Digital camera scanning technique: comparison against an Epson v700 (and a drum)

<p>Given that a drum scan costs anywhere between 50 an 200 bucks, and that scanning with an Epson v700 (or another flatbed for that matter) barely scratches the quality a good medium / large format camera is capable to deliver, I ended up with a technique that others may find interesting.<br>

Basically it involves taking multiple shots of each single frame with the camera put on top of the frame itself - so avoiding alignment issues - then stitching them in a panoramic software or in Photoshop.<br>

<img src="http://www.addicted2light.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/setup_01.jpg" alt="" /><br>

It's simple, fast - way faster than a flatbed, and much more that having to wait for the drum scans to be delivered by the courier - and quality wise gives excellent results. I thought it was worth sharing.<br>

At the first link you can find the full comparison, including crops from a Dainippon drum scanner, and at the next the technique is discussed thoroughly.<br>

http://www.addicted2light.com/2012/11/23/best-film-scanner-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-drum-scanner-vs-epson-v700/<br>

http://www.addicted2light.com/2012/11/29/how-to-scan-films-using-a-digital-camera/<br>

But to see the kind of results you can get here a couple of examples. <br>

This have been shot on a Hasselblad 500c/m + the 80mm Planar on tripod, with the mirror locked up and a cable shutter release, on Kodak Ektar 100 iso film. The Epson film holder hight was calibrated, and I used also a piece of anti newton glass to keep the film flat.<br>

First the full image:<br>

<img src="http://www.addicted2light.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/MF-R47_09_multishot_web.jpg" alt="" /><br>

And now the crops (the bolts at the base of the right wooden pole):<br>

<img src="http://www.addicted2light.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ratio-differences_03.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://www.addicted2light.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ratio-differences_02.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://www.addicted2light.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ratio-differences.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Well, I was pretty content with the results of my Epson, but I seemed to remember the Hassy being way sharper. I guess now I know why :)</p>

<p>All fine and good, but you haven't mentioned the lens that you were using. As you know, different lenses have different qualities. I've seen this done in variety of fashion by folks on dpreview.</p>

<p>Judging by the guys on LF forum, the Epson 700/750 may be OK for 4x5 work (barely too), but it's far away from being quality on 35mm/120 films/slides.</p>

<p>I'm thinking that my lowely Tammy 90 macro can pull similar thing...and still be better than 700/750.</p>

<p>What sorts of quality is the new drum scanner ? I may rent a Plustek (new one, that suppose to be available in 10 days)...and see where I go from here.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>Hi Leszek,<br>

this technique is slightly different by the others you may have seen, because it makes use of the stitching capabilities of the various panoramic softwares.<br>

<br /> I did not mention the lens because I use different lenses to obtain different reproduction ratios / resolutions.* Alternatively, even an enlarger lens mounted on a bellows will do the job.<br>

<br /> When I need to go up to 1:1 (to make, for example, 6 shots for a 6x6 film frame like on the second crop) I use a Contax 60/2,8 Makro S-Planar or a Pentax M Macro 50/4. This will give me a resolution of roughly 3.200 ppi.<br>

<br /> If I need more detail - in the realm of drum scanning - I have to go to 3:1 (the image with 28 shots above), and then I use an old, pre-Ai Nikon 35/2 O with an inversion ring. When I go to 3:1 I will after resize the resulting file to 50%, because most of it will be grain ("scanning" the film with a 3:1 reproduction ratio is basically oversampling it, so downsampling to 50% it means scaling it down roughly to its real size).<br>

<br /> *<em>Not that you need a different lens for each ratio, it's just that I happened to have the various combos yet, otherwise I would have bought a bellows or some tubes for the Contax or the Pentax.</em></p>

<p>Nice idea! Before now, I hadn't heard of anyone else using this approach.</p>

<p>Another benefit of this approach is that since you are shooting only one part of the tranny at a time, you can change to focus from one area to the next to compensate for bowing of the transparency in the slide mount. This has the further benefit that instead of being forced to small apertures to get adequate DoF, you can now always operate near the sweet spot of the lens (ie, maybe f/5.6 or 8) and make full use of the lens's resolving pwr.</p>

<p>Tom </p>

<p>Just a dumb question. <br>

When you say you take multiple shots and stitch. How do you shift the lens position? Also, what is the final resolution size of the file?</p>

<p>How much processing (e.g. sharpening, contrast, etc.) is being done intentionally or by default behind-the-scenes in the second two images (by your stitching program and/or other software)? You are getting some ugly color issues and halos/artifacts going on with those images. It definitely does not look like an unprocessed apples-to-apples comparison.</p>

<p>@ Doug<br>

The color issues depend by the fact that this is a color negative, and I'm struggling a bit to find the perfect curve - and frankly I used this picture to testing purposes only, so I'm not trying too hard :). The halos are simply reflections of the sun on the shiny surfaces, and I can see them on film, so they are definitely not an artifact. I'm more of a b/w guy, and with that (or color slides, for that matter) the results has always been perfect (you can see more examples at the link posted).<br>

@Ray<br>

I do not shift the lens, I shift the film! The final resolution depends by the reproduction ratio you decide to use. With a ratio between 1:2 and 1:1 (my standard for the bulk of the pictures) you can achieve a resolution of roughly 3.200 ppi, so a file size around 7.500x7.500 for a 6x6 frame, for example. Using a ratio from 2:1 to 3:1, and downsampling the file the 50% after, you can achieve resolution from 4.000ppi and up, depending on how much you enlarge the film. However I found that going to 3:1 gives you pretty much all the detail there is on the film; after that there is only grain even with the 25 iso emulsions. You can read of the entire procedure at the second link I posted above, if you want.</p>

<p>How much time does it take to get to the final file?</p>

<p>It depends by the format and by the reproduction ratio (i.e. by how much shots you take).<br>

With 35mm I make just 1 shot of the whole frame; only for the best images I take 3 to 6 shots at 3:1. For medium format films I take 3 shots with 4,5x6cm and 6 shots with 6x6 and 6x7 films. For large format film at roughly 1:1 we're talking generally about 20 shots for 4x5".</p>

<p>As a rule of thumb it takes 10-20 seconds to tape the film down, check the focus and make 3 to 6 shots, plus another 30-60 seconds for the panoramic software to work its magic. With 20 shots it takes 1 minute or so to make the shots; to assemble them in the software it will require anywhere from 2 (generally) to 15 minutes (only for pictures with few details, like big plain skies).</p>

<p>The tests look good! The only comment I'd make is that using a Fluorescent light source <em>may</em> cause some color issues down the line due to the spectrum and those nasty mercury spikes from the blub. Reversing the color neg can be difficult to say the least. </p>

<p>You're right Andrew, and in fact I'm using an old HP scanner transparency adaptor rigged directly to the scanner 12v transformer. Total cost: 5 euro :) (Please, do not electrocute yourself if you're not comfortable around electricity!)</p>

<p>More, this kind of adapter (and the Epson ones) have some sort of hive-like design that concentrate the light. From tests I run against a plain slide viewer with this kind of light there is the same effect that with a condensed light enlarger, compared to a diffused light one, meaning that the negs looks sharper. The difference can be leveled though with just a touch of sharpening.</p>

<p>You've got me thinking Gianluca. I still have a full darkroom with two enlargers, even if I just use it for souping film these days. The big Durst has a 4"x5" colour head that hasn't been used in a few years, bet it would make a great light source. It would even be easy to adjust colour balance with the dial in filters. Will give this a try in the near future and see what my results are. <br>

I've got a D800e and 60mm Micro so if this works it will make digitizing MF and large format film a lot easier. <br>

Much of my gallery here was shot on film. Rolli and Linhof were scanned with an Epson 3200, Leica and Canon with Nikon CS-5000.<br>

I dread the day when my CS-5000 stops working. They're no longer made and prices on used ones are starting to go through the roof. At least I now have another option.</p>

 

<p>Hi Glenn, I came up with this method exactly because I wasn't able to find at least a medium format scanner at a decent price. And this solution would have been left the large format behind anyway. Glad to be helpful!</p>

<p>BTW, if you decide to try this technique the first few times overshoot a bit, with large overlapping areas; this way it will be easier for the software to stitch the pictures together. After a while you will develop a sense for the right amount of overlapping, and you will become much faster.</p>

<p>More expensive, but 35mm film can get those adaptor holder thingies in front of the lens, they should have medium format ones then one just adjust the film around ....</p>

<p>Good luck with that Ray! I searched for one of this thingies in a medium format size on the *bay for years and never found one… I guess probably the manufacturer decided there wasn't a large enough market base.</p>

<p>Thanks for this Gianluca. I also plan to try it soon.</p>

<p>Like Glenn, I have darkroom stuff gathering dust, including an Aristo cold light head, which might be good for B&W though maybe not for color.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...which might be good for B&W though maybe not for color.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're welcome Kent.</p>

<p>And the Aristo should be good for color too, as long as you take a custom white balance on the light itself. Generally speaking it's better to correct the light with filters, and not to use the software, because messing with the "mix" of the color channels can generate noise.</p>

<p>But the film itself - and I'm mostly into landscapes, so we're talking almost exclusively Velvia and Ektar for color, and 25 Iso films for b/w - has so much noise in the form of grain that the eventual digital noise generated due the necessity to balance the light will be absolutely invisible.</p>

<p>I shoot film and digital. It is truly amazing how much resolution film has. I really should get more high resolution scans of my medium format film.</p>

<p>Just thought I would say thank you. Tried it tonight, and very happy with the results. Used a D7000 with a really olf pre-AI (modified) 55mm f3.5 Micro. Shot three exposures +/-1 and blended in CS5 HDR, then photomerge, then tonemapped using the photorealistic low contrast preset.<br /><br />Attached is the first one done from a negative (Portra 160). Didn't have a good way to hold the film flat, so not everything is quite where it needs to be. Thinking a negative carrier or a couple of pieces of glass. In the future. Light source was an old light box I have, and the camera was just mounted above on a tripod.</p>

<p>Once again, thanks!</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Didn't have a good way to hold the film flat</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use simple paper adhesive tape, the one painters use for masking areas, that costs nothing and leaves no residues.<br>

BTW, the Nikkor 55/3.5 is like a wine, the older (version) the better! I had one, and I still regret having sold it.</p>

<p>Oh, I love that lens. Best $80 I ever spent. Sharp as a tack too.</p>

<p>I was out of painter's tape, at least in my supplies closet. May have some downstairs with all the painting gear. That said, I am thinking some glass, maybe AN glass would be well worth it. And possibly a copy stand...</p>

<p>How about some 100% close up crops similar to Gianluca posted, Zach.</p>

<p>Looks great from here, though. Very interesting thread.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And possibly a copy stand...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Avoid that, if you do not put the camera directly on top of the film you will be faced with alignment issues. Considering that, even at f/11, the depth of field is paper-thin you don't want that...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How about some 100% close up crops similar to Gianluca posted, Zach.<br>

Looks great from here, though. Very interesting thread.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It was late, and my fiance was rather cross with me last night. Too much time with photos, not enough with her... Might get some tonight if she isn't still mad at me. Otherwise, tomorrow.</p>

<p>Alright, first, the sample of the previous posted groomer photo....</p><div></div>