D850 digitizer test part 2 - colour film and blown highlights

[Huss]

In part one of my test I was frustrated by not being able to use flash, so I turned the film digitizer mode off and shot in RAW with flash. Results were as expected shooting in RAW - excellent.

But today, I wanted to test the digitizer function, and not just complain that it disables flash access and leave it at that.
I also happened to get a test roll of film back from my mighty (and mighty rare!) Agfa Optima Sensor 1535 rangefinder 35mm film camera. Wow...
Colour film this time, so let's really see how the digitzer mode copes. First off, here is my set up - lighting from a light pad that I normally use underneath a copy stand to scan 120 film:



There is actually something really really cool in turning the digitizer on and seeing your film instantly converted. And a mea culpa here, after using this set up with the light pad, I think I'm not going to use my flash set up again. It became a serious pain in the rump having to use two units and 6 batteries along with menu diving to get it all working. With my old D750 I just used the pop up flash to trigger the SB500. But I digress.

So, to the results. The digitzer, if there are any highlights, completely and utterly blows. See for yourself:





Compare this to my usual workflow in RAW:





Shame really because apart from a green tint that is very easily removed, it would be really cool. Once it works properly. This is obviously why Nikon has held back the ES-2 film copier. It has nothing to do with production issues, it's because they don't want anyone using the digitizer function until they (hopefully!) fix it and release a firmware update.

Peace out.

 

[Huss]

It is crazy quick to use, and the colours are great, so when Nikon gets this sorted (being positive here!), it can dramatically speed up and stream line scanning workflows.

Agfa Optima 1535, Fuji C200, D850 film digitizer mode:

 

[gavinlg]

That level of blown out detail is terrible... Do Nikon test their own products before releasing them?

 

[Huss]

That level of blown out detail is terrible... Do Nikon test their own products before releasing them?

No, they were waiting for me to do it for free.

 

[Ickx]

Interesting. If they get this to work I might actually get myself an upgrade from the D800. I thought that was my last DSLR but we'll see.

 

[willie_901]

Thanks for this very interesting report.

 

[splitimageview]

How is exposure set using the digitizer mode?

 

[Huss]

How is exposure set using the digitizer mode?

If you look at the first pic showing the set up, you can see on the screen of the camera (if you look closely) that there is a message 'Brightness' and 'Ok'.
If you click on 'Ok' you get a brightness scale that allows you to adjust exposure if you do not like what the camera has set. It keeps this setting (with a reminder that it is set in the main screen) until you remove it.

 

[Godfrey]

I don't see much in your captures that accomplishes better than using the Nikon Coolscan V ED with VueScan, other than the speed of the captures. So I'll stick with that for 35mm scanning. I'm rarely in that much of a hurry when scanning. 😀

G

 

[Huss]

I don't see much in your captures that accomplishes better than using the Nikon Coolscan V ED with VueScan, other than the speed of the captures. So I'll stick with that for 35mm scanning. I'm rarely in that much of a hurry when scanning. 😀

G

These images were taken with an Agfa Optima Sensor 1535. This camera does not produce sharp images like my normal gear but is very fun to use.
If you are happy with your Coolscan, then you don't need to change. Once Nikon gets this figured out users will have 8000x6000 rez scans in 1/60 sec.

Until then users with a D850 can get this size as a RAW capture in the same time, but maybe with an extra minute or so to process with profiles in LR/photoshop etc.
The conservation departments at the National Archives and the Library of Congress use photo digi scanning, as well as notables such as Jay Maisel and Frans Lanting. If a Nikon Coolscan was better, I'm pretty sure they would be using that.

But.. it's not even about that. I'm just showing people the results of how it currently works. I'm not comparing it against other methods.

What is interesting, even given the output of the Afga camera used, is that it is clear the digitizer's jpeg output has much less detail in it than the RAW capture. Just look at the fur that has not been blown out. Even if Nikon fixes the highlights issue, if the digitizer jpeg loses detail it would not be worth using for me.

 

[splitimageview]

What does it look like if the brightness is adjusted for the highlights?

 

[ptpdprinter]

Do I understand correctly that the digitizer function results in a jpg? If so, it is a non-starter.

 

[Huss]

What does it look like if the brightness is adjusted for the highlights?

There is no detail there, the capture has lost it, so all that does is brighten or dim the image.

 

[Huss]

Do I understand correctly that the digitizer function results in a jpg? If so, it is a non-starter.

Yes, jpeg only. Personally I don't consider it a non starter if done right.
All the big film labs return scans as jpegs - northcoastphoto, thefindlab etc
What matters is doing it correctly.
If you don't want jpegs, just scan in RAW and roll your own which is what I have been doing. But if Nikon can fix it so it creates excellent jpegs, at least you have the option to consider those results.
Ideally the digitizer should capture jpeg and RAW simultaneously. Hopefully they will address that. At the moment you take snap in the digitizer mode, then turn it off and retake in RAW if you want that. It takes a few seconds to change, but it would be nice not to have to do that.

 

[Godfrey]

These images were taken with an Agfa Optima Sensor 1535. This camera does not produce sharp images like my normal gear but is very fun to use.
If you are happy with your Coolscan, then you don't need to change. Once Nikon gets this figured out users will have 8000x6000 rez scans in 1/60 sec.

Until then users with a D850 can get this size as a RAW capture in the same time, but maybe with an extra minute or so to process with profiles in LR/photoshop etc.
The conservation departments at the National Archives and the Library of Congress use photo digi scanning, as well as notables such as Jay Maisel and Frans Lanting. If a Nikon Coolscan was better, I'm pretty sure they would be using that.

But.. it's not even about that. I'm just showing people the results of how it currently works. I'm not comparing it against other methods.

What is interesting, even given the output of the Afga camera used, is that it is clear the digitizer's jpeg output has much less detail in it than the RAW capture. Just look at the fur that has not been blown out. Even if Nikon fixes the highlights issue, if the digitizer jpeg loses detail it would not be worth using for me.

8000x6000 is mostly ridiculous for 35mm anyway. 🙂

I do copy camera captures for medium format, raw captures. Better tonality, enough pixels for my purposes: 4000x4000, 16MPixel originals. 35mm with the CoolScan V is good enough at 21mpixels, and 15 bit depth. Good enough: there's really little more data in those negs if I'm already seeing clearly imaged grain.

What the Nat'l Archives and the pros are using nowadays are dedicated copy camera setups. I know because once upon a time I worked with the National Archives to help set up a system like that, when I was involved with NASA/JPL archives briefly way back when. Bit depth is much more important than pixels for their purposes.

This Nikon 850 setup is just a snapshot capture gizmo as I see it. Neat if it works for its intended purpose: get someone's old negs into digital positives quickly. Kind of a waste of time as a professional tool however.

 

[Huss]

8000x6000 is mostly ridiculous for 35mm anyway. 🙂

I do copy camera captures for medium format, raw captures. Better tonality, enough pixels for my purposes: 4000x4000, 16MPixel originals. 35mm with the CoolScan V is good enough at 21mpixels, and 15 bit depth. Good enough: there's really little more data in those negs if I'm already seeing clearly imaged grain.

What the Nat'l Archives and the pros are using nowadays are dedicated copy camera setups. I know because once upon a time I worked with the National Archives to help set up a system like that, when I was involved with NASA/JPL archives briefly way back when. Bit depth is much more important than pixels for their purposes.

This Nikon 850 setup is just a snapshot capture gizmo as I see it. Neat if it works for its intended purpose: get someone's old negs into digital positives quickly. Kind of a waste of time as a professional tool however.

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:

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/24/review-nikon-d850s-negative-digitizer-isnt-ready-prime-time/

This shows that 8000x6000 is not ridiculous for 35mm film, as more detail has been captured.

This is aimed at pros, just like the D850 is as a camera.
And people like the Archives, Maisel etc are using 50+ MP Phase One backs for their scanning. I think they know what they are doing re. pixel count.

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. Working pros do not have the time to deal with tracking down pieces from other scanners to try to keep theirs running.
Coolscans are cute for amateurs who scan very occasionally and are not concerned about an efficient workflow.

As is, right now the Digitzer mode is a tease of what it can be. If it isn't improved I will not use it; I'll just scan in RAW as I have done and process with my presets in LR.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I thought the uniqueness of the Nikon solution is that it deals with the orange mask issue of color negative films in camera. Otherwise, what distinguishes it from any other camera as a scanner other than a few extra MP.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Any chance that the light box is part of the problem? I'm just confused because that isn't digital overexposure; it's the densest part of the negative so that is missing shadow detail, yes? And the speckled junk around the blown out fur looks like typical scanner dynamic range limits. I'm just surprised because I've been playing with an Olympus EP-5 as a scanner, stitching together in photoshop, and not getting either the blowout/lack of shadows nor the speckled junk. And this includes if I use the in-camera jpgs, not processing RAW files.

 

[Huss]

I thought the uniqueness of the Nikon solution is that it deals with the orange mask issue of color negative films in camera. Otherwise, what distinguishes it from any other camera as a scanner other than a few extra MP.

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.

 

[Huss]

Any chance that the light box is part of the problem? I'm just confused because that isn't digital overexposure; it's the densest part of the negative so that is missing shadow detail, yes? And the speckled junk around the blown out fur looks like typical scanner dynamic range limits. I'm just surprised because I've been playing with an Olympus EP-5 as a scanner, stitching together in photoshop, and not getting either the blowout/lack of shadows nor the speckled junk. And this includes if I use the in-camera jpgs, not processing RAW files.

No, because the RAW example shown above in the comparison images was shot with the same light source at the same time. In RAW it preserves all the details.
The digitizer mode allows just one adjustment - exposure - which you view in real time as it is in a Live View mode.