Scanning MF Transparencies

[dglickstein]

What are your experiences scanning 6x4.5 size transparencies with a

film scanner like the Nikon Coolscan 9000?

 

How is the color and focus quality and resolution?

 

What size prints are you making from these scans?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

dG

[marke_gilbert]

I have the Nikon 8000, which produces the same resolution, and have had no problems going up to 30x30 with 6x6 transparencies, so I would think, you could just as easily go 30x22.5.

 

<P>That said, I am also using a home made glass holder, not the standard issue holder, which is really useless of you need focus across the entire frame.

[Ed_Ingold]

I have an LS-8000, which I use for 6x6 film (Hasselblad). The color and resolution is excellent. My scans (cropped) are 8500x8500 pixels, which is over 350 ppi at 24x24 without resampling. The largest prints I can make at home are 13x19 at present, which are a piece of cake with these scans.

 

You will need a glass film holder if you want your results to be sharp from corner to corner. The Nikon holders are expensive, but worth the money. The upper glass has anti-Newton's Rings treatment. The lower glass has an anti-reflectance coating (like a camera lens) for the same reason, but so that no granular pattern is between the film and glass. To avoid Newton's Rings, you should place the film emulsion-side-down, and use one of the supplied masks on top of the film if necessary.

 

Good color is not something that just happens. It takes practice, good software and preferably calibration. I use SilverFast AI, which uses IT8 calibration for reversal film. For high-precision work, I use Gretag-MacBeth Color Checker charts to profile negative film.

[mikeseb]

I echo what's already been said here. I shoot 645 and scan with the Nikon 8000--mostly B&W negs but also color transparencies. Fabulous results as far as 17 x 22 and from looking at cropped sections, I could go to 30" square with no trouble.

 

A lot of resolution bang for the buck compared with, say, a Phase One P25! A lot of time required, though!

[troyammons]

I dont own a Nikon scanner, but I did a lot of comparisons before I bought a drum scanner, and the Nikon scanner is very close. So close that if all you scan is MF, a drum scanner might not be worth the extra hassle. I wanted to scan 4x5 and 8x10 also, so a drum scanner was my only option.

 

As far as enlargements, I think it is highly dependent on the camera lens and film and technique. I generally stick to 10-12x as a rule, but I recently did a 16x enlargement from a Pentax 67II with a super sharp 300mm EDIF lens and E100G film. IMO E100G is the cleanest scanning film around. Wet scanned at 2000-2500 dpi it is almost a dead ringer for bayer digital. Very clean.

[bobmichaels]

I scan 6x7 (Mamiya 7) chromes with a Minolta MultiPro using the glass carrier. It's so good that other imperfections such as exact focus, camera movement, exposure, film flatness during scan, etc. all begin to become a factor when previously they got lost. But do it all perfect and it's "WOW".

 

Personally, I don't have use for big prints. At 10"x11.7", it has that special look you get from a bigger piece of film and makes you not want to shoot 35m any more.

[jim_foley4]

Mike,

Can you describe your home made glass holder? Condtruction, source for glass, etc. Thanks.

[ben z]

I've had excellent results scanning 6x6 with an Epson 2450, printing to 8x8 with an HP7960, however I've recently gotten an 8750 and tried a few at 13x13 and they were just ok, no better than the same sized print from a 35mm neg scanned on my Canon 4000. I can't afford even a used Nikon 8000 so I ordered an Epson 4990 and am hoping that with studied use of Vuescan's multi-pass feature and Focal Blade sharpener software I can turbocharge the 4990's output to get within spitting distance of a film scanner. I'm one of those folks who recognizes that the average viewer is moved by the content of a photo a lot more than the technical specs, so I'm sure I'll be ok, but if I ever have the need to have a really huge print done I figured it'd be more economical to get a drum scan done on those few occasions rather than go into hock over a film scanner for MF.

[troyammons]

I've had excellent results scanning 6x6 with an Epson 2450, printing to 8x8 with an HP7960, however I've recently gotten an 8750 and tried a few at 13x13 and they were just ok, no better than the same sized print from a 35mm neg scanned on my Canon 4000.

 

From my comparisons that sounds about right. Two things that drive me nuts about the larger formats, are the softness of a lot of lenses. Some systems vary widely. Some of the old MF cameras are just plain fuzzy. Some of the newer lenses are fairly sharp. A few like the Mamiya 7 are tack sharp, but you loose a lot of that advantage scanning on a Epson flatbed.

 

LF lenses are even worse and all over the board. I finally found a group of LF lenses that are just about as sharp as anything else I have used.

 

It does not surprise me that your 35mm film scanner is giving you just as good of results as your Epson with 6x6. I figured my 4870 was limited to around 30 lp/mm so in that respect it can kill an enlargement. If you combine that with a softish MF lens it can get down right fuzzy.

 

For argument sake, say you 35mm slide is resolving 50 lp/mm. You could enlarge 12.5x to print at 4 lp/mm if your 35mm film scanner could actually resolve 50lp/mm on film which I am sure it can. that would be 12x18

 

For MF since your scanning with the Epson is limited to 30lp/mm, you loose most of the advantage of shooting 6x6. To print at 4 lp/mm you would be limited to a 7.5x enlargement. That would work out to around 17x17.

 

Dont get me wrong. I think the 4990 is a good scanner for the price and especially since it will do 8x10 but the soft edges drives me nuts.

 

I have done quite a few drum scan/4870 tests as mentioned above and I finally figured out that the difference between a drum or film scanner and a soft scanner like an Epson, would reduce the advantage of a format jump to almost nil, as far as detail. IE comparing a 4870 scan of 4x5 is roughly equal to a 6x7 drumscan or Nikon 8000 scan etc etc.

 

One thing the Epson is great at is killing film grain on E100G. It is pretty much non existent so that is a plus.

 

Also I did a lot of sharpening test before i got my drum scanner and if an image has a fuzzy edge over 2-3 pixels it becomes difficult to work. Unfortunately my Epson scanner produces mostly a 5 pixel edge at 2400 dpi and I had the best luck doing a layered sharpening routine, with a combination of high pass and Focus magic. Its a real PIA though.

 

IMO only, I feel that if enlargeing an Epson scan I am better off doing a 1200 dpi scan, working that and enlarging 6x to a lightjet at 204 dpi. Beyond 1200 dpi and its very difficult to clean up the edges.

 

Here are some comparisons if you guys are interested.

 

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