The ultimate DSLR scanning?

[etienne_w]

<p>Well, not really with a DSLR but more certainly a Phase One back. Have a look at this:<br /> <a href="

<p>Anyway, although most members of this forum will probably never fork out 50 grand (or whatever that contraption might cost) into such a high-end system, I see this as a confirmation that DSLR scanning, up to now realized by DIY-ers only, has its place somewhere in the scanner market. Your thoughts?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br /> Etienne</p>

[25asa]

<p>I wonder what resolution this would be scanned at? Anyone could do this with their camera too, using an old bellows and slide duplicator/ copier. Might not be as tack sharp as a film scanner though, unless you can do a live view of the image while focussing.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>See this: <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?qc67n2gkdz3viyp">http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?qc67n2gkdz3viyp</a> document for a comparison between scanning slides with a Coolscan V, Epson V700 and a Nikon D700. The document is basically about scanning Kodachrome slides but has severas comparisons between methods and a few pictures of the camera setup (page 234).</p>

<p> </p>

[alan_aubry]

Did it few month ago with my Canon 1Dx and a 100 mm 2.8 macro lens.

Really fast and handy with Lightroom connected mode and automatic process to reverse the negatives, no other corrections.

18 mpx pictures.

Live view focusing and f8.

 

A 135 color slide, full picture and 100% crop :

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c89yn944jbomx1b/photo%2001-05-2015%2009%2010%2001.jpg?dl=0

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/24s7oqyregar5im/photo%2001-05-2015%2009%2010%2005.jpg?dl=0

 

A 135 B&W negative, full picture and 100% crop :

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cvp8b982ngjmr6a/photo%2001-05-2015%2009%2010%2010.jpg?dl=0

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/igp199vvo3i36hc/photo%2001-05-2015%2009%2010%2015.jpg?dl=0

 

A 135 color negative, full picture and 100% crop :

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dt1j9jdsku0dzjb/photo%2001-05-2015%2009%2010%2032.jpg?dl=0

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t960b57f9psdh1j/photo%2001-05-2015%2009%2010%2036.jpg?dl=0

 

A 4.5x6 color slide, full picture and 100% crop :

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jeh2fq4akfe4ssf/photo%2001-05-2015%2009%2010%2019.jpg?dl=0

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xv2p6xfy6jq23e/photo%2001-05-2015%2009%2010%2024.jpg?dl=0

 

Above Nikon coolscan 8000 ED on 135 slide, under Canon 1Dx with 100 mm 2.8 macro lens, 100% crop

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yk2r8ognavm7g1y/photo%2001-05-2015%2009%2011%2008.jpg?dl=0<div></div>

[ivo_ivo]

<p>There are no limits on irrationality... why spend less than a thousand for a dedicated 35mm film scanner with 100% measurement of all three colour channels in 16 bit when you can spend several thousands for fractional measurement of the colour channels and interpolated resolution (all Bayer pattern sensors) in 12 or 14 bit...</p>

[alan_aubry]

I allready have a dedicated film scanner, I didn't spent a penny for that specific purpose, just wanted to see what could be

done with my DSLR.

[ivo_ivo]

<p>@ A.A. Sorry for the misunderstanding: my post was a direct reply to yours, i.e. was not addressed to you, I just made a general observation in response to the OP.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I see this as a confirmation that DSLR scanning, up to now realized by DIY-ers only, has its place somewhere in the scanner market.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd disagree; an single person's experiment in my view is not a confirmation of anything; it's an anecdote. The scanner market is increasingly small, and the niche filled by small brands mostly (Plustek, Reflecta, Epson). The fact that Nikon left this market entirely, and Canon not moving much either, is far more telling about the scanner market - it is too small for them to cater for. So, I wouldn't expect that any large company is going to make serious investments into any of it, including using DSLRs for duplication. It'll probably stay a DIY thing, with a few filmscanner available for those who prefer that route.</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>I tried the DLSR scanning method a while back, just to see if it was faster than using my V600. It really wasn't. Granted it was just a trial using a light box, tripod and DSLR, but setting up the equipment, exposing, and post processing a single image took about as long as flipping on the scanner and scanning a whole roll of 24 exp film. And the result was inferior. </p>

<p>DSLR scanning is a viable option for those that already have a digital camera and want to avoid the cost of a scanner. It's just not for me. With a dedicated setup and better software and more practice, I could probably get better results faster than my initial trial, but it's just not worth it to me. If I didn't already have a scanner, though, I'd probably be singing a different tune.</p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>Digital camera scanning already has its place--this thread is years late in predicting it won't work. The Library of Congress as well as many museums are using it for negative copying and preservation in preference to flatbeds, using both DSLRs and the LOC uses, I believe, a fancy Sinar setup. With my Nikon D300 I can very easily do better 35mm copies than an Epson scanner, but that advantage runs out at 6x6 film. I'd like to have a more recent camera with more Mp, but don't really need the detail for normal sized prints. Quality depends on setup: if you don't do it right, guess what, it doesn't work!</p>

<p>If you want to see what the LOC is doing, check http://shorpy.com</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Scanners use a line scanner (usually three, one each for R, G, and B) and move the film (usually) while scanning. A 4096x3 CCD will get you 24 megapixels, and not interpolated. The sensor costs much less than a few megapixel 2D sensor. <br>

But the scanners that I know of are fairly slow. Many have a holder that holds four slides, and can be set up to scan those four, then take them out and put in the next.<br>

I do believe it is much faster to get "good enough" scans with a DSLR from slides. I wouldn't do it from negatives, though. The transformation needed is not easy to get right.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Granted it was just a trial using a light box, tripod and DSLR, but setting up the equipment, exposing, and post processing a single image took about as long as flipping on the scanner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was indeed your problem - you really need a dedicated setup: then it is faster and I think better than scanning. If you have to assemble the kit with a tripod, set alignment etc then it is indeed a hassle. I agree with Michael. DSLR scanning is already established and has been for many years as the system of choice for many contemporary collections. Higher MP DSLRs such as D800s/Sony A7R and the forthcoming Canon 5S will make DSLR copying of 6 x 6 etc more viable too.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>https://www.dropbox.com/s/igp199vvo3i36hc/photo%2001-05-2015%2009%2010%2015.jpg?dl=0</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not like the way Canon sensors handle b&w film. Horrible. But I've seen worse than that (I can't find that comparison though). I even see artifacts in the colour scans.</p>

<p>Personally I'd use a monochrome sensor with R, G, and B filters. The new Leica Monochrom (246) would be my tool of choice if I wanted to dupe film. However, I'm not impressed with film scanner choices. The once that actually does a proper job, the Flextight X5, costs $25K. Epson flatbeds are not a bad compromise but I don't think we have a 'hallelujah' scanner just yet.</p>