Scanning Large Format

I am scanning 4x5 transparencies on an Epson 2450, using either

Vuescan or Silverfast SE. My resulting scans show better detail than

my direct 35mm digital images (Canon 20D) -- but they are not that

much better. I am also finding quite consistently that the scanned

4x5 slides are darker and tend to have a bit of a color cast in

comparison with the direct digital files. Question: would a better

scanner reveal a bigger difference between scanned 4x5s and digital

35mm files? What combination of scanner and software have those you

who scan your large format film found useful?

I suggest that you get a very small section of your 4x5 negative drum scanned. That will give you an idea of how much information is on a 4x5 negative.

 

I had a drum scan done at 12000 (yes three zeros) dpi and found pretty much what other people have found that you keep getting more information up to about 8000 dpi.

 

I have given up B&W negative scanning for any serious work and make a print first and scan the print.

You can see some comparisons here between a Howtek 4500 and an Epson 4870. There is really no comparison and your scanner is even softer.

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/drum_comparisons

 

Also check out this crop. This is a 3/4" x 1" crop from 4x5 film. Sounds like you might have a combination of things going on. Soft 4x5 lens, soft scanner, maybe the camera is not that stiff, film flatness ??

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/image/36256346/large

 

Be sure to look at it full size. This was taken with a very sharp Rodenstock Sironar 150mm lens on a Sinar 4x5 on E100S film.

 

As far as digital, it is very clean and has better edge sharpness than film. That is also its downfall when enlarging really big, it just kindof falls apart at a certain level. Even though film has grain, if you do a high DPI drum scan like 4000 to 8000 dpi you can enlarge film a lot more. Check out the SD9 vs 35mm film crops at the link above. Notice that at 20x30 and 300 dpi the film is still looking pretty smooth and digital starts getting kindof a water color look.

 

I scan 90% of all my MF and LF photos at 2000 dpi and i shoot almost exclusivly E100G film, just because it is so clean. With a super sharp lens at 2000 dpi it has about the same pixel edge sharpness and carries the same detail as digital. That means a 4x5 would be roughly 70-80 mp equiv at that level. You just have not gotten there yet.

 

Here is a tiny 4x5 crop. 1/4" high and 1/3" long, E100G scanned at 2000 dpi. Same camera setup with a 150mm sironar lens.

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/image/40365926

 

the darkness of the scanned slides is due to the limited dmax of your scanner. A newer scanner would do better. What is your camera setup and what film are you using ?? Also if you are using Velvia it has super dark shadow areas in high contrast. i read that it is dmax 4 so if your scanner is 3 then you are losing 25% of the info.

 

I find with Vuescan it is hard to control the color balance unless you do a custom profile then its really nice.

 

The next jump for you would be either to go to the newer Epson 4990 Artixscan 1800F, or a super expensive flatbed or used drum scanner. IMO imacons are over rated. I opted for a used drum scanner.

 

Here is a link to the new epson scanner. i think you would see an improvement in Dmax and some detail at least. It still is not that much better than the 4870 detail wise though. I feel that the true optical rez of the 4870 is around 1500-1800 dpi. It pretty fuzzy and I never scan over 2400 dpi. Past that and I just dont see any additional detail.

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204990/Page%201.htm

<i>Question: would a better scanner reveal a bigger difference between scanned 4x5s and digital 35mm files?</i><p>

Yes, absolutely. By a mile.<p>

<i>What combination of scanner and software have those you who scan your large format film found useful?</i><p>

I got the opportunity to try an Imacon Flextight 848... oh the bittersweet seeds of lust. Mind blowingly, revolutionizing, out of this world, incomparable, speechless, tantric, so unbelievable you've got to see it...<p>

Sadly, I have to settle for my Epson 4870... as those Imacons are expensive! But... wow. Find a lab that uses one. You won't regret it.

Nikos, I haven't had a chance to use one, but I have had a transparency scanned with a Tango drum scanner. How would the Imacon compare to that?

I have had the drum scans. From what I have seen from the two machines (without having the same slide done by both), and from what I have heard, take an Imacon scan and tell the operator it was a drum scan and they won't bat an eyelid. Possibly limiting factor with the Imacon is a 4x5" is "limited" to 200Mb. In practice, that's way more than I've ever needed anyway... <p>

Oh, and it's blindingly fast too: 50Mb a minute... Try that with the Tango!

I've actually got a 2450 and used it to scan 4x5 while I was getting my feet wet. It's, ah, well, it's less than ideal. If you spend a lot of time with it experiementing and hopefully learning, it can be pretty good for enlargements up to say 4x. But you shouldn't expect Porche performance for Chevy prices.

 

Would a better scanner reveal a bigger difference between scanned 4x5s and digital 35mm files? Oh yes.

 

What combination of scanner and software have those you who scan your large format film found useful? I'm using a ColorGetter 3Pro drum scanner with ColorRight Pro 2.0 software. Stunning scans when it's working. But like the porche, it's in the shop right now... :-(

Edward-

 

I've done side-by-side comparisons of the Tango vs Imacon. Several times in fact at a considerable expense to myself. I used top-notch professional labs for each scan. The Imacon scans were very good indeed. The Tangos were better. The main difference is in the shadow detail. The Tango is FAR better in this respect. Period. In sharpness, I am unable to discern any significant difference. The bottom line for me is that I have all of my scans done on the Tango. It cost me a bit of money to find this out, but now I know. Hopefully my experience will help save you some money. I now understand why high-end labs choose a $70,000 scanner over a $10,000 scanner. There is a difference, and a significant one at that.

I've had a 2450 a few years and would concur that it is a long ways from a quality drum scan. Forum members here always talk in terms of resolution or Dmax/min in comparing scanners, but there is much more. If one really starts looking at the color balance of the Epson, it is pretty bad. That is an issue with all scanners which few seem to discuss mainly because it is a difficult issue to quantify unless one has a bunch of expensive colorimeters etc. I found the Epson which is likely typical of all consumer flatbeds, doesn't come close to what a raw drum scan say from a Tango can deliver behind a competent operator. Which is no surprise because there is a tremendous amount of precise electronics and software behind each of the RGB PMT sensors. A few years ago at the dawn of digital only a few people were complaining about Dmax and manufacturers thus only spouted numbers on resolution. Then users found out about Dmax/Dmin and suddenly that became the hot spec'd term. In the future color accuracy will likely go the same route. Right now hardly any users are able to make sense of it as the technical wall to climb to do so is considerable and the few companies, experts, and organizations that are on top of it are not letting the rest of us in yet.

"I have given up B&W negative scanning for any serious work and make a print first and scan the print."

 

why?????

 

 

"as those Imacons are expensive"

 

 

"Imacon is a 4x5" is "limited" to 200Mb"

 

???? I've scanned all my 4x5's on Imacon's at 300mb per image

 

you know you could get the medium format scanner ($5000) and get a custom holder made so that you can scan one side then the other....

 

 

"The main difference is in the shadow detail. The Tango is FAR better "

 

 

why not boost your shadow detail when you are shooting if possible? I shoot in studio and a lot of bw so no problem for me......

 

I find the imacons to be an amazing deal all the way around...but it all depends upon your situation....

I had a 2450 (in fact, I still have it somewhere - I think it may be hiding in a deep crevasse in my basement). The Epson 4870 is a very substantial improvement. If I shoot 6X7 roll film and scan it on my Minolta Scan Multi Pro at 3200DPI, the scans are just about in line with scanning a full 4X5 chrome of the same subject at 2400DPI on the Epson 4870. The 4870 scan will need some tweaking (the 2450 will not be as good as the 6X7 scan from the Scan Multi Pro). That said, the 6X7 scan from the Minolta is very close to a 1DS Mark1 file where the subject matter is reasonably advantageous for the 1DS. Forget about making good scans on consumer grade Epson scanners from Velvia - the Dmax is just not in the right ballpark for a good scan. If scanning is an important part of your workflow, you'll need to buy a set of targets for the films you regularly use and create profiles for your scanner for these films. You will have no more colorcast issues and your workflow will be dramtically speeded up for about $150.

Forget about cheap flatbed. I used to have a Epson/transparency adapter, junk! Now I'm using dedicated Polaroid 4x5 film scanner, much better.

You might find this site informative. http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

 

I use a 2450 with 4x5 negs/trans and find it quite adequate for at least 11x14 prints. These prints are show far more fine detail than an equivalent size print from a 6mp DSLR (D70). If your scans are too dark and have a color cast that is simple to adjust for in Vuescan or PS. Are you scanning at least at 1200ppi in 16 bit, then reducing to print size before sharpening? Are you using adjustable edge sharpening software? Proper workflow is critical to producing good prints from any digital image. Sure, a more expensive scanner will produce files capable of much more enlargement. It all depends on what size you want to print.

I deeply appreciate the time that so many of you have taken to respond to my scanning question. A better scanner clearly would make a difference from what all of you are saying. Noted. If, however, I cannot afford that better scanner at this point (and can only occasionally afford a drum scan of a really good slide), what might I do to improve my technique/settings with the 2450? Here is what I am now doing. I shoot Provia 100 with a Tachihara + 90mm Ancugon or 240mm. Rod. Apo-Ronar (I know, not the greatest of lenses.) I use Vuescan set at 2400 dpi output, yielding a file in the range of 500 meg. I find it very difficult to make adjustments with the sliders in Vuescan for color balance or histogram settings because the size of the file (apparently) slows the prescan view so much (which I have set at 300 dpi). Any shortcuts at this point? Any settings the rest of you have found helpful? I then adjust in Photoshop after doing initial sharpening with Photokit. If printing, I res it down to the appropriate size. I would appreciate any suggestions for a better workflow.

The Epson flatbeds vary in performance; between each serial number of the same scanner model. Here I have a 600; two 1200; two 2400; and one 3200 dpi devices. Our sharpest one is ONE of the epson 2450 models. it is abot sharper than our newer 3200 flatbed. After doing some scans with a neighbors 48xx epson; we didnt see much difference at all. maybe we just have a hot 2450 epson; or the neighbor has a marketing BS model epson 48xx flatbed. Our hot Epson 2450 flatbed is lightyears better than our old parallel port professional flatbeds; of 600 and 1200 dpi; that e cost the same as a Hasselbad; when bought 1 decade ago. The 1200 unit was then considered as decent; and comparable to the old 600 line drum scans of an older era; that cost a bucket of money.

You know that is really strange. I have a 4870 and occasionally it will spit out a scan that is almost as sharp as my film scanner, but for the life of me I cant figure out why. it does not seem to be related to anything like film flatness, and its non focus so who knows. Its baffling though. Unfortunately it does not dial in that often.

Doug and Jenny, I just leave the preview size at "auto" in Vuescan. With that, adjustments are quick, even with large scan sizes. If you intend to make 11x14 or smaller prints, try scanning at 1200ppi. A color scan at 16 bits will then be about 140mb. You will still be reducing this initial file to 11x14 (for instance) at 300ppi for printing on a Frontier, or 360ppi for inkjet, and the file will be much more manageable, about 78mb. It makes sense to resize for printing because the printer driver will do it anyway, or if you send the file to a service they often ask you to resize to 300ppi. If you have PS/CS, resize to 300ppi with "bicubic sharper." Then make final image adjustments and lastly do your final sharpening. Save your original scan as a "master" in case you want to print it differently later. Some people with flatbed scanners experiment with inserting shims under the film holder to determine where the sharpest focus height is, as well as just laying the neg on the glass. Mine seems to be quite good with no adjustments. If none of this makes sense email me :>)

<i>If, however, I cannot afford that better scanner at this point (and can only occasionally afford a drum scan of a really good slide), what might I do to improve my technique/settings with the 2450? Here is what I am now doing. I shoot Provia 100... </i>

<p>

If you have to use a consumer flatbed, one of the things you can do to improve your scans is to switch to a negative film. Why? Density. Negatives have much lower density; this will decrease the amount of noise in your scans. You'll also benefit from the increased dynamic range of negative film (you can shoot in sunlight again).

<p>

The downside, if there is one, is that density and graininess are linked - instead of grain showing in your shadows, it will show in your highlights were it's more visible. But this shouldn't be a problem at all with 4x5 film and moderate enlargements -- I couldn't see grain at all in 20x25 prints from an Epson 7600, from 4x5 Tri-X scanned on a 2450.

My issue has to do with the original image size since 5x7, 8x10 and perhaps even 11x14 shet film is of major interest to me. The new Epson flatbed is therefore of interest, as is the more expensive 10000 series.

 

Anyone have a chance to try these out yet WITH THE LARGER SHEET FILMS?

the 10000 has an optical resolution of 600 dpi.

I beleive ther are focus issues; and "negative/trany" scooting issues in sharpness with these flatbeds. There is abit of heat buildup; and some folks with poorer settups the negative of trany creeps a micro grunt; and the sharpness is abit lowwer than par. Using a higher "resolution setting" makes longer scans; and increases the "micro creep/scooting" problem" which lowers actual resolution. There is a fare amount of heat under the scanners glass; and acetate and estar base films do expand alot with temperature.

All very useful information. Two thoughts:

 

1. I've discovered that while I have yet to get a true TRANSPARENCY scanner, my little Canon Mirro 35 actually does a fair job at scanning my B&W negatives (at 1200 hardware dpi) and may do decently with my color stuff once I try it. I wouldn't want to make an inkjet print from these but for quick proofing, data archiving and sampling it down for emails to friends and family it seems to work OK.

 

2. Does anyone know of software that will sample multiple hi-res scans of an image to interpolate for better overall image resolution and tonal depth? I realize this is in part inherent with the scanning software but realize this can be improved over what is currently included with scanners. I plan on getting one fo the new Epsons (4990?) and thought there might be a way to improve on those scans for final output.

1. I've discovered that while I have yet to get a true TRANSPARENCY scanner, my little Canon Mirro 35 actually does a fair job at scanning my B&W negatives (at 1200 hardware dpi) and may do decently with my color stuff once I try it. I wouldn't want to make an inkjet print from these but for quick proofing, data archiving and sampling it down for emails to friends and family it seems to work OK.

 

I doubt it would work too well with color negs, but you can always scan a print.

 

2. Does anyone know of software that will sample multiple hi-res scans of an image to interpolate for better overall image resolution and tonal depth?

 

Vuescan will do multiple passes, but i dont get that much better results doing multiples. A wet scan would probably do better.

 

I realize this is in part inherent with the scanning software

 

Its more the Dmax of the scanner. Velvia has a Dmax of 4 so if your scanner is 3 it will miss a lot of shadow detail.

 

but realize this can be improved over what is currently included with scanners. I plan on getting one fo the new Epsons (4990?) and thought there might be a way to improve on those scans for final output.

 

I have a 4870 and for the $ its decent. The 4990 is suposed to have more dmax, but its hard to tell from the samples I have seen. I still think a wet scan would probably help.

"I doubt it would work too well with color negs, but you can always scan a print."

 

I don't see that there is a lot of differnece between scanning a B&W negative versus a color transparency or negative. However, I will note that the Mirro 35 doesn't do at all well with dense negatives, so color might be more of an issue unless a bit thin which is also were it works well on my B&W negs.

 

2. Does anyone know of software that will sample multiple hi-res scans of an image to interpolate for better overall image resolution and tonal depth?

 

"Vuescan will do multiple passes, but i dont get that much better results doing multiples. A wet scan would probably do better... Its more the Dmax of the scanner. Velvia has a Dmax of 4 so if your scanner is 3 it will miss a lot of shadow detail."

 

Actually, IF you could program a scanner to do separate scans at different tonal depth settings (i.e. for a thin versus a dense image, thus creating a light and a dark final image just as you do for paper copiers), couldn't one THEN COMBINE THAT INFORMATION which would have in effect information from both ends of the density spectrum for a greater combined DMax than the optical components were originally capable of scanning. Isn't this in part what the software "interpolation" is doing on the resolution side of things? Why not do the same thing for DMax, and indeed use it to improve the overall image data base (higher resolution and tonal depth) that can be resampled as needed for the output images?

"I doubt it would work too well with color negs, but you can always scan a print."

I don't see that there is a lot of differnece between scanning a B&W negative versus a color transparency or negative. However, I will note that the Mirro 35 doesn't do at all well with dense negatives, so color might be more of an issue unless a bit thin which is also were it works well on my B&W negs.

 

I tried it with a normal scanner a while back and did not have very good luck. I think it was a canon 1220nu.

 

 

2. Does anyone know of software that will sample multiple hi-res scans of an image to interpolate for better overall image resolution and tonal depth?

 

"Vuescan will do multiple passes, but i dont get that much better results doing multiples. A wet scan would probably do better... Its more the Dmax of the scanner. Velvia has a Dmax of 4 so if your scanner is 3 it will miss a lot of shadow detail."

 

Actually, IF you could program a scanner to do separate scans at different tonal depth settings (i.e. for a thin versus a dense image, thus creating a light and a dark final image just as you do for paper copiers), couldn't one THEN COMBINE THAT INFORMATION which would have in effect information from both ends of the density spectrum for a greater combined DMax than the optical components were originally capable of scanning. Isn't this in part what the software "interpolation" is doing on the resolution side of things? Why not do the same thing for DMax, and indeed use it to improve the overall image data base (higher resolution and tonal depth) that can be resampled as needed for the output images?

 

I suppose you could, but I think the limitation is that the scanner can not see that deep into the dark areas of the film. If you could dial it up somehow with each pass, i guess it would be similar to stacking images out of a short DR camera, like the 10D.

 

Maybe you could just do several sep scans and turn up the gamma with each pass, but I dont really know what it would get you. Interesting thought though. I might try it sometime with my 4870.