Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-30-2008, 11:49 AM   #16
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 99
Yep, the IR dust removal has its limitations, all right. It also does not work on Kodachrome slide film! I have tons of old Kodachrome slides with perfect color -- the slides don't fade like Ektachrome. But I have to get those babies spotless before scanning and retouch afterwards. I have the Epson 2450 Photo, the Polaroid SprintScan 4000, and the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 with slide feeder (my current favorite). I also use VueScan -- it's great to be able to batch scan a bunch of pictures to RAW and then adjust them on a second pass.

03-30-2008, 12:36 PM   #17
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote
I love VueScan. I had been using it quite happily with my previous Epson scanner. The software that came bundled with the Epson was pure crap, especially for scanning black and white film. I downloaded it, ran the demo, and after about two or three scans went ahead and paid for it.

I e-mailed Ed Hamrick (the guy behind VueScan) last night for some help and was shocked to find that I had a reply literally within minutes. I expected to have to wait at least a couple of days.

The bundled interface that came with the 8800F isn't horrible...but VueScan is still much better in my opinion.
Great to hear...I too love Vue Scan
04-01-2008, 05:48 AM   #18
Veteran Member
pentagor's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 473
Original Poster
So here we go!

I tried to scan some images from a film. The pictures were made with Pentax MZ-7 and FA 28-80 lens.
After hours of experimenting with different settings, I decided not to use unsharp mask in the scan software, because it produced very noisy look. I used a dust removal option though. Then I came up with this. This is just a resized version of original, which was scanned at 2400 dpi.



Of course, this is not a good photo at all, so i did a little postprocessing:
1. croped the strange border away
2. added some contrast
3. reduced noise
4. resized the image
5. sharpened it

I came up with this:



Now, the questions:

1. What settings should I use in the scanner driver software, so the images would be higher quality? I have a Canon 8800F scanner and am using the software which came with it.
As you can see, there is also a problem with the border of the pictures (upper left), as the film would be shifted somehow, but it does appear on all scans the same way.

2. At which resolution should I scan the images, if I want them on my computer and internet. I know that monitor resolution is only 90 dpi, but I don't think, that I should scan so low. Or should I?

3. What technics do you guys use in the postprocessing for scanned images?

Please take a time and give me some advice, or otherwise I'll just throw my MZ-7 in the drawer and never touch it again. I love taking pics with film SLR, but if I cannot have decent scans, well then....

Thanks!

Last edited by pentagor; 04-02-2008 at 12:30 AM.
04-01-2008, 06:59 AM   #19
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,952
I usually scan 35mm film at 3200dpi with my 8800F and medium format at 2400. I go lower with MF for the simple reason that the video card I currently have installed is overtaxed trying to deal with monstrously huge images.

VueScan recommends using the JPEG reduction option, I believe. That would mean scanning at 4800, for example, and using a reduction setting of "2" would result in an effective scan of 2400 with a greater sharpness than if you had scanned at 2400 to begin with.

I also use the "multiscan" or "multipass" option set for 3 or 4 passes. It takes a bit more time, but it seems to help with pulling detail out of shadow areas. I would recommend giving VueScan a try (the trial version is free and easy to install) as it is generally more versatile than bundled software that comes with scanners....especially if you do any black and white work.

For post-processing, I do exactly the same things I do with images from a digital camera. If things are rotated a wee bit (from the film not being perfectly aligned in the holder or the holder not being perfectly aligned on the scanner), then it is an easy matter to do a rotation in post-processing to fix it. Then just crop things a bit to get the edges straight again.

Scan resolution and monitor resolution are unrelated. Scanning at 90dpi will yield very small images devoid of any detail. Scan at about 3200dpi and your MZ-7 will turn into a nice full-frame roughly 14 megapixel camera. I scanned in some medium format images (6x4.5cm) and got nice 20 megapixel images. I could have gone for 4800dpi and turned my 50+ year old Mamiya folder into an 80 megapixel wonder, but as I said earlier, my video card wouldn't like me.

Here's a recent 2400dpi medium format scan (20 megapixels) of a black and white image. Of course, what you see here is greatly reduced in size for net presentation, but the original is much nicer:




This was a rescan done with VueScan and came out much nicer than the first time I scanned it with the bundled software, in my opinion.

This is a 3200dpi scan of an image from my Pentax ME with a 50/1.7 lens:





04-01-2008, 07:19 AM   #20
Veteran Member
pentagor's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 473
Original Poster
Wow, thanks Mike, this was very usefull information. I'll try VueScan first and will see, what I'll get.
Thanks again!
04-16-2008, 07:32 AM   #21
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 71
QuoteOriginally posted by pentagor Quote
Not sure if this is the right topic, but I'm waiting for my MX-7 body and I also purchased a Canon 8800F scanner. I took some old films, shot with Minolta Dynax camera and tried to scan some pictures.
Here is one (River Themes - London, summer 2003):


Some post processing was done (saturation and sharpness). How do you guys get rid of this litlle tiny dust and hair on the film negative?
And, is it normal, that those scanned images are not sharp at all? Because prints of those negatives are amazing....
I've heard this is an excellent all-around scanner. In particular I think it also does a good job with medium format. For 35mm, dedicated scanners can be better if you get a late model one, but they are slow sometimes and quirky. I think you have a good approach (speaking as having owned an used several types of film scanners)
.
12-14-2008, 03:26 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by lithos Quote
ICE/FARE (different name for the same thing, like SR for Pentax and Super Steady Shot for Sony) works on the principle that the dyes in C41 or E6 film are transparent to infrared light. Dust, of course, isn't. So the software can use this to find the dust, then automatically clone it out with a median filter - just like the Healing Brush in PS.

Note that IR cleaning will increase the time of scanning. And it uses a fair bit of processing power, too.

Oh, and what the bastards don't tell you on the box (because it would seem like a bad thing and might kill a few sales) is that ICE/FARE does not work with Silver Halide BW negatives. Not well.
So is that all kinds of BW film that it doesn't work well on ?
Or only Tri-X, and not Fuji's Neopan & Ilford's Delta ?


QuoteOriginally posted by lithos Quote
Silver Halide is completely opaque which is why blacks look none more black (and why BW didn't die out with the advent of C41 BW.) What'll happen if you used IR cleaning on a BW neg is you'll get extremely blocked shadows. Like someone filled them in with the Pencil tool.

I find it's ok to just use white cotton film-handling gloves to gently wipe the film. I should get a nice soft paintbrush, which I promise I will tomorrow, maybe. Canned air is a waste of money.

I'm scanning a roll of Sensia right now, using an Epson 4490, with Vuescan, a great little piece of software. The 4490's a great little scanner, but the film holder is an utter PITA. Rumour has it that you can wetmount film directly onto the glass bed, as the depth of field is good enough, but I've yet to do that seriously. If you're scanning slides, it's easier to have them mounted. You might wanna do the same with negs, if you're desperate.
12-15-2008, 08:16 AM   #23
Veteran Member
artobest's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Swansea, Wales
Posts: 455
If anyone is interested, here's a quick comparison I've done of results from my Canoscan 8600F and my Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV. (I'm assuming that the 8600F and 8800F are not greatly different.)

I have done a quick levels adjustment on the two Canoscan scans, using the boy's pupil as a black point. I wouldn't read too much into the colour differences, as it wasn't very thorough, but the Canoscan's native driver seems to produce slightly exaggerated hues. There was more detail in the shadows of the Canoscans that I could've brought out if I wanted to.

Although it's not apparent in the reduced scans here, the FARE on the Canoscan made some poor choices - more like software dust removal than IR. The extra sharpness and resolution of the Scan Dual is pretty obvious though.

By the way, it was a fairly smoky scene, and this is just a detail of a larger scan.


Last edited by artobest; 04-12-2009 at 09:01 AM.
12-18-2008, 03:11 AM   #24
Site Supporter
pentaxmz's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 659
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote
I love VueScan. I had been using it quite happily with my previous Epson scanner. The software that came bundled with the Epson was pure crap, especially for scanning black and white film. I downloaded it, ran the demo, and after about two or three scans went ahead and paid for it.

I e-mailed Ed Hamrick (the guy behind VueScan) last night for some help and was shocked to find that I had a reply literally within minutes. I expected to have to wait at least a couple of days.

The bundled interface that came with the 8800F isn't horrible...but VueScan is still much better in my opinion.
I've been using VueScan as well for a number of years.

However, I wish Ed would update his horribly outdated VuePrint program. It hasn't had an update in over four years.
12-18-2008, 04:58 AM   #25
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 75
Be careful with the multipass-option. I used it with my Minolta Dual Scan II and after a few rolls I saw a pattern: all the negatives in the non-center positions of the film holders were slightly unsharp. The scan mechanism of your scanner should be very precise -otherwise you lose sharpness while reducing noise.

Vuescan is a fine program, but I suspect that the code has become sloppy after all these years. Bugs (often scanner-related) disappear for some time, and then you try a new Vuescan version and there they are again. So if you are not satisfied with the scan results, try last year's version. Once you get a version that works, it's a great timesaver.

I would scan at the highest resolution, export to 16 bit TIFF, and not worry about color balance etc., just make sure that the color histograms have a gap left and right, then you are safe. Cut the borders in your favorite image editor. Store the results on DVD.

After that you can do a color balance and optimize the images that are worth it. Resize them and convert to JPEG with a dedicated image editor, and store them too. I would not do the resize in Vuescan itself; resizing a picture is an art in itself. ImageMagick has some superb resize algorithms, but it's not user friendly.

I am so happy that I stored all my scans unprocessed ! My skills are so much better than then. My monitor is calibrated now. Noise removal has become better, etc. .

QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote
VueScan recommends using the JPEG reduction option, I believe. That would mean scanning at 4800, for example, and using a reduction setting of "2" would result in an effective scan of 2400 with a greater sharpness than if you had scanned at 2400 to begin with.

I also use the "multiscan" or "multipass" option set for 3 or 4 passes. It takes a bit more time, but it seems to help with pulling detail out of shadow areas. I would recommend giving VueScan a try (the trial version is free and easy to install) as it is generally more versatile than bundled software that comes with scanners....especially if you do any black and white work.
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
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Outsourcing Film Scanning ... Dubesor Pentax Medium Format 20 07-16-2010 10:38 PM
Scanning MF film Macroguy Pentax Medium Format 32 05-20-2010 07:13 AM
Scanning film....or not? Rense Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 53 08-26-2009 05:35 PM
Film scanning straightshooter Pentax Film SLR Discussion 7 09-09-2008 08:01 PM
Film scanning gear spe Photographic Technique 3 03-26-2008 02:58 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:36 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