Scanning slide using DSLR

<p>Hi there,<br /> I read a blog where the author built a case for using DSLR to scan films. So, I scanned a slide (6x9cm velvia 50) using my DSLR. I would like some feedback on my result. And also would like to know your opinion on whether a good DSLR + lens combo (not mine) can get results comparable to a scanner like V700? The end game for me is to make a print (30x40 inch from the med format slide).<br /> <img src=" alt="" /><br>

Here is the shot:

<br /> <strong>Setup:</strong> Canon 50D with 24-70mm f2.8. The slide was placed between glass plates and back lit using an app on my Nexus 7.<br /> <strong>Processing:</strong> RAW processed in ACR to adjust the contrast. A little sharpening was applied. But I didn't like the color on my shot and couldn't replicate the slide colors in RAW. Hence converted the picture into B&W. Also the glass had some dust which is visible in the picture.</p>

Without looking at it I can you that you need a better lens. Ideally a flat field lens,and even more ideally Rodenstock

75mm f/4 Apo-Grandagon that was designed explicitly for duping film (which is what some folk call scanning with a

camera.

 

You'll need a focusing bellows to use it on your Canon however.

 

Using your Nexus 7 is the source of your color problems.

 

It is also over sharpened (see the white "halo" that edges the mountain range)

 

Peter Krogh's The DAM Book (which you can order directly from http://www.thedambook.com or from Amazon ) is the

best source of information on the technique. Here's the link to the site's discussions about technique and tools:

http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php?board=7.0

 

I done with a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III, Nikon D3x, and D800.

 

When done right the results can either rival or surpass what can be done with a dedicated film scanner like the Nikon

Coolscan 9000ED, and it is much faster as well.

<p>Thanks Ellis for your feedback... appreciate it. Fully agree with all your points. Only 1 thing, the nexus 7 app does emit white light, its the lighting in my apt that caused the problem.<br>

have you tried taking multiple shots using a macro lens and later stitch it in PS to create a file with more resolution?</p>

<p>A macro lens would be a better choice. I've done this with a Sony Alpha 900 and 50mm macro, mounted on a copy stand. I don't know about your light source - I made a light box with a flashgun inside it, by setting the white balance to flash or daylight you should be able to get the colours right. Flash should also eliminate camera shake and give you much shorter shutter speeds and smaller apertures.</p>

<p>Putting the film between glass sheets is likely to trap dust as you have noted and will also cause Newtons Rings. I used the film holder from an old Epson flatbed scanner, raising it above the surface of the light box to defocus any dust etc. on the diffuse surface. By using a smallish aperture it should be possible to get enough depth of field to eliminate any unevenness of the film or slight errors in alignment.</p>

<p>Ashish,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>nexus 7 app does emit white light</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most probably not - the app tells the screen to emit 100% red, 100% green and 100% blue from all pixels, which should be white. But there is an operating system and electronics sitting in between, and the nexus screen isn't colour calibrated. The light will have a cast, even if minor (note you cannot judge this "by the eye", as our brains correct for it). But for a critical application as this, it will be enough to be a possible cause of headaches.</p>

<p>Whether your dslr route will work or not I can't comment, but I can tell you for certain that your stated alternative of an Epson V700 will not give a scan good enough to support a 40" x 30" print unless you're planning to look at it from a long way away.</p>

<p>Indeed I would not use a Nikon Coolscan 9000 for a scan to make a print that size either- it would be at the very least an Imacon scan and ideally a drum scan for a print that size if it were me, and you'll see the benefit in sharpness and in better shadow detail which given the nature of your shot might well be helpful. You don't have to buy these scanners- you buy them one -off from a Pro-lab or service bureau who will often clean the scan for you. </p>

<p>For me, at average viewing distances I'd want to print at that size from a file giving at least 180ppi on an inkjet or 200ppi on a Lightjet or Chromira or Lambda. I suspect that you'll need to stitch dslr images to get the implicit resolution. When you take into account the time and equipment you need to get this "dslr scan" right, are you convinced that its going to be faster and cheaper than buying-in a scan?</p>

<p>Ashish,<br>

David Henderson +1.<br>

"...have you tried taking multiple shots using macro lens and later stitch it in PS to create a file with more resolution..."</p>

<p>First, you can not create "...more resolution..." if resolution was not captured from the original during the scanning process.</p>

<p>Second, you can certainly experiment, find yourself a very good lens and see what comes out. If the final result looks good to you, good, mission accomplished.</p>

<p>Third, from the size you want to print (40"x30") that you mention, I presume you are interested in displaying for exhibition or some other high end purpose. To achieve that goal, you need to scan using the best on the market. David above has mentioned what the options are.</p>

<p>I do not have experience with drum scanners but do have experience with the Hasselblad Flextight X5 (aka IMACON) scanner. A 6x6 frame scanned at 16 bit produces a 7,000 x 7,000 pixels file. It is the equivalent of a 50 MP of a DSLR camera. The quality is unsurpassed and I am confident that if your image is sharp to begin with, you would be able to get enlargements up to 48"x48"</p>

 

<p>100% agree with Ellis - but you need a good copying setup. You can search for chat about it here on a Photonet. There are quite a few threads on this topic. I find my system is superior to the my dedicated 35mm 4000 dpi film scanner.</p>

<p>I've been using my D800 a PB4 bellows and my 50mm f1.8 AF for scanning my B&W negatives. I will likely by a new lens sometimes soon as I have problems with edge sharpness. I'ts much better in the center though than my V500. It's hard to get the lighting even too. For web and small prints it works OK for now though.</p>

<p>Just got my first DSLR so I tried it out and it works very well. <br>

I have a Beseler CB7 enlarger with the dichroic head. I remove the head and put it upside down on the baseboard. Put the slide in the carrier and put it on top so it's backlit by the enlarger head. I mount the tripod head on the enlarger carriage so it's like a copying stand. Mount the Nikon PB-6 bellow with the Nikkor EL 50mm f/2.8 enlarging lens on the bellow. Mount the Nikon Df on the other end. Adjust the filter on the color head so that the light is about 5000K. Set the color balance on the camera so that without the slide the image is a perfect gray. Put the slide back on an shoot. Use f/8 and ISO 100. Adjust the shutter speed to get the exposure I want. Use the AR-3 cable release. Shoot in a darken room to prevent stray light between the slide and the lens that could spoils the contrast. <br>

Must faster than scanning. </p>

<p>Can we take it that you have made 40" x 30" prints of photos taken with the 50D?</p>

<p>Mukul +1.<br>

Only after actually printing the 30" x 40" it would be possible to determine if the results are ranging from acceptable to excellent or ...<br>

Short of that, various comments here, remain purely academic.</p>

<p>Thanks for all your comments guys!Lloved the Dam book website! Thanks Ellis for sharing that link.<br>

Imacon / drum is the way to go... However, I want to find the limit up to which I can use my existing dslr gear to get max size scans with acceptable resolution and sharpness. I will share my results here again (will take some time to get the setup right).</p>

<p>I personally have a very sophisticated rig for copying slides with a digital camera (the Honeywell Universal Repronar, shown below).<br>

Even with such equipment, my own experience is that you will get both faster and better results with a dedicated film scanner with ca. 4000 ppi resolution or better ( e.g., http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00arR1 )</p><div></div>

<p>I would say that a V700 isn't really capable of making a scan good enough to print a 40 inch print. That's just my opinion...</p>

<p>Another person posted here a while back demonstrating that he got drum scan quality using his DSLR:</p>

<p><strong>Digital camera scanning technique: comparison against an Epson v700 (and a drum)</strong><br /><a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk</a></p>

<p>The trick is that he used a stitch technique to achieve high resolution. So it involves a DSLR that you already have, a macro lens that you don't have, and some time reading and practicing how to stitch. And maybe buying something to support the slide better.</p>

<p>Even though you will most likely need to get a macro lens in order to make a quality 30x40 print, you can do a feasibility test with what you already have. i.e., figure out the best way to support and illuminate your slide and learn how to stitch.</p>

<p>If you get past your feasibility test, Canon makes the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html">MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro</a><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html"> lens</a> that might work for photographing small sections of your slide (to stitch together.) On the cheap side, I get good results on my 60D with the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html">Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens</a>. The 60mm macro lens is good to 1:1, which is about half the size of a frame of 35mm film. (I have never tried the stitch technique, but I do use 1:1 to digitize 110 frames.) I use a <a href="http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/index.html">PhotoSolve-Extend-a-Slide</a> for my 35mm slides and negatives. (The owner of PhotoSolve made me a custom negative carrier for 110 film.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Only after actually printing the 30" x 40" it would be possible to determine if the results are ranging from acceptable to excellent or ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I personally doubt I would find any scanned or otherwise 35mm image acceptable at that enlargement whether it was scanned by DSLR or by the greatest scanner in existence. It is also a statement that clearly shows that some people do not understand the concept of the best being the enemy of the good. A more realistic aim is does it produce a good 11x 15 or 16 x 20 which is the maximum the vast majority of people are likely to have made in the past from film, so to expect more is rather silly.</p>

<p>Although you could do it with more recent camera rig (1D or D800....), but for 30x40 I'd choose a drum....to retain the resolution and DR. </p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>JDM - what's the lens on that rig - was that an FF camera?</p>

<p>Robin,<br>

<br />Please read the post:<br>

"...I read a blog where the author built a case for using DSLR to scan films. So, I scanned a slide (6x9cm velvia 50) using my DSLR. I would like some feedback on my result. And also would like to know your opinion on whether a good DSLR + lens combo (not mine) can get results comparable to a scanner like V700? The end game for me is to make a print (30x40 inch from the med format slide)..."</p>

<p>So if I am not mistaken, the OP is asking to make a print of 30"x40" from a "<strong>6 X 9cm Velvia 50 slide"</strong><br>

and not from a 35 mm as you think. And that is definitely possible, I know it because I operate an IMACON scanner.<br>

So before you post, things like:</p>

<p>" ...It is also a statement that clearly shows that some people do not understand the concept of the best being the enemy of the good. A more realistic aim is does it produce a good 11x 15 or 16 x 20 which is the maximum the vast majority of people are likely to have made in the past from film, so to expect more is rather silly..."</p>

<p>please carefully read the actual questions that are being asked.</p>

<p>"I scanned a slide (6x9cm velvia 50) using my DSLR." <em>Not a 35mm slide.</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>JDM - what's the lens on that rig - was that an FF camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That particular camera was an APS-C, but 35mm sensor works just as well. The Repronar wouldn't work well for large negatives or slides, of course, but similar Illumetron (?), or even an inverted color head with a copy stand would do for those images<br>

<br /> The lens is a Lumetar 50mm f/2.8, but I have other m39 copy lenses and enlarger lenses that I use. The camera end of the bellows is M42x1 mount with an EOS adapter on it.</p>

<p>Even with a copy stand, you need something more than zoom lenses. Reversed normal lenses can be used, but it's better to get a decent lens made for flat plane copying, if you insist on trying to do slide copying this way.</p>

<p>The simple copiers that attach to the camera/bellows (yes, I have those too, having tried every which way I could think of), even the Nikon ones et al. (various PB series), are simply not worth the trouble in my experience. There is a good reason so many are offered in the original boxes, like-new, on the internet. Normal people usually tried them once or twice--and into the closet with them after that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The simple copiers that attach to the camera/bellows (yes, I have those too, having tried every which way I could think of), even the Nikon ones et al. (various PB series), are simply not worth the trouble in my experience. There is a good reason so many are offered in the original boxes, like-new, on the internet. Normal people usually tried them once or twice--and into the closet with them after that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, the <a href="http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/index.html">PhotoSolve Extend-a-Slide</a> works fine. If used with a real macro lens (not a screw-on "closeup" lens). And if the lens is internal focus. And if you use manual focus using liveview at 5-10x.</p>

<p>The Nikon adapters are more trouble than they are worth IMO, because the length of the tube isn't adjustable, which means a nightmare of searching the Internet finding various adapters to adjust the length of the tube. The length of the tube of the Extend-a-Slide is completely adjustable.</p>

<p>There are also a host of cheap lens mounted copiers that include built-in closeup lenses. They are targeted to people that use them on either a kit zoom lens (bad) or on a P&S (even worse.) I'm not surprised that people aren't happy with these. (The Extend-a-Slide has no optics, so you get whatever your DSLR + lens is capable of giving.)</p>

<p>Um, I am a little bit surprised that nobody picked on the "drum quality" part of my previous post. The <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk">thread I linked to</a> has been around for a while and, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has questioned it. Indeed, several other people responded that they duplicated the results. (Note that I am not equating the Extend-a-Slide with "drum quality." There were two distinct points in my previous post. One point was about a method of achieving drum quality with camera scanning (for those that need drum quality and don't have their own drum scanner) and the second point was about the Extend-a-slide.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>for those that need drum quality and don't have their own drum scanner</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There's an easier way- just buy a drum scan from a lab or photographer/provider. A good drum scan of the size the OP needs for his task will cost just under $50 from West Coast Imaging. Nothing to buy, nothing to learn. It only seems worthwhile setting up any sort of capability at home if you have a fairly large and continuing need, and lets face it most amateur photographers have a limited demand for prints that size for their walls. If you're selling lots of big prints, that's a different story. </p>

 

<p>I haven't tried the Extend-a-slide, but from looking at it I find it hard to believe that it would be any better than the Nikon or other slide copiers of the same principle. If you must use a camera, then a copystand/macro lens/light source combo like the Repronar will work much better, I think.</p>

<p>As for the "drum-scanning" equivalent post method. It might or might not work for a couple of images, but imagine trying to tackle a substantial number of images that way.</p>

<p>In my experience with dedicated film scanners, there seems to be relatively small improvement when you try to go over 4-6000 ppi. You get more detail of the film grain, but no better an image, IMHO.</p>