[BigMackCam]

This is my setup. KP with DFA 100 macro and Manfrotto BeFree. Negatives also work as well as slides. I use my Epson scanner film holder. If this is done properly it's superior to and faster than the flatbed scanner.

Nice use of the flippy screen! I don't often wish for such a feature, but this is a perfect (if uncommon) example of where it can be very useful

[Henrico]

I put a thread on this a few years ago: My best methodology for film scanning with RAW-camera - PentaxForums.com

When I sold my Coolscan V after have scanning many thousands films and slides ,I sometimes want to digitize some for what I use my digital cameras (K-01, K1ii). I puzzled a workflow for that that I shared on his forum.

The latest Coolscans with 4000 dpi and ICE are great tools, still very wanted on marketplace and Ebay. But when you use clean negatives and slides, the results with dslr scanning are very competitive. As well for IQ as for processing time,.

I hope this thread is helpful for you.

[y0chang]

This is my setup. KP with DFA 100 macro and Manfrotto BeFree. Negatives also work as well as slides. I use my Epson scanner film holder. If this is done properly it's superior to and faster than the flatbed scanner.

Some really good ideas here, I have most of the gear here. I will see on using my HDMI video monitor and using my Epson scanner holders.

[LesDMess]

Interesting. Thanks for the link. His is basically a more optimised equivalent of my own in terms of hardware. He's using a better film holder and a flash as a light source (much stronger, allowing a much faster shutter speed - very helpful), and has some degree of automation - but the essence of it is the same. I wonder what software he's using to convert negatives, and for dust removal... Do you happen to know?

Dust and scratch removal is valuable, and I'd love to have some method of automating it - but I think it's worth noting that ICE, whilst undoubtedly very effective and time-saving, isn't without cost in terms of image quality. Everything I've read, and the examples I've seen online, suggest that it results in some softening and/or loss of very fine detail, including the natural grain of the developed film. Depending on personal requirements that may not matter, could actually be a good thing, or might be unacceptable. The other thing is, of course, that it only iworks for colour films... So with B&W, we still need a method for dust and scratch removal. I understand Photoshop has some functionality to assist with dust removal, but from what I've seen, it still requires a great deal of user involvement...

If you look at his profile page, he has his business website posted there - Simple Photography Services
Interesting to see costs for 1 frame of 35mm. At least I think these costs are for 1 frame of film I may be wrong about this.

• Supersize 35mm 8192 X 5460 pixels $12.99
• Basic post processing - adjust exposure, white balance, remove most visible dust $10.00
• Premium post processing - basic plus removal all visible dust $20.00

Interesting to distinguish most visible vs all visible dust I thought. When I start spotting my prints or scans, all dust are visible.Given these prices - and the volume of work, I bet most don't opt for this service.

Also, I wonder if this includes scratches too since he only states dust? In my example of the perfectly scratched and dusty Kodak 160VC - courtesy of Fuji Professional services when I had a 20" X 30" enlargement done, I will probably get charged extra to clean that up . . .

---

Last edited by LesDMess; 12-30-2021 at 10:18 AM.

[y0chang]

The technology of scanning has not evolved since the early 2000s. Unfortunately even using the best equipment, its still using basically the same process as the same days of Pentium processors and floppy disks. The Nikon Scan software that you can still download from Nikon is divided up by folders into floppy disks. Its even worse when you get into more esoteric technology, 120 Scanners use firewire interfaces which were developed in the 90s.

[stevebrot]

Regarding ICE, of course there are many implementations of it and curiously enough Nikon apparently got the best of it

I just read the Wikipedia entry on Digital ICE and it touches on both the base technology and the incremental enhancements. I found it terse, but interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_ICE


Steve

[LesDMess]

I just read the Wikipedia entry on Digital ICE and it touches on both the base technology and the incremental enhancements. I found it terse, but interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_ICE


Steve

Way back when and in another forum, a group of us compared results from Canon, Minolta and Epson users - didn't know about the Kodak and Fuji equipment listed in that Wiki link. Canon was not ICE - they called it FARE. The Minolta 5400 took very long time - upwards of 30 minutes per frame! The 5400 II was much quicker although slower then the Coolscan V. Epsons were not as slow as the Minolta but more then double the Nikons. The new Epson V850 is quicker but still slower then the Coolscan V. When it comes to ICE on Kodachrome, the Coolscan+Nikonscans were simply the fastest and best quality. This shows the effects of ICE on Kodachrome.



The anomalies are most visible between areas of dark and light. Epson is obvious, Coolscan 5000 very tiny and can't be seen unless at very high magnifications while the 9000 is perfect.

[stevebrot]

The technology of scanning has not evolved since the early 2000s. Unfortunately even using the best equipment, its still using basically the same process as the same days of Pentium processors and floppy disks. The Nikon Scan software that you can still download from Nikon is divided up by folders into floppy disks. Its even worse when you get into more esoteric technology, 120 Scanners use firewire interfaces which were developed in the 90s.

I bought my Nikon about a decade ago and the Epson a few years later. Apparently things have changed since you last considered dedicated photo scanners and their features. Yes, things did change a lot between then and the early 2000s.

My Super Coolscan 5000 ED came with its software on CD and is a USB 2.0 device capable of scanning (unattended) a full 36 exposure roll of negatives at a time. Quite famously, it also features Digital ICE Professional. I use my Epson V700 Photo for 120 roll and 4x5 sheet film, though it has film holders for 35mm (not recommended), 35mm slide, 120 roll film and 4x5 sheets. Like the Nikon, the software came on CD. It supports USB 2.0, but also supports Firewire as an option for Mac users requiring such.

Both scanners are attached to my main workstation running Windows 7 (conscious choice). Note that the drivers for both work nicely on Win 10. (I use a popular and well-known modified driver to allow Win 7 compatibility on the Nikon.)

Translation? There is nothing hokey or backward about my decade-old hardware and definitely not with the better current market offerings for dedicated film scanners. Getting similar results for other than 35mm would be a challenge*, both technically and in terms of throughput.


Steve

* I am able to do 35mm to APS-C at present, but lack an adequate copy stand and lighting setup to do roll film at present.

[y0chang]

FYI, I own a Coolscan V and I love it even if its almost 20 year old technology.

Even though it came with a CD, its software was still divided into floppy disk partitions. If you go to Nikon's website, the zip that you download is the same way.

Nikon discontinued their scanners in 2004. If you find plustek or other scan companies, while they may have more modern software, the actual hardware hasn't changed in 20 years, but you could say the same thing about printers or flatbed scanners.

[titrisol]

I wonder if pixel shift will help in "scanning"
I've been happy with an old bellows/slide copier from the SP days

[TwoUptons]

I wonder if pixel shift will help in "scanning"
I've been happy with an old bellows/slide copier from the SP days

The short answer is yes.
Better color fidelity across the frame...

-Eric

[wkraus]

I wonder if pixel shift will help in "scanning"
I've been happy with an old bellows/slide copier from the SP days

The long answer is, yes, a lot! It helps also with resolution and to reduce artifacts such as grain aliasing.

[wkraus]

This is a worst-case comparison of a resolution target on paper: Pentax K-3 III, Sigma 70mm 1:2.8 EX DG Macro at f/6.3, the same frame demosaiced in Adobe Camera Raw in Pixelshift (left) and standard mode (right). If you want to judge the sharpness you will have to download the image.

[BigMackCam]

I wonder if pixel shift will help in "scanning"
I've been happy with an old bellows/slide copier from the SP days

As others have said, yes - it will help... but only if you need it. If all you're going to do is create smaller prints, or view the digitised images on a PC monitor, then the extra image capture time, card / disk space and processing considerations are of debatable benefit. At the moment, I'm choosing to digitise 35mm and 120 negatives with my old 16MP K-5 (with its physical AA filter). The captured negatives are lower in resolution and not as detailed or sharp as they would be if I used my K-3II in pixel-shift mode - but, all I'm doing with my converted negatives is viewing them on HD screens at normal working distances. For that, the K-5 is ample. If I was creating large prints, it'd be a different matter...

[Henrico]

You can expand as far as you want, but my experience was that with even the best film material I used (old Ektar 25 and 125, Gold and Superia generation 100, and the new Ektar 100) about 12 Mp at best can be extracted. I tried in my best images on unharmed filmstrips to get more out of it using 4:1 macro shots with extension tubes on aperture F8/F11 (sharpest aperture, some DOF through the film layers). But there was nothing in there. So my best filmstrips ended up in jpeg's of 4500x3000, the others in 3000x2000. That is very sufficient. Maybe the best slides and B&W go a bit further, but take in account that the SLR's and lenses that days also had their limitations in sharpness and focusing accuracy. The calibration between film flatness, mirror, frosted glass and AF sensors never was spot on, and at least you had to use the best lenses stopped down a bit to achieve the best sharpness anyway.