scanned film vs digital

Landrum Kelly · February 25, 2009

Steve, it sounds like stitching is giving you files comparable to those from big MF digital backs, or maybe larger. How much trouble is the actual computer/software side of all that? That is, once you have taken the shots and downloaded the files to the computer, how long does it take you to make a big stitched "composite" like that, and what software do you use?

I ask this because it sounds like a very real alternative to scanning film to get big digital files that we can then print. Since you were accomplished with film (as I really was not) long before you went to digital, your trials and troubles with learning this technique are of interest to me. In addition, although I have trying to get a new Coolscan 9000 scanner over this past week, the reality is that I still do not enjoy scanning after all these years. Is stitching just as much a pain as scanning film? How would you compare the two in terms of both trouble and results?

Have you ever tried this with telephoto lenses so that you really incredibly detailed pictures?

Maybe I should send you a small fee for trying to answer. . . .

Thanks.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · February 25, 2009

I meant "Scott." Sorry.

--Lannie

Dave Luttmann · February 25, 2009

Stitching is another topic altogether. I've done some 3 panel stitches from my K20D yielding 34mp and 9 panel stitches yielding 84mp. The results are stunning!

swilson · February 25, 2009

I use PTGui Pro for the stitching, there are other programs that also work very well. With PTGui I use smartblend, a plugin that keeps moving objects from being split between frames.

To stitch 20 to 30 photos takes around 3 minutes.

I have used telephoto lenses, but DOF gets pretty small when you do that.

I mainly use a manual panoramic head and a DSLR to get the photos to be stitch, but I also have a robotic head, which I use for higher resolution shots. One current problem that I have with really high resolution shots, over 200MP or so, is that SmartBlend stops working at about that size, so moving object become a problem. For an example see this link.

<a href="http://gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=9130">http://gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=9130</a>

If you go to the snapshot "feet offset" you will see both the great detail the image has but also the problem with stitching without SmartBlend.

Note for privacy reasons I have blurred out the person cleaning her pool, sometimes too much detail can be a problem.

As far as relating stitching to scanning, I find I enjoy stitching more. PTGui has a batch stitching mode so I can get it going and do something else while it is stitching away. With stitching I can also make some of the adjustments that a LF camera typically has. I can also go much wider angle then any lens could do. See the photos here for an example of that

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/konascott/3_views">http://www.pbase.com/konascott/3_views</a>

All three view were done with the same source photos, just stitched differently

With care you can also handle more moving objects in the scene then you might think, like in this photo.

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/90034426/large">http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/90034426/large</a>

or for a larger view see here

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/90034426/original">http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/90034426/original</a>

robert lee · February 25, 2009

With stitching I can also make some of the adjustments that a LF camera typically has.

</blockquote>

That's right. If the camera AF is left enabled, it naturally falls out is that both near and far field objects can be simultaneously in focus in the final stitched image. This is without having to stop the lens down - same net as adjusting the tilt of a camera with front movements.

Landrum Kelly · February 25, 2009

Thanks, Scott. I'm at work now, but I can't wait to see some more when I get home.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · February 25, 2009

Thanks, Scott. I'm at work now, but I can't wait to see some more when I get home.

--Lannie

mirek_elsner1 · February 25, 2009

Thank you for being honest Bernie. I shoot digital and film all the time. If you have a test in mind let me know and I will run it for you.

</blockquote>

The question was for Bernie, but I hope it does not matter - I think there is a meaningful test that could support your claims. If you say your 35mm film resolves 40MP and 21MP DSLR no way resolves 21MP, then show us a 200x200 crop from your 40MP that has better resolution than 200x200 crop from 21MP last gen DSLR. I can provide the DSLR part. If you are right, your 200x200 picture will be sharper and have more detail than the DSLR crop.

When we are done with resolution, we can look at exposure latitude, grain/noise and color accuracy. Or even do something meaningful.

Dave Luttmann · February 25, 2009

Mirek,

Sharpness and detail are not related. The film scan will offer more detail, but the acutance from the digital file will be sharper in appearance.

The easy way to figure this out is to use a film like TMX. There is no disputing that TMX can resolve in excess of 100lp/mm. You need approx 2.1 pixels to resolve a line pair. For 36mm of film, you get approx 7560 pixels required to resolve those line pairs.

With a 3:2 DSLR and 7560 pixels wide, that translates into a sensor of about 38mp. Films like Tech Pan, Adox 20, Rollei TP can extend this out to 150 to 200 or more. This of course requires perfect technique, superb optics from the likes of Leica or Zeiss (not L glass crap) and scanners that can reach or exceed 8000ppi.

mauro_franic · February 25, 2009

Mirek,

of course we can do the test very easily.

Resolution: Take a picture with your 21MP of the resolution chart. Far away so resolution stops (see moire) between marks 1 and 5 - this allows for easier evaluation than in higher numbers.

Post the file then. That is all that takes to find out the resolution of your camera. Takes 1 minute. Here you have the resolution chart: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/%7Ewestin/misc/ISO_12233-reschart.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/ISO_12233-reschart.pdf</a>

Sharpness: This is separate from resolution. You can adjust in post-processing. You can't add resolution though.

Grain or noise: You can adjust in post-processing. Depending on the file, at the expense of some fine detail.

rishij · February 25, 2009

Now imagine how the cat would have looked if shot with medium format film, giving a file about 3.5 times larger than that of the 35mm film.

</blockquote>

Then imagine that you could actually scan that medium format film at 8000ppi :)

The weakest link in the workflow of film is scanning. There's a lot of information on film, resolution & dynamic range wise (take a bright LED 'hiking' flashlight from REI, & shine it behind a dense portion of slide film... turns out it's not black but, rather, contains a world of information that scanners don't pick up). It's a matter of capturing it, something most scanners do not do without proper technique, software manipulation, and, in some cases, hardware modifications.

I do realize, though, that these are empty words without proper examples & comparisons, so I leave it at that until I get my blog up & running at some point (this year?).

That being said, I'm gonna have to comment positively about Les (something you'll typically never find me doing) and say that that scan of 400 speed Sensia is quite impressive. Don't know if it's a full-frame crop, but appears in focus (something the LS-5000 is better at with the SA-21 than the LS-4000, for frames 1-4 anyway), and the grain reduction doesn't leave behind the artifacts that GEM does in the ICE3 implementation that the LS-4000 has. Interestingly enough, my Provia 400X seems to have more grain under a loupe than even you non-modified (no NeatImage) scan has, though I guess that also has GEM applied. Then again, grain varies from frame to frame, and is more evident in smooth tonal transitions & underexposed images (for the heck of it I tried exposing 400X at ISO 800 then pushing one stop... works for the most part, but slightly underexposed images become very grainy).

Rishi

mauro_franic · February 25, 2009

Mirek, I look forward to seeing your results.

Sharpness from DSLRs ad Dave explained comes from the processing algorithm design to produce high acutance. In other words, if detail is partially there (i.e low microcontrast), a DSLR either makes up more contrast or discards it all together. So you lose original detail in exchange for incrasing acutance.

mirek_elsner1 · February 25, 2009

The weakest link in the workflow of film is scanning. There's a lot of information on film, resolution & dynamic range wise

</blockquote>

This may be theoretically correct, but we are talking about resolutions and detail differences that are only discernible at really large enlargements, like 24x36". The problem is that for most people it is not so easy to make perfect color enlargements of this size in wet darkroom and therefore you end up scanning and doing Lambda, Chromira or LightJet anyways. Besides, the digital process gives you opportunity to do global and local corrections that are extremely difficult with technologies like Ilfochrome etc.

mirek_elsner1 · February 25, 2009

Take a picture with your 21MP of the resolution chart. Far away so resolution stops (see moire) between marks 1 and 5 - this allows for easier evaluation than in higher numbers. Post the file then.

</blockquote>

Mauro, I don't specialize in shooting charts, so if you don't mind, I would rather compare some real life pictures. Real life performance is the only thing that matters to me.

Grain or noise: You can adjust in post-processing. Depending on the file, at the expense of some fine detail.

</blockquote>

Ok, feel free to adjust in post processing to match my ISO 100 files.

mirek_elsner1 · February 25, 2009

Sharpness and detail are not related. The film scan will offer more detail, but the acutance from the digital file will be sharper in appearance.

</blockquote>

I know what you mean, but I don't think I agree. There is no detail without sharpness. And sharpness can't be created completely artificially, you can do strong USM, but the result will look bad if you don't start with good negative.

Dave Luttmann · February 25, 2009

Mirek,

You have it completly backwards. Their is detail without sharpness. Sharpness can be created artificially....thru USM. It may look bad depending upon the settings, but USM increases acutance (apparent sharpness).

You can have an image with low acutance and tremendous detail. USM only enhances detail that is there....it can't produce any.

dan_south · February 25, 2009

I love film and I continue to shoot lots of it (mainly color transparency). I love digital cameras as well and have come to appreciate the astonishing advancement in quality that has become affordable in recent years. In other words, I think I'm more or less impartial on the subject. Here are a few thoughts based on my experiences with both media.

- Film is beautiful. I love to look at slides/transparencies on a light table. There's nothing more beautiful in two dimensions.

- Film is demanding. It takes a lot of practice to learn how to expose it properly and to avoid unwanted color temperature casts. Capturing an optimal exposure without the benefit of histograms and LCD playback screens requires skill and experience.

- Film is quick. A sheet of 8x10 film can capture in a split second the amount of data that a scanning back would take four minutes to record.

- Film contains a lot of information, but it's difficult to harness that information for prints. This is true whether you're printing via digital (scanning) or analog (B&W or Ilfochrome Classic) means.

- Scanning is a less than ideal technology. Like cellular phone reception, it disappoints more often than it impresses and it should just be a whole lot better than it is. Doing your own scanning it tedious. Affordable scanners aren't very good, and scans from labs are surpisingly unimpressive in many cases especially considering how much $$$ you PAY for them.

- Digital capture is enormously flexible. The abilty to alter ISO and White Balance from shot to shot is extremely useful, as is the ability to mine Raw files for lost highlight and shadow detail. And advances like the performance of the new High-ISO-friendly cameras allows us to capture scenes that were never before recordable.

- Digital capture removes a lot of hassles from the workflow and replaces them a whole set of new challenges.

- Digital prints are very sharp and appealing IF you know how to optimize the workflow.

- The amount of information you need to acquire to learn in order to make top notch digital prints consistently rivals the amount of work you'd need to devote to getting a Masters degree.

- As pure techniques, stitching and HDR don't bother me, but the output never looks "genuine" to my eyes. Maybe it's simply because it doesn't look as though it was rendered from one lens in one position, i.e. the way that most photographs are captured. Maybe to future generations, images made from a combination of perspectives will look natural. It just doesn't seem to appeal to over-the-hill baby boomers like yours truly.

- The instand feedback of digital capture is a godsend for strobe (flash) photography.

- In the end it's difficult to compare the final output of film and digital photography. They are two radically different processes even though they're commonly applied to reaching a similar objective. One may surpass the other under some conditions, but the output will never be the same. For instance, there's something magical about the way that film renders skies that digital cameras don't quite match. We live in an amazing age. Both technologies are readily available to us. Let's hope that that is always the case.

rishij · February 25, 2009

You can have an image with low acutance and tremendous detail.

</blockquote>

Exactly. Like negative film. When I placed Mauro's resolution test charts on Ektar 100 under the microscope, at first glance I completely underestimated the resolving power. Upon closer examination, though, and after scanning with an Imacon, inverting, then re-expanding the tonal range, I was able to resolve many more lines that I was initially confusing as low contrast 'mush'.

Scanning is a less than ideal technology. Like cellular phone reception, it disappoints more often than it impresses and it should just be a whole lot better than it is.

</blockquote>

These words are like music to my ears, or to the ears of anyone working on attempting to improve film scanning, be it via software or hardware.

-Rishi

Landrum Kelly · February 25, 2009

This thread makes me want to get better with both film and digital.

I hope that the moderators never delete this thread. Even with all the tangents and irrelevant comments, there is still a treasure trove of links and helpful comments for anyone willing to go back and work their way through it.

I am sixty-three years old now, and my only regret is that I don't have time to learn all the things I would like to learn about shooting and processing both film and digital.

--Lannie

the journey · February 26, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1599689">Robert Lee</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Feb 21, 2009; 12:54 p.m.

... scanning it automatically on a modified Nikon LS-5000. i scan about 800 feet or 3200 frames a day ... i scan uncompressed, 4000dpi, no corrections and they are magnificent frames.

</blockquote>

Now, this is interesting. Are you bypassing the AF and AE stages in order to get the scanning speed up?

God, it's got to be glorious to look at on 4k digital projection (or are you printing back to film?)

</blockquote>

Robert,

I'm submitting it to the Seattle Int'l Film Festival, they have one of the few 4k projectors for festivals. I looked hi and low for 4k festival, they are it.

Many have 2k projectors, but not 4k. I'm not going film out although it is always an option. I want to keep the big frames, with 4k projection, you get the benefit of have audio files at 96kHz/24-bit in 5.1 surround. If I want with film out the audio would be limited to DTS or Dolby 5.1 at 48kHz.

In the code, I turned off the AF and AE for every frame. Every 7th frame, it does a full re-cal with focus and density. I keep Adobe Bridge running on the side to have a look as the frames come in. There's nothing like waking up in the morning, grabbing a cup of coffee and having a look at the overnight scans. My LCD doesn't do justice to looking at 4000dpi images with a 72dpi screen....

To people who oversample images by cranking up multisample to 8x and 16x, you're nuts! Mathematically, you are only correcting for the noise in the scanner NOT the image! The noise in a single image is fixed, no matter how many times you oversample it. You can make the noise sharper and 'prettier' by oversampling but that's about it. If you want to really decrease the noise in the image and maintain shadows, highlights, etc, you have 'stack' the images like they do in astrophotography. Search for the amateur who does shots of Jupiter.

The big images are spectacular, insane. The 4k projector spec is 4096 x 2160, my frames are 5872 x 3752 @16-bit, so I will get an even bigger bang by having to down-res. Oversampling images really creates a 'super' resolution of an image, maintaining all of the shadows, highlights.

I have a good friend at Fotokem and they did the film I know that will come close to this resolution, the film Baraka, it was scanned by Fotokem at 8k from 65mm film, they downsized to Blu-Ray, images are spectacular.

</blockquote>

rishij · February 26, 2009

I can certainly vouch for Baraka Blu-Ray on a 1080p display. It's mind-boggling. Interestingly enough it appears sharper than some of the high-resolution shots of Planet Earth, perhaps b/c of this downsampling/sharpening process.

Interesting that while some of us sit here and worry forever about maintaining film flat for scans, there are specific machines/companies out there that clearly must have solved the problem (in a manner other than fluid mounting, vis-a-vis Drum Scanners) in other ways. One of the film scanners, I believe a North Light?, holds the film taught to have it flat and at a fixed distance from the optics.

One would've thought that something like this coulda been incorporated into a desktop film scanner.

And, no, not a desktop film scanner like the Imacon that costs slightly less than a new car and crops out a good percentage of your picture and even then doesn't maintain the absolute edges flat...

-Rishi

the journey · February 26, 2009

Digital is 'lazy', it is the attitude in films of 'fix it in post'. Productions that just shoot hours and hours of garbage. In post they pay more in time and effort in editing and sorting the junk because they had no idea of what they were wanting.

When you shoot film, you have to have an idea of what you want to capture, some thought goes into the process.

Like i posted above, until there is a 3-chip full frame digital camera, it will not come close to film.

google Bayer, see how crappy RGB is sampled, wavelet compressed, etc.

the journey · February 26, 2009

For Baraka, I think they used an Arriscan, I'll him.

serge goetzinger · February 26, 2009

Everybody should use the type of technology suited to his needs and personnal taste, especiallay when you are an amateur phootgrapher who does not have clients imposing the choice of photographic material. In my case, I am an amateur photgrapher and I am still using film with great results. I make prints in my darkroom, but I do also scan the negatives with a Nikon LS9000 and Silverfast software. The results are just stunning, once you have found your scanning workflow. Only a specialized lab could offer me the same or even better quality, but this quality would have his price. To make things clear, I am also shooting digital, and I also like too,it's just different. Please see the picture attached scanned with my Nikon scanner and Silverfast software.<img src="

alt="" /><div>

</div>

the journey · February 26, 2009

This article is funny"Featured Article: <a href="../equipment/canon/1Ds_markIII/">Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III Review</a> by <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=23069">Philip Greenspun</a> " concerning blowing up for 20x30"....

I'm concerned with a 50 feet screen not inches.... shoot film.

Sign In

scanned film vs digital

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in