newindustar

"2. A top-quality, 6 element enlarging lens - Rodagon, Componon-S, El-Nikkor, Minolta CE, Neonon, etc. - is the most cost-effective way to get a suitably flat-field copying lens."

 

Yes, I have an 80mm Schneider-Companon enlarging lens, as well as a 50mm El-Nikkor, and I have adapters that fit them to a Canon bellows that in turn fits to a Nikon F-mount. They make no difference when copying my negatives, because they make no difference when enlarging the same negatives in a darkroom. The limitation isn't the lens' flat-field rendering; it's the film flatness, as you point out.

 

When enlarging 35mm negatives in a darkroom, achieving equal sharpness across the whole field is equally difficult. Normally I aim my grain focuser about one-third away from center to achieve approximately uniform sharpness across the whole print. And I do get sharp grain in the center and corners unless the negative is badly warped. But I stop down to f/8 or f/11 to ensure it. (And also to give me time to burn and dodge with consistency from print to print; I prefer exposures in the 30-45 second range.) When the subject matter is centered in the frame and I don't care so much about the corners, I'll aim the grain focuser at the center. Basically I do the same when focusing my DSLR on the negative or when focusing my Nikon CoolScan.

 

Could I achieve better film flatness with a better holder? The metal "frying pan" film holder of my Beseler 23C enlarger is already pretty good. The Nikon ES-2 film holder for my DSLR is about the same. I don't have room for the elaborate copying rigs I see here, and I have little to gain by using them. My inkjet prints are as sharp as my darkroom prints from the same negatives. The film grain is sharp, and the grain is the picture.

 

I'm not making poster-size prints from pristine film. Mainly I'm rescuing old negatives (and slides). My greater problems are badly faded colors, scratches, embedded dust, torn film, discoloration on b&w film, vinegar syndrome, fungus rot, and even film emulsion that's separating from the base. The tiny tiny difference of diffraction sharpness between f/5.6 and f/11 is the least of my worries.

 

My guess is that most people who are using a DSLR to "scan" film don't have the room, skills, or inclination to build elaborate copy stands using the best possible equipment. They want a simpler solution that's 99% as good. It doesn't get much simpler than a DSLR, macro lens, and Nikon ES-2 film holder (that isn't limited to Nikon cameras and lenses). It's fast, it's easy, and it solves the problem of aligning the lens to the film (because it's all one unit). And it's a viable alternative to a dedicated 35mm film scanner.

Well haven’t had a lot if time but although once I saw equivalent sharpness with the micro 55.2.8 on my enlarger rig but after scanning a few rolls on the Coolscan IV it was consistently sharper. That was at f8.. I will do my next comparison at f11. This was done with the D7500 and magnified live view focusing. This was all done with Vuescan both on the NEF files and scanning. I’m finding Vuescan doing nef conversions the match quite well to the nice scans which us a huge boon. Sharpening was turned off when scanning the negs. Dust filter on light. Workflow so far much faster with scanner if neg conversion and dust cleaning factored in. Only about a minute per frame. I do a low rez preview and autofocus just at scantime. I have the strip loader so minimal film handling. With camera scanning my film holders are very good belonging to a Minolta Multi Pro which I have and is higher res and probably sharper than the 2900 dpi Nikon scanner.

I finding some interesting exposure related issues when scanning in the nef files in Vuescan if anyone is interested or experienced in using Vuescan for neg conversion.

This is what I ended up with. Added a stabilizer to the inverted lamp head. I bought the same 100 watt led in daylight. No Idea if it makes a difference at this point. The good news my shutter speed is up to around 1/250 and I was able to achieve similar resolution to the Nikon scans. I had better luck with the D7500 than D3400 using the Micro 55. The exposure simulation and touchscreen are nice.

I also realized I am missing a condenser lens but the one I have seems ok for light diffusion

As far as color my various neg conversion attempt have not matched the scanner but that’s a whole other endless topic.

Yes but with the 66 limitation

Omega B-66 is the more modern update to the famous B-22 enlarger. Like the B-22, it can handle multiple film formats from 35mm to 2¼"x2¼", but it's revised lamphouse design provides easier access to the condenser lenses and lamp.

 

I’m happy to have it covering as large a film as it does. And I now have an excellent bright light source.

I’m now in a much better position to experiment between this rig and the Coolscan for 35mm thanks to everyone’s feedback.

 

I am still unclear on the effect if different temps of the bulb either the Omega bulb I have or a led. Specifically I guess it’s a CRI question of different bulbs. I had some good response about the led lamps but still a little uncertain.

 

Could anyone say I should go shopping for a daylight led bulb? Also I haven’t been able to determine the characteristics of the Omega bulb I have as mentioned previously. Id like to know what my Omega bulb was intended for.

 

Does the temp or other aspect of the bulb make a big difference in negative conversion or positive film reproduction?

Especially with big jumps say between 2000k 5000k 7000k? Of course Um wondering about the camera white balance setting also.

I’m thinking a daylight bulb and daylight setting on the camera but not sure. The 100 equivalent household led I mentioned seems significantly brighter than the 75watt Omega bulb

 

Once I resolve this lamp question I can get started

 

Thanks[/QUO

Yes but with the 66 limitation

Omega B-66 is the more modern update to the famous B-22 enlarger. Like the B-22, it can handle multiple film formats from 35mm to 2¼"x2¼", but it's revised lamphouse design provides easier access to the condenser lenses and lamp.

 

I’m happy to have it covering as large a film as it does. And I now have an excellent bright light source.

I’m now in a much better position to experiment between this rig and the Coolscan for 35mm thanks to everyone’s feedback.

 

I am still unclear on the effect if different temps of the bulb either the Omega bulb I have or a led. Specifically I guess it’s a CRI question of different bulbs. I had some good response about the led lamps but still a little uncertain.

 

Could anyone say I should go shopping for a daylight led bulb? Also I haven’t been able to determine the characteristics of the Omega bulb I have as mentioned previously. Id like to know what my Omega bulb was intended for.

 

Does the temp or other aspect of the bulb make a big difference in negative conversion or positive film reproduction?

Especially with big jumps say between 2000k 5000k 7000k? Of course Um wondering about the camera white balance setting also.

I’m thinking a daylight bulb and daylight setting on the camera but not sure. The 100 equivalent household led I mentioned seems significantly brighter than the 75watt Omega bulb

 

Once I resolve this lamp question I can get started

 

Thanks

I did find the temp of the Omega bulb. 2900. I look at various enlarger bulbs and they are similar. I’m wondering if those being designed for printing paper are not necessarily the best for film digitizing. I’ll look for specs for high end digitizing lightpanels to see what they are using

Yes but with the 66 limitation

Omega B-66 is the more modern update to the famous B-22 enlarger. Like the B-22, it can handle multiple film formats from 35mm to 2¼"x2¼", but it's revised lamphouse design provides easier access to the condenser lenses and lamp.

I’m happy to have it covering as large a film as it does. And I now have an excellent bright light source.

I’m now in a much better position to experiment between this rig and the Coolscan for 35mm thanks to everyone’s feedback.

I am still unclear on the effect if different temps of the bulb either the Omega bulb I have or a led. Specifically I guess it’s a CRI question of different bulbs. I had some good response about the led lamps but still a little uncertain.

Could anyone say I should go shopping for a daylight led bulb? Also I haven’t been able to determine the characteristics of the Omega bulb I have as mentioned previously. Id like to know what my Omega bulb was intended for.

Does the temp or other aspect of the bulb make a big difference in negative conversion or positive film reproduction?

Especially with big jumps say between 2000k 5000k 7000k? Of course Um wondering about the camera white balance setting also.

I’m thinking a daylight bulb and daylight setting on the camera but not sure. The 100 equivalent household led I mentioned seems significantly brighter than the 75watt Omega bulb

Once I resolve this lamp question I can get started

Thanks

If you have a packaged light source, it makes sense to use it. However light for slide copying doesn't need to be complex.

 

Any light source which approximates a "black body" (Planck's) spectrum can be easily managed with white balance. Thermal sources like incandescent bulbs are a natural choice, but more and more LED sources are just as suitable. Mercury-fluorescent lamps generally have irregular spectrums, unless specially formulated. Lamp-base replacement bulbs use an ultraviolet LED to excite a phosphor mix which closely approximates incandescent bulbs, except for a spike at 480 mmicrons in the near ultraviolet which has little effect on the color. I use a 60 W (equivalent) daylight bulb of this sort in a desk lamp, bounced off a slanted white card for better distribution.

 

I have a small Lumicube light panel with a CRI 95 rating I plan to try this weekend for a slide copying party with my adult son.

Thanks for that info. Today I took the Omega B66 lamp head and set it upside down on the copy board. I have a 100 watt equivalent 1800 lumen household bulb and screwed it in. It happened to be a soft white. Probably in the 2000 -3000 k temp range. Instant bright light source! I found right away how the convex glass lens piece spreads the light evenly much brighten than my old panel which I have no specs for. I could shop for a daylight temp led anywhere which is supposed to be around 5000k. Or a cool white would the daylight led be best being closest to D5000 proofing standard?

My disappointment however is the Omega head seem to only cover 645 or 66 max due to vignette and the physical size limitations of condenser lens if that is the correct term. Great light source for 35mm and 645. I just set my Minolta film carrier right on the upside down head. Everything square. But no 67 or 69 film So I am probably looking at panels again.

Negative Supply

Sunray Box III Panorama + Negative/Slide Holders (Camera Scanning Starter Kit) - Lightbox For Slide & Negative Film Scans

One of the things the Nikon does best besides ICE is the neg to pos conversion. I just scan with no color correction at all in Viewscan and open it in Gimp and do auto white balance and it comes out great or use levels with eyedroppers.

Trying Raw Therapee neg converter. Otherwise Nikon NX-D and flipping the levels then converting the raw to tiff or jpeg and trying to deal with the blue cast in Gimp Not very successfully unfortunately. Nikon Coolscan does it better

You are essentially correct, that the camera, lens and ES-1 are a single, rigid unit which does not disturb the focus and alignment if used with due diligence. It is not necessary to mount it on a tripod, even for exposure times of 1/4 sec or longer, again using due diligence.

 

The ES-1 (or ES-2) is held in position by friction only. It can rotate on its tube, and the tube length (hence focus) can shift if bumped hard enough. It is easier to keep the ES-1 square if you rest the assembly on a table, since it rotates more freely than it slides. I keep the magnification slightly less than 1:1, and check the focus from time to time using focus magnification (Sony A7iii or A7Riii) using the focusing ring on the lens. Centering the slide in the holder and keeping it straight is the hardest task in practice. I should add keeping the slides free of lint is easily done using a conductive brush for that purpose. A couple of downward swipes on each side does the trick.

 

I have several micro fiber brushes for cleaning sensors which could be used for slides. In that case you spin the brush on a motorized handle, which cleans it and imparts a static charge which literally sucks up lint. I have not found it necessary to go to that extreme, nor do I use canned "air", which is a form of Freon. If you have no inhibitions against melting polar ice and flooding islands in the Pacific, go ahead and use it.

 

I'm considering buying a small copy stand for copying documents larger than fit on my scanner. IMO, it would be a waste of time for copying slides, and less stable than a slide holder attached to the lens.

 

Regarding building vibrations (you live next to a freight elevator?), it would have no effect on the ES-1 arrangement. The column of a copy stand (or repurposed enlarger) is rigidly mounted to its base. The key is to isolate the base from the building, which can be done with engineered flexible isolators, or resting on three tennis balls arranged in a triangle. Cut them in half for greater stability.

Regarding the 111 year old house it’s just the wooden floors will induce vibration if anyone is moving around with some creaking and groaning as well. I did a quick setup with the Sony A6000 with the 55 Micro Nikkor on a Kiwi adapter. I realized the mirrorless has some workflow advantages with realtime viewing. Very simple in shutter priority. I don’t know it’s 24 MP sensor is any better or worse in this application compared to the Nikons.

At any rate at f8 my light source is only capable 1/10 sec Sony or Nikon. So I have been looking at better panels.

Before I go that route I’d like feedback on using the Omega lamp head. It currently has this Omega bulb.

Omega #471-038 PH140 75W 120V Condenser Enlarger Lamp

I know nothing about enlargers or which bulbs for color vs BW etc

The head has a clear glass plate and a lens

The bulb is standard base. Any ideas on bulbs or how bright with the idea of getting faster shutter speeds?

You might consider making a fitting to bridge the two plates with a mount for the camera - could be wood even - then you could position the camera with the monitor facing you. Done well, and that not difficult, you'd be level both ways.

Well I found without the bellows everything was flimsy. My separate garage is currently at sub zero f so I had to make do with what I could find in the house. First I reinstalled the bellows assembly then found this rigid cast bookshelf mount which I mounted as shown in the pic. I drilled a hole and robbed a screw from a junk tripod. I squared it with a stick between 4 sides of lens barrel and light box and it’s quite square. I identified two other issues one being my 110 floors shake easily and the other the 1/10 sec shutter speed. I switched to my 18-55 AFP VR and autofocus and things improved markedly.

I was confused why shutter speed and f stop didn’t seem to be affecting exposure as expected and I didn’t want such a long exposure because of shake.

I’ve been learning more about Live View which really had never used much. First is LV stops the lens down for obvious reasons. Then I discovered on my D7500 I can do exposure preview in LV. I don’t know if the D3400 has this. I know the 18-55 is quite sharp especially with VR. It’s possible it may compare favorably with the 55 micro. That remains to be seen.

I was under the impression that the D3400 had an advantage over the D7500 metering with AI lenses but can’t find why now. The D7500 certainly wins with AF lenses seeming to provide full functionality

I will return to the copy stand with the micro with and my better understanding of LV and see If I can get a faster shutter speed.

I actually have 3 camera choices. The two Nikons and a Sony A6000 with Nikon adapter also 24 MP. Any feedback on these three cameras as best for film digitizing would be appreciated.

I certainly see the value in the ES2 or 1 for 35mm. To get the complete ES2 kit with film holder a bit of an investment. I haven’t researched them completely.

Tossing medium format into the mix adds complexity thats for sure. Regarding the Omega Enlarger I removed the lamp head and also bellows unit. The D3400 fits neatly between the bellows arm. Drill one 1/4 hole for bottom screw and i could have a usable no cost rig. I would have to square in one direction but instead of two but should not be an issue. Any idea if It would for work for medium format film with the 55 2.8. Theres a lot of vertical range on the enlarger

I use my Nikon CoolScan V-ED for color slides and color negatives because Digital ICE saves me hours of fixing dust spots and scratches. (Most of the film I'm scanning is very old and wasn't always stored properly.)

 

 

 

Digital ICE doesn't work on silver-based b&w negatives, so for those I use a Nikon D7200 DSLR, Nikkor 40mm f/2.8 macro lens, and Nikon ES-2 film holder. The 24MP D7200 makes copies at 4,000 dpi, same as the Nikon scanner. Because the ES-2 film holder works by diffused light (either flash or ambient), it minimizes dust and scratches, though it doesn't eliminate them altogether. Careful cleaning before scanning removes most dust unless it's embedded. Because the ES-2 screws directly into the macro lens filter ring, alignment isn't a problem, and no tripod is necessary. In fact, you can make sharp copies in ambient light, handheld at slow shutter speeds, such as 1/10 second if necessary.

 

I stop down my 40mm lens to f/11 despite advice that the optimum aperture is around f/5.6. By *actual test*, I get better results at f/11. The difference in center sharpness between f/5.6 and f/11 with my lens is invisible at 24MP, but the corners are much sharper at f/11. (The film grain is the giveaway.) The reason is that the film rarely lies absolutely flat, even when clamped in the ES-2 film holder. Film curvature is particularly a problem with the negatives I'm copying, which are usually 30 to 75 years old.

 

Predictably, someone will insist that I'll get better results at f/5.6, but they haven't used my rig, and I have. Probably they get better results at around f/5.6 with their setup. In any case, I recommend making your own tests at various apertures to see which one works best for you.

I use my Nikon CoolScan V-ED for color slides and color negatives because Digital ICE saves me hours of fixing dust spots and scratches. (Most of the film I'm scanning is very old and wasn't always stored properly.)

 

Digital ICE doesn't work on silver-based b&w negatives, so for those I use a Nikon D7200 DSLR, Nikkor 40mm f/2.8 macro lens, and Nikon ES-2 film holder. The 24MP D7200 makes copies at 4,000 dpi, same as the Nikon scanner. Because the ES-2 film holder works by diffused light (either flash or ambient), it minimizes dust and scratches, though it doesn't eliminate them altogether. Careful cleaning before scanning removes most dust unless it's embedded. Because the ES-2 screws directly into the macro lens filter ring, alignment isn't a problem, and no tripod is necessary. In fact, you can make sharp copies in ambient light, handheld at slow shutter speeds, such as 1/10 second if necessary.

 

I stop down my 40mm lens to f/11 despite advice that the optimum aperture is around f/5.6. By *actual test*, I get better results at f/11. The difference in center sharpness between f/5.6 and f/11 with my lens is invisible at 24MP, but the corners are much sharper at f/11. (The film grain is the giveaway.) The reason is that the film rarely lies absolutely flat, even when clamped in the ES-2 film holder. Film curvature is particularly a problem with the negatives I'm copying, which are usually 30 to 75 years old.

 

Predictably, someone will insist that I'll get better results at f/5.6, but they haven't used my rig, and I have. Probably they get better results at around f/5.6 with their setup. In any case, I recommend making your own tests at various apertures to see which one works best for you.

Just a quick question. I have used the Nikon bellows and slide attachment on a tripod, I have used a Canon Scanner and I have used the ES1 on the 55mm 3.5 Micro Nikkor with several FF bodies. All the results have been quite satisfactory some faster, some slower to execute. If the lens and ES-1 are firmly mounted on the camera, and the slide is held firmly (as it is) by the ES-1, subject and camera are essentially a unit, how can any reasonable camera movement effect the outcome? I have shot quite a lot of slides with the ES-1 hand held using a light box without any movement problem.

Yes. Fix the filmholder firmly to the macro lens and use flash as the illuminant.

 

There are three type of Nikon device that allow this, as well as other, much cheaper, third-party gizmos.

 

Here, for the umpteenth time, are pictures of said gizmos.

 

This one is (was?) sold under various names - Sunagor, Panagor, etc.

[ATTACH=full]1374213[/ATTACH]

 

This is a converted Nikon ES-E28 on my D800.

[ATTACH=full]1374212[/ATTACH]

And if you really want to go to town.

[ATTACH=full]1374214[/ATTACH]

A Bowens Illumitran. The Honeywell Repronar is similar.

 

Quite honestly, just resting a filmholder on top of a light-box, and then trying to hold your camera steady and parallel to it isn't going to get the best results. A tripod doesn't help much, because it's almost impossible to get the camera perfectly squared up to the film.

 

24 megapixels is plenty to get extremely good camera copies - provided the setup is rigid and square enough.

 

Here are side-by-side 100% crops from a 3600 ppi filmscanner, and a digital copy from a 24 megapixel camera. From a colour negative BTW.

[ATTACH=full]1374216[/ATTACH]

If it wasn't that the camera copy had more magnification, I'd be very hard-pressed to tell them apart.

 

Here are two more at full frame.

[ATTACH=full]1374217[/ATTACH]

I think the top one is the camera copy, but I've actually forgotten which is which.

 

Oh, nearly forgot. With a decent lens and a good filmholder you shouldn't need to use a smaller aperture than f/5.6 ~ 6.3. Smaller than that and you lose out to diffraction.

Hi thanks for the feedback. I admit my quick test wasn’t very rigorous. I could only eyeball the squareness. I did use a 10 sec shutter delay with the tripod to reduce shake as my exposure was 1/10 sec. My light box isn’t so bright.

It so happens that I have an Omega Pro -B66 enlarger. Quick read online showed that if one had two adapter parts one can convert this to a copy stand. I am not sure if I would end up with the right parts from ebay or if the investment would be worth it. At the moment my 35mm Nikon scans with ICE are good Converting the Omega would be more useful for medium format.

Any feedback about the Omega conversion would be helpful. What about illumination?

Hello. I haven’t been on here in some years. Ive retired now so have some time for film digitizing.

I have a lot of film around that will be a surprise to find what’s on it.

So I did a comparison test shooting color neg and Kodak Bw400 c41 BW neg. i first used a 20 mp Nikon D7500 but the used the 24 mp Nikon D3400

Nikon Coolscan IV is 2900 dpi using Vuescan scanning software.

Camera and scanner tiff files were similar in size but final test shot raw.

Lens was a Micro Nikkor 55. F2.8. Which allowed me to fill the frame with no extension tube thanks to the DX sensor

I used a fluorescent light box about a foot away from camera. I used an excellent 35mm film holder from a Minolta zMulti Pro. F stops tried between 5.6 to 11. Focused using LiveView magnified

I used Self timer to delay shutter release by 10 seconds tripod of course

The winner in sharpness was not surprisingly was the Coolscan

I could make a comparison that the camera scan might be equivalent to an Epson flatbed but don’t have on setup now

I didn’t do any sharpening on the raw file.

Any feedback would be appreciated. Is there anything I could do better? What has your experience been? Thanks

<p>Here's some quick feedback.</p>

<p>Canon Scangear vs Epsons with various softwares.Mostly based on 120 neg film so far.</p>

<p>Canon better tonality, better preservation of highlights.<br>

Canon serious ICE issues absent but FARE not as effective on dirty film as ICE. Highest Fare setting results in very little softening, ICE softens more. Fare much more effective than Vuescan IR cleaning on dirty film. Fare has no artifacts issues and can tolerate more sharpening. Fare does not react badly with the same films that reacted very badly with High or low ICE on V700 (with certain films), or single ICE issue on 4870 (with certain films), a different issue than V700 ICE issues.</p>

<p>Conclusion Fare fewer issues than ICE but will let you down if film not fairly clean to start with, cannot handle hairs etc..<br>

Canon Scangear single level sharpening very usable but have to be careful with additional post sharpening. Epson scan- time sharpening better leave off on Epsons especially with ICE on.</p>

<p>Canon sharper than either Epson on 120, undecided on 35mm.</p>

<p>Canon far less sensitive to height, better depth of field which starts at the glass to a generous amount upwards, Epsons to0 sensitive to height and flatness, especially the V700, 4870 superior in this regard.</p>

<p>Horrible having to have PS tied up with Scangear while scanning and no standalone scangear.</p>

<p>Canon faster than 4870 and possibly V700 when loaded up with 120, high res, cleaning, 48 bit etc. on 120, but unduly slow on 35mm.<br>

Color controls limited on canon but color is good anyway.</p>

<p>I had done so much trying to get the best of both Epson 4870 and V700 on 120, the worst issues were ICE related. I had the 8600 new in a box so did not want to open it. Finally out of desperation with the Epsons I did and and found it better than both Epsons on 120, quite surprisingly as they get so little press and the Epsons get all the attention. Of course now I wonder if the 8800 might be even better but now I have the open box 8600. On 35mm I am still not sure if I prefer the Epsons or the canon, one would think 120 or 35 would be the same but I am not sure yet. of course my Nikon Coolscan is better than all of the on 35mm.</p>

<p>That 8600 vs 8800 is an elusive discussion. Thanks for your feedback on the 8600.</p>

<p>Has anyone worked with both of these to compare?</p>

<p> I Googled quite hard on this and cannot find much. Of course I know the 8800f has the no warm-up time lamps. Usually hte conversation is vs Epson models.</p>

<p>Mostly intereted in sharpness and other image quality for MF and 35mm. Stand alone software would be nice, hate having to tie up PS while scanning.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>I just got another medium format, a Mamiya 645 Pro TL so am compelled to get something I like out of these scanners as well.</p>

<p>I just have Silverfast AI which has the option to scan HDR. Scanning HDR sort of tosses out the Negafix benefit but the scans do seem cleaner if haeder to balance post inversion. I really like the color fromm the flatbeds. Some very bad things happen with ICE from time to time however.</p>

<p>Regarding your examples I appreciate the difference of the film scanners over the flatbed. The problems with flatbeds is it not often possible to sharpen them adequately post with out raising up artifacts espicially ICE induced ones. Sommetimes on an absolutely optimal flatbed scans I prefer them over dedicated despite the softness. Your film scanners are better than what I have to work with however. I have a 2900 dpi Coolscan IV. That scanner came off pretty well in one of the scanner bakeoff and it is quite good. I often consider if I should trade it in for a 4000 or 5000 or a Minolta 5400 however. My other is a MultiPro not known for excellent neg scans.</p>

<p>I often consider selling off all my scanners and just getting a 9000. Any advice on this quandry would be appreciated.</p>

<p>How do you feel these days regarding film scanning ve the newer digicams?</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback Les. Scanning posts seem to get less interest than they used to. I realize I put out some seemingly contradictory info here but on my last post I'd hoped to clarify. These flatbeds are often not very repeatable and all scanners are rather sensitive to the particular film and even frame.</p>

<p>There are a couple of particular points I feel are consistent however.</p>

<p>1. from my post;<em> "I need to be clear, this was not extracting more detail from the film as I went higher than 1900 but it was able to scan optically it appeared, with out losing the sharpness and detail it had at 1900".</em><br>

<em>It was obvious that at 100% viewing the scans higher than close to 2000 were blurring. I found the cause for this to be related to film flatness. If the film was in the end position thus held on three sides the sharpness was consistent up to 6400. The resolution sensitivity was only happening typically on frames near the unsupported ends. My V700 is very sensitive to flatness. My 4870 is less so and combined with the 4870 holders which I prefer over the V700s, the 4870 can be as sharp on average. I think the V700 has a tad more if the frame height is just right.<br /> </em></p>

<p><em>2. "I found the V700 began pixelating above 3800 on the diagonal. I could see there was more res in one direction than the other based on pixelation. It is much less obvious on less distinct areas. This was a better indicator of resolution and stepping motor than just sharpness. I don't know how repeatable this will be"</em><br>

<br /> On later tests the pixelation and stairstepping often is not evident up to 6400, and it requires a sharp line of distinct color distinction to see it anyway. Interaction with monitor resolution has to be wtched as well. For this reason I believe the scanner has the resolution required to not pixelate not interpolate up to 6400. There is a very fuzzy point regarding the difference in sharpness vs resolution. It seems to me these scanners may have the resolution while lacking sharpness. Normally they are considered one in the same by I am not so sure, just as a dedicated scanner which has the real resolution can be out of focus.</p>

<p><em>3. </em> On many frames the slight lack of sharpness is almost a blessing on negs for the the much prettier and smoother tonality provided. If sharp scanners could just deliver film grain sans noise.<em><br /> </em><br>

<em>4</em> . To concur with your point I agree the film often has no more info to deliver or it is obscured by the grain and noise. However if the scanner is actually blurring that is a problem.<br>

If one is looking at the grain structure amidst the noise, even if not very sharp, one can tell if there is more there or not. It is not as if these scanners cannot show grain. I actually have a better appreciation for these scanners after all this. I like what they do with color better than the couple of film scanners I have.</p>

<p>5. I have found scanning negs as HDR in Silverfast gives less noise and a little better sharpness after inversion and correction. Negafix seems to introduce a lot of noise at times.</p>

<p>I am going to add to this as I discover more.</p>

<p>I did a spot check on an image I was working on and found I was back to the sharpest around 2000 again. I found what I expected, the film on one end of the frame I was working on was not supported by the holder and it was bowed. My original finding was supported, resolution sensitivity is dependent on focus/depth of field.</p>

<p>Next I rigged up a glass holder and height adjusted it for optimal sharpness on the same image. The sharpness resolution dependency went away and not nid not lose sharpness all the way up to at least 6400, I forget about 9600.</p>

<p>I did find something interesting however. I had an image with a nice sharp alloy wheel in it with distinct bright to dark edges. I found the V700 began pixelating above 3800 on the diagonal. I could see there was more res in one direction than the other based on pixelation. It is much less obvious on less distinct areas. This was a better indicator of resolution and stepping motor than just sharpness. I don't know how repeatable this will be.</p>

<p>I did determine for myself the V700 needs a glass holder, the depth of field is just to shallow to avoid it.</p>

<p>The 4870 seems to produce good results without glass holders and I am able to get 4800 and maybe 6400 with no loss in sharpness or pixelation although 4800 seems optimal.</p>

<p>Thnaks for the feedback Dan.</p>

<p>Well I carefully ran the test again on the V700, hours worth of work and got different results. It was a different image. The first set of tests were on two different images but the results held with Silverfast and EScan on both the 4870 and V700 so it was pretty convincing.</p>

<p>This second test was first run with the latest Vuescan demo, different image however. I did not get the blurring this time. I was able too hold my 1900 res sharpness results all the way up to 6400! 12800 was obviously interpolated. There was no loss of sharpness and no pixelation like I have seen with EScan at higher reses.</p>

<p>I was very surprised and thought ah, "Vuescan knows how to talk to this scanner". I thought I had arrived at the answer, it was software limitations!</p>

<p>Being the dedicated tester I am, I reran the test on the same image without disturbing the holder with Silverfast SE and EScan (latest versions) and both gave similar results to VueScan, i.e holding sharpness up to 6400.</p>

<p> I was confounded. Nothing worse than getting non-repeatable results after much work!</p>

<p>I need to be clear, this was not extracting more detail from the film as I went higher than 1900 but it was able to scan optically it appeared with out losing the sharpness and detail it had at 1900.</p>

<p>Actually 1900 was irrevalent the second go around. It was just a pretty linear increase in filesize with no increase in detail after about 2400 but no <em>loss</em> in detail all the way to 6400. I know it was scanning this in as I compared all the steps by resampling in Ps. This time the PS resamples were softer than the scans which was not the case the first time.</p>

<p><br /> <br />Dan I am at a loss to explain the difference in the tests, and they were done very carefully. This is where your comments and abouts flatness may enter in. This scanner has so little depth of field it seems likely the variation is coming in there. Maybe if a particular piece of film is right at the edge of the depth of field it becomes resolution sensitive. Iam running my at max height on factory holders.<br>

I don't know about the stepping motor resolution. The fact that I was able to use the higher reses successfully on at least one test may mean the scanner is capaple of higher res even if it cannot get more detail if this makes more sense. They are not necessarily the same issue.</p>

<p>It is possible the film often does not have much more to offer.</p>

<p>Detail was very consistent after about 2400 but it is very important to be able to scan higher res without artifacts and pixelation. This is a real film advantage digital folks like to gloss over.</p>

<p>This is the problem with Digital cameras, interpolation is the only way to get big. I resampled a D700 raw file from 35 meg tiff to 130 meg tiff (enough for a 20x30 at 288) and it was horrible even at iso 320, iso 3200 was disgusting. Even if there is not more real detail being able to scan bigger is still an advantage over software interpolation.</p>

<p>Now I'll have to rerun the test with 4870, not soon.</p>

<p>I also got the MultiPro working under Vuescan now so that 'll be interesting on the same frame the second V700 test was run on.</p>

<p>I have read so many of the posts claiming there is nothing else to be had above about 2400 dpi and I have always struggled with getting enough out of the V700 and 4870.</p>

<p>Of course I have done optimal height adjustment on the V700, which came out at max height on factory holders and at stock height on 4870.</p>

<p>I decided to test by 100 dpi increments all the way from 800 to 3200.</p>

<p>I found a very specific best sharpness at 1900 dpi with V700 with noticable fall off on either side such as 1800 or 1900. I also compared to the standard multiples of 2400, 3200 4800 and 6400 and the 12800. to make it even more of a challenge for the 1900 I upsampled it to all the higher reses listed in PS and 1900 still won. Of the standard multiples 2400 and 4800 were the best but softer than 1900. 3200, 6400 and 12800 were poor.</p>

<p>I used Silverfastt SE latest version, and Epsonscan latest version and the results still held. resampling was done in CS3 bicubic smoother for enlargements.</p>

<p>On the 4870, 2500 was the sharpest dpi and I followed all the protocols above. I used Epson Scan and Vuescan for the 4870.</p>

<p>The 4870 was close or a just bit sharper than the V700 at their relative sharpest DPIs.</p>

<p>So I have joined the camp of all those who say there is nothing above 2400, many say the low 2000s.</p>

<p>The good news is I was able to do better than the standard multiples for some reason.</p>

<p>Anyone care to take the 100 dpi test? I'd be fascinated to hear the results.</p>

<p>Any comments on my test results would be very interesting to hear as well.</p>

<p>Doug- To be sure we are on the same page I am referring to Silverfase SE 6.6** which I just upgraded to yesterday.</p>

<p>I'll be darned if I can find an option for that anywhere. I know where it is in EpsonScan.</p>

<p>I did find on left side of the preview window a "Find Image Frames" that listed various film sizes but it is not clear if that is the same thing. There was an option to "copy frame resolution to all frames" I'd hate to be doing all this testing on a inappropriate focus as many have done in Epson Scan.</p>

<p>With Epson scan I am well aware of the area guide vs film holder sharpness issue. I don't see a menu to select this in Silverfase SE. Is it automatic based on selection size and location on the preview?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>I recently was able get Sam's Club to give me 8 megapixel Frontier scans. I also found a place to get Agfa D-Lab 3 6 megapixel scans. I was surprised as I never was offered such high resolutions before from mini lab. The Agfa was cleaner in terms of the crosshatch pattern mentioned but they were scanned a bit light and they would not adjust to get more density. Neither would turn off the compression.<br>

Neither was as good as Nikon Coolscan IV, maybe as good as V700 but different look. V700 tends to get a lot of sparkly color noise probably electronic from 35mm negs. I always like the color from V700.<br>

I just discovered the hi-rez pixel level pixelation that always put me off on the V700 with Epson scan went away with Silverfast SE 6.6, big jump in confidence here.</p>

<p>ICE is another culprit in introducing artifacts, at least with Epson scan, still testing with Silverfast.. I tried the new SRD software dust and scratch removal feature in Silverfast. It gets you away from ICE artifact issues but is hard to use.</p>

<p>I spent a lot of time with Velvia yesterday on this scanner and came to the conclusion it requires too much post sharpening because the capture is too soft. I find it much easier to get sharp results with negatives.</p>