Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-02-2017, 02:41 PM   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: WA, USA
Posts: 469
QuoteOriginally posted by timw4mail Quote
So, I'm rather baffled. Any suggestions on how to get some better scans?
Based on my experience I suggest trying DSLR. Long ago I used Nikon LS-2000 and Minolta Dimage II. I do not know the current generation of scanners. Last year I photographed few negatives using K-3. Output was way better than Scanner output, but it showed the scratches that were present on negatves. Scanners had a feature called ICE, and it is responsible for hiding scratches. Note that ICE is not free, it comes at the cost sharpness. In way I do not miss ICE because scratches adds to nostalgia

12-03-2017, 10:31 AM - 2 Likes   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,257
QuoteOriginally posted by pentaxfall Quote
Based on my experience I suggest trying DSLR. Long ago I used Nikon LS-2000 and Minolta Dimage II. I do not know the current generation of scanners. Last year I photographed few negatives using K-3. Output was way better than Scanner output, but it showed the scratches that were present on negatves. Scanners had a feature called ICE, and it is responsible for hiding scratches. Note that ICE is not free, it comes at the cost sharpness. In way I do not miss ICE because scratches adds to nostalgia
As the saying goes, "There is no such thing as a free lunch."
DSLR scanning is much faster per frame then all desktop scanners I have used but it also comes at a cost - especially when it comes to using it with color negatives. Besides the equipment to do it right, there is not an inconsiderable amount of time required for post processing.

This is an example of a crop from a badly mishandled frame of 35mm Kodak 160VC scanned via my Pentax K20D+macro+autobellows system with post processing to get the colors close to right compared to fully automatics scans from my Coolscan with and without ICE.


Full res version -> Kodak 160VC-06-36 K20D vs 9K ICE

No other pre or post work was done to the Coolscan results except for combining the images - no sharpening, no color adjustments, no levels. Of course the Coolscan's 4000dpi far exceeds the resolution achievable by a 14.6MP K20D.

I consider myself pretty good with post work but there is no comparing what it it took for me to post process my DSLR capture to the Coolscan which takes less than a minute using fully automatic settings. It is possible that you have a far better workflow, but I have been keeping tabs on this and seen others - and their results, and I have not seen any faster/better then my own

Of course there is a cost to getting these kinds of results . . .
12-03-2017, 01:56 PM   #18
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,257
QuoteOriginally posted by timw4mail Quote
So, I'm rather baffled. Any suggestions on how to get some better scans?
QuoteOriginally posted by timw4mail Quote
I've uploaded an album of the raw scans (to jpeg) from CyberViewX (the bundled software) at maximum quality everything. (CyberViewX Scans ? imgbb.com)

Looking at slides on a lightbox can trick the eye. Those images - for the most part, definitely look very dark and have very high contrast and it looks like the scanner is trying to bring up the dark areas too much. Image004, 009, 024, 031-036 look very attainable. Have you tried having some frames scanned on another scanner or in a minilab using a Noritsu machine?
12-03-2017, 04:08 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 320
The only way that DSLR scanning may improve over a quality dedicated film scanner is if you use a 2:1 or ideally more flat field lens or a good macro and shoot sections of the image and stitch together. Digital cameras are not able to resolve anywhere near their megapixel resolution and are probably only capable of reaching around 50% max of potential resolution (Bayer sensor) therefore your 24 MP DSLR is only able to resolve the equivalent of 12 MP (ignoring any pixel shift advantages)

It appears that the OP's Pacific scanner is in fact a rebadged Reflecta 10? - (far from the cheap scanner I was imagining). By all accounts a very capable scanner and one that on specification will give the Nikon 35mm scanners a good run for the money:

Setting 5000 dpi these scanners are able to achieve a true resolution of around 4100 - 4300 dpi; a little better than Nikon which can reach around 3,900 dpi resolution from a 4,000 dpi max. The claimed 10,000 dpi is a bit of marketing hype as this will be interpolated image without any further benefit in resolution and of course a significant increase in file size

The claimed dynamic range of the scanner is around 14 EV again similar to Nikon.

Looking at the slides on a light box should not trick anybody and is a standard way to view this type of image; If you can see detail on the lightbox then you should be able to easily bring out detail in the scan with this particular scanner.

Unfortunately the OP has not yet returned with any reports about rescanning and altering the scanner output. So a question:
As it was stated that the slides looked fine when viewed and as this not reflected in the two links shown how did the images actually appear by lightbox or window light - below are two images selected from recent link.

Ignore the fact that colour/density may be off from desired look, this was a one minute fix. Does column 'A' represent how the slides appear when viewed normally or are they closer to column B?

Attached Images
 

Last edited by TonyW; 12-03-2017 at 04:17 PM.
12-03-2017, 04:38 PM   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
timw4mail's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Lansing, MI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,339
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by TonyW Quote
The only way that DSLR scanning may improve over a quality dedicated film scanner is if you use a 2:1 or ideally more flat field lens or a good macro and shoot sections of the image and stitch together. Digital cameras are not able to resolve anywhere near their megapixel resolution and are probably only capable of reaching around 50% max of potential resolution (Bayer sensor) therefore your 24 MP DSLR is only able to resolve the equivalent of 12 MP (ignoring any pixel shift advantages)

It appears that the OP's Pacific scanner is in fact a rebadged Reflecta 10? - (far from the cheap scanner I was imagining). By all accounts a very capable scanner and one that on specification will give the Nikon 35mm scanners a good run for the money:

Setting 5000 dpi these scanners are able to achieve a true resolution of around 4100 - 4300 dpi; a little better than Nikon which can reach around 3,900 dpi resolution from a 4,000 dpi max. The claimed 10,000 dpi is a bit of marketing hype as this will be interpolated image without any further benefit in resolution and of course a significant increase in file size

The claimed dynamic range of the scanner is around 14 EV again similar to Nikon.

Looking at the slides on a light box should not trick anybody and is a standard way to view this type of image; If you can see detail on the lightbox then you should be able to easily bring out detail in the scan with this particular scanner.

Unfortunately the OP has not yet returned with any reports about rescanning and altering the scanner output. So a question:
As it was stated that the slides looked fine when viewed and as this not reflected in the two links shown how did the images actually appear by lightbox or window light - below are two images selected from recent link.

Ignore the fact that colour/density may be off from desired look, this was a one minute fix. Does column 'A' represent how the slides appear when viewed normally or are they closer to column B?
Definitely column B. It seems like the scanner is scanning them like negatives, and sort of adding back the orange mask. The red levels are insanely high for some reason.
12-03-2017, 05:04 PM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 320
QuoteQuote:
Definitely column B. It seems like the scanner is scanning them like negatives, and sort of adding back the orange mask. The red levels are insanely high for some reason
Column B was what I was hoping to hear and sorry for asking such a basic question, but It was important IMO to establish your starting point.

Working first on the assumption that your scanner is functioning within normal parameters then this is a software issue and hopefully one that can be resolved by checking all software settings are set to turn off all automatic functions and make a manual pre scan of one 35 mm slide cropped to include only image area and adjusting exposure and curves as suggested in a previous post to achieve a look similar to column B prior to doing a full scan.

I am not familiar with the Cyber scan application but suspect it may be basic compared to Vuescan or SilverFast, however you should be able to achieve good results as a starting point. Once you can get a good single scan then you may want to revisit batch scanning but you will probably still have to prescan and adjust individual frames prior to committing to a real scan
12-03-2017, 06:37 PM - 1 Like   #22
Pentaxian
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,159
QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
Have you tried having some frames scanned on another scanner or in a minilab using a Noritsu machine?
This is not a bad idea, but know that Noritsu (and similar Fujifilm) scanners cost tens of thousands of dollars and will outperform in speed, bit depth, and dynamic range a portable film scanner.

However, a photo tech using a Noritsu that does not make any corrections in color or density can produce inferior results to someone tweaking a Nikon/Minolta/Plustek/Pacific with Silverfast/VueScan/etc.

I used to drive the minilab owner crazy because I would spend more time custom correcting scans. He wanted me just to hit the auto buttons and only fix things if the customer complained. I eventually left that field because of this type of mediocrity. For the most part, now there is much more attention to quality because pros still shooting film have high expectations. The local digital printing industry still has only average scanning quality.
12-03-2017, 07:04 PM   #23
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
timw4mail's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Lansing, MI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,339
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
This is not a bad idea, but know that Noritsu (and similar Fujifilm) scanners cost tens of thousands of dollars and will outperform in speed, bit depth, and dynamic range a portable film scanner.

However, a photo tech using a Noritsu that does not make any corrections in color or density can produce inferior results to someone tweaking a Nikon/Minolta/Plustek/Pacific with Silverfast/VueScan/etc.

I used to drive the minilab owner crazy because I would spend more time custom correcting scans. He wanted me just to hit the auto buttons and only fix things if the customer complained. I eventually left that field because of this type of mediocrity. For the most part, now there is much more attention to quality because pros still shooting film have high expectations. The local digital printing industry still has only average scanning quality.
The local Noritsu scans are what made me get my own scanner. The results were always too high contrast, and the dynamic range was rather sad.

12-03-2017, 07:43 PM - 1 Like   #24
Pentaxian
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,159
QuoteOriginally posted by timw4mail Quote
The local Noritsu scans are what made me get my own scanner. The results were always too high contrast, and the dynamic range was rather sad.
Their loss=your gain. Much more satisfying to DIY.

Once upon a time, employees couldn't touch a Noritsu until you passed a 2 week training program. Kodak sort of emulated that later with their Color Watch System. Daily tests, plots, charts, etc. The Macbeth Densitometer got tons of use. It is painful for me to drop a film off at a lab and see the lack of training. I just want to go behind the counter for a few hours, teach them for free, and then I can have more confidence.

My first manager was a Brooks Institute of Photography grad. I just found out last week, that iconic institution is no longer. Sign of the times.

All I can say is if you find a good lab, let management know you appreciate it.
12-03-2017, 09:00 PM - 1 Like   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,257
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
This is not a bad idea, but know that Noritsu (and similar Fujifilm) scanners cost tens of thousands of dollars and will outperform in speed, bit depth, and dynamic range a portable film scanner.

However, a photo tech using a Noritsu that does not make any corrections in color or density can produce inferior results to someone tweaking a Nikon/Minolta/Plustek/Pacific with Silverfast/VueScan/etc.

I used to drive the minilab owner crazy because I would spend more time custom correcting scans. He wanted me just to hit the auto buttons and only fix things if the customer complained. I eventually left that field because of this type of mediocrity. For the most part, now there is much more attention to quality because pros still shooting film have high expectations. The local digital printing industry still has only average scanning quality.
I find that the typical results from minilab scans - seems they run them fully auto for speed and cost , usually provides a brighter (sharpened and leveled) output when compared to my Coolscans. I figured an alternate scan can provide a second opinion given the cost if it were accessible to the OP.

The Noritsu operator at a local Costco worked with me a little bit to find that there is an autocorrect on/off option as well as provide much higher then usual resolution output - I recall 6000X4000 files. This provided less sharpening and less contrast which seemed more workable then usual.

---------- Post added 12-04-17 at 12:03 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by timw4mail Quote
The local Noritsu scans are what made me get my own scanner. The results were always too high contrast, and the dynamic range was rather sad.
I know what you mean. Here is an example of such a difference that you would think came from two different frames of Kodak Gold 100 when in fact it was the same frame.



I figure it is a cheap - if accessible, way to get a second opinion. Otherwise I would be willing to try scanning a few of your problem frames on my Coolscan and Epson just for troubleshooting/comparison if you are willing to send them my way.

Last edited by LesDMess; 12-03-2017 at 09:08 PM.
12-04-2017, 02:58 AM   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 320
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
This is not a bad idea, but know that Noritsu (and similar Fujifilm) scanners cost tens of thousands of dollars and will outperform in speed, bit depth, and dynamic range a portable film scanner.

However, a photo tech using a Noritsu that does not make any corrections in color or density can produce inferior results to someone tweaking a Nikon/Minolta/Plustek/Pacific with Silverfast/VueScan/etc.

I used to drive the minilab owner crazy because I would spend more time custom correcting scans. He wanted me just to hit the auto buttons and only fix things if the customer complained. I eventually left that field because of this type of mediocrity. For the most part, now there is much more attention to quality because pros still shooting film have high expectations. The local digital printing industry still has only average scanning quality.
Sadly just wanting to press the auto button and accepting whatever comes out seemed to be the standard from the vast majority of mini labs. During the heydays of mini labs I was involved in commissioning many. Unfortunately they were massively oversold and the buyers believed just press the button and the automatic results will make you a mint. The potential buyers were told many things including that if they did not buy business x on the same street would and not only could they loose business due to customers spending time there they were loosing profits. The vast majority of mini labs started by those without even a basic photographic clue and doomed to meet the statistics that more than 90% would fail in the first 18 months with only a small portion of the remainder surviving 3 years

---------- Post added 12-04-17 at 03:09 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
I find that the typical results from minilab scans - seems they run them fully auto for speed and cost , usually provides a brighter (sharpened and leveled) output when compared to my Coolscans. I figured an alternate scan can provide a second opinion given the cost if it were accessible to the OP.

The Noritsu operator at a local Costco worked with me a little bit to find that there is an autocorrect on/off option as well as provide much higher then usual resolution output - I recall 6000X4000 files. This provided less sharpening and less contrast which seemed more workable then usual.

---------- Post added 12-04-17 at 12:03 AM ----------



I know what you mean. Here is an example of such a difference that you would think came from two different frames of Kodak Gold 100 when in fact it was the same frame.



I figure it is a cheap - if accessible, way to get a second opinion. Otherwise I would be willing to try scanning a few of your problem frames on my Coolscan and Epson just for troubleshooting/comparison if you are willing to send them my way.
A great example of auto colour correction and a product that should not have been allowed out of the shop - auto system sees excess magenta attempts to correct resulting in an opposite cast. Taking a little care and attention with a DIY scan as shown paying huge dividends.

Last edited by TonyW; 12-04-2017 at 04:30 AM.
12-27-2017, 08:28 PM   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
timw4mail's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Lansing, MI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,339
Original Poster
So, I'm not sure if it's the scanner as much as the software, but I made another attempt to scan those slides with my new Epson V550 Photo, and got some better results: Epson V550 Photo Slide Rescans ? imgbb.com

There are still several trouble slides, but that's more due to obvious underexposure.
01-02-2018, 04:02 AM   #28
New Member
LSI_Horn's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 20
Trying Multi-Exposure like twilhelm suggested is a great way to improve your scans. The double exposition will result in more grayscales and should result in less color issues during processing.
It needs to be handled with care, but did you try adjusting the lamp brightness for the PIE scanner?
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!
auto, business, buyers, contrast, cost, difficulty, film, frames, labs, lot, mini, opinion, output, photography, post, quality, range, results, roll, scan, scanner, scans, slides, software
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Epson Scan and Windows 10 - can't change scanning mode to slides Arvid Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 31 09-14-2016 06:41 AM
Scanning of 35mm Slides with a DSLR sibyrnes Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 29 06-06-2016 08:15 AM
scanning slides and negatives for cataloging Murfy Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 6 12-28-2015 07:55 AM
What's the best option for scanning slides these days? UncleVanya Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 21 01-06-2015 09:55 AM
Scanning color slides? Oldschool Photographic Technique 15 01-24-2008 09:42 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:42 AM. | 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