Coolscan V scans verses 13mp DSLR

[terry_evans3]

Hello,

 

I own both a Nikon D300 and F5. I have never scanned film before, and am

considering the Coolscan V. How would a scanned 35mm negative compare to

the 13mp DSLR as far as resolution, in terms of mp?

 

Thanks,

 

Terry

[steve_unsworth1]

The dSLR would win easily.

[michael_darnton1]

One of the things that has impressed me most about digital is the resolution compared with film. When I look at my old prints, mostly from Leica and Olympus negs, they're definitely worse than what I'm getting now, in absolute terms. Perhaps if I'd been shooting some high-res film, it would be different, but I'm comparing ISO125 film to ISO800 digital, and digital buries film. I was just at an art fair, and one photog there bragged about shooting film, not digital. Basically, her stuff just looked soft, compared with what I'm used to now.

[davem1]

In terms of sheer numbers... As far as I am aware a D300 highest image size is 4,288

x 2,848, making it 12.212224 MP. I get 5500 px, longest side, from my Coolscan V,

making film 20.09141791 MP....

 

However, resolution depends on your eyesight and the viewing medium, screen or

print. The scans I get at 5500, longest side, are visibly soft and need to be sharpened.

You'd need to get a film scan and repeatedly downsize it until it looks as sharp as a

digital image and then do the maths. Might try that at work tomorrow....

[Stock-Photos]

A 4000PPI scan of a negative would be about 5500 pixels wide on the long side.

 

Nikon's Web site quotes the image size from the D300 at:

4288x2848

 

So, as far as pixel count, the film scan would give more.

 

Image quality is another story, and subjective I might add.

[michael_darnton1]

The Coolscan can't drag resolution out of air if it ain't on the film, and it ain't.

[terry_evans3]

Wow, I thought it would be more difference than that. Ok, heres my other option to get more resolution: Get the Coolscan 9000, and shoot medium format film. I would use a Hasselblad 501, or Mamiya RZ. Would that do it? Or would it be better to upgrade to Canon's 21 mp body. I absolutely love the L glass. For instance: 50 1.2, 85 1.2, and 135 2. If I go with film, I would keep my Nikon kit.

 

Again, thanks.

 

Terry

[Stock-Photos]

If you indicated exactly what you want all this resolution for, we might be better able to advise you.

[davem1]

When scanning 6x7 i get files about 8000 x 6500 equating to 52MP. These do look

sharper at 100% than 35mm at 100% but that could be either a better scan (9000 vs

V) or Mamiya & Glass vs Nikon Glass. That's a bit off topic though...

 

I've got an F5 and love it. Plus the price on t'internet... ﾣ350 for an Exc ++. Serious,

serious bargain.

 

If (Serious Bargain > Hassle of Dev + scanning) then

 

Buy F5

 

else if (Hassle of Dev + Scanning > Serious Bargain) then

 

Buy D300

 

End If

 

Also, do you need 5000px images? Some image libraries only accept images

greater than a certain filesize...

 

If I could, I'd sell all my 35mm and buy the next Nikon Pro model that comes out...

Digital is just, quicker and easier

[robert lee]

"How would a scanned 35mm negative compare to the 13mp DSLR as far as resolution, in terms of mp?"

 

Depends on the film. The DSLR would be superior in almost all circumstances save a few, e.g., Fuji Acros, 100 TMAX, and maybe Gold 100.

[User_276104]

Since we're talking about a direct comparison, here are a couple of images I made one day while "two fisting" - I had film & digital in hand. The framings are not exactly the same because I didn't have equivalent lenses on each body.

 

The DLSR was a Nikon D2x and the film image was scanned with a Coolscan IV, so the pixel count is similar, although the scan loses some due to the black border being cropped.

 

So, here's Door #1......<div></div>

[User_276104]

And Door # 2...<div></div>

[link]

I have a Canon 5D (13mp) and a Nikon 8000 scanner.

 

35mm vs. 5D? The 5D wins in almost every instance. Film (color neg) can capture a

wider dynamic range though by a significant margin.

 

Scanning 6x9 film though produces images with a bit more detail than the 5D and by far

more dynamic range.

 

So if you wish to shoot film to better your D300 I would say that you'll need to shoot

medium format (and bigger than 4.5x6) with a dedicated filmscanner to surpass your

D300.

 

From my experience, scanned film will need a lot more megapixels to equal digital

capture, strange but true. So don't go by megapixels as the scanned film looses a

generation in the scanning process and digital capture is largely grain free making

enlargements with a little less detail seem like they've been captured with a lot more

pixels than they have.

[davem1]

Eric, is No.1 the scan?

[nick_evans1]

If you scan a modern day film and blow it up, so long as your original image is well exposed and sharp, it will be better or the same as the D300 (I think better I find the D300 image to be very "cool").

Actually I'll say scanning neg films will be equal to the digi camera, transparency film will be better.

 

Scanning film from 20 years go, then yes digi cameras will be better.

 

Larger film formats will aso out do digi cameras by a long way.

 

Best thing to do is find a really good lab and see what the results are like, before you buy a scanner.

 

Oh and before anyone gets on there high horse, I use both film and digital and I scan loads of stuff. Scanned images can capture a LOT more dynamic range than the digi machines.

[User_276104]

David - you're correct, the first photo I posted was a film scan of Fuji Velvia,

2nd was Nikon D2x.

 

The scan was one of the first I'd done when I recently started using VueScan. I

didn't do anything at all to it, other than have VueScan's Sharpening turned on.

[roger_smith4]

Knowing Vuescan I'd guess the slide itself doesn't exactly look like door #1 and with a bit of work it you'd see more shadow detail/ tonal separation in dark values.

[carbon_dragon]

I have a 5D and a Coolscan V. I did have a Minolta Scan Dual III. With the Minolta

scanner, the 5D definitely wins. With the Coolscan and a well exposed color

negative (with equivalent technique) or even a well-exposed slide, it's difficult to

pick. I'd say a good 35mm fine grained color negative against my 5D are pretty

much competitive.

 

The advantage Digital has though is that you can look at the picture (and the

histogram) moments after taking the shot. That's what made the difference for me.

If you want to stay with film though, if you're scanning color with a Coolscan V, I

think you'll be satisfied with the quality.

[brettdeacon]

Resolution-wise, a Coolscan V scan of a professional 35 film will be competitive with a 13MP DSLR image. That's where the similarities end. The "look" will be very different, with the 35mm image appearing somewhat grainy and the DSLR image appearing more smooth. Assuming you used a high resolution film like Velvia and good technique you may be able to pull more a bit more resolution out of the scanned image, but the extra cost of film and processing and the extra work of scanning, and the associated learning curve, may not be worth it given the quality of a DSLR image. Drum scanned 35mm is even a bit better than the Coolscan in terms of resolution, but again, given the cost and learning curve of scanning vs. the simplicity of working with DSLR images this point may be moot. Upgrading to medium format would give you a significant advantage over the 13MP image but the same probably can't be said in comparison to a 21MP DSLR.

 

I guess it comes down to horses for courses. I shoot 4x5 film which yields much better image quality than DSLR images, at least for the time being. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't even consider using medium format or 35mm film with the image quality and shooting advantages of today's DSLRs.

[User_276104]

In my relatively short relationship with digital (~2 years with DSLR, ~5 years with Coolscan IV) I'm starting to think that what we see on our computer screens is only a halfway point. Given the convenience of viewing digital files I'm the first to say that I don't have enough prints made. But I've ordered 12x18" prints of both DSLR and Coolscan IV files and with the end result of a good print they both look great. Sure, you can pick things apart about whether the tones in certain areas are fully realized but a good photo speaks for itself. I don't think a few ripples of snow in a darker area of a photo will change my opinion of it.

 

OK, I'm done. I enjoy both film and digital, and don't feel cheated by not having one or the other at hand.