Soft 35mm scans - do I need a better scanner?

<p>Hi<br>

Last autumn i scanned some negatives and slides on my Canon CanoScan 8400F. I was not really satisfied with the result, but I really don't know what to expect from the film medium itself. I just scanned a couple of slides again and I still think that the result is too soft compared to my digital SLR.<br>

The attached photo was taken with an Olympus OM-10 SLR with standard 50mm lens. The film is Fuji Sensia 200. I expect this combination to produce quite sharp pictures - maybe I am wrong? Well, I scanned this photo (attached) at 3200dpi (specs for the scanner says 3200 x 6400 dpi resolution) using SilverFast SE Plus. I "blacked out" the person on the picture. I have included a 100% crop as well. The crop shows the sharpness of the picture. Not good enough, I think. The focus seem to be fine, but overall the picture is (very) soft?<br>

With other pictures I get about the same results.<br>

The slide was unmounted and scanned with the 35mm film holder supplied with the scanner.<br>

Negatives are often a lot worse, not softer, but the colors are bad and too much sensor noise shows up on the picture when converted to a positive picture - Multiple-exposure and stuff like that in SilverFast clearly reduces the problem, but not a lot. Looks more grainy than slides as well. Kodak Gold 200 might be more grainy than Fuji Sensia 200? I guess one can't compare negative and slide film like that?<br>

Basicly, I want to know how much more resolution/sharpness I will get if I buy an Epson V700?<br>

I have seen amazing scans from a Nikon film scanner - but OMG they are very expensive. The film grain shows up clearly - that must be a sign of good resolution?<br>

4800 dpi or maybe even 3200 dpi is fine for me if the image is sharp. The scans from my 8400F looks like a good scan that just went through a blur filter and then a little pixelation afterwards if you know what I mean.<br>

The Epson V700 is expensive for me so I would be glad to know how much I can expect from the scanner.<br>

Do you think I expect too high resolution from the film or is the scanner the main limitation?</p>

<div></div>

<p>And the 100% crop at 3200 dpi</p>

<p>I will try to upload the attachment again...</p><div></div>

<p>If there is a professional lab in your area with a film scanner, like the Nikon Coolscan V or 5000, have the slide scanned and compare the professional scan to your scan. Any difference is due to the difference in scanners (and of course, operator). If the scans are the same or close to the same, the limiting factor is the camera/lens, film, or photographer.</p>

<p>A single scan should not cost that much, compared to investing in new equipment.</p>

<p>Most flat bed scans are not that great from 35mm. I get scans like this from my Epson V500.</p><div></div>

<p>Now the 100% crop from a 2400 dpi scan.</p><div></div>

<p>One more for you.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the 100% crop the quality from flatbeds is not great as you have found out. I don't find my flat bed scans from 35mm ISO 100 film to be as sharp, as detail or as noise free as my D80 at ISO 100. But I have a lot of old negs and the v500 is fine for my needs and scans my medium format films too.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks :-)</p>

<p>Is it scans of negatives or slides?</p>

<p>It seems like there is some sensor noise but the pics are not blurry compared to mine. It could probably be sharper but I think it is way better than my scans.</p>

<p>I found a review of the V700: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_1.htm</p>

<p>The author says that it compares to a Nikon dedicated film scanner. Nikon is still a bit sharper, but a whole lot more expensive. That's interesting. I would still love to see some real scans of negatives and slides with the V700, including 100% crop if possible.</p>

<p>Thanks for the V500 scans anyway - maybe not a V700 but still better than a CanoScan 8400F in my opinion :-)</p>

<p>The V700 is better, it'd resolve the print on the white label, for example. I'll post an example I've used before, in a thread comparing the the V750 (same difference) with the Coolscan. At the time I thought the V750 was adequate -- and it is, unless you print often and big. The only reason I broke down and got a coolscan was I found one in stock after Nikon stopped making them. I shoot a lot of film so it was a now or never kind of deal for me.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The Epson V700 is expensive for me so I would be glad to know how much I can expect from the scanner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it's expensive for you then it had better be the cat's meow, right? Well, it isn't. The coolscan is. What do you want a scanner for, that is the question. If you just want to share photos over the internet then use what you have.</p>

<div></div>

<p>And here's the full-sized picture it came from.</p><div></div>

<p>The V700 should be better than the V500 but I have never used it. Looking at the scan above it is better than the v500. I don't think my v500 would resolve that text as good as the v700. With 100% crops you will see grain, grain alaising and sometimes a bit of noise. What really matter is is how the prints look. 100% crops even from low ISO films scans won't ever look clean like digital.</p>

<p>Probably not much different from what I get with my Canon scanner. If I downsample and sharpen in one or, better, two steps I get decent results but nothing compared to a digital image. My old 4 mpx Canon Powershot creates better images. This explains why expensive dedicated slide scanners remain on the market.</p>

<p>Still looks a lot better than my Canon.</p>

<p>The problem with dedicated film scanners is the price - especially if I want to scan more than a single frame in a batch. That is one reason why I like the V700 - I want to scan a lot in a short time having quality that, if the film/camera allows, I could make A3 prints that will look great. Maybe not super clean and grain free like digital - but who expect film to be that clean?</p>

<p>I am playing around with film myself as an amateur photographer, but I would like to scan old family photos as well. That will take insane amounts of time with a dedicated film scanner?</p>

<p>The Canon I already have is almost good enough for the family photos but not for my own "art making".</p>

<p>Do you think the V700 will satisfy my needs or is it better to get a V500 (much cheaper) and live with the quality? Then get drum scans or anything of the "very important" photos?</p>

<p>First I think you need to be sure you film shots are sharp. A decent lupe will help you to check if that is the case. Next I would try to sharpen the film scans in photoshop or some other editing software. Lastly I don't think A3 is realistc from 35mm film scans from a flatbed with care A4 is fine but A3 is larger than I would want to enlarge 35mm at the best of times.</p>

<p>Here is you scan sharpened. For what it is worth I always sharpen my scans.</p><div></div>

<p>Just as an example here is one from a Nikon D80. First the full image</p>

<div></div>

<p>Now the crop</p><div></div>

<p>Those are from JPG files from the camera with just a tiny bit of sharpening added in photoshop. RAW files would have been a bit better but I was on holiday and it is just a snap not a work of art.</p>

<p>No doubt your scanner can be a limiting factor, but in this particular case, if I had to guess:<br>

(1) Indoors, apparently available light, ISO 200: you probably had a low shutter speed. If you were hand-holding the camera, some of what you see is very likely motion blur that's on the film, due to camera shakes made more visible by the low shutter speed.<br>

(2) For the same reasons, and also based on part on the out-of-focus background, I suspect you were using a relatively large aperture. Presumably you focused on the person. As you probably know, there is only one plane of focus, and anything closer or farther away will be at least somewhat out of focus. So the bottles are probably at least a little out of focus.</p>

<p>As others said, get a professional scan of the frame and compare it to your scan. Now process each, sharpening to your taste, and get prints made. Compare them. What do you see? And how about trying the same thing with a film frame made in sunlight, from a tripod, with a good lens at relatively small aperture (like f/11 or f/16). Again, how do they compare? This is really the best way to answer your question.</p>

 

<p>To me the 100% crop of the Taffel and Odense bottles, even with Stuart's sharpening, looks like a case of camera movement at a low shutter speed. If you don't want to pay for a loupe magnifier, you can study you slides and/or negs on a light table using a reversed 50mm lens to see if the original is sharp.</p>

@Peter, flatbed scanners (the V700, which I have, included) generally don't give you more than about 2500dpi, no matter what the stated resolution is. Stuarts examples above look better because he's scanned or downscaled his shots to 2400 dpi while you're looking at your scans at 3200dpi. Scale down your image and you'll see an immediate improvement.

 

Also, sources of blur add up. So a somewhat low resolution scan of a slow shutter-speed indoor scene won't win the Crispily Sharp Picture Of The Year award.

Peter, you have encountered the limitations of flatbed scanners, not your film. Even the V700/750 wont fix the softness issue. And yes, your images are no doubt very sharp, coming from an OM and a 50mm lens. I bought a V700 and returned it after comparing to my older Epson 4870 Photo scanner. I saw NO improvement in sharpness, the only advantage was the ability to scan more slides at one time. However, my 4870 does 8 at a time, which is good enough for me.

 

I also have a Minolta 5400 dedicated film scanner. This is/was the sharpest desktop film scanner Popular Photography ever reviewed, including the Nikon Coolscans. But, it is still about the same sharpness as a Coolscan, the increased sharpness is simply splitting hairs. Anyways, it is VERY sharp, MUCH sharper than a flatbed. But, it is also VERY slow. With ICE infrared dust removal enabled, it takes about 10 minutes to do ONE frame. I'd rather pull my hair out than try to scan many slides/an enire roll at once with this. So, I save it for only my best images, that I need at very high resolution (5400dpi).

 

A note on ICE - it is an essential for any film scanner. No matter how well you clean your film, there is always plenty of micro dust on the emulsion that you would otherwise have to remove manually in Photoshop. Never buy a scanner without ICE.

 

Your best solution is to either 1) buy a new dedicated film scanner with ICE. Cant really get the Nikons anymore, they are never in stock, also, they are very expensive. However, the latest Plustek units do offer ICE. If your goal is to scan only a few select best shots, this may be a good route to go. 2) But, if you want entire rolls scanned (takes forever with a home scanner), and especially if you are shooting much negative film (desktop film scanners are optimized for slides), then get a Costco membership, or find a friend with one, and have them scan your film at 2000x3000 rez for $2.99 a disk (up to 40 images) if from negative film, or 29 cents a slide if from slide. Slide takes them longer to scan, as they must manually load each one. Negatives are fast and easy for them. Anyways, they scan using $25,000 Noritsu film scanners, that are optimized for negative film scans. My Minolta 5400 cant touch the good colors and low grain they can get when it comes to negative film.

Diosclaimer- I assumed your slides were sharp, easy enough to check. If they are, then the sole culprit is the scanner. If they are not then the flatbed only compounded the problem. You will never get DSLR quality sharpness from a flatbed, without lots of Photoshop sharpening.

<p>I should have made it clearer, the scan I posted came from a V750, not a Coolscan. Also, I concur with the analyses above, the example you posted probably does not make the best case for your scanner. Still, I doubt if you're not satisfied with one flatbed that you'll be wowed by another. If you want my equipment shopping advice (which I should take more often) it is this: buy once. The V700 ain't exactly cheap. Anyone who can afford one in order to scan 35mm for "art making" can probably save for a little longer for a Coolscan.</p>

<p>Peter, it has been my experience that flatbed scanners that also do 35mm film produce mediocre to bad results. Low sharpness, which you seem to be experiencing, noise, especially in the low values and some weird color shifts. They are designed for the casual photographer who is not that interested in super high quality images. For the professional or serious amateur they really are of little use. I have an Epson ScanjetG3110 flatbed which does a very nice job of scanning prints but when you scan negatives with it, they are a <strong><em>big disappointment</em></strong>. For 35mm I use a dedicated Nikon Coolscan 5000 scanner, and the difference between the Epson and Nikon scans are like day and night. I have been using a friends Epson V700 to scan my 120 and it does an ok job, but again, it is a flatbed scanner. I am seriously contemplating a drum scanner, but even used ones on Fleabay are well over a grand. New ones can be triple that. But it would let me scan negatives up to 4 x 5, which I don't shoot much of, with superb quality.</p>