film noise?

[dxphoto]

Hi,

<br><br>

I am trying to scan some color film. I was using kodak royal 200 and

other film. I notice the sky always has some "noise", instead of

being pure and clear, transparent.

<img

src="http://www.bluecosmosstudio.com/DxPhoto/Sceneries/Acadia_2005/ima

ges/B015_Royal200_09P.jpg">

<br/><br/>

Is this because of film or the scanner (i have a canon 8400f). Is

there anyway to fix it in PS? <br><br>

thanks.

[._kaa]

You are seeing film grain. If you want the sky to be "pure and clear", you need digital.

 

Yes, you can fix it in Photoshop. The basic idea is to select the sky and then blur it.

[dxphoto]

Hi, Thanks for the reply. I don't understand I enlarged this picture to 8x12 in the local lab and I don't see any grain. The scanners have higher resolution?

[William Kahn]

Grain and noise in scanned film images is pretty common, especially where there's a lot of sky in the shot. Check to see if your scanner software has a grain/noise elimination function, which should help with the problem.

 

I don't think anything in PS works well on this problem. I use a plug-in called "Noise Ninja", which can eliminate almost all the noise. It's available from Picture Code at www.picturecode.com, and they have a free trial version you can download.

 

You'll find that some sharpening is needed after using any noise reducing function....

[emre]

Dawei, this is a result of the scanning process. Some scanners fare better than others. Consumer flatbed scanners generally suck. Noise reduction software (e.g., NoiseNinja, NeatImage, or Noiseware) will go a long way toward eliminating the problem but, as mentioned, the best solution is to go digital.

[madwand]

The problem is due to grain and grain aliasing during the scanning process. This is described further here: <p><p>

 

<a href="http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm">http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm</a><p><p>

 

Scroll down a few pages to look at the 3 squares under the heading "What really causes aliasing?" for a quick visual aid.<p><p>

 

There are many things that you can do in post-processing to change the amount of grain in your final image. A better idea is to start with this problem being minimized by using a modern fine-grained slow-speed ISO film, such as Fuji Reala, Kodak Ultra Color 100, Fuji Pro 160S, and Fuji Astia 100F (slide).<p><p>

 

In addition to the above link, the following article shows how to reduce grain during the scanning process -- using the descreen function. I haven't tried it myself. I tend to use fine-grained film, and GEM (3) or Neat Image in post-processing where needed.<p><p>

 

<a href="http://www.computer-darkroom.com/sf5-negafix/grain_reduction.htm">http://www.computer-darkroom.com/sf5-negafix/grain_reduction.htm</a>

[tom_s.]

I think there's a much simpler answer --

The Canon 8400F is a flatbed scanner. It didn't do a good job of scanning the film. Consider getting a dedicated film scanner, or have a lab scan your film for you. Even a Kodak Picture Disk scan will come out far better than what you posted above. (Just a few bucks on top of standard processing. It's available at Kmart or any other place that sends their film out to Qualex.) Fuji Frontier scans are also good if done properly. A competant pro lab will do the best, for a price of course. (an incompetant pro lab will really suck; I've dealt with one. :-P)

[daniel_taylor]

"For the unitiated, less then Canon 20D will not match well scanned film from the 4000dpi film scanners."

 

Desktop film scanners get a firm spanking any time they go up against any of the recent DSLR's, even when scanning a film like Velvia.

 

"DSLR comes with sensor dusts which takes longer to work on then scanners with ICE. RAW images takes almost as long to process as scanning, and certainly more due to the manipulation that follows just to cite a couple."

 

I can process 36 RAW images and have 8x10's coming off my printer in the amount of time it would take to scan, ICE, and download the first six frames off a 4000 ppi desktop scanner.

 

****

 

35mm film has grain. A good scan or optical print will reveal grain even in the best 35mm films. Scanning tends to emphasize it a bit due to aliasing. Software can be used to reduce it. If you got an enlargement that didn't show it then either a) it was an optical print that was not sharply focused; or b) it was a scan that was not properly focused; or c) noise reduction software was used.

 

In the case of your image, the result is a mix of both film grain and flatbed scanner. A desktop would have done better, and is highly recommended if you will be scanning a lot of film. But you will still get grain. With finer grained films it should not be objectionable in 8x10's and 8x12's however.

[steve_swinehart]

Flatbed scanners aren't the best for scanning film, especially 35mm.

 

Negative film makes the problem worse because of the way the image is formed with the dye clouds.

 

The color blue generally has the most noise associated with it as the solid state sensors (in the scanner) aren't as sensitive to blue light as they are to red and green so they make up for the lack of sensitivity by increasing gain for that channel = noise.

 

Grain aliasing can be a problem with some scanners at certain dpi settings.

 

Okay, so you have a list of potential problems. The best way to deal with this is to do some scan tests at different dpi to sort out whether you really have a grain aliasing problem or not. You'll be able to see where the scanner performs best. Use that dpi setting as your maximum with that specific film.

 

Then try scanning transparency film so you can see the difference in the way the scanner will handle the dye formation in transparency film.

 

Look at the individual color channels (RGB) - look for the channel with the most noise. My bet, it's the blue channel. You can run the "despeckel" filter found in PS on only the blue channel or some Gaussian blur on only that channel. Or you can use a noise reduction program like Neat Image or Noise Ninja on the blue channel and then on the entire image.

 

Lastly, you can use a digital camera or invest in a dedicated film scanner. Try the "despeckel" and other noise processing strategies first, they will probably get you the results you want.

[roger_smith4]

It really shouldn't look this bad, even with a flatbed. Please try to scan again at the scanner's native (highest uninterpolated) resolution and then downsample in a photo editing program. See if it looks any better. Also, keep the contrast down a bit. These shadows are really black! High contrast makes grain more obtrusive.

[ilkka_nissila]

Of course, there is no more grain in 35 mm film that 120 or large format film. You just need to enlarge the latter less. You probably get better results with a film scanner which using the best slide films like Velvia 100F gives very little grain in a 8x12 inch enlargement. However, negative film has more obvious grain and so you probably need to apply a noise-reduction software like NeatImage. This works well for this kind of subjects and you should get a nice smooth result.

[emre]

In addition, lossy compression does not cope well with film grain. See if the raw scan is any better than the JPEG; try saving to TIFF or PNG.

[__jon__]

>. Kaa , oct 04, 2005; 01:22 p.m.

 

>You are seeing film grain. If you want the sky to be "pure and clear", you need digital.

 

Wow, what unmitigated BS. Correct scanning and not listening to idiots like above are

crucial...

[andreas_weber]

> Desktop film scanners get a firm spanking any time they go up against any of the recent DSLR's, even when scanning a film like Velvia.

 

You compared only grain/noise, nothing else? Other people might consider other things important. My Nikon D70 should count as a recent DSLR, and compared to scans from my not-so-recent Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 *I* still prefer the overall quality of the scanned images - although the digital shots look incredibly clean and sharp.

 

> I can process 36 RAW images and have 8x10's coming off my printer in the amount of time it would take to scan, ICE, and download the first six frames off a 4000 ppi desktop scanner.

 

You could even speed it up by shooting JPEG if you want to publish a newspaper. So what? I seldom have more than a handful "keepers" on a roll of film. At the end of the day *I* have a few first class pictures scanned and printed while *you* throw out dozens of costly prints of images that weren't worth printing in the first place... ;-)

 

Andreas

[William Kahn]

OK, flatbed scanners are somewhat lacking in performance with 35mm film. You really need a dedicated film scanner for that.

 

More important is the point we've all been missing here: There is no such thing as a pure and clear sky. There are atmospheric elements present all the time that just don't register with the brain, while the brainless camera captures everything that's there. I think that's some of what we're seeing here. Want a pure and clear sky? Go stand on the surface of the moon. In the meantime.....Noise Ninja!

[victor_moss]

Film scans (from flatbed or dedicated) need not show the artifacts you are experiencing. Although, it will always have grain, grain should be visible only when you zoom in very close. Just look at some scanned images on this site to convince yourself. (As usual, people pushing their own digital vs. film agenda at your expense). But, I bet you knew that already.

 

Go through the grain aliasing references posted earlier - I believe that may hold a key to your problem.

 

In practical terms, scanning hardware reacts differently to each film emulsion. In future, try changing film (you need not change speed; my 400asa film scans have no visible artifact at your posted image size).

 

To fix the current photo, use a noise-reduction software that can profile the exact noise you see in the sky. It will not be perfect but will definitely improve.