Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-19-2015, 04:16 AM   #1
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leuven
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 65
film scan quality

Hi all,

I'm new to film, and I just got back my first roll (Fuji XTRA 400 ISO), developed and scanned at the local shop.
I'm not happy with the scanned results. The scans have a resolution of around 1800x1200, but what bothers me the most is the "color noise".
Is this amount of "color noise" normal? Is this a bad scan, or this is how it should be due to the ISO 400 film?
The pictures are 100% crops.

Compared to these, ISO 3200 on my K20D is better

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
SP-2000  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
SP-2000  Photo 
07-19-2015, 05:27 AM - 1 Like   #2
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 53
1800x1200 pixels? That's just a tad over 2 MP. Surely they could scan it with higher resolution? Maybe that's the problem? Film scanned at 6400dpi should be about 8300 pixels wide. File you got will print only 6x4 at 300dpi. You'd probably be better off taking photos of the film with K20D.
07-19-2015, 05:31 AM - 1 Like   #3
Senior Member
Jens Lyn IV's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Ringsted, Denmark
Photos: Albums
Posts: 260
Mine was scanned at a higher resolution, so I've included a 100% crop from the original 3000x2000 scan, and a 100% crop from a downscaled 1800x1200 version.

I like my results; you may need to readjust your expectations. And, while I haven't tried them, there are probably better fast colour films than Fujifilm Superia X-TRA if grain is a concern.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
QSS-32_33  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
QSS-32_33  Photo 
07-19-2015, 05:36 AM - 1 Like   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,972
First off if you have never shoot film you will have to learn that so called grain is an inherent part of film's emulsion and will be visible in higher magnification. Having said that - many films, especially cheaper emulsions will have much more pronounced grain than higher quality films. Also higher ISO will introduce more noise. Another thing to remember is that film needs to be properly exposed , preferable over exposed slightly to avoid noise in shadow areas. Finally scanning is a crucial part and can greatly reduce or improve the image quality of film.

Anyway if you are afraid of noise and you don't really like the film look that is coming through properly exposed emulsion, and you'd rather enjoy more the plasticy look of high iso CMOS sensors - then I suggest you stick to digital , because grain and noise is what MAKES film photography, as opposite to digital , where noise especially is just additional negativity introduced by imperfect technology of current sensors.

07-19-2015, 05:55 AM   #5
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leuven
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 65
Original Poster
Thanks for your replies!
I was aware of grain, I just didn't know what to expect! Now I guess I know
I like the way my MX works and I liked my first roll, so I'm sure I'll continue, just with a bit different expectations.
For sure I will try to scan it at higher resolution, but looking at samples that Jens Lyn IV gave, I don't think it would help much.

I still plan to compare the film's dynamic range with my K20D as well, but so far I always forget to take both cameras with me.
07-19-2015, 06:59 AM - 2 Likes   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,972
QuoteOriginally posted by soti Quote
Thanks for your replies! I was aware of grain, I just didn't know what to expect! Now I guess I know I like the way my MX works and I liked my first roll, so I'm sure I'll continue, just with a bit different expectations. For sure I will try to scan it at higher resolution, but looking at samples that Jens Lyn IV gave, I don't think it would help much. I still plan to compare the film's dynamic range with my K20D as well, but so far I always forget to take both cameras with me.
I don't think you should settle on anything mediocre with film ! Film is a large part of my photography, and although I mainly went for BW now, a high quality film , well exposed and scanned will give you impressive detail with very well controlled noise. Here is one sample of Ektar 100, scanned at 5400 dpi ( it gives around 50 MP - yes, fifty mega pixels) - and when scaled down to 20 it will astound you with image quality, maybe even exceeding what some current digital sensors can produce. But there is much more to film than just resolution. It is mainly colour / tonal range that attracts people to it. Also longevity of medium, no to mention the excitement of delayed gratification or uniqueness of rendering / field of view .. I suggest you get a GOOD film ( Ektar 100 or Portra 160, or 400 are one of best) and try that
Below an example of full shot NOTE, there is NO NOISE REMOVING applied to these scans ! Note this was shoot probably at f2.8 so wide open, not even close to an optimum f5.6 ! And also the lens, the DA XS 40mm f2.8, which in theory shouldn't even work this good on film


Last edited by manntax; 07-30-2015 at 02:33 AM.
07-19-2015, 09:20 AM   #7
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leuven
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 65
Original Poster
Wow, manntax, this is a nice example!
I will try to get some of the films you mentioned. Last week I bought some Ilford FP4 and HP5, to try some BW film as well
But for sure I will search for a better scanner!

07-19-2015, 09:36 AM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,348
Agree. Film's resolution can be very high. The perception that resolution is low comes from looking at grainy low end films. manntax's example is a good one, especially with Ektar. You can easily get 16-20 MP images from 135 film. If a lab is giving you anything less than you are throwing away data.
07-19-2015, 10:17 AM - 2 Likes   #9
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
Here are a few bullet points:
  • As noted above, grain is supposed to be there. How much grain and how it appears depends on the film you use. Some films are quite grainy, others not so much.
  • Electronic noise, while possible, is usually not a prominent feature of negative scans
  • Machine scans from the minilab are seldom very good. See below for details.
  • The scan resolution (number of megapickles) is not an indication of scan quality. I regularly scan at 1200 dpi and get better results than the OP shared above.
  • As with optical enlargements done in the darkroom, the single greatest determinant of reproduction fidelity is the quality of the optical path. This includes focus, lens(es) and film flatness.
  • The second greatest determinant is initial image processing.
  • The third greatest determinant is the quality of the original negative (huh?)
Way back in about 2009, I started shooting film again and soon became discouraged with the quality of the scan results I was getting from Costco. Despite being 8 megapickle images, they often appeared grainy, had poor contrast and just looked yucky. Why should this be?

In theory, the minilab results should be pretty good. Rather than being a scanner per se, they use a detector that is essentially similar to that in a digital camera. There is a lens, a light source, a detector and an image processor. There are several PF members who use their dSLRs in similar manner with good results and also several PF members that actually own Pakon (Kodak) F-135 commercial scanners with which they can scan a full roll very quickly and with which are very happy. Clearly something is amiss with either the minilab machine or how it is operated.

Back to my personal history. I did some careful evaluation of my negatives and also tried several different local drug, variety, and big box stores having minilabs (yes, I do have a choice...luck me). Here is what I found:
  • There was evidence of poor (inadequate) development at my local Costco. I lay that to inadequate attention to developer replenishment and machine maintenance. Target and Walgreens did a much better job with the negs.
  • All of the minilab scans suffered from digital processing artifact (more below)
  • Few of the people running the machines were capable of intelligently overriding the default digital processing
The way it was explained to me is that the minilab scanners are optimized to work with average quality negatives (e.g. crummy) to produce nice looking prints from the minilab printer. This means that all images have automated curve adjustment, additional sharpening, additional smoothing (grain reduction), and saturation boost applied. For those labs where the tech was savvy enough to turn that stuff off, the scans were actually pretty good.

My solution went like this:
  • I bought a decent dedicated 35mm film scanner
  • I started using a local pro lab for all my processing. The price is about the same as the drug store, but the quality much better. I can also request my negatives back uncut and unsleeved.
  • I learned the fine points of scanning film
My first scans were a revelation. The images were beautiful! This was even true with the scanner running with auto exposure and auto contrast. With time, I got even better results as I learned the limitations of the scanning process and the data that can reasonable extracted from negative. I won't spend any time suggesting comparison to either my K10D or K-3, except to say that resolution is not my first consideration when choosing 35mm film vs. the K-3.

So...Why do the minilab scans suck? My conclusion is that the sharpening, smoothing, and saturation adjustment is applied with inadequate finess. I have found that things work best if the initial scan is made with no sharpening, fairly flat contrast, and no saturation boost, with any adjustments applied in post-processing (Lightroom). It is in PP that the difference between a scan and straight digital capture become evident. Scans are much more "brittle" in PP, meaning that artifact appears much more readily. This is probably because of how the image is structured* and is particularly true of sharpening. If one attempts to smooth grain using noise reduction the results get truly yucky. Curve adjustment generally works pretty well. Saturation adjustment requires a gentle hand.

So, what are the practical solutions for today's film shooter wanting a hybrid workflow?
  • Buy a high quality scanner ($$ - $$$$) and scan your own --or--
  • Use minilab scans for proofs and a custom scanning service for the better shots --or--
  • Buy a lower quality scanner for proofs and use a service for the better shots
FWIW, the third option is not a bad one.

I hope all this helps.


Steve

* Image structure on a scan is a difficult thing. With color, what we see on the scan is an interpretation of dye clouds in the various layers of the negative. The size and uniformity of those dye clouds affects the "graininess" of the scan. It is not so simple as "photographing" the dye cloud or grain clumps. Both are beyond the scanner resolution.

Last edited by stevebrot; 07-19-2015 at 11:02 AM.
07-19-2015, 03:44 PM   #10
CJC
New Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 24
QuoteOriginally posted by manntax Quote
I don't think you should settle on anything mediocre with film ! Film is a large part of my photography, and although I mainly went for BW now, a high quality film , well exposed and scanned will give you impressive detail with very well controlled noise. Here is one sample of Ektar 100, scanned at 5400 dpi ( it gives around 50 MP - yes, fifty mega pixels) - and when scaled down to 20 it will astound you with image quality, maybe even exceeding what some current digital sensors can produce. But there is much more to film than just resolution. It is mainly colour / tonal range that attracts people to it. Also longevity of medium, no to mention the excitement of delayed gratification or uniqueness of rendering / field of view .. I suggest you get a GOOD film ( Ektar 100 or Portra 160, or 400 are one of best) and try that
Below an example of full shot and crop of the same frame scaled down roughly 1/2. NOTE, there is NO NOISE REMOVING applied to these scans ! The sharpness is amazing - look how detailed are tiny hair inside his nostrils ! Note this was shoot probably at f2.8 so wide open, not even close to an optimum f5.6 ! And also the lens, the DA XS 40mm f2.8, which in theory shouldn't even work this good on film


Good point about the color and tonal gradation. As a long time portrait & wedding photographer using medium format, the dawn of digital brought many challenges and still cannot come close to film. I have learned to travel heavy and use slave flashes bounced into umbrellas wherever possible to get the results I want to achieve. Film was good enough with the right on bracket flash alone. I recall my thoughts as digital came into widespread use - what a shame, Kodak finally produced their best portrait films (as you mention Portra) and now it's on its way out. It was a vast improvement over VPS. Fuji's last attempts (NPS160, NPH400) were pretty good but tended towards more orangish tones than the Kodak. I actually have proofs from the late 60's? that my Dad did with CPS film and that was a great film - then Kodak regressed for a while after that until they got it right with Portra .
07-27-2015, 11:10 PM   #11
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 6
I think that after using Digital capture and the lovely clean smooth files it produces it can be a shock when capture becomes film and scan and the resultant picture displays grain especially with Black and White Negs. In my experience when we see grain on screen it never prints out as prominent as it looks. The scan you show is to small in res, it looks like it has been over sharpened in the process of scan or PP, Colour noise is quite normal and easily removed, I open my scans into Adobe Raw and simply remove the colour noise. A lot depends on how a Negative is scanned, a lot of variables and certain adjustments are necessary to acquire a good scan, a lot of labs will simply get them done quickly with no thought of quality, best way to go is scan your own and keep complete control of the workflow/
07-30-2015, 02:06 AM   #12
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Adelaide
Photos: Albums
Posts: 82
Homemade neg-slide scanner

It's just a compact digital camera (Canon A550) pointing through an achromatic lens serving as a closeup lens to the neg. The lens is available from Surplusshed http://www.surplusshed.com/finder.cfm
Diam40mm FL 100mm (or there abouts will do) ~$14. Go for a "cemented" one for convenience .



I just insert the negative into the card slot, adjust zoom, set to 7mp, and shoot with 2 sec timer to allow vibrations to settle. Sometimes a bit of custom exposure is required for optimum result. I can snap through a 6 neg strip in about a minute! Beats the excruciating wait per scan in commercial home scanners.

The rig is aimed at a blank white computer screen set at nominal ~6000k color temperature (especially for colour scanning). Here is an example scan (actually a snap) of a 35mm frame taken on Ilford FP4 (125iso) with a Olympus OM1.



The image was imported to GIMP, reversed (to make positive) then adjusted for contrast etc. 7mp accommodates the FP4 grain size more than adequately though I'd reckon the result might look better at higher mpx's. The darkened vertical streak running through sky in centre of image turning to light streak on the water is a developing flaw in the neg not in the rig setup.

Will post some color neg and slide "scans" soon.

Martin
07-30-2015, 11:52 AM   #13
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,234
Different films and different scanning methods can offer vastly different quality results.

Fuji Sensia 400 scanned with Coolscan at 4000dpi compared to full frame DSLR Sony A900 @ ISO400 with similar subject and cropping size. I had taken the Sensia shot years before the A900 was even announced.

Full res version Fuji Sensia 400_01-33 vs Sony A900 @ISO400


Kodak 400UC scanned with Coolscan
Full res version Kodak 400UC


Fuji Pro 400H scanned with Coolscan
Full res version Fuji Pro 400H
07-31-2015, 12:49 PM   #14
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
Different films and different scanning methods can offer vastly different quality results.

Fuji Sensia 400 scanned with Coolscan at 4000dpi compared to full frame DSLR Sony A900 @ ISO400 with similar subject and cropping size. I had taken the Sensia shot years before the A900 was even announced.

Full res version Fuji Sensia 400_01-33 vs Sony A900 @ISO400
The scan vs. FF digital is very telling, first from the perspective of scan quality and second to show how the two media differ when digitized. Thanks for sharing.


Steve
07-31-2015, 02:20 PM   #15
Veteran Member
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 962
At this point, for me, it's about tonal transitions and film still wins. It probably will for awhile yet. PacificImage Electronics makes a couple of Primefilm scanners, the XA works well for me, ymmv; both are capable of good final results and certainly for proofing before sending out to a lab for printing.

Last edited by MD Optofonik; 07-31-2015 at 02:33 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
film, film scan, iso, photography, scan, scan 35mm film
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help for printing Scan from 35mm film Mary Lippold Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 10 07-14-2015 03:38 PM
Question about scan quality: gain something by specialized scanner? rbnvrw Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 14 07-01-2015 11:54 AM
Scan quality JohnInIndy Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 60 03-28-2012 03:54 AM
MF scan, processing & film recommendations pacerr Pentax Medium Format 10 10-22-2009 09:59 AM
Who Process/Scan/Prints Your Film? k100d Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 14 09-04-2009 08:56 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:50 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top