Dedicated film scanner vs DSLR - what do you think?

[mauro_franic]

<p>Thank you for sharing Erie.</p>

<p>I agree that for scanning your 8x10 sheets even a flatbed would provide fantastic results. My hat to you on 5,000 scans.</p>

<p>Regarding using DSLRs as a scanning device, this thread popped my interest to see whether anyone had achieved good results (good enough for print). Evidence so far indicates to me that they are not up to the task but I am open minded and interested to see more evidence to the contrary.</p>

<p>Most of my work is B&W 6x7 (some 35mm too) scanned with my Coolscan 9000 and then printed large (16x20, 24x30 and 30x40). So I don't use my DSLR for much.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The Coolscan doesn't capture all the detail available on the film either, but it does capture the majority of it (20+MP for 35mm and 90+MP for 6x7) and with great characteristics: DMAX-noise-color-ICE and no artifacts.</p>

<p> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>I think that MF scanning is superior with a good dedicated MF scanner - no one is really arguing about that (well I'm not!), but for 35mm I suggest that using a DSLR is worthy of serious consideration for E6 at least. I suspect that it might on balance win out due to convenience. Also we have to remember that for new customers there are no new, good, dedicated film scanners out there that are affordable.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I agree with Erie. It seems to me that a lot of people now they have their Nikon scanners assume that anything else is a waste of time, when if you look carefully around the web - I have done this - you can see that professional archivists have been digitizing using a good DSLR set ups for some time - bellows/slide duplicator/macro lenses or enlarging lenses. You can use the slide duplicators produced by Novoflex/film-era Canon/Nikon etc , or you can use an all in one system like the Beseler or Bowen with a dichroic light source or flash. There is absolutely no a priori reason why this should not work very well - after all a slide is just an image and is in this sense no different from any other "scene" photographed by a DSLR and most of the world is very, very happy with digital capture this way. Also remember that the Nikon scanners are gone, so for most people the option championed by many here may not be viable in the future.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Do you have any examples on the web you can point me to where I can see the results of DSLR scanning?<br>

Are you saying that DSLRs are used to provide archival of film images professionally? Interesting. It is strange that professional archivist couldn't afford a 1,900 scanner. But I would like to see how they perfected their methods and results.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to me that a lot of people now they have their Nikon scanners assume that anything else is a waste of time, when if you look carefully around the web</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily. I mean, a flatbed scanner with film capability is okay, too, depending on your needs. The DSLR is like a flatbed: it can do a competent job but not an excellent one.</p>

<p>But for proper archiving, if you aren't using a film scanner you are not doing your job. Or you can get much better results than the website in the OP. In which case, we all want to know.</p>

[erie_patsellis]

<p>Actually, since there's no standards for digital archiving, a true archivist would only consider a film duplicate, or so I was told by several experts in the field when researching.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>This is yet another strange thread. It seems one of Mauro's suggestions for increasing detail in the DSLR image is to throw 75% of it away and then increase the 25% you have left by 300%, farcical. The detail is obviously in the DSLR image, it has just been badly processed, to realise the detail he is from a mere 25% of the original information captured really shows the potential of the DSLR.</p>