Epson V800 and 5D3 DSLR 'scanning

 

 

Here is a caparison between a Epson V800 scan and a 'scan' done with a Canon 5D3, Olympus bellows with slide copier, an OM Zuiko 80mm Macro, the same lens and combination that took the picture of a dragonfly in the Dordogne France in 1986 on Ektachrome 64.

 

The Canon picture is larger (below) so has been resized to approximate the size of the Epson result.

I have processed them both in Lightroom

 

Epson flat, no sharpening at all, scanned using Epson Scan, Auto exposure to get the grey balance, slackened the highs and lows in the histogram and brighten the mid tone. No ICE 3200DPI 48 bit exported from Lightroom to Photoshop

 

Canon I resized, tried to match tonally, also no sharpening. The Canon has too much contrast as Raw.

The original film has resolved the eyes, so I have 100% screen grabs of the area.

I used Live view, magnified the area x10, used the bellows to focus on the eyes, stopped down to F8 and after a few test exposures used this one.

I can post the images separately if required.

 

PS the Epson scan is a a little narrower than the Canon, as it seems its vertical and horizontal resolutions are different.

I see no sign of dye clouds, which I would expect with a 100% crop. However the net magnification shown is less than pixel=pixel. A screen grab is as many pixels wide as your monitor, which you must then reduce to fit within the 1000 pixel rule for PNet. If the Epson and Canon have different resolution, you must resample one or the other to equalize the width in pixels. At this point, you are also limited by the ability of your screen to produce color, which I guess to be no more than 8 bits per channel. The results are limited by the weakest link in this chain. It's hard to say exactly which link it is.

 

Rather than a screen grab, use Photoshop to outline a 1000 pixel wide sample, center it on the point of interest (the eyes), copy and paste the results into a new image. The new image will be exactly the correct size for PNet once you flatten and save it as a JPEG.

The Epson scan looks sharper, in more detail and better pixels. You can really see that in the tiny section of the round eyes. I don't know whether that's because of what Ed described or because the Epson scans better.

Well that is for others to judge. I did this to satisfy myself and possibly to answer the question that turns up on all forums, DSLR scanning v Flatbed scanner.

It depends on what you want to do? I am scanning 20 years of very variable family pictures, which will never be printed, but could be printed to 10x8.

I choose the screen grab, as it seemed the most democratic. Also I don't want to see the grain, as long as its sharp enough.

My experiment shows that in my situation, the two methods are pretty well equal.

In the end the limiting factor is the film resolution and also how well focused the original picture was.

I was lucky when I took the picture more than 30 years ago, that I actually got the eyes sharp.

Usually one was lucky to get 1 good one in 36. So many films thrown away.

All the best

So if you used the two devices and in each case used software to get the best results you can in a reasonable amount of time, which do you think comes out best? (And do you think there’s enough difference to notice in real use, e.g. on screen or in print?)

I find that scans with a 24 MP digital camera (A7ii) compare favorably with a 4000 ppi scan with a Nikon LS-4000, and you can see dye clouds. This photo was taken in 2014 on Ektar 100 film, and scanned at 4000 ppi with an LS-4000. The 600x400 pixel sample is taken from the from the full-sized scanned image for presentation here. The resolution is limited by the film, not the process.

 

Leica M3 + Summicron 90/2

So if you used the two devices and in each case used software to get the best results you can in a reasonable amount of time, which do you think comes out best? (And do you think there’s enough difference to notice in real use, e.g. on screen or in print?)

 

If you have a DSLR, go that way. Otherwise the Epson is fine. You can print quite large, but don't get to close.

The Epson is versatile. Alternatively, there are really cheap 35mm slide scanners around, that will outdo the Epson. The Epson resolution is barely 3200DPI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmC5U5aiclw.

This person has something interesting to say on the subject

The Epson resolution is barely 2000 ppi, in effect.

Hmmm. So Epson's top of the range scanner makes a Plustek look good? That takes some doing!

 

FWIW, after using 3 dedicated macro lenses against a variety of enlarging lenses for 1:1 or 2:3 negative copying, I have to say that the enlarging lenses are generally better at the job. And since hardly anyone uses a proper enlarger any more, used enlarging lenses only cost a pittance for the likes of a Rodagon or Componon-S. For some reason El-Nikkors demand a higher price, and don't perform any better.

Edited November 9, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

Hmmm. So Epson's top of the range scanner makes a Plustek look good? That takes some doing!

 

I use a Plustek 7500i, which cost me 99Euro used, for my 35mm scans. For 35mm, it blows my Epson flatbed out of the water.

 

It also compares favourably with the Minolta Scan Dual III I also own (which, unlike the Plustek, has autofocus potential). The Plustek has higher native resolution than the Minolta Scan Dual and has essentially made the latter redundant for my purposes.

 

I don't own a DSLR and a micro Nikkor anymore, so I can't compare directly. But a quick survey of 'DSLR scanned' 35mm images on flickr and facebook shows that I can get way better results with the humble, tiny, cheap Plustek.

 

My tentative explanation for this is that DSLR is, potentially, a superior technique IF done correctly.

 

But it's so fiddly and error-prone that most people make a dog's dinner out it.