Camera Scan vs Film Scanner – A Detailed Comparison

[rodeo_joe1]

Just found a macro DoF calculator and it give a total of 0.132mm for the same parameters as above!

 

- There should be no difference between a 'macro' DoF calculator and an accurate DoF calculator.

 

Optical theory states that there's no such thing as a lens with a perfectly flat field. The field is always a section of a spherical surface, which may be convex or concave toward the camera. So, as Harald said earlier, you may get better sharpness across the frame by making sure that the films bows, or dishes, in the same direction as the field curvature. However, there's no guarantee that every macro lens 'curves' in the same direction.

 

I tried this with my 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, and the difference is almost negligibly slight, but just noticeable.

 

Therefore the curvature of field with this lens must be less than the curvature of the film, and in turn the film curvature outstrips the DoF at f/5.6, which is the aperture for best resolution.

 

(I am going somewhere with this. Bear with!)

 

Theoretical DoF @ f/5.6 is a total of approximately 0.34 mm, which means the film must bow more than that. So perhaps we can estimate glassless film bowing at ~ 0.5mm for a 35mm frame in a plastic clip-type filmstrip holder.

 

I also have a heavy chromed-steel enlarger negative carrier that crops the frame slightly and definitely holds the film flatter. However this needs a more cumbersome setup than a simple horizontal front-of-lens attachment - needing gravity to let it do its work of pressing the film flat.

 

Having said that; how often is the absolute best edge-to-edge sharpness needed in a digital copy?

[Dave Luttmann]

That may be true, but Nikon no longer makes or services Coolscan scanners, nor the associated drivers and software. So going forward, the choice is between consumer-grade flatbed scanners, outrageously expensive Hasselblad scanners, cheap imitation scanners (digicams in mufti), or high-resolution digital camera copy systems.

 

The last alternative is clearly the best, and getting better each year, The quality of digital cameras, starting about 15 years ago. is precisely the reason film is relegated to a few photographic flat-earthers. Consequently film "scanning" is consigned to producing digital archives of existing work, which is not exactly a growing market. If you already own such a camera, you can set up an efficient film copy system for as little as $200. Slides are easy to copy accurately, and in fact you can improve on the exposure and color with little effort. Negatives are just as easy to copy, but harder to process. You can slug your way through using Photoshop, but commercial software like Silverfast HDR makes even that job easy.

 

Photographic flat earthers? What a pompous, ignorant comment.

[JDMvW]

But those exact same complaints could be levelled at an enlarger lens. The fact that they weren't, over a period of several decades, shows that they're not an issue at all.

???? enlarger lens? I'm comparing to scanners

[rodeo_joe1]

???? enlarger lens? I'm comparing to scanners

Scanners also use a lens, and usually a not-very-costly or wide-aperture lens at that.

Do you think the image of the film gets transferred to the scanner sensor by magic?

[JDMvW]

Scanners also use a lens, and usually a not-very-costly or wide-aperture lens at that.

 

But compare the product scan from even a flatbed scanner to a camera lens...

 

And apparently it is "magic" Jeez, so much heat and so little light

[rodeo_joe1]

But compare the product scan from even a flatbed scanner to a camera lens...

I have. The camera wins hands down.

[John Crowe]

Dave: Ed already apologized, sort of, for the "flat earthers" comment. I rather enjoy the slight. I do disagree however, that it was not 15 years ago, it only occurred in 2012, when Nikon introduced the first 24 MP crop body and the first 36 MP full frame body. I almost exclusively shot K25, and Velvia 50 from a tripod, so it took digital a little longer to catch up for me.

 

 

I had no idea how technical this thread had gotten. I got by just fine with f5.6 for all of my 35mm, 6x6, and 4x5 scanning that I described earlier. If there was a real problem it should have showed up with the 4x5 since I only used a 4x5 enlarger film holder in an attempt to keep it flat, and then proceeded to take 18 shots of it! I only chose f5.6 because that was the best rated aperture for my Canon FD 50mm f3.5 Macro, and it gave me a shutter speed that I was comfortable with.

 

 

I hope soon to continue my "scanning" project with my new-to-me 5DS R, but first I will invest in a better light source, and then perhaps I could try f8.

 

 

As for the "flat earther" thing I am very much planning to return to flat earth sometime this year when I will start shooting, on a very limited basis, 6x6 Velvia 50. As I mentioned in my post this film produces colour to me, that surpasses what a DSLR and ACR and Photoshop can do. I would not make the return if not for a very unique lens/camera combo that cannot be duplicated on my 5DS R.

Edited February 25, 2019 by John Crowe

[Ed_Ingold]

Silverfast (Lasersoft) now has a USAF style resolution target in card form for use on any flatbed. Previously, they had only transparency targets, which required flatbed scanners with backlight, and only as close as the thickness of the mount.

 

Optimum Sharpness: the brand-new SilverFast Resolution Target for Flatbed Scanners

 

"Flat Earther" was intended to poke at those who think film is coming back, with all the accouterments, including dedicated film scanners. There are still a few outrageously priced film scanners, Hasselblad and Scitex to name a couple, but it's time to look forward to new methods which will be with us for the foreseeable future, at a price we can afford.

 

The official FE's had a convention recently, which included globes which looked rather like a vegan pizza. The continent of Antarctica served as the crust. Their "globe" does not explain why one cannot traverse the continent, rather only travel Antarctica by coastline (iceline), and the South Pole does not exist, in their view. The fact that stars appear to rotate around Polaris is explained by a rotating firmament, like a planetarium light show. At the South Pole, a similar rotation occurs around Sigma Octantis at zenith, rather than at the horizon in the FE model.

 

It's easier to believe in a new Kodachrome.

[Dave Luttmann]

Silverfast (Lasersoft) now has a USAF style resolution target in card form for use on any flatbed. Previously, they had only transparency targets, which required flatbed scanners with backlight, and only as close as the thickness of the mount.

 

Optimum Sharpness: the brand-new SilverFast Resolution Target for Flatbed Scanners

 

"Flat Earther" was intended to poke at those who think film is coming back, with all the accouterments, including dedicated film scanners. There are still a few outrageously priced film scanners, Hasselblad and Scitex to name a couple, but it's time to look forward to new methods which will be with us for the foreseeable future, at a price we can afford.

 

The official FE's had a convention recently, which included globes which looked rather like a vegan pizza. The continent of Antarctica served as the crust. Their "globe" does not explain why one cannot traverse the continent, rather only travel Antarctica by coastline (iceline), and the South Pole does not exist, in their view. The fact that stars appear to rotate around Polaris is explained by a rotating firmament, like a planetarium light show. At the South Pole, a similar rotation occurs around Sigma Octantis at zenith, rather than at the horizon in the FE model.

 

It's easier to believe in a new Kodachrome.

 

Sorry Ed....I misinterpreted what you meant.

[Ed_Ingold]

No, you were correct to say something if I came up short. My mind runs faster than my fingers, which leaves gaps in my logic.

[Harald_E_Brandt]

Hi again!

I am the original poster, i.e the creator of this thread, where I first posted an article about my own camera scanning setup, and then an article about optimising the aperture. The camera I used was a Canon EOS 7D and a Canon EF-S 60/2.8 macro lens. I wrote that if I buy new equipment, I would post a new article.

 

Now I own a Canon EOS 80D, and a Sigma 70 mm f/2.8 DG Macro Art, now mounted on a rail.

 

I have written a long article again, comparing the previous equipment with the new one, using the same slides for comparison regarding color, sharpness, shadow performance etc. It's pretty long, pretty deep, pretty technical, but I am pretty certain that many people will find useful information there.

 

I have also included a fair amount of my conclusions and my personal recommendations.

 

Here is the article on the new camera scanning equipment: http://photo.bragit.com/CameraScan/80D_CameraScan.shtml

 

Best Regards

[ray .]

I guess I’m weird because I love scanning film. It’s like waiting for the image to show itself in the darkroom to me. It’s a step in the process of delayed gratification that is part of what makes shooting film enjoyable.