GFX for Film/Slide Scanning

[CameraQuest]

OK, I have to admit I am pretty much clueless on this subject,

but if the Nikon D810 can be used for scanning,

surely the right setup will give even better results with the GFX.

Stephen

 

[willie_901]

The lens selection would be more critical than the body. You need a lens with optical properties that are well-suited to copy work. I will speculate there are excellent adapted lenses compatible with the GFX.

The film media format is relevant. The crop to frame 3:2 aspect ratio media means some pixels are unused with the GFX. With 5:4 or square aspect ratio media there will be unused pixels with the D810.

I don't see any reason why the GFX wouldn't be an excellent platform for film scanning.

 

[mcfingon]

. I will speculate there are excellent adapted lenses compatible with the GFX.

From what I read on the Diglloyd site (but the articles aren't on the front page any more), there are even bigger problems with adapted lenses on the GFX than with the Sony A7 series. So, I think you'd need a native macro lens to certain of getting all the potential quality from your copies.

 

[Godfrey]

I would choose a digital camera with a format either smaller than or up to the size of the original for scanning film. It's much harder to capture at greater than 1:1 magnifications due to non-existent DOF and the susceptibility of the capture rig to experience image-degrading vibration.

For instance, this is the jig necessary to make a 21 Mpixel capture of a Minox 8x11 negative on a FF camera such as the Leica SL:

Leica SL + Focusing Bellows-R + Summicron 50mm
Magnification: 2.7:1​

The GFX (and X1D or other 33x44 medium format cameras) are best for scanning 6x4.5, 6x6, and larger format film, given a suitable lens. For 35mm film, any FF, APS-C, or FourThirds format camera permits much more flexibility as well as a much greater assortment of lenses and scanning jigs suitable for the task.

Bigger and more megapixels is not necessarily always better for all purposes.

G

 

[CameraQuest]

Image circle generally increases as magnification increases. A 35mm format macro lens may cover the GFX sensor.

Vibration problems are nullified using flash .

Whatever the results, I will have fun testing this out.

 

[Huss]

Image circle generally increases as magnification increases. A 35mm format macro lens may cover the GFX sensor.

Vibration problems are nullified using flash .

Whatever the results, I will have fun testing this out.

I have no vibration problems using my copy stand when 'scanning' 120 film. The camera is programmed so the remote control's first push flips the mirror up, I wait a few seconds, then push again to take the shot.

When 'scanning' 35mm film, the slide copier is directly attached to the lens. I illuminate this with a flash and hand hold it. Perfectly sharp. For fun I turned off the flash, hand held it with a much longer shutter speed. Still perfectly sharp. But using the flash guarantees even illumination and colour temp. And makes me feel better.

 

[Huss]

OK, I have to admit I am pretty much clueless on this subject,

but if the Nikon D810 can be used for scanning,

surely the right setup will give even better results with the GFX.

Stephen

With my D750, based on the weakest link being the short side of the sensor, the biggest native square scan I can get from 120 film 6x6 is 4000 by 4000.

The D810 will allow for 4900 by 4900

The Sony A7rii will allow for 5300 by 5300

The Canon 5DSr will allow for 5790 by 5790

The Fuji GFX will allow for 6192 by 6192.

So the Fuji's dimensions are 50% greater than my D750. That should be pretty spectacular if you can get a lens to match (and focus to match). Of note, that is just the pixel count. All the '35mm' cameras have the same FF sensor size. The Fuji not only has a higher pixel count, but is also a physically bigger sensor.
So yeah, if I had this Fuji I would definitely use it to scan my negs!

 

[Godfrey]

Image circle generally increases as magnification increases. A 35mm format macro lens may cover the GFX sensor.

Vibration problems are nullified using flash .

Whatever the results, I will have fun testing this out.

Good luck.

G

 

[SaveKodak]

The dust will be outrageous, and there is no great solution for color negative. The best thing would be the Pentax rig, but I'd still rather scan with a dedicated unit. If you're in GFX price world, you can afford an Imacon.

 

[benlees]

While I admire inquisitive tinkering, this has a whiff of a solution in search of a problem. Lots a good scanners out there. Stand, light board, proper lens: already several sources of potential weak links.

 

[mani]

With my D750, based on the weakest link being the short side of the sensor, the biggest native square scan I can get from 120 film 6x6 is 4000 by 4000.

The D810 will allow for 4900 by 4900

The Sony A7rii will allow for 5300 by 5300

The Canon 5DSr will allow for 5790 by 5790

The Fuji GFX will allow for 6192 by 6192.

I'm still curious what could be done with the sensor-shifting of a camera like the Olympus Pen F. Has anyone tried it? As I understand it, the result is an 80 megapixel file - but does this really translate to much more real detail?

 

[brbo]

I'm still curious what could be done with the sensor-shifting of a camera like the Olympus Pen F. Has anyone tried it? As I understand it, the result is an 80 megapixel file - but does this really translate to much more real detail?

I don't see why it wouldn't work. IFAIK some mini lab scanners (Fuji, probably others too) have been using this technology for decades...

 

[Godfrey]

I'm still curious what could be done with the sensor-shifting of a camera like the Olympus Pen F. Has anyone tried it? As I understand it, the result is an 80 megapixel file - but does this really translate to much more real detail?

My feeling is that it doesn't.

A good 4000 ppi scan of 35mm (24x36mm format) Agfa APX25 (3780 x 5669 pixels or 21.4 MPixels) is already resolving the grain ... there is no more useful detail than the grain in any photographic image. The equivalent scan using a copy-camera technique with a 24 MPixel FF digital camera will do the same as a 4000 ppi scanner to within single digit percentage points.

Going to a large sensor and more pixels will net just that: more pixels. Nothing else. Same for going to a pixel-shift setup and more pixels.

The only real possibility of improvement with a pixel-shift setup is if the setup has the same effect as using a multi-scan operation with a scanner: that can essentially do pixel averaging to reduce aliasing and noise. I don't know whether this is what happens since I don't have one of those cameras.

A larger than FF sensor will net an improvement if the film format is larger than 35mm FF format.

G

 

[Keith]

😕Why do we call this process 'scanning' ... am I missing something!

 

[brbo]

A good 4000 ppi scan of 35mm (24x36mm format) Agfa APX25 (3780 x 5669 pixels or 21.4 MPixels) is already resolving the grain ... there is no more useful detail than the grain in any photographic image. The equivalent scan using a copy-camera technique with a 24 MPixel FF digital camera will do the same as a 4000 ppi scanner to within single digit percentage points.

Without going to a low-grain, hi-resolution film I can see more detail in 5400dpi than in 4000dpi scans. I'd say there are films and lenses that record more than 90lp/mm, no?

The only real possibility of improvement with a pixel-shift setup is if the setup has the same effect as using a multi-scan operation with a scanner: that can essentially do pixel averaging to reduce aliasing and noise. I don't know whether this is what happens since I don't have one of those cameras.

With sensor-shifting you could be using much smaller (much cheaper) sensor and still get very high resolution scan without stitching.

😕Why do we call this process 'scanning' ... am I missing something!

Same reason that we call mini lab scans... scans? Not all scanners scan film line by line.

 

[Godfrey]

Without going to a low-grain, hi-resolution film I can see more detail in 5400dpi than in 4000dpi scans. I'd say there are films and lenses that record more than 90lp/mm, no?....

There are, but the translation between lp/mm on film and digital resolution is murky. I'm not going to go there.

I've compared scan qualities in more ways than I can recount; I've been scanning film both professionally for clients and for my own purposes since 1984, with everything from drum scanners to copy camera setups. Most of the differences I see have to do with the individual scanning workflow's dmax and tonal capture, not resolution, past 4000 ppi.

If you're not using a tripod, doing critical focusing for every shot, and achieving perfect exposure and processing, forget those high resolution numbers anyway. You'll never achieve them hand held.

G

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Bartender --

1. Yes, image circle increases, but you might not get the image quality you want as you get further out in the image circle.

2. Key for me: Most any lens will give good quality in the center when racked out for macro. But the edges/corners suffer unless lens is optimized for the magnification.

3. For camera-scan of medium format with a DX or FX camera, you'll be at 1:2 or 1:3. This is the optimum range for most macro lenses.

4. For 1:1 capture, e.g. 35mm negative onto an FX camera, or MF onto the Fuji Digital MF, then a 1:1 optimized lens will give the best results. That's an Oly 80mm f/4 bellows macro lens for 35mm or an APO Rodagon D 1:1 (75mm f/4) for MF. There may be others optimized for 1:1, but these are ones I know.

5. I have trouble believing you'll get more than 24MPx from 35mm film. Maybe from MF film. For best results with MF film, I might stitch 2-3 shots to get more resolution.

6. I believe the first effect of sensor size is to change the magnification, and therefore drive the lens choice. I don't think larger sensor is inherently better for camera-scanning. And, larger sensor for a 1:1 shot pushes you to find a lens good at 1:1 and this may be difficult. I would be inclined to camera-scan MF with a DX or FX camera at 1:2 or 1:3 with a good macro lens.

6. Flash is a good approach.

I'm sure you will have fun testing this. Look forward to hearing about your results.

Image circle generally increases as magnification increases. A 35mm format macro lens may cover the GFX sensor.

Vibration problems are nullified using flash .

Whatever the results, I will have fun testing this out.

 

[willie_901]

Based on Jim Kason's initial results with adapted lenses, once you reach f 5.6 many many lenses will have useful (if not excellent) corner resolution.

 

[Huss]

This adapter to use 'regular' lenses on the Fuji sounds interesting:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/...l-frame-lenses-for-using-on-fujifilm-gfx-50s/