D850 digitizer test part 2 - colour film and blown highlights

[Godfrey]

Scanning is not limited to 35mm film, but whatever you want to point this at.

This review shows the difference between the D850 and the D810 in detail captured. The D850 captures more. So apparently there is more data in the film. Look at the close ups of the Kodachrome slides:

Shows me nothing of the sort. Remember that I've been scanning film, professionally and otherwise, since 1985 ... I don't have to read about other people's "discoveries" ... I half-invented the technology and the techniques required when I worked for NASA.

Funny thing is I'm just putting this out there to show how the digitzer currently works - flaws and all. So people can be informed. I'm not sure why you are bringing your Coolscan into this thread unless it can also scan 8000x6000 in 1/60 sec? And in all seriousness, Coolscans and other long discontinued scanners are a moot point. The pros don't use them anymore because they aren't manufactured any more and no longer have support or service when they break. ...

I have it on good authority that Scancafe.com uses Nikon SuperCoolScan V ED scanners exclusively, alongside of copy cameras and pro-grade flatbed scanners for large print originals. They're one of the biggest scanning houses in the world, doing tens of thousands of scans per year. Orders of magnitude more scanning than Jay Maisel or the National Archives.

But forget the fact that I offered my considered opinion. Enjoy your snapshot scanner with your $2000 camera backing it up. I'll just continue with what I know and get results that I like. 😀

G

 

[Huss]

Shows me nothing of the sort. Remember that I've been scanning film, professionally and otherwise, since 1985 ... I don't have to read about other people's "discoveries" ... I half-invented the technology and the techniques required when I worked for NASA.



I have it on good authority that Scancafe.com uses Nikon SuperCoolScan V ED scanners exclusively, alongside of copy cameras and pro-grade flatbed scanners for large print originals. They're one of the biggest scanning houses in the world, doing tens of thousands of scans per year. Orders of magnitude more scanning than Jay Maisel or the National Archives.

But forget the fact that I offered my considered opinion. Enjoy your snapshot scanner with your $2000 camera backing it up. I'll just continue with what I know and get results that I like. 😀

G

You really don't get this thread do you Godfrey? It's not about you. It's not about what you did 30 years ago. It's not about your coolscan.


It's about how the digitizer mode works in the Nikon D850. I have mentioned clearly that in its current phase it is no good. Did you miss that part?

Ask yourself this, how are you contributing here?

p.s. pros do not send their work to something called scancafe. They do it themselves in house. Which is why they use Phase One backs, and why Nikon is developing the digitizer mode for their D850. Also, let me know where I can get one for $2000, I'd be all over that.

 

[szekiat]

my 2c worth: I actually think what you've posted is pretty good for converting film to digital for web purposes. Is it archival? No way... but then the film in itself is archival. It certainly makes it easier for me to share my film work with my non-film savvy friends on their iPhones and instagram etc. I suspect a D850 is probably an expensive way to do that, but then i'm still waiting for a proper iPhone scanner and in the meantime....

 

[RichC]

I'm surprised and disappointed by how poorly Nikon implemented the firmware for this. The camera can potentially make superb "scans" - I use its predecessor the 800E to digitise negs, and the quality is close to the £15,000 Hasselblad Flextight scanners I used at university.

Nikon clearly didn't think this through: you would've thought they'd get the basics right - using a camera to "scan" film isn't rocket science!

 

[mich rassena]

I've gotten much better results using a set of extension tubes and the Nikon 60mm macro along with the slide copier attachment on a D7000. As a matter of fact, I've used the same setup on micro 4/3. Still better results. If fact, I got better results with these two than an aging Nikon Coolscan 5000, so unless the OP has some settings wrong, Nikon has some work to do.

 

[Huss]

I've gotten much better results using a set of extension tubes and the Nikon 60mm macro along with the slide copier attachment on a D7000. As a matter of fact, I've used the same setup on micro 4/3. Still better results. If fact, I got better results with these two than an aging Nikon Coolscan 5000, so unless the OP has some settings wrong, Nikon has some work to do.

Hi Mich, OP here! My name is Huss.
🙂
With the digitzer there are three settings - colour/B&W and exposure that you view the effects of in LV. Nothing else to do.
Nikon apparently has promised to get it right. I'm hoping they do as they already have figured out how to deal w/ the orange base.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Exactly. It is the digitizer mode that makes it unique. Before the D850 I had no issues using my D750.
The digitizer does deal with the orange mask very effectively. Nikon got that part right. It's highlights/shadows and sharpness that is missing, hopefully only in this firmware version.

Aside from dealing with the orange mask issue (which admittedly is a big deal), what does the digitizer mode bring to the table? In other words, how does digitizer mode differ from regular mode? If you copied the dog shot in regular mode and saved it as a jpg, would it be better or worse than it is in digitizer mode? Obviously, the RAW shot is better. Is there any advantage to using digitizer mode for BW or slides?

 

[willie_901]

I prefer raw files. I just like having all the data the digitized from the sensor. Also, I think it's silly of Nikon not to support raw capture. What's the disadvantage of offering that option?

At the same time, a perfectly exposed JPEG with perfect WB parameters has no technical advantages what so ever. The word perfect is not used lightly.

I would think one would only need to address the WB parameters once. Simple.

There is no real disadvantage to bracketing exposures or even making a series of JPEGs with different in-camera rendering parameters. One could even blend multiple exposures in PS. I guess another option would be to make multiple exposures with different off-camera lighting levels.

Also, other in-camera rendering parameters (mainly sharpening) are also important. Obviously the lowest possible amount of in-camera lossy compression should be used.

In my view the pixel dimensions issue is moot. In 2017 file size is not a factor.

 

[Huss]

Aside from dealing with the orange mask issue (which admittedly is a big deal), what does the digitizer mode bring to the table? In other words, how does digitizer mode differ from regular mode? If you copied the dog shot in regular mode and saved it as a jpg, would it be better or worse than it is in digitizer mode? Obviously, the RAW shot is better. Is there any advantage to using digitizer mode for BW or slides?

It is all about dealing with the orange mask. The inversion part that it also does is extremely easy to do yourself. For B&W it is not really needed, unless you do want to deal with any PP yourself. For slides it would not work as they do not need to be inverted.
My current workflow is shooting in RAW, then processing myself in LR with profiles that I have created. If (fingers crossed, when!) Nikon gets it right, I would be very happy to use the digitzer, and I guess in the instances that I don't like its results, I'd just work from a RAW file.
Butt really, I do not see why they cannot have it capture the jpeg and raw at the same time.

I also do not understand why no-one else has offered this in their cameras. I would have thought that Sony, and especially Fuji with all its film presets, would offer this. It is 'only' software after all.
I have a feeling that if they see there is a demand from how Nikon's version is finally implemented that they will follow suit. I would love for this to happen as it would only benefit the popularity of film usage.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I also do not understand why no-one else has offered this in their cameras. I would have thought that Sony, and especially Fuji with all its film presets, would offer this. It is 'only' software after all.

You might want to ask the members who complain about how complex menus have become. It would be one more addition for them to whine about. 🙂

 

[Huss]

You might want to ask the members who complain about how complex menus have become. It would be one more addition for them to whine about. 🙂

Nikon has implemented the ability to use it really well on the D850. Enter Live View (which you would use anyway to focus), then push the "i" button (information), and select the mode you want.
Just waiting on them to get the functionality right! If they do, it will be a game changer in camera film scanning.

 

[Corran]

The scan capability of the D850, as seen on the second capture made with a RAW image, is phenomenal. The camera would clearly blow the Coolscan V out of the water in a head-to-head test of resolution (no surprise). Also, the Coolscan V is coming up to 15 years old. As with most electronics, longevity is not guaranteed, and so one should have some idea about new technology to replace old gear. Oh, and scanning/digital tech has advanced a lot in 30 years...

Massive throughput scanning operations like scancafe have different requirements and economic considerations. I am almost certain these large scanning services are looking at DSLR "scanning" closely, and will be switching over when it makes economic sense.

The software implementation of this "scan" feature is clearly not ready for prime-time. Hopefully Nikon will take action and improve it, and not let it sit as-is. It would also be interesting if they included the ability through their computer software, whatever it is called. I can't remember, I only used it once or twice.

If they had a stand-alone piece of software that would do this, or could act as a plugin in PS, I would give it a go. I tried some other software on the market for such inversions and they didn't work for me. I am okay doing it as I do now though so it's more a curiosity for me.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

i agree with Corran. The tonality on their conversion neg to positive is not yet ready for prime time. I also agree that it will be pretty nifty if/when they get it right.

And, hope they will be able to give a 16bit file, not just 8bit jpeg.

I will stay tuned on the D850. Corran, thanks for experimenting and posting this.

 

[Huss]

Standard RAW scan with the D850. If they can make the digitizer work like this, I would be very happy.

 

[Huss]

thank u mods for keeping this thread on topic

 

[Huss]

It does not seem to be able to handle lighting situations outside normal 'daylight' well. This is taken at dusk, no edits from the digitizer jpeg:



Here is as good as my limited jpeg manipulation skills could manage. Remember the point of this is to not have to spend time in post process (which I did for this) as one might as well just shoot RAW and forget about the digitizer:



And here is how it looks if you just do it from RAW to begin. I have lots more lee-way too, to adjust colour balance etc. This is just one take on it:



Kodak Portra 400 film. Nikon F w/ CV 40mm F2

 

[Doug]

Interestingly very different colors among the three, Huss. The second appears crossed up to my eye, in that the shirt is slightly reddish while the face is slightly too greenish. Doing an eye-dropper color balance off the shirt would push the face even more green I expect. And look at the difference in the tree at right!

 

[meloV8]

Still far from the colors of Pakon scanner...

 

[ptpdprinter]

I think you have clearly shown the D850 digitizer mode is not ready for prime time. Did Nikon just include it in the hope that they would figure it out somewhere down the line?

 

[Huss]

Interestingly very different colors among the three, Huss. The second appears crossed up to my eye, in that the shirt is slightly reddish while the face is slightly too greenish. Doing an eye-dropper color balance off the shirt would push the face even more green I expect. And look at the difference in the tree at right!

Yeah I was really disappointed with the colour balance (white balance) functionality of the digitizer in this scene. Previously it was the blown highlights that I thought was the issue, but this is completely messed up. Unless the scene has WB of a warmish daylight scene i.e. 11am-3pm-ish, it cannot handle it at all.
I spent a whole lot more time trying to fix the jpeg result than working on the RAW image! The monchrome digitizer works much better, but that is really easy to deal with anyway. Nikon should have disabled this functionality in camera until they have it ready with a firmware update.