scanner resolution question

[ron_h__portland_]

I'm thinking about purchasing a film scanner. I'd like to know what these resolution figures

mean. The Nikon Coolscan V ED specifications say this:

 

"Aperture/Scan range (pixels): 25.1 x 38.0mm/3,946 x 5,959 pixels/23.4 x 36.0mm"

 

If you do the math, it suggests to me that this scanner is capable of 23.5 megapixels (3,946

x 5,959 pixels) for a full-frame 35mm scan. Is this correct? Doesn't this mean the scanner

has a higher potential resolution than even the best current DSLR?

 

Please help explain this.

[jpursley]

Short answer: not all pixels are created equal.

 

The Search feature will give you thousands of threads addressing the long answer to this question.

[marbing]

Yes, the image that you get out of your scanner will be 23.5Mp and indistinguishable from a similar file (if you could get one) out of a digital camera. A digital camera is simply a portable scanner.

 

Your scanner probably costs about $550 while a 16Mp dSLR (like the Canon 1Ds Mk II) costs about $7,000 so, OF COURSE, they are going to claim that your pixels are not as good as their pixels. How else can they justify spending the extra money?

[daniel_taylor]

No current 35mm color film holds 23 MP of information. But scanners that scan at higher resolutions than film render more pleasing grain patterns, which is very important when scanning 35mm.

 

Film scan and direct digital capture pixels are not equal. Direct capture yields cleaner images, especially at higher ISO's, that are "pixel sharp" and tend to more faithfully reproduce colors. Some films, on the other hand, offer unique color palettes (i.e. Velvia) or more exposure latitude (i.e. pro portrait films).

 

You can produce very nice prints at common print sizes from properly scanned 35mm and properly shot/processed digital. Producing technically good prints is easier with digital.

 

The crops below illustrate that scan and direct capture pixels are not equal, but they're what you would see looking closely at 40" prints which is not a typical enlargement from small format.

 

(Now the moonbats can come in and claim that digital is an expensive scam and that real photographers only shoot 35mm because 35mm will beat a 1Ds mkII, or a Phase One MF back if using German glass. Oops...too late.)<div></div>

[mona_chrome]

No offense, but what!?! A digital camera is a portable scanner?!? Digital cameras, none,

not even the best, compares to a true film scanner. The depth of a scan is far better than

any result you can get from a digital camera or back. But, there is grain.

 

A 23 megapixel is more infor than 35 mm film? Sorry, another crock. I have a film

recorder that uses a 200mb file to create a 35mm slide and a scanner that scans at

8000dpi-over 200mb file. I don't know where this info is coming from.

 

Digital cameras can and do produce nice results, but a film scan, other than the grain, will

give characteristics in the file that are a totally different animal than a digital capture in a

camera. Maybe all that data and color depth is not needed, but it isn't there in digital

capture.

 

So yes, the scanner makes a file bigger, and better( I don't know this scanner, but I believe

it is good quality), than any 35mm digital camera. But you will have to live with the grain,

but at least you don't have to sharpen it as much as the digital capture!

[jautey]

sigh...

Film vs. digital

blah blah blah...

 

haven't we heard it all before?

a 1000 times?

pick a different topic, its 2006 and the digital vs film debate is at least 2 years in the grave.

Look its really simple.

If you want to use film use film

if you want to use digital use digital

stop comparing the two, its an apple and orange comparison

sheesh, even the cannon vs. nikon debates have pretty much ended

why does this one keep rising from the grave?

[jtk]

Nikon V makes 120MP files @ 4000ppi.

 

2.5 minutes with Ice, day in and day out. Sharper than any enlarger when inkjet printed.

 

Film looks different than digital. You can fake digital to look like film, but why bother?

 

If you like the look of film, shoot it. If you don't understand the point or don't care about it, and especially if you don't already have good film cameras or good digital cameras, you don't know enough about these photographic details to worry about them. Relax.

 

Two cameras that tend not to produce images that look like film images are Nikon D70 and Canon 20D. But Canon 5D matches film pretty well. 20D and D70 often appear sharper than average-good film, but they also appear obviously digital in many situations and may not be as subtle as film. If you don't understand this point, how could it be a problem simply to decide upon digital? It's so much EASIER, after all, and it's the future.

 

Pete Turner and Avedon and Weston and Cartier Bresson somehow managed to do OK work with film. Know their work? Like it?

[serge c]

"...its an apple and orange comparison "

 

For real.

[serge c]

About digital being EASIER - some people obviously do not have a carpal tunnel syndrome yet.

[Ed_Ingold]

Ron,

 

Get around all this blather. "Film vs Digital" is a religious issue and has little to do with results. To see for yourself, browse through the Gallery at Photo.Net. A lot of very good work is done with digital cameras, including the D50 and D70 which were 'dissed above. Less and less is done with film. You won't know which is which from looking unless you read the "details" for the image.

 

If you want a different view of what the "numbers" mean, go to http://www.naturfotograf.com or http://www.luminous-landscape.com. Basically, you will see that even a 6MP DSLR knocks 35mm film out of the race.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Yes, the image that you get out of your scanner will be 23.5Mp and indistinguishable from a similar file (if you could get one) out of a digital camera. A digital camera is simply a portable scanner.</I><P>

To be polite, Meryl is wrong. I'll be happy to compare shots from a variety of 6,8 10 and 16mp DSLRs to a scanned image every day and night of the week. And no "a DSLR is not a portable scanner."<P>

As someone said, not all pixels are created equal.

[stu dall]

Daniel...A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

[steve_swinehart]

"Doesn't this mean the scanner has a higher potential resolution than even the best current DSLR?"

 

Yes, the scanner may have a potentially higher resolution - but, you're not just dealing with the scanner by itself. You're limited to the resolution of the film and film size, regardless of the performance of the scanner, or the scan file size generated.

 

For example, 100 ISO 35mm film absolute detail - like film grain in B&W or dye clouds in color film - can be rendered with a scan at a little over 4,000 ppi.

 

If you scan higher than that, you're using the scanner to generate extra pixels to match a large print size rather than rezzing up the image in PS. OR, you can use some tricks in PS to lower the apparent grain like scanning at a high ppi and downsampling to the final image (print) size needed using bi-cubic smoother.

 

You can scan 35mm film at 10,000 ppi on a drum scanner - that won't make the film any sharper or have more detail. The absolute resolution of the film is fixed by the film construction (B&W, color, ISO, etc.) not by the scanner (given you're using a high quality scanner).

 

Does a digital camera equal color film? From my experience, a 10mp Dslr camera performs as well as 100 ISO 35mm film.

 

For your reference, I own an Imacon scanner and have scanned nearly a thousand 35mm transparencies and negatives at 6300 ppi. I also use a Leica R-9 with the 10mp DMR back.

 

The 35mm films I have scanned include: 30 year old Kodachrome and Ektachrome, Kodachrome 64, Kodachrome 200, EPD-200, E-200, E-100G, Velvia, Provia, Astia, Kodak MC 400, Portra 160 NC, Portra 400 NC, Portra 800, UC 100, UC 400.

 

I've also scanned 120 film in most all of the above flavors plus Tri-X, Plus-X, Delta 100, Delta 400, Verichrome Pan; and lastly 4x5 film in color transparency, negative, and FP-4, Plus-X, Tri-X, and Super XX.

 

When I tell you that a 10mp Dslr is equal to 35mm film - I'm not making it up - it comes from experience and observation of final prints from a variety of scanned films and film sizes compared to a 10mp digital camera.

[ron_h__portland_]

Steve, Daniel, et. al.

 

Thank you for your informative (and sometimes inflammatory ;-) ) responses. I already have a pretty nice camera/lens combo (Leica MP, 50mm Summicron...) and have a lot of very sharp (ouch!) negatives to scan. I understand there's a bit of learning curve to getting scanning right. This should be fun to compare my digital retakes of old favorites.

 

Ron

[daniel_taylor]

"Digital cameras, none, not even the best, compares to a true film scanner. The depth of a scan is far better than any result you can get from a digital camera or back."

 

This is why I post comparison crops: no matter how much someone like Mona stomps their feet in rage, the plain truth stares everyone else in the face.

 

"A 23 megapixel is more infor than 35 mm film? Sorry, another crock. I have a film recorder that uses a 200mb file to create a 35mm slide and a scanner that scans at 8000dpi-over 200mb file. I don't know where this info is coming from."

 

From Fuji's datasheets on their best low ISO films. Provia 100F in 35mm records about 10 MP worth of information with a worse MTF curve than digital. You can do a little better with Velvia, and a lot worse with a lot of other films.

 

But if you want to disagree with Fuji on what Fuji films can record, you be my guest.

 

"But you will have to live with the grain, but at least you don't have to sharpen it as much as the digital capture!"

 

(Looks at crops above...laughs at the suggestion that film doesn't need to be sharpened as much.)

[daniel_taylor]

"Thank you for your informative (and sometimes inflammatory ;-) ) responses. I already have a pretty nice camera/lens combo (Leica MP, 50mm Summicron...) and have a lot of very sharp (ouch!) negatives to scan. I understand there's a bit of learning curve to getting scanning right. This should be fun to compare my digital retakes of old favorites."

 

There is a bit of a learning curve, but once you've mastered it you can get some really good results and prints. (Again, I don't care what you shoot with, the image matters. And I've got photo albums full of beautiful 8x10's from 35mm. I just get annoyed when people worship film and insist it has properties that even the manufacturers would scoff at.)

 

The Nikon would be a good choice for a scanner. First step, before even scanning your first frame, should be to calibrate your monitor. I would recommend making your first scans of slides you can view on a light table. That way you can play with levels, color balance, and saturation to get a feel for what's involved in optimizing your scan and matching, as closely as possible, the original film. (Which is easier with some films than with others.)

 

Good luck!

[mona_chrome]

Daniel, first, all of your discussion had nothing to do with the question asked in the first

place. I didn't see Ron asking for that information.

 

Second, I don't know what Fuji says and really don't care--I know results tho!

 

Your posted image is your posted image. You seem to have an axe to grind, so I am

supposed to believe your posts over my own experience? I would love to be shooting

digital all day long! But it is not there yet! It is great for a lot of things, to be sure. I

deliver all digital files to clients these days, so if digital capture was there, I would be a

fool to shoot film and scan and spot and and and--but believe what you want, I know I

wont change your mind and don't really care. My last job had a film budget over $25000

and more than that for scanning and post work. The client did not want digital capture

and what I

do with color cannot be done reliably with digital capture. I could easily buy the best

available

with that kind of budget, but it is not there yet, sorry-I wish it was!

[steve_swinehart]

"The client did not want digital capture and what I do with color cannot be done reliably with digital capture. I could easily buy the best available with that kind of budget, but it is not there yet, sorry-I wish it was!"

 

What you "do with color" has no bearing on the absolute performance ability of digital cameras in respect to rendering detail or even color - if you know how to get the best out of the equipment.

 

I think I understand what you're saying however, as I also work with color and images through multiple exposures that would be difficult if not impossible to do with digital.

 

For example, in architectural work I have done a shot that needed 53 separate exposures on a single frame. This could not be done digitally as you could not add the 53 separate exposures in PS to equal the single frame produced on negative film. For the "all digital all the time folks" - please take my word on this one - if you had the 8 paragraph explanation - you'd come to the same conclusion.

 

For a "normal" interior architectural shot, I generally have 3-10 separate exposures to account for the different light sources and their levels within the image. Each source filtered and exposed for the correct amount of time, and then multiple flash exposures to bring up the overall light level. It's much faster and easier to add all of this together on negative film than to do it in PS.

 

However, I still don't believe the attitude that "digital isn't there yet" all encompassing statement because because "I can't directly apply it to my work" - it just doesn't wash. Your personal application problems don't negate the performance ability of digital technology.

[mona_chrome]

Sorry, but digital capture does not have the color depth of a film scan, it is just a fact. I

would love to shoot digitally and the examples have nothing to do with what I shoot. It just

doesn't get the same results--and it very much matters what you do post. That is the

problem I have with digital, I can't push the color as I can with film scans.

 

I think that if digital works for someone they are fortunate, it doesn't for the way I work--and

I sincerely wish it did!

[b_hall1]

Yeah, the scanner can multi-sample...

[steve_swinehart]

"Color depth" is a meaningless term unless you can explain it better. All colors, whether reproduced with a digital camera, scanner, or on film, can be quantified, plotted, and graphed. Therefore, they can be analytically compared with no personal biases involved.

 

If you use a digital camera with 16 bit depth (most medium format backs will do this - 35mm Dslr's are really 14 bits) - the color reproduction gamut capability is the same as a scanner at 16 bits. So, the "color depth" (i.e. 16 bits) is the same.

 

Using your criteria - one could say "film isn't quite here yet" if you were a sports photographer shooting 400 - 600mm lenses and needing high shutter speeds. This requires ISO ratings of 1600 to 3200 - an area where film can't compete - or, "isn't quite here yet."

 

I think you would agree that a unique single usage cannot be applied as an ubiquitous measurement of the worth of one working method compared to another.

 

Can you explain what you do with color a little more succinctly other than "color depth"?

[kelly_flanigan1]

color gamut and color bit depth are totally different animals. A wild day glow fluorescent color can be out of gamut of a digital camera, color film, or a printers normal inksets. Bit depth is the number of bits that makes up a pixel. Long ago early color scanners and greyscale scanners did't even even work in full 8bits. Many early ones just used say 6 bits, and output a standard 8bit file with 2 dud bits.

[serge c]

You tell them Kelly! Word up.

 

Now...

 

Obviously a film scanner can produce hiher resolution files than the mainstream dgtl cameras (the quality of those captured pixels is a different issue).

 

Now, film scanning is a very problematic area to begin with, resolution aside. Dry scans will make you fight with dust, grain and scratches. All using very imperfect software. The problem is dry scanning captures all the dust and it amplifies grain.

 

I've used several highend Nikon film scanners at school and I would not buy one myself unless my income depended on film scans.

[daniel_taylor]

"Daniel, first, all of your discussion had nothing to do with the question asked in the first place. I didn't see Ron asking for that information."

 

Then maybe you need to re-read Ron's post:

"If you do the math, it suggests to me that this scanner is capable of 23.5 megapixels (3,946 x 5,959 pixels) for a full-frame 35mm scan. Is this correct? Doesn't this mean the scanner has a higher potential resolution than even the best current DSLR?"

 

"Your posted image is your posted image. You seem to have an axe to grind, so I am supposed to believe your posts over my own experience?"

 

No, you're supposed to back up your claims with a sample or two.

 

We're photographers. This is photography. You think lens A is sharper than lens B? Post a sample. You think film A is more saturated at sunset than film B? Post a sample. You think 35mm film does a better job with color and tonality than digital? Post a sample.

 

You want to go back and forth, tit for tat, talking on and on about your experience and your clients and "what you do" (which could be completely made up) and how that means people should believe your words over all evidence to the contrary --- please don't post at all.

 

If you have the experience you claim, then it should be a simple matter to post examples of what you're talking about. If you can't bring yourself to load Photoshop, crop a couple clips, and post them, then I don't want to hear about it. The debates are boring, and are not helpful when trying to answer the original poster's question.

 

"I would love to be shooting digital all day long! But it is not there yet!"

 

35mm was never "there" if "there" is defined as "depth". "Depth" in the context you used it (scan depth) refers to how many subtle shades can be represented, how smooth tonal transitions are i.e. the bit depth. Sorry, but there are too few grains on the miniature piece of film we call 35mm to offer really excellent depth and subtle color details. This, more than resolution, is why people used to turn to MF, and now turn to digital.

 

I really hope you didn't blow $25,000 of a client's bank account trying to achieve ideal depth/tonality using 35mm film. If I was offered $25,000 to get a series of shots with the best possible tonality, 35mm would be dead last on the list of tools. Film would be a contender in larger formats, digital would certainly be a contender, but 35mm wouldn't even be considered.