Now we need a Z version of the PS-4

[mike_halliwell]

your definition of "perfectly good

That's like defining 'adequate' ..:)

 

It's entirely specific to the job in hand... AKA Good Enough.

 

There's no mileage providing a 16 bit 32 MB image for a single shot web-page.....;)

[BeBu Lamar]

I have a perfectly good scanner. It takes well over 1 minute to do a full res scan, then add tinkering about time in post to get the colour right. There's also no manual adjustment for exposure, nor any way to fine tune the AF. Plus the lens is probably set to a sub-optimal aperture.

 

Apart from that, it's wondetful! (Add irony emoticon here)

I have scanner too and I am happy with it except that it take over a minute to scan. For slides I don't need much tinkering either using camera or scanner but for negative using the camera takes much more work. I can adjust exposure and color balance manually (which I always do) with the scanner software.

Using the camera I can do one in about 1 sec but if one uses focus stacking no more time saving here. So the only attraction of using the camera method is speed which focus stacking negates it.

[mike_halliwell]

So the only attraction of using the camera method is speed which focus stacking negates it.

The scanner method doesn't flatten the slide in the mount....so what gives?

[rodeo_joe1]

Sub optimal lens, no exposure nor focus adjustment...

You need to reconsider your definition of "perfectly good".

Then name a scanner that offers those features.

 

Whereas my Illumitran + digital camera can do all that and more - for example; sub-stage filtering to neutralise the mask colour of a negative, plus contrast control via a 'fogging' screen. Where's the scanner that offers those facilities?

 

And BTW, I said sub-optimal aperture, not lens. Please don't misquote.

Edited December 20, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

[rodeo_joe1]

I can adjust exposure and color balance manually (which I always do) with the scanner software.

I think you'll find that the actual exposure (I*t) remains exactly the same, and all that the scanner software enables is a digital brightness adjustment which does nothing to lower shadow noise. Same with the colour balance.

 

Also a digital camera-copy of a colour negative can be imported into Vuescan or other automated software to give a quick-N-dirty positive. But I've yet to see any scanner software that reliably gives better than just acceptable results from colour negs.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Then name a scanner that offers those features.

 

Whereas my Illumitran + digital camera can do all that and more - for example; sub-stage filtering to neutralise the mask colour of a negative, plus contrast control via a 'fogging' screen. Where's the scanner that offers those facilities?

 

And BTW, I said sub-optimal aperture, not lens. Please don't misquote.

Coolscan and Flextight scanners, for instance. Full control.

 

I also have an Illumitran. What's so great about those? Scanners are slow, yes. But do their work better.

 

Quote: "Plus the lens is probably set to a sub-optimal aperture.", "The lens", right?

[q.g._de_bakker]

[...] But I've yet to see any scanner software that reliably gives better than just acceptable results from colour negs.

You really need to shop around a bit.

[rodeo_joe1]

Coolscan and Flextight scanners, for instance. Full control.

Not so. Read the specs of the Coolscan.

You really need to shop around a bit.

How about some pictures to support your point of view then Chewbacca?

 

See, we can all get personal and use puerile name-calling. Clever isn't it? :rolleyes:

 

Here's a comparison, from colour negative, between scanner and digital camera copy.

 

Which is which? You decide.

[conrad_hoffman]

Different, but not enough to shake a stick at. I don't see why a scanner should be superior anyway. I see a handful are still made but most are 35mm only, save for flatbeds that IMHO aren't optimal for 35mm. And they're darn expensive just for my 2 1/4 and 4 x 5 negs. The great scanners of the past aren't in production anymore. The hardware is old and probably degrading. The software is old and unsupported. They're seriously slow. Heck, my dad has a film scanner, plus an entire old computer running an obsolete operating system because that's all the software can run on. A modern camera will have the best image sensors ever made. It's near instant. You can't fault the image quality if the setup is good.

[mike_halliwell]

I guess there's a 'known' resolution beyond which it's pointless to go for each film type?

 

I assume this is irrespective of film format?

[q.g._de_bakker]

Different, as Conrad said, but also nonsensical. What you show, Rodeo, is the result of processing. Again, BS. Waste of time.

 

Read the specs? No need. Decades of experience.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Different, but not enough to shake a stick at. I don't see why a scanner should be superior anyway. I see a handful are still made but most are 35mm only, save for flatbeds that IMHO aren't optimal for 35mm. And they're darn expensive just for my 2 1/4 and 4 x 5 negs. The great scanners of the past aren't in production anymore. The hardware is old and probably degrading. The software is old and unsupported. They're seriously slow. Heck, my dad has a film scanner, plus an entire old computer running an obsolete operating system because that's all the software can run on. A modern camera will have the best image sensors ever made. It's near instant. You can't fault the image quality if the setup is good.

Yet, Conrad, 100 MP sensors are rare. You can get quite a lot out of those 4x5s. More than you get using any Nikon dslr.

[mike_halliwell]

More than you get using any Nikon dslr.

No one said you have to do it in one go....;)

 

How many DSLR (35mm) 1:1 scans does it take to cover a 5 x 4 neg with enough overlap to stitch 'em together?

[q.g._de_bakker]

No one said you have to do it in one go....;)

 

How many DSLR (35mm) 1:1 scans does it take to cover a 5 x 4 neg with enough overlap to stitch 'em together.

How much time is then saved compared to scanning that 4x5"? ;-)

[mike_halliwell]

4x5"

Depends on who has actually got a 5 x 4 scanner don't it?

 

... and I suppose what the final requirements of the aforementioned scan are?

 

I mean, it's a bit OTT for Instagram...:p

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yes, for Instagram using a 6 MP dslr to copy a 4x5" would be way too much already.

But if so, why this discussion?

[mike_halliwell]

But if so, why this discussion?

Because not everyone (anyone?) is digitising for Instagram...:)

 

I, personally, have much higher resolution needs.... sometimes of a much smaller, discreet area from a 5 x 4 B/W neg or trannie.

 

Colour neg work is just a PITA, that's just correct to taste.

[q.g._de_bakker]

So why mention Instagram?

Anyway, it is possible to get high quality scans from 4x5" too. Multiple, smaller, takes, and stitching (including colour and tone grading) may work well, yes. And given that scanners that take a negative of that size and do a decent job are rare and expensive, the advantage of DSLR copying is clear. Not faster. Not better. But the more accessible option.

[conrad_hoffman]

So what do you people do with these hi-res images? 60" monitors? Printers that can handle posters? Bringing back the Kodak Colorama? I'm all in favor of resolution, but there's a limit to how I can display it. It honestly didn't occur to me to stitch the 4x5, but now I'm convinced the camera is the way to go, and I don't even have a high MP camera.

[Mary Doo]

So why mention Instagram?

Anyway, it is possible to get high quality scans from 4x5" too. Multiple, smaller, takes, and stitching (including colour and tone grading) may work well, yes. And given that scanners that take a negative of that size and do a decent job are rare and expensive, the advantage of DSLR copying is clear. Not faster. Not better. But the more accessible option.

Coolscan 9000.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Coolscan 9000.

Excellent scanner. Just as the earlier 8000. But neither does 4x5". 6x9 max (or stitched 6x18 cm max).

Edited December 21, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

[Mary Doo]

Excellent scanner. Just as the earlier 8000. But neither does 4x5". 6x9 max (or stitched 6x18 cm max).

Think it does but one needs to buy the film holder. https://www.filmscanner.info/en/NikonSuperCoolscan9000ED.html. Read 4th paragraph of "Equipment and accessories". Also this article has a list of links to other scanners on the left - maybe there's something useful pertinent to the discussion.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Mary Doo

[q.g._de_bakker]

Think it does but one needs to buy the film holder. https://www.filmscanner.info/en/NikonSuperCoolscan9000ED.html. Read 4th paragraph of "Equipment and accessories". Also this article has a list of links to other scanners on the left - maybe there's something useful pertinent to the discussion.

I own and use both 8000 en 9000 models since they were introduced, and no: no 4x5". Roll film (120 or 220) really is as wide as they take.

You may want to read the text you linked to. ;-)

 

The options for 4x5" are a flatbed (Epson or Agfa. Canon too?), a Flextight, or a drum scanner. Flatbed produces usable, but suboptimal results. Flextight is better, but more expensive by quit a lot. A drum scanner is something professional service providers can invest in, but provides the best result (not just from sheet film).

Edited December 21, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

[mike_halliwell]

So why mention Instagram?

I was simply using it as an example of there's no point going to all this trouble from a 5 x 4 neg/pos if it's use is only Full HD, at most. The sledgehammer to crack a nut principle... overkill!

 

I'd guess even a modern phone with the 5 x 4 on a little lightbox would be just fine.

[conrad_hoffman]

Did some comparisons between the 105 Z macro and the 55 AiS Nikkor. Learned that it was harder than I thought. I had trouble getting the alignment to the target good enough and my copy stand isn't really rigid enough. Target flatness is a huge issue. Thus, I won't post any of the imperfect stuff. What I can say is both lenses out-resolve the Z6. If they differ in the corners, my alignment isn't good enough to prove one is better than the other. I like the working distance of the 105 mm and that you can just set it to 1:1, whereas the 55 requires messing about with extension tubes or bellows, but that aside, I can't convince myself there's any huge difference in image quality with a Z6. Maybe a Z7 would tell a different story. Or a Z9.