

 

However, I've always questioned whether it made a difference. I assume all that Epsonscan did, in any case, was scan 0-255 and then adjust for their final file at the manually selected black and white points. You can see that on the prescan when you switch between auto exposure and manual. So is there really any difference?

I currently scan with Epsonscan software and set the black and white points just past the ends of the histogram.

Got a screen capture? I'm not understanding how you can go 'past the ends' of a Histogram.

In the past, I had scanned at 0-255 and adjusted those points (levels) in post.

IF done in high bit, that's OK assuming you didn't clip the range doing step one above which needs further clarity.

I assume all that Epsonscan did, in any case, was scan 0-255 and then adjust for their final file at the manually selected black and white points.

It's not the scanner, it's what drives the scanner; the software.

Is there a difference? Well you have the scanner, the scanner driver and the film. Why not scan both ways and upload (or better, examine the two themselves). You're asking a question best answered by actually taking some time to do a test. Or at least make two scans and allow others to assist you in analysis. Anything else is, like your assumption, another assumption.

And yet, this 'raw scan' ensures that's going to be the case. When you could simply scan as high a resolution as the scanner provides while making this high bit scan look as good as possible globally; assuming, the TOOLBOX in the scanning software has the tools and controls to do so. In the past, some, few products (I'm thinking LInoColor or ScanView) could and in some cases, with tools superior to Photoshop.

 

I can do both by selecting raw scan and also an inverted tiff 16 or 8, or jpeg, make all the settings available in Vuescan Pro I want, click 'scan' and both files are written. Or, I can do only the raw scan and load the raw file into the scanner and make the inverted file at a more convenient time, or a can load the file into sw whose purpose is to invert such scans into a positive. Just played with an old version (3.5) of Picture Window Pro and got a better conversion than in Photoshop, but the CF Systems plugin is better (click and it is done).