Scan Quality

[asharma]

I know that people must have asked this question several times, but I

wasn't able to find answers in archives. I was reading about

Minolta's new Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II which produces 42.2 megapixel

digital files from 35mm film negatives. Does it mean that it has the

capability to produce better results than Nikon's D2X or Canon's EOS

1Ds Mark II in terms of resolution? I have Nikon F5 and D70 and I

wanted to know if I scan negatives on Minolta's Dimage, would it give

me better resolution than high end Nikon or Canons? I like digital

workflow as much as I appreciate beauty of film. I am planning to

buy Nikon D2X/D200 and wanted to know if I should keep my Nikon F5

and get a scanner instead. Thanks in advance.

[ellis_vener_photography]

No it doesn't. The scan will always be a second generation image. there are also focus

issues. Scan sizes seem to need to be about 3x the size of direct digital capture for the

same overall image quality.

[matt_kennedy1]

I have a Minolta DSE 5400 II and while yes, 5400 dpi over the area of a 35mm frame (935 mm^2) does produce a whopping 42.2 MP image (and an equally whopping 250 MB file in 16 bit mode), the quality is not greater then a 1Ds Mk II. The problem comes in the maximum resolution of the film. Though I will say that a Minolta DSE 5400 II and good technique are the equal or better of a 10-12MP camera.

 

But that's just one guy's opinion.

[jtk]

"Better results" depend on your photographic vision and skills. You may be as good as Cartier Bresson was, or you may not. How does this relate to your question? Would Avedon have gotten "better results" with D2X?

 

Are you photographing test charts or are you making images? Man or mouse, etc?

 

That Minolta, and the equivalent and better Nikons, is grain sharp on film, if you do your job as a technician. Is grainless digital imagery better in some respect? What respect?

[roger_smith4]

"I like digital workflow as much as I appreciate beauty of film. I am planning to buy Nikon D2X/D200 and wanted to know if I should keep my Nikon F5 and get a scanner instead. Thanks in advance."

 

If you like the look of both, use both for different situations. If it were up to me I'd buy the digital SLRs, but I only use a film scanner so I'm biased ; )

[asharma]

John,

 

I understand that film and digital media has its own advantages/ disadvantages and I am only trying to compare resolution of high end digital v/s scanned 35mm film. Please keep in mind that my skills are constant factor here.

I am an amateur photographer and I am interested in Nature/ architectural photography. Thanks.

 

Roger,

 

Do you use minolta/ Nikon scanner? If you print them what size one can print with scanned 35mm film. Thanks.

[Ed_Ingold]

Anil, you will not get a good answer to your question on Photo.Net, not in this thread nor in a search. This issue is as divisive as East vs West.

 

For what it's worth, I agree completely with Ellis Vener's response - a DSLR image is as sharp (not the same as resolution) as a scanned image with approximately three times the number of pixels. Even that reflection falls short. A Nikon scanner at 4000 ppi has the same resolution as the sharpest reversal film, Velvia, for a subject of normal contrast - about 80 lp/mm. There is little to gain from 5400 ppi scanning resolution (and double the file size).

 

"Is grainless digital imagery better in some respect?"

 

This is a curious remark. Does this mean a 35mm image is superior to a virtually "grainless" medium format image?

 

For those of us who shoot both film and digital, 35mm film is not even in the running. The D2x approaches medium format quality - about halfway there. In the digital world, anything less than a factor of two is trivial. The attached image shows how close a D2x approaches MF quality.

 

The attached image was taken with an Hasselblad with a 180/4 at f/11 on Reala, scanned at 4000 dpi on an LS-8000, and cropped using the full height of the image. It is, by reasonable standards, a sharp image. The middle panel is a 100% crop from that image, showing some grain, and outlined on the first image. The last panel was taken two months later with a d2x and a 28-70/2.8 AFS at f/11, from the same point with approximately the same horizontal field of view as the first panel. For this comparison, the image was resampled to the same size as the Hasselblad image and a 100% crop taken from the same area.<div></div>

[pbizarro]

I am quite happy with my Velvia 100F photos scanned in a 3 year old Coolscan IV ED. New scanners will perhaps give you better/larger files. I scan at 2900 dpi and 12 bits, giving me a 57 Mb TIFF file.

 

The Nikon scan software does a great job with ICE, and I follow the tips from John Shaw that he made available in a website someplace, concerning how to scan slides with a Coolscan. He now shoots entirely digital, but that's not the point.

 

Slide scans are inherently more grainy than digital captures, so the workflow is slightly different, if you want to "smooth" your scans. However, if you do not sharpen the blue channel while scanning, blue skies come out very nicely. It takes a while to adjust to a new/different workflow.

 

The point is that you still have to follow a digital workflow with scanning, just one that is a bit different. That is if you want to print your slides at home.

[daniel_taylor]

Yes, please do visit the Film and digital resolution tests Part II. Make sure you get to the end. You'll see what a sharp 6 MP image looks like (vs. a soft 8 MP image). You'll see what a 9.6 MP full frame 10D would look like if it existed. And you'll see Les flip out when his deeply entrenched, emotional position gets knocked out from under him.

 

Les has flipped out. Seriously.

[Ed_Ingold]

If you are interested in potential print sizes, the original Hasselblad image is 6800x8500 pixels (8500x8500 as scanned). This corresponds to nearly 24x30 inches at 300 ppi.

 

A 35mm image scanned at 4000 ppi would be 170 ppi at that size - in dire need of resampling, with clearly visible grain. If 11x14 is big enough, you could get by (barely), if you never had anything better for comparison.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Here's a 50% view 1/3 crop macro shot off a ten year old Minolta

point and shoot I paid a $1 at a thrift store.

 

It was exposed on Kodak UC400 35mm C-41 neg film, scanned

off my local grocery chain's one hour lab Noritsu and burned to

CD as a 17MB 8 bit tiff. I had to apply an s-curve and then

sharpen after saving in jpeg.

 

From what I've seen of other 35mm shots off more expensive

SLR camera's and lab work this is considered low quality. I didn't

get many shots off the 36 roll that looked this good. Quite a few

were out of focus and I trashed them.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Here's a macro shot off a $280 Fuji F10 close cropped. The

flower is the size of my thumb. I didn't have to edit or sharpen

and the LCD preview was very close to what is shown.

 

I've kept the majority of my shots and didn't have to tossed very

few.

 

With a more expensive camera it can only get better.

[elliot_n]

Interesting test, Edward. How do you interpret it?

 

Reading this and the other linked thread, I conclude:

 

1). 35mm film has more resolution than both the 10D and 20D (though it seems odd that

the 20D sample is worse than the 10D sample).

 

2). 645 film has more resolution than the D2X. (To my eyes, the Hasselblad crop looks a

lot nicer)

[roger_smith4]

"Do you use minolta/ Nikon scanner? If you print them what size one can print with scanned 35mm film. Thanks."

 

I use the Canon FS4000US which is 4000ppi. I normally print up to 8x12 inches but 10x15 or even 13x19 would print fine assuming a fine grained film (100 speed slide or print) as a starting point. Bigger than this might be okay if there is a lot of distance between the viewer and the print, but there just isn't more detail to enlarge.

[Ed_Ingold]

"Interesting test, Edward. How do you interpret it?"

 

I agree that the Hasselblad image is better - I estimate it has twice the sharpness. I'm just surprised that the D2x image is so good. At 16x20 (the size of the picture I have hanging), details of the D2x image are nearly indistinguishable from that of the Hasselblad and the grain/noise is less with the D2x. It's not easy getting a picture this sharp, even with an Hasselblad. You need a sturdy tripod (Gitzo 1340), mirror pre-release and a cable release or self-timer (I used a 203TCC body with a 2 second delay).

 

With resampling, the Hasselblad image could easily hold up in a 24x30 enlargement (or larger). In my estimation, 16x20 represents the tipping point. I do not care for 35mm enlargements greater than 11x14 - too much grain, especially in the sky and smooth areas. Even a 6MP DSLR (e.g., a D1x) does better at that size.

 

Sharpness is not the same as resolution. Due to scattering and halation in film, the corner frequency of resolution is about 20 lp/mm, or about 50 microns. The corner frequency of a DSLR sensor is about 80% of the Nyquist limit. For a D2x, this is about 64 lp/mm or 12.5 microns. For a 6MP camera, the numbers are 53 lp/mm and 20 microns. Contrast, hence apparent sharpness, declines rapidly above the corner frequency, so a digital image looks "sharper" for normal subjects even if the ultimate resolution is less (digital resolution cuts off sharply at the Nyquist Limit, film goes on and on but with such low contrast it is meaningless).

[dean_erger]

Edward, I assume that you've at least tried a noise reduction program to reduce the grain in your film scans. If not, however, you may want to try one, such as Neat Image, Noise Ninja or others.

 

I use Neat Image for my scans of Velvia 50. I haven't done much with negative film, yet. So, maybe my experience isn't applicable to your situation. In my experience, however, with a very good film profile, Neat Image removes virtually all grain without any loss of detail, even viewed at 100%, 200% or 1600%. The key is the film profile.

 

Initially, I just used some of my photos to generate the best profile I could. My results were very good, but not nearly as good as when I made a profile using an IT-8 slide to create my profile. Now, I'd say my results using Neat Image are virtually perfect; no grain and no loss of detail.

[Ed_Ingold]

Dean said "Edward, I assume that you've at least tried a noise reduction program to reduce the grain in your film scans."

 

Thanks for the suggestion. However, I haven't used 35mm film since buying a D1x nearly 3 years ago, and grain is not an issue with medium format. I have used the NR features in Photoshop and in my DSLR with good effect. Any grain-reduction program, other than the subtractive process in a DSLR, also affects resolution.

 

I dutifully check the (NiMH) batteries in my F5 every month or so. You never know.

[asharma]

Thank you all for your help.