120 Film Scanner

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Time for flatbed pic I think.</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>That pic was made for another thread where someone ask about scanner settings. Here are the settings for those interested.</p><div></div>

[chughtai]

<p>David, Interesting insight on the book printing. +1 for flatbed i suppose.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>There's more than resolution though. Dedicated film scanners tend to (!) also produce sharper, and cleaner results, with better shadow detail, than most flatbed scanners.<br>

Just as an Imacon/Hasselblad scanner will be just that little bit better than the Nikons, scanning at the same or lower resolution (at a higher price, of course).<br>

And that difference you will also see in the smallest of scanned images.</p>

<p>P.S.<br>

What is an "Unsharp mask" option doing in the "Professional" mode of a scanning program?</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>RE "Dedicated film scanners tend to (!) also produce sharper, and cleaner results, with better shadow detail, than most flatbed scanners."</p>

<p>With our early to mid 1990's *PRO* flatbeds; the scanner glass was removeable; cleanable; replaceable. These were 3 grand units; 800 to 1600 dpi.</p>

<p>In a consumer flatbed; the glass is often not marketed to be replaced; or even cleaned. too many goobers to goof it all up.</p>

<p>Thus what happens is the plastics outgas; one gets crud on the glass; contast drops. Thus old Goober buys a new flatbed; and the contrast and dmax is way better.</p>

<p>With cars folks clean their windshields; they do this on copy machines and commercial scanners too; and it is done way less on office box store flatbeds; ie too many warranty issues.</p>

<p>Thus with time flatbeds often have a drop in contrast due to plain crud under the glass</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>delete</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>There are lots of good arguments for dedicated film scanners but for many it cames down to price. A coolscan 9000 is way to expensive for me and probably many others. The choice for me would be to send my film to another country for cheaper scanning, get them scanned locally and pay the cost or buy the v500 and do it myself. For me the choice was simple buy the v500 accept it for what it is and enjoy being able to scan my films. I don't expect to get perfect scans and I expect to have to adjust the color balance, contrast and density after scannig. I don't make prints above 8x12 very often and I don't have an imaginary client in the back of my mind whispering 4000ppi so it is quite easy to get along with the V500.</p>

[chughtai]

<p>Stuart, thanks for v500 info!</p>

[eric_mogren]

<p>Wow... OK, now I am pretty confused.<br>

I guess I get the part about expectations - that no amount scanning wiz-bang can make a poor negative into something better than it is. Likewise, I understand that for us amateurs, we probably do not need the best, most expensive scanner in the world.<br>

I have two follow-up questions, then.<br>

1. I have a 1950's era Rolleicord V with which I shoot mostly BW (and maybe color sometime, too). I won't be shooting thousands of images, but I want to share the ones that I DO take. So, what <em>reasonable quality</em> scanner do you all recommend for making scans and maybe prints to around 8x10? (Specific brands and models would be helpful).</p>

<p>2. I also have thousands of slides that I would also like to scan and share. Can that be done with the same scanner recommended above, or I am asking about two different scanning demands?</p>

<p>Thanks! Eric</p>

[eric_mogren]

<p>Wow... OK, now I am pretty confused.<br>

I guess I get the part about expectations - that no amount scanning wiz-bang can make a poor negative into something better than it is. Likewise, I understand that for us amateurs, we probably do not need the best, most expensive scanner in the world.<br>

I have two follow-up questions, then.<br>

1. I have a 1950's era Rolleicord V with which I shoot mostly BW (and maybe color sometime, too). I won't be shooting thousands of images, but I want to share the ones that I DO take. So, what <em>reasonable quality</em> scanner do you all recommend for making scans and maybe prints to around 8x10? (Specific brands and models would be helpful).</p>

<p>2. I also have thousands of slides that I would also like to scan and share. Can that be done with the same scanner recommended above, or I am asking about two different scanning demands?</p>

<p>Thanks! Eric</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Eric;</p>

<p>(1) making a 8x10 inch print from 6x6cm negative is only a 4x to 4.5 x enlargement; even the old 1200 dpi Epson 1200U here from 10 years ago does this quality. With bigger enlargements my better flatbeds work better; or about all I use my Nikon 9000 a real film scanner.<br>

<br /> (2) flatbed will pull out a lot of info in an original; but leaves super fine details; if your original is sharp<br /> 35mm examples<br>

<br /> (a) 35mm sharp original scanned on a 8 year old flatbed<br>

<br /> (b) 35mm poor/blurred original scanned on a high end film scanner<br>

<br /> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-244.jpg" alt="" width="585" height="384" /><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-189.jpg" alt="" /><br /> i<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-190.jpg" alt="" width="569" height="472" /></p>

<p>case (b)</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/sandy/tripods-503.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/sandy/tripods-504.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>****In case (a) the scanner was not as good as the orignal; the wind knob's vertical lines and cameras shutter speeds by "ARGUS" are not as sharp as the tri-x original. This shot was scanned with an Epson 2400 flatbed.</p>

<p><br />*****In case (b) the scanner was BETTER than the orignal; the image's focus was not perfect . In fact a flatbed scanner is better than this original. this shot was scanned with a 4000 dpi film scanner; a Canon unit</p>

<p>The whole problems is like knives; are we cutting butter; some meat loaf ; roast beef; or cutting core or shaving. Flatbeds are like roast beef knifes; not dull; not sharp enough for shaving.</p>

<p>(3) Here is a MF 6x6cm scan at just 600 dpi with the 10 year old Eposn 1200U scanner: It is good enough for web use. It is at a scan setting that was once fairly high end ; ie about early 1990's. It is all sort of funny; drum scans of 4x5 were often just 800 dpi then</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/biker/tripods-500.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[polka]

<p>As I just shot a BW test film with a MOSKVA 2 (6x9 pictures through an Industar 4.5/11cm lens), I decided to scan the landscape that I always use for tests with my "Epson Perfection 4990 Photo" flatbed scanner, with different scanning options, to see how they compare.<br>

What I did not change : same type of scan (BW film, 4800 pix/inch) and same luminosity, contrast, gamma settings of the scanner, same output on TIFF files for IBM/PC with same cropping of 2.6x3.7mm on the neg. giving 500x700 pix frames.<br>

What I did change : four different scan depth were used<br />a/ 48 bits/pix (color)<br />b/ 24 bits/pix (color)<br />c/ 16 bits/pix (grey scale)<br />d/ 8 bits/pix (grey scale)<br>

As it is sometimes said that scannig in color and max depth and then reducing it to 8 bits grey scale might be better than direct scan at 8bits grey scale ?!<br>

All four types of images can be stored as TIFFs with their correct depth, but when you load them into PhotoShop, the 48bits (color) and 16bits (grey scale) are immediately and automatically converted to 24bits (color) and 8bits (greyscale).<br>

The initial TIFF files are too big to show here. I called them c48.tif , c24.tif , n16.tif and n8.tif .<br>

When I loaded them into PhotoShop, c48.tif immediately became (and was re-stored as) c48c24.tif and n16.tif (as) n16n8.tif. I thus could compare them to c24.tif and n8.tif , but did not see major differences.<br>

Then I changed with Photoshop the color TIFF files into grey scale files : c48c24.tif became c48c24n8.tif and c24.tif , c24n8.tif . In order to compare them with n16n8.tif and n8.tif . I still did not see major differences either.<br>

Here, I printed these six final files on Archival Matte Epson paper with my Stylus R2880 Epson Photo printer ; the two "color" files in colors and the four grey scale files in color and grey scale.<br>

The color files printed in color showed slight blue and magenta fringes, whereas the grey scale files did not, indeed... But I was surprised to notice that my printer used color inks (and not only black and grey inks !) even when directed to print grey scale files in grey scale ?!<br>

Finally I added luminosity histograms on the pictures and converted them to jpegs (not too destructive) so that I could post them. Here they are so that you may analyse them too : on the histograms there ARE some differences, but they seem hard to interpret ?...<br>

Anyway, given that the crops show a 2.6x3.7mm portion of the negative, they demonstrate also that the Moskva 2 is a "not so bad" MF folder and that flatbed scanning 6x9 negatives is rather "fair" ?<br>

Paul</p>

[polka]

<p>I mixed up with posting the images ; here are the links</p>

<p><a href="http://35mm-compact.com/album/albums/userpics/10032/c48c24.jpg">http://35mm-compact.com/album/albums/userpics/10032/c48c24.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://35mm-compact.com/album/albums/userpics/10032/c24.jpg">http://35mm-compact.com/album/albums/userpics/10032/c24.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://35mm-compact.com/album/albums/userpics/10032/c48c24n8.jpg">http://35mm-compact.com/album/albums/userpics/10032/c48c24n8.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://35mm-compact.com/album/albums/userpics/10032/c24n8.jpg">http://35mm-compact.com/album/albums/userpics/10032/c24n8.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://35mm-compact.com/album/albums/userpics/10032/n16n8.jpg">http://35mm-compact.com/album/albums/userpics/10032/n16n8.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://35mm-compact.com/album/albums/userpics/10032/n8.jpg">http://35mm-compact.com/album/albums/userpics/10032/n8.jpg</a></p>

<p>Paul</p>