Film Scanning with High Mp Cameras

[JohnWolf]

I've been scanning film with an M10 and Valoi easy35 and am very satisfied. However, I feel a flip screen, tethering, and side access to the SD card would improve the process.

I'm considering a Sony A7R, which has these features, plus no AA filter, which I prefer. But I'm concerned after watching the video below. The author claims 24 Mp is ideal and higher pixel sensors amplify grain. I'm mostly scanning Tri-X and grain is already fairly pronounced. The A7R is 35 Mp.

For those of you who scan high-speed BW film at higher resolutions, has grain been an issue for you? Appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Oren Grad]

But I'm concerned after watching the video below. The author claims 24 Mp is ideal and higher pixel sensors amplify grain. I'm mostly scanning Tri-X and grain is already fairly pronounced. The A7R is 35 Mp.

UGH. That's a grossly misleading partial truth. Here's what happens when you copy Tri-X. At low resolutions, the grain is mushed away completely. Some people like that! At intermediate resolutions, like the 24 MP that you are currently using, you get aliased pseudograin that is larger and more harsh than what's actually in the negative. As you continue to increase the resolution, you get closer and closer to truly resolving the actual grain. All of this, of course, assumes that you are accurately focused on the grain; if not, all bets are off. If you're being truly critical about this, a glass-sandwich negative carrier helps a lot.

In my own tests copying Tri-X, pixel-shift mode on a GFX 100S is probably the point where it's not possible to do any better in faithfully recording Tri-X grain. But for practical purposes, that's way overkill - very labor-intensive to get everything right, massive file sizes, and the difference over, say, a 60 MP straight capture is vanishingly small.

I wouldn't use an original A7R, unless it has a usable electronic shutter or EFCS mode - the mechanical shutter is shock-prone. If you're committed to using a Sony, any later A7R-series camera would be better.

BTW, the soft-edged dye clouds of chromogenic films do better with intermediate-resolution copying; the aliasing isn't so visually damaging as it is with a silver-grain film like Tri-X.

Unless you like or at least don't mind the look of the aliased pseudograin at 24 MP, in which case keep doing what you're doing and don't worry about it. But if you do worry about it, increased resolution from that point, along with careful technique, should make it better, not worse.

EDIT: Note that the above is talking about copying 35 mm negatives. If you're copying medium-format, the resolution you would need to faithfully capture the grain across the whole negative goes up - but of course, if you're enlarging less when you print, subtleties of grain rendering may be less of an issue to begin with.

 

[Oren Grad]

OK, I watched the video. His examples are a jumble of 35mm and medium format, color and B&W. But the essence of it is that he consistently prefers mushed-out grain to more sharply-rendered grain. That's a valid esthetic preference - everyone's entitled to their own taste! - so his conclusions make sense for his purposes. But they're nonsense if the objective is to faithfully render the film grain.

 

[Oren Grad]

However, I feel a flip screen, tethering, and side access to the SD card would improve the process.

On this practical point: I work with a copy stand, and at least with that setup I do find a flip screen and unencumbered access to the memory card to make a big difference in both physical comfort and workflow efficiency, enough to make getting those conveniences worth changing cameras.

 

[GMOG]

I use a D800E with the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f2.8 lens on bellows and I'm happy with the results. I tether the camera to the computer, and have the software, Lightroom in my case, dump the images into a folder of my choosing. I can see them as they come in, and make camera and lighting adjustments as needed. I've scanned TMax 100 and Tri-X 400 and the grain and other details look good.

I think more resolution is beneficial. I'd rather capture every bit of the detail in the negative because having more data to work with gives more options. At some point I'll upgrade from the D800E but for now I'm satisfied.

 

[skahde]

I have also used a Nikon D800E at 36 Mpix without AA and for comparison a Fuji X-T3 at 24 Mpix for different films and the D800E gave visibly better results all over the board using the same 2.8/55 Micro-Nikkor.
I my book the D800E was just about right with respect to resolving power and the Fuji failed by a small but noticeable margin.

Unfortunately I now only have the Fuji and think about getting another D800E for the purpose of digitizing film. But at the moment I enjoy the darkroom too much and prefer to enlarge my negatives to fine prints and scan those. Color is scanned by a third party who do wonderful things to my negatives and save me a lot of valuable time.

 

[Godfrey]

I've been scanning film with an M10 and Valoi easy35 and am very satisfied. However, I feel a flip screen, tethering, and side access to the SD card would improve the process.

I'm considering a Sony A7R, which has these features, plus no AA filter, which I prefer. But I'm concerned after watching the video below. The author claims 24 Mp is ideal and higher pixel sensors amplify grain. I'm mostly scanning Tri-X and grain is already fairly pronounced. The A7R is 35 Mp.

For those of you who scan high-speed BW film at higher resolutions, has grain been an issue for you? Appreciate your thoughts.

I scan my B&W film with an M10 Monochrom (40Mpixel) and color originals with an M10-R (again 40Mpixel). I've seen no issues with grain .... have been scanning with cameras since the 1990s and have watched the process develop as camera resolutions went up and up over the years. To wit:

Fence - Santa Clara 2023[/b
Voigtländer Vito II
Fujifilm ACROS 100
scanned with Leica M10 Monochrom + Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8​

I've also scanned using the Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c, for a slightly higher resolution and greater color depth.

G

 

[shawn]

I scan with either my Panasonic S1R or Sigma fp L. Sometimes in high resolution mode on the S1R or the low ISO settings on the fp L. For wider format 120 (I shoot up to 6x24) I will shoot multiple shots on either camera and pano merge them. The higher resolution is not a negative. Using high resolution mode in the S1R only adds 10 or 15 seconds to the scan time and not only gives almost 4x the resolution, it gives full color information at every pixel (think foveon sensor clarity) as well as about 1 3/4 stops more dynamic range, more than most medium format digitals.

As an example this is a 233 megapixel scan of Fomapan 100 made from multiple shots using a GFX 50R.

Here is a section from across the water at 1:1

If you are considering a new camera for scanning you definitely want at least a EFCS or full electronic shutter and an in camera high resolution mode that gives full color information is worth considering.

 

[JohnWolf]

Thank you all for your helpful responses. I’m still weighing this, but consensus seems to be that high Mp won’t be a concern. Much appreciated.

John

 

[sojournerphoto]

Like Shawn - I use a Panasonic S1r for scanning, sometimes using high resolution mode. It’s still a good choice I think, unless you want to go down the gfx100 rabbit hole - I say rabbit hole as then you also need a suitable flat field macro lens with appropriate magnification capability for whatever film formats you’re using.

I suspect S1r is quite cheap nowadays and they are rock solid big professional feeling cameras. Also a nice holder for big old Zeiss glass😉

 

[Godfrey]

Like Shawn - I use a Panasonic S1r for scanning, sometimes using high resolution mode. It’s still a good choice I think, unless you want to go down the gfx100 rabbit hole - I say rabbit hole as then you also need a suitable flat field macro lens with appropriate magnification capability for whatever film formats you’re using.

I suspect S1r is quite cheap nowadays and they are rock solid big professional feeling cameras. Also a nice holder for big old Zeiss glass😉

Mmm yes, the 907x/CFVII 50c does well with an adapted V-system Makro-Planar 120mm f/4 plus adapter tube plus two or three 32mm extension tubes to get down near 1:1 capture magnification... Not the most compact setup around, and you need a good, sturdy copy stand or tripod to hold it steadily. 😉

G

 

[shawn]

unless you want to go down the gfx100 rabbit hole - I say rabbit hole as then you also need a suitable flat field macro lens with appropriate magnification capability for whatever film formats you’re using.

When I had the GFX 50r I used a SMC Pentax-A 645 120 mm f/4 Macro lens. Native 1:1 (no extension tubes needed) and they can be found fairly inexpensively. Worked great, that is what was used in the sample I posted above.

 

[plummerl]

I use my Sony a7Riii, with very satisfying results. It is 42 MP, and the last thing I'd want is "mushed" grain. In addition, by using the Sony IEDT (Imaging Edge Desktop) Remote application, I never look at the camera panel. I have full control of the camera, as well as a monitor size view of the process. In addition, with the Remote app, I can have the images sent directly to my USB connected computer, or anywhere on my home network. Works great!