Anyone tried copying MF negs/slides with a 5D2?

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Now, here is another 100% crop from the bottom of the same slide. This is from the 4000dpi scan:</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>.</p><div></div>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>And now the exact same 100% crop from the 5D2 file:</p><div></div>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Now for some sharpening in PS.</p>

<p>Here's the same 100% crop from the 4000dpi scan with some unsharp mask applied:</p><div></div>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>And now for the same 100% crop from the 5D2 image. The exact same amount of unsharp mask has been applied:</p><div></div>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Lastly, let's look at those central crops again, this time with some unsharp mask applied. This is from the resized 4000dpi scan:</p><div></div>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>And now the same 100% crop from the 5D2 file with the exact same amount of unsharp mask applied:</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>*sigh*... try again...</p><div></div>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>So, there you have it. This is only one slide and I don't know which scanner was used so don't take this example as the norm.</p>

<p>I have made two very large prints from the 4000dpi scanned file in the past (approx 30x24 inches) and they were lovely. So, I know in my own mind that the 4000dpi scan is reasonably good no matter what scanner was used. My first impression was actually one of amazement. I expected the 5D2 duplicate to be apalling compared to the scan. I was initially astounded at how good the duplication was. As you can see from my above crops, the central portion of the frame showing the cars is visibly less defined on the 5D2 file. This is quite obvious. However, I wouldn't exactly call it terrible. In fact, I would expect the same result (or possibly worse) from most flatbed scanners. I do own a flatbed with a transparency hood but it is quite old and it could not hope to compete with either of these two slide duplicates.</p>

<p>The part that most surprised me was the crop from the bottom of the slide. Amazingly I would hand the trophy to the 5D2. It's not hugely better but I definitely prefer it to that of the 4000dpi scan, with or without sharpening applied.</p>

<p>My conclusion so far is that this method will easily give me what I need... the ability to make decent sized prints (at least A4 size) from the 5D2 duplicates. The best bit about this method is that it is simply so quick compared to scanning. Even if I could justify a Coolscan 9000, I'll bet I can duplicate at least 10 transparencies in the time it takes the Coolscan to do one. Sure, time isn't everything but it's an excellent bonus.</p>

<p>I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Please remember that I am not here to parade the abilities of the Canon camera. Everyone knows what the 5D2 and Coolscan can do so don't start a raging battle. This is just a fun experiment and the result turned out way better than I could have hoped for.</p>

<p>After I've heard a few of your comments I have one more bombshell to expose about my working method that may surprise you.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Jamie - your results don't surprise me at all. Resolution is not a pixel dimension nor a line pair so it's useless to guess based on such simplistic measurements. It is a MTF curve where the response at low and mid frequencies is much more important to image fidelity than the response at high frequencies. Likewise, the curve for low contrast detail is more important than the curve for high contrast detail, even though test charts like the USAF one are typically at least 100:1 contrast. (That's way too high to be a useful predictor of resolving power in the real world.)</p>

<p>If you don't understand how all of that relates to your results or the thread, don't worry. The short of it is this: a 5D2 can extract all the detail you need for common print sizes as you've found.</p>

<p>You did this in a single shot, right? Try a true macro prime lens and stitch the 6 frames it takes to fully cover the 6x7 film frame with the lens at 1:1 magnification, carefully focused with an aperture just short of hitting diffraction. PS4 stitching is pretty much automatic and painless. You won't be tempted to spend money on another scanner.</p>

[terrencegabriel]

<p>Three months ago I took delivery of a Canoscan 8800F scanner. It cost $165 and after using it for these three months on my collection of about 5500 slides and 700 sheets of 4x5 bw negatives, I can only say this is one of the best photographic purchases I have made in the 50 years I have been looking into camera viewfinders.<br>

My film of choice until four or five years ago was Kodachrome Pro 64 and 200. B&W varied between Agfa Agfapan, Ilford Delta, and Kodak, Tri-X. This scanner gives me 48-bit color depth in TIFFs so that I can post process the way I want to, not the way someone else thinks I want.<br>

I had quite a few of my slides scanned but was never happy with that. Now, the advance of electronics and resolution solving in modern optics has made it possible to get spectacular results without spending a small fortune getting started.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>I've done this with a Nikon, various slides and negs and lenses. The bottom line is that the results can be very good, but getting the process fast enough is a constant challenge (slide scanners aren't too fast either, but still). A dedicated copy stand would be good. Of larger slides, I've taken several exposures and stitched together to get better resolution, which requires work but leads to good results. What is critical is getting the film flat and aligned with the camera, something which is easier said than done. Another is using a good lens. I've found that at these magnifications dedicated copy lenses can be much better than regular macro lenses.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Here's a bit of additional info:</p>

<p>Amazingly, the light table I used was the lid off my old broken flatbed scanner. The scanner packed up last week so I ripped the lid off, turned it upside down and used it as a small lightbox.</p>

<p>The lens I used was... wait for it... a £99 Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro!</p>

<p>The tripod I used was an el-cheapo, it was so wobbly you could see the image moving in the live view screen.</p>

<p>Just imagine what the result would have been like with a decent lightbox, a decent macro lens and a decent tripod.</p>

[waldo_lee]

<p>Jamie,<br>

Peter Krogh, the author of The DAM Book, Digital Asset Management for Photographers, has been down this road before you. Check out this article he wrote: <a href="http://www.thedambook.com/downloads/Camera_Scanning_Krogh.pdf">http://www.thedambook.com/downloads/Camera_Scanning_Krogh.pdf</a></p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>You got to have a continuous spectrum light source; fluorescent lights typically found in light boxes (whatever their kind) don't reproduce color well. I recommend flash with appropriate colour gels.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Why not send out to Scancafe to have all of them done at 4000dpi without any effort?</p>

 

[jamie_robertson2]

<p><em>"Why not send out to Scancafe to have all of them done at 4000dpi without any effort?"</em><br>

<em></em><br>

1. I live in the UK</p>

<p>2. Price. 4000dpi scans in the UK are expensive (just like everything else). Average cost for a 4000dpi scan of a MF slide is at least £3 ($5 USD)</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Thanks Waldo, interesting article.</p>

[janne_moren]

<p>Um, am I missing something here? The example above looks significantly better - I mean obvious even after a single glance, at the small sizes shown online - for the scanned image over the one shot with the camera, both before and after unsharp masking. That said, the example image is perhaps not that well chosen; the focus is at around infinity, and it's obviously a hot environment giving you a lot of heat blur so the original negative is unlikely to have all that much fine detail to begin with.</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Medium Format scans at Scancafe are 0.99 $US.</p>

<p>Using a digital camera you are adding a resolution limitation, plus all the flaws particular to the camera and lens, plus a high rate of outoffocus, etc... </p>

<p>I would definitely use scancafe or buy a cheap flatbed. Even a flatbed scanner should do better than the 5DII+lens+focus+no-ice, etc.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>A V500 on ebay UK can probably be had for £100.</p>

<p>Using a 5DII to digitize fine MF film captures is quite a waste.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>I casually used a D700 with a 50mm to copy/scan 6*7 negatives, although not from a lightbox but from the projection of the negatives in an enlarger. It worked out ok, since I wasn't really going after the ultra tack sharpness of the original ( Mamiya 7 II ) negatives anyway.</p><div></div>

[john_sarsgard1]

<p>A number of folks (including photo.net wizard Ellis Vener) are using old Beseler slide duplicators. Has light source built in, filtration, bellows. You can go up to MF 6x7, or even 4x5 with an attachment. They aren't made any more, but show up from time to time on ebay. I got mine for $50 and it's built just like a Beseler enlarger, and takes Beseler 67 negative carriers. Works great.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Flatbeds offer only convenience; a 5D2 with proper accessories, lens and technique will easily give a better result than a flatbed. Quality-wise the comparison is more along with a Nikon 9000, but convenience needs to be considered too as scanning takes time and effort, no matter how its done.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Oscar, the OP was referring to medium format. And Epson flatbed can probably resolve somewhere between 2000-2400dpi plus has ICE.</p>