[punkrachmaninov]

As I will be shooting a 400' roll of expired Eastman Kodak 400T 5294 this year, I thought this was a very interesting video:

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

The Pentax K-1000 still holds it's own;
I am not sure about his scaning workflow... Does anyone here digitize their negatives? Personally I prefer a DSLR over a flatbed. Closest I can get to a drum scan.

[IgorZ]

Yep, plenty of people digitize their negatives here. Some use dslr, some use flatbed scanners, some use film scanners.

[punkrachmaninov]

Yep, plenty of people digitize their negatives here. Some use dslr, some use flatbed scanners, some use film scanners.

well i am interested in anyone's take on his methodology in the video vs best practices...

[tuco]

I scan my negatives. If a digital camera came out with true 16 bit per channel color, would people be raving about it? You get that with scanning. I can't say if that makes a difference except to say when I scan in 16 bit BW I get a much richer tonal sale in my image after adjusting the contrast curve than I typically would get in 8 bit mode.

[tuco]

well i am interested in anyone's take on his methodology in the video vs best practices...

I wouldn't be comparing small format film to digital. And 645 is only a half-frame of a 6x9 which would be the size I would start comparing with. YMMV of course.

[LesDMess]

I've quantified what 4000dpi scans from a Coolscan compared to DSLR scans of 35mm Kodak Techpan film as shown below.


Full res version -> Kodak Techpan 04-27 scan compare

Although there are more pixels in a Nikon D800 file they are about equivalent in actual detail resolved compared to the Coolscan at 4000dpi.

I'll be testing the D850 to see if that is better in resolving detail but I am more interested to see how the built-in color negative conversion works as I've found the results from Nikonscan to be the best. But of course there is no ICE in DSLR scanning and Nikonscan ICE is just magical in this respect.


Kodak 160VC-06-36 K20D vs 9K ICE

---------- Post added 01-13-19 at 03:34 PM ----------

I wouldn't be comparing small format film to digital. . . YMMV of course.

As far as resolution is concerned that is dependent on the DSLR used too . . .

---------- Post added 01-13-19 at 03:37 PM ----------

Personally I prefer a DSLR over a flatbed. Closest I can get to a drum scan.

Of course there are many drum scanners out there. I have been meaning to try out a 10,000dpi Heidelberg Tango just to see if it can finally resolve all the detail in my 35mm frame of Kodak Techpan . . .

[tuco]

As far as resolution is concerned that is dependent on the DSLR used too . . .

---------- Post added 01-13-19 at 03:37 PM ----------



Of course there are many drum scanners out there. I have been meaning to try out a 10,000dpi Heidelberg Tango just to see if it can finally resolve all the detail in my 35mm frame of Kodak Techpan . . .

I have shot Tech Pan both in small and medium format. I gotta say, no matter how fine the grain, no matter how high the true scan resolution, small format always looks like small format compared to an equal film and scan of a larger negative. The negative is just too small.

[BigMackCam]

As I will be shooting a 400' roll of expired Eastman Kodak 400T 5294 this year, I thought this was a very interesting video:

...

The Pentax K-1000 still holds it's own;
I am not sure about his scaning workflow... Does anyone here digitize their negatives? Personally I prefer a DSLR over a flatbed. Closest I can get to a drum scan.

It's a fun video, but I'm not sure how useful the findings are. There are so many variable factors at play here...

• different lenses used on each camera and their performances therein
• resolution, dynamic range and ISO performance of the digital camera sensor
• resolution and overall quality of the film scanning equipment and software process
• post-processing of the resulting film scans (there's probably more detail there than is apparent)
• demosaicing algorithm and tone curve for post-processing of raw file (assuming raw was used)
• tonal response and grain in the chosen film stock
• development of the film negatives
• ... and so on...

As such, the only conclusion I think we can realistically draw from his experiment is that film looks different to digital, which you and I already knew, right?

My hunch - and that's all it is - is that the 35mm and medium format film results could potentially be improved upon through the lenses used and digitising approach. On the digital side, a more film-like tone curve / profile could be applied in post-processing to emulate (to some extent, if not entirely accurately) the film equivalent.

I'll be interested to hear members' views on the digitising approach. I'd have assumed a high-pixel-density DSLR plus good lens (stopped down) and even, known-temperature back-lighting for the negative or slide would give better results than a decent scanner... But I have no experience of this, so it's a learning opportunity for me too

[LesDMess]

I have shot Tech Pan both in small and medium format. I gotta say, no matter how fine the grain, no matter how high the true scan resolution, small format always looks like small format compared to an equal film and scan of a larger negative. The negative is just too small.

Correct - with everything else equal, film resolution scales proportionately with surface area.

[tuco]

...
As such, the only conclusions I think we can realistically draw from his experiment is that film looks different to digital, which you and I already knew, right?

Yep, I think that says it all.

[LesDMess]

I'll be interested to hear members' views on the digitising approach. I'd have assumed a high-pixel-density DSLR plus good lens (stopped down) and even, known-temperature back-lighting for the negative or slide would give better results than a decent scanner... But I have no experience of this, so it's a learning opportunity for me too

Of course no ICE with any DSLR scanning. Depending on the condition of the film, this can take far more post work then scanning and even then it cannot compare to Nikonscan ICE.

I have the FF bellows setup with the film copy adapters so digitizing is simple and quick as it applies to b&w and color slides. For color negatives, post processing can take far longer then the 50 seconds it takes for my Coolscan to scan a frame and apply ICE.

[tuco]

Correct - with everything else equal, film resolution scales proportionately with surface area.

With film available today, I think 10K ppi scan far exceeds the grain on small format. Even at 8K ppi is probably past a point of diminishing return. But I dunno. I see my digital, I see my film and I'm only seeing near equality in tonal scale ( the bigger the negative, the better the tonal scale) and image on my larger negatives. But today anyone still shooting film is doing it for reasons other than this film vs digital thing that, finally, is in the past.

[BigMackCam]

Of course no ICE with any DSLR scanning. Depending on the condition of the film, this can take far more post work then scanning and even then it cannot compare to Nikonscan ICE.

I have the FF bellows setup with the film copy adapters so digitizing is simple and quick as it applies to b&w and color slides. For color negatives, post processing can take far longer then the 50 seconds it takes for my Coolscan to scan a frame and apply ICE.

Thanks, I hadn't thought about ICE (due to my lack of experience in film scanning, in all honesty). Can I ask, how (un-)intrusive is ICE on areas of the image that don't require repair? I know it's a tried, tested and much-loved processing capability, but I wonder if it ever has any detrimental effect on images, either in the repaired areas or generally speaking?

[LesDMess]

But today anyone still shooting film is doing it for reasons other than this film vs digital thing that, finally, is in the past.

For me personally I find film's outstanding latitude - particularly as it applies to highlights/resistance to blowing out, to be a great advantage.



I have tested more current digitals then what is shown and this has not changed much so I haven't updated the comparison.

Also for me personally, I like taking night shots at very long exposures. Clearly the Pentax LX has no equal when it comes to this, and so this is another reason I still shoot film. This one using the LX on aperture priority for about 45minutes on Kodak Ektar 100.



BTW, this is not to suggest that I don't have and use a substantial number of digitals. In fact I am currently enthralled with an FPV setup on my RC truck using a 0.0001Lux starlight microcam.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

I really enjoy all manners of imaging . . .

[tuco]

Some scanning software lets you set the level of auto cleaning. That is, the size it will auto repair. If quality is a concern, you'd set that to small size repair and manually heal larger scratches/defects in post yourself.