Quality of negative scanners?

I just got a Nikon N65 and I'm looking for a cheap practical solution for

developing the film. It seems from my research online that scanning negatives

or slides are good options. People seem to say that scanning negatives gives

better results but it may be more difficult to get the color right, etc. I

don't mind having to adjust the color, I just want good resolution with no grain

or blurring. My question is, how good is the quality I can expect from a home

film negative scanner?

 

Just as a reference point, I looked at this scanner...which scans at 4800 x 9600 dpi

http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/productDetail.do?oid=184510&WT.mc_n=4&WT.mc_t=U&cm_ven=COMPARISON%20SHOPPING&cm_cat=GOOGLE&cm_pla=DATAFEED-%3EPRODUCTS&cm_ite=1%20PRODUCT&cm_keycode=4

 

To scan a 35mm area, this would produce a 6614x13229 image...which is 87 MP.

That doesn't sound right...!

 

Ive been browsing around trying to find images that other people have produced

to get a sense of the quality. Some of them have weird artifacts and distorted

colors...others are crisp and look better...

In general flatbed won't do any good on film scanning, but the actual quality depends on the scanner, film, exposure and developing, and then there is calibrating and postprocessing. I haven't done scanning for at least 2 years but can tell you that if quality is what you are after, be prepared to spend lengthy hours just to experiment until you work things out (check out Vuescan), and then you will need an expensive model if you want to scan slides. For colour negatives, just overexpose the film a bit and the scans will not be as grainy, but grain free scans are unreleastic expectation. For that you will be better off with DSLRs.

The Nikon Coolscan V is much better than consumer-grade flatbed scanners. You should expect to spend about $550. And to have a bit of trouble finding one in stock.

The latest color neg films are made for scanning, Kodak Portra and Fuji 160s Pro. They are significantly better than earlier versions. Scanned with a good scanner, they are the equal of dslr files.

 

Scanning works if you know what you are doing, but it is a lot of work compared to a digi cam. With the digi cam, the file goes right into the computer and you are finished. 95% of photogs have come to this conclusion.

 

My advice is to get a digi slr with the money you save from not getting a good scanner like the Nikon which is out of stock everywhere I am told.

 

Or buy a cd with the film images scanned onto it when you have the film developed. They will not be great high rez scans.

 

The flatbed scanner of choice is the V700 Epson if you do not get a dedicated film scanner. One of the Nikon models if you want a dedicated film scanner.

 

Consumer flatbed scanner resolution figures are notoriously over rated. The one you picked will get you a digital image, but the quality is really unknown as nobody here uses one that I know of.

Indeed for a good flatbed scanner: (Epson) V700 or V500 when scanning negatives or use a dedicated Nikon film scanner.

 

Looking at the OPTICAL resolution of the flatbed scanners max. 6400 dpi divide it by two and you have a practical scan resolution (for 35mm). Almost all flatbed scanners are producing only data over 4000 dpi, not more details.....

<p>Stuart, color is, indeed, the bugaboo with color negatives, and getting the color perfect does take some skill, experience and time, but it can be done. On the other hand, with the right software (eg software which supports profiling) transparencies CAN become almost a turnkey operation, but be aware that getting the most from denser (eg Kodachrome) or higher contrast (eg Velvia) transparencies does require better quality equipment. The bottom line is that, given good equipment and experience, I'd still choose my film type based on shooting requirements and personal preference, not scanning requirements. Both CAN scan very well.</p>

 

<p>Take a look at <a href="http://www.westernsteamphoto.com/Recent/index.htm">this page</a> from my website for some additional examples. I reference this page as all but 2 of the shots on it are scanned 35mm negatives (Nikon LS-50 dedicated film scanner). Of the remaining two, one is from a 35mm transparency (Astia 100F), and one is from a digital SLR. I use Vuescan for color negatives, and Silverfast AI Studio (with IT8 calibration) for color transparencies.</p>

 

<p>As for flatbeds, well... horses for courses. I'd also recommend a dedicated film scanner (which these days pretty much means Nikon if you're talking reasonable prices) over the comprise represented by consumer level flatbed scanners. That recommendation, BTW, is based on direct experience, not internet hearsay.</p>

 

<p>Scott</p>

I use a Nikon IV scanner which i bought used last year. When i have a properly exposed slides (i almost exclusively shoot slide film, some BW negs, almost never color negs) i love it to death. Extremely sharp and clear IMHO. If something is not exposed just right, its better to just give up, though, especially kodachrome. That is where it gets really hard to get the colors right, when it is under or sometimes over exposed.

 

The quality of the film you use makes a big difference. I get a lot more keepers and straighter colors from say, Provia 100 than Sensia 100. I shoot both film and digital, and both have their uses. I would say go for the dedicated scanner, and if it is something important you are shooting, shoot good film. I personally shoot slides because i think that they usually scan better, but just be ready to accept the inherent disadvantages of a narrow exposure latitude etc.

Scanning film is not a casual endeavor. It takes skill and practice to achieve consistent results, and a lot of time (2-4 hours/roll just to scan). That said, the results are superior to anything I've done in years of darkroom experience.

 

The best way to achieve good photographic results are with a dedicated film scanner. The Nikon V (LS-50) gives outstanding quality at an affordable price (~$500). The resolution is about twice that of the best flatbed film scanner (Epson V700/750), with better contrast and sensitivity. It is also much faster to use the strip scanner than to use a film holder, and requires only minor registration adjustments.

 

In the end, you may find that a 10+MP DSLR gives better results. The choice to scan or go digital is based more on personal satisfaction and involvement than anything else.

If you think the Canon delivers a true 4800x9600ppi, I'd like to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

Stuart, I have a Nikon CoolScan 4000 ED that I picked up for $350 off eBay. It works GREAT. I shoot Fujicolor Reala or Pro S, both extremely fine grained, and get fantastic results. Although I have a Nikon D200 system I still enjoy my manual focus Canon FD film gear (great glass!). The enjoyment of these cameras is reason enough to own a film scanner for me. Pick a color neg film that you like, shoot a few of test shots of a skintone and a macbeth color checker under miday sun. Find the best exposure, (tip: don't over expose too much like you would for optical printing, I use box speed) use the scanners curve controls and the color checker values to dial in a curve setting. Save the curve. Shoot another roll of average subjects and scan and tweek the curve as needed. Yes, you have to learn how to scan, but it's not brain surgery. There is plenty of help here on Photo.net and other places on-line. Depending on crop, at full resolution, I get about a 14MP output that prints beautifully. Color neg film gives a great exposure range plus you can use Digital ICE while scanning to reduce artifacts. By converting in Photoshop, I can get a nice B&W image from the same scan. A good film scanner breathes new life into older film systems and gives access to digital tools like Photoshop and Inkjet printing. BTW, I also own an Epson V750 scanner. It not quite as good on 35mm as the Nikon but it's dang close and the best flatbed scanner for 35mm I have seen plus it does MF and LF films superbly. A good flexible tool. Good Luck and enjoy!......Lou

Thanks so much for all your prompt feedback! I certainly wasn't expecting to get so much good advice so soon.

 

Scott, those images on your website look decent..but they are only 0.6 MP...so I'm guessing you have down sized from the digital scan considerably. What I'd like to see is a raw image of the scan output...so I can see how much total resolution it has, see how much work would need to be done in Photoshop to clean it up etc. As I said I am no stranger to Photoshop so that's not a problem for me.

 

Louis, how does the quality of that 14 MP film scan to the output of a 14 MP DSLR? I haven't owned a DSLR but my friend gave me a bunch of raw files from her Rebel (I think it was 8 MP but not sure) and I was pretty shocked/disappointed to find that the "effective" resolution was much smaller...they felt more like 1 MP images that had been scaled up.

 

What is the physical difference between a "flatbed" and "dedicated" film scanner?

 

Don't bother trying to persuade me into a DSLR...I have so many reasons not to go down that route. For one thing, my primary impetus for getting a camera is for my upcoming 1 month trip into the African bush where there will be no electricity. I can't afford a good DSLR and if I could, I wouln't want to carry around some big expensive fragile thing anyway. Digital cameras stink...I don't want to lose photo opportunities because my camera has to be "turned on" first, or couldn't pull the trigger fast enough..or ran out of batteries...or pictures werent as good because it needed a longer exposure time. I just want cheap, simple, lightweight, reliable, sharp film camera. It doesn't matter that my intended medium is a digital file -- I still think its better to make the conversion to digital in the lab rather than in the field.

One more thing...

 

Another option for me is to get slides, so I can inspect them and see which ones I like, and then send the good ones off to be professionally scanned. This would make sense for me if the quality of a professional scanner is going to be much higher megapixel/quality than what I could do by myself.

Hi Stuart,

 

May I ask you a question, what will you do with the scans you make?

 

If you will view them on your monitor or post them to the Web, then a good flatbed scanner like the Epson V500 or V700 is all you may need. The limiting factor to the displayed image will be display monitor.

 

If you will make smaller sized prints - 4x6 or even 5x7 - the flatbed will still suffice.

 

If you will make larger prints or crop your images in smaller prints, then scans will benefit from dedicated film scanner.

 

The advantage film users have is we always have our negatives or slides. If you need an occasional high resolution scan, you can always either re-scan that particular frame at higher resolution, or send it out for professional scanning.

A flatbed scanner has a glass bed on which you lay the film (or print), generally in a film holder. There is a light in the cover and the film is scanned from beneath the glass. In the latest generation of high-quality consumer scanners, there is an array of microlenses on top of a full-width sensor which slowly moves down the length of the bed. The fact that the imaging is comparable to the compound eye of an insect means that the actual resolution is significantly less than that which the sensor cell spacing would suggest (the "optical" resolution).

 

A dedicated film scanner has a fixed, high quality. multi-element lens. The film is held in the optical path and the lens forms an image directly on the sensor. To scan, the lens assembly may move (e.g., LS-50) or the film holder may move (e.g., Nikon LS-8000). The optics are optimized for a fixed reproduction ratio, which gives corner to corner sharpness. Front surface mirrors are used to make the optical path more compact.

 

High-end graphic arts flatbeds use a single high-quality lens and have highly stable scanning mechanisms. The price is measured in $10K increments. Imacon scanners are in between - using a moving film holder with a fixed lens, and no mirrors in the path.

Hi Stuart, on a purely resolution level the scans compare favorably to my digital cameras. However not only do the scanned images have visable grain, but come nowhere near the image control available with a digital RAW capture. A lot depends on your final output size. On 8x10 prints I don't see much difference. A digital SLR may not be suitable or desirable for your needs but they, in and of themselves, are wonderful tools nor are they especially fragile. A flatbed scanner is an all purpose scanner device digitizing both reflected (prints, documents) objects and transparent (film) objects. They range from cheap office type units to sophisticated (read expensive) high-end units. Film scanners only scan film. Different units offer options for different sizes originals, resolutions and price points with professional drum scanners at the high ens and small desktop LED scanners (like my Nikon CoolScan 4000ED) at the consumer end. To wit, a professional drum scan created by an experienced scanner operator is going to be significantly better than a scan by a scanning novice on a consumer-level scanner. I hope this helps you.......Lou

"... how does the quality of that 14 MP film scan to the output of a 14 MP DSLR?"

 

It depends. Let's assume you're using a Nikon dedicated film scanner. You'll do better with a 4MP DSLR if comparing to 800ISO color negative film. On the other hand, you can approach 20MP (albeit a noisily) if you're comparing against 100 TMAX or Fuji Acros.

All pixels are not equal, and it is my experience that one pixel in a DSLR with good glass is equivalent to 3 pixels using a Nikon film scanner. A 4000ppi scan is grain-sharp. With greater resolution, the results are limited by grain and inherent diffusion of chemistry and light within the emulsion which reduces edge contrast.

 

In short (and based on experience), a 6MP camera (D1x) or D2h (4.1MP) is comparable in sharpness to a 24MP film scan on a Nikon LS-4000ED, and has much less "grain" and better color. A 12.3MP D2x far surpasses 35mm film, and approaches medium format quality. When I shoot film, it is medium or large format only.

 

The main advantage of a scanner, particularly a medium format scanner, is that you can achieve the results of an high-end DSLR at a fraction of the initial cost. The challenge is to find a processing facility for medium format film other than mail order.

Does the ISO speed of my film have a large impact on scan quality of the negatives? I know that faster film is going to be more granular by nature, but I'm not sure if the effect is compounded during the scanning process. I was planning on using 500 ISO film.

 

Brooks, 99% of my pictures will be viewed in digital format on the computer screen. I would probably be happy with just 4 MP of information content -- by that I mean, the amount of sharpness you would expect from taking a 100 MP image and downsampling it to 4 MP in Photoshop, so there is no blurriness.

 

For some of my favorite pictures, I may want to make prints -- probably just 8x10. For those I would probably have it sent somewhere to be scanned professionally.

 

Edward, you mention that all pixels are not equal..and I already know what you mean. I was given a bunch of RAW files from my friends DSLR Rebel taken at 8 MP...but I don't believe they really had more than 1 MP of actual "information content."

 

It is disappointing to hear that equal MP from a negative scan are worse than DSLR of the same resolution -- but I guess that's just a fact I will have to live with. This discussion makes me want to consider medium format film cameras in the future...but not for this trip.

 

Edward, can you recommend some places where you can send negatives to get truly high quality professional scans?

Stuart,

 

The reason I pointed you to that particular page was because you seemed to have concerns about color quality from negatives. The scans I pointed to were largely of color negatives, so I thought they'd serve to address that point. Yes, of course, they're down-sampled - from original files which are about 22Mpixels.

 

But further to your original, and follow-up, questions, I would caution you about the whole mega-pixel & 100% view thing. You simply can't compare film scans to digitally sourced images on a pixel by pixel basis. The answer to how well-scanned film compares to digital images is far more complex than that.

 

I would also caution you not to set unreasonable expectations. In your original post, you say "...I just want good resolution with no grain or blurring..." Sorry, the grain-free part just ain't gonna happen. Even fine grained transparency film like, say, Velvia 100, will show visible grain in a 100% view of a true high-resolution scan. Film has grain - it's a fact of life, and you seem to be expecting film to be something that it isn't. If you don't see grain, you're not talking about a high res scan - or there's something wrong with the scanner. In fact, one of the challenges in learning to post-process film scans, as opposed to digitally sourced images, is in how to PP to bring out the best in a film scan without accentuating grain.

 

Using my Nikon scans, I can make 13x19 prints from fine-grained 35mm film with no grain-reduction whatsoever which appear grain free even from nose-on-the-glass distances. But that's very different from saying, "I want a grain-free scan". Scan or no scan, we're still talking about film images which have grain.

 

Rather than get overly concerned about how images appear in full-sized scans, I'd look at some of the comments like Edward's above, with which I fully concur. I get better prints from 35mm film using a Nikon LS-50 than I have ever gotten from either my own, or a professional lab's, traditional prints from the same film. Hands down, no question. In other words, a well-executed scan workflow gets more from film than has ever been possible.

 

Isn't that what you're really interested in?

 

Scott

<p><i>"Brooks, 99% of my pictures will be viewed in digital format on the computer screen."</i></p>

 

<p>OK, Stuart, now I'm really confused as to what your expectations really are. If that's what you're concerned with, why do you care what 100% views look like? Higher resolution images only matter if you're going to be printing to large sizes. The fact that a 100% view 22Mpixel scan doesn't look like a 100% view 1DsMkIII image, truly does NOT matter for your purposes. Not at all.</p>

 

<p>Scott</p>

Les Sarile,

 

Nice..thanks for that excellent comparison! The Coolscan 5000 scans are about on-par with the quality I'm looking for in my general purpose shots. It's out of my price range right now, and I guess that means I can stop bothering to look at the lower end scanners. I'll just have to get all my film scanned professionally until I can afford a scanner of adequate quality.

Scott, I wanted to see 100% resolution views because that's what I'm going to be dealing with if I buy the thing. Looking at a down sampled image, I don't know what kind of information was lost (or not lost) during the down sampling process. The pictures you linked were a bit small for on-screen viewing.

 

The images that Sarile linked were (in my opinion) just barely good enough for on screen viewing purposes. Yes, they are 3600x5500 raw...but I would end up doing a lot of post effects to hide the effects of grain...bilateral filter, maybe a median filter...then down sample it to a much smaller size to get a crisp image. If my raw scan was already 2000 pixels, then I'd be playing with thumbnails.

Stuart, you may want to look at this page on my website that I dedicated to some of your questions:

 

http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_optimalscanningresolution.htm

 

I think you will find some answers, and yes, the ISO speed does matter for final quality. Sometimes it's simply better to scan at a lower than maximum resolution, instead of trying to apply PS filters to hide grain. It will not improve quality of your final scan. Again, see the webpage...

 

 

Marco

Also, if you expect to capture grainless images comparable to 10-12MP digital camera's, it can only be done using all but the least sensitive (ISO 100 or 50) film types.

 

You just can't expect a 35mm negative at ISO 400 to have that cary that amount of true information... If you want to shoot at that ISO and still get detailed - or better said large - scans (e.g.> 12 - 30MP), you need to upgrade to MF or LF.

 

On the upside, you plan for Africa, so ISO 100 at daytime should not be an issue...

I can give another thumbs up for the nikon scanners. it's advantage over say an espon

flatbed, is the ability to focus all parts of the slide to ensure consistent sharpness over

the whole slide/neg.