NCPS scanning and print sizes (vs. 5D-ii)

O

okcomputer

Member
Local time
5:29 AM
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
50
Hello, first an introduction- I shoot mostly digital with a 5Dii these days, however I'd like to blow the dust off my Pentax 67, and I also just picked up this sexy beast (photo below).

The largest I print is typically 20 x 16, and my 5D handles that well. I don't want to plug my Epson V700 back in because I don't have the time for scanning these days, so I'd like to inquire about NCPS's scanning quality. I've read about it on Ken Rockwell's site, and heard good feedback on this forum. With their "enhanced scan", will I be able to print 20 x 16 to roughly the quality as the 5D (if I'm using either 35mm or 6x7)? I know the pixel count shown on their site is somewhat less than the output of the Canon. I'm really interested in peoples experiences with printing files from NCPS's scans and their subjective opinions.
Thanks!!


zeissikon.jpg
 
You can always change the resolution to 240 dpi or 300 dpi or whatever for a print and only the physical print size changes. Most important is to NOT resample your image when changing resolution -- that way you preserve all the original pixels NCPS provided.
 
I've had NCPS do many rolls of film. Also, Precision Camera offers a similar service, and I have sent them many rolls as well. NCPS scans generally come to me at about 16mp for 135, and Precision is closer to 26mp. Higher rez scanning from Precision. But, I would say that both scans get about everything on the film. They are very good. 135 film just doesn't have that much data on it, IMO. I think you can "scan the grain" and get the impression of more, because the grain itself is a sort of feature of film photography. But, in general, I don't think you'll have the same results on at 16x20 print that you would get from a 5DII.

As a general rule, I'd say that perfectly executed Velvia is equivalent to about 12mp, on a good day. TMax100 maybe more like 8mp, and Tri-X about 4mp.

If you are happy with 8x10 prints, which is already an 8x enlargement, you can have a great time with your 135 film cameras. 8x10@300dpi is 7.2mp, and at 200dpi it is 3.2mp.
 
NLewis said:
I've had NCPS do many rolls of film. Also, Precision Camera offers a similar service, and I have sent them many rolls as well. NCPS scans generally come to me at about 16mp for 135, and Precision is closer to 26mp. Higher rez scanning from Precision. But, I would say that both scans get about everything on the film. They are very good.
Click to expand...

Both labs use the same equipment...the max resolutions from both labs will be the same
 
okcomputer said:
....With their "enhanced scan", will I be able to print 20 x 16 to roughly the quality as the 5D (if I'm using either 35mm or 6x7)?
Click to expand...


With the Pentax 67 yes, with the Zeiss Ikon probably no, if you are after mere resolution.. However quality is not only resolution. For example the gray tones you get from your film cameras I hardly believe you will get the same from the 5Dii. If you use Velvia 50 for example, you can hardly get the same colors and hues with any digital. So it depends on the definition of "quality" for you. That's why a lot of persons in these forums are using film cameras besides their DSLRs; and many find film as the more artistic and aesthetical means for expression.
 
20" x 16" is no trouble at all for 6x7, and a half decent pro scan should manage that. You'll likely get better with your V700, but if you don't have time that's up to you.

This article shows *35mm* film showing higher resolution (or at least equal to) than a 5D Mk II.

http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html

In the UK, home of expensive services, I can get Imacon scans reasonably cheap, so I'd imagine in the USA, you can get it for about half what I pay. If you're just getting a few done, and not a whole roll, I'd Google for an Imacon or even drum scan service.
 
You are more than welcome to check out my flickr stream to see what the 35mm scans from Precision Camera look like. I've mostly only had Portra scanned by them on a Leica, but there are some Xpan shots in there. Click through to the original size to see the original size :)

Most of the shots tagged 'Portra' in the first couple pages are from Precision.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgray1/tags/portra/
 
I think we need to furnish the OP rather with practical information; for example I can not recommend him an orthochromatic film with 800 lines/mm resolution to beat the M9, because he most probably be never able to use such a film: ISO 16, no sufficient gray tones, appropriate for microfilming only.

All right, my 35mm scans come from the Minolta 5400II as +90MB (for Velvia 50) and B&Ws rather as +40MB files. However when I compare them to the digital outputs by resizing, they seem having inferior resolution than the E-P1 (12MP). I would agree with the general belief that 35mm scans can match only 6-8MP, nothing more (so the site showing the Ektar vs. 5DII should be faulty.. Many members here having 5DIIs can confirm..)

With the MF, this is a different story; so the OP in case of large enlargements to match the resolution of his 5DII files, should rather use his Pentax.

At best, he should send a roll of his favorite 35 to Precision for example and compare the results himself.
 
I've had quite nice scans from NCPS on Velvia when the exposure was on and the light was good. I've had poor scans when the light and exposure were challenging. In the latter case, I sent out for drum scans with an experienced, independent photographer ($30 for 645), who extracted great color and dynamic range. He also corrected some magenta cast, which he thought came from over-used developer.

The NCPS "enhanced" scan resolves grain on 135 velvia 100. Notice the lovely grain here, and the beautiful rendering of color at the 100% "pixel" level. I've posted this detail before from my "Glory of Velvia gallery at http://PhotoKinesis.info website):
lillypad-X2.jpg
 
Here's an example where the drum scan was necessary, and the NCPS "enhanced" scan couldn't capture the dynamic range. NCPS supplies 8-bit jpgs, which don't allow you much latitude for exposure, fill and recovery in ACR. From my "Landscape, Nature, Weather gallery at PhotoKinesis.info (2-shot pano from Velvia 100 on Pentax 645N at 35mm; I'm not completely happy with my final image, but do me a favor and view it a good monitor!):

305500023-L.jpg
 
Im curious how velvia 50 equates to 12mp when a 5d Mk II has less resolution than the film.

Ive seen the max resolution for the 5dii as being about 80 lp/mm, and when Zeiss tested Velvia 50 it got 120 iirc.

now, in practice, maybe that all breaks down. all I know is that the enhanced scans I got from NCPS showed very clearly that the Bronica 80mm I had wasn't even close in quality to some of my personally owned 35mm optics.
 
I view these on an iMac 27" screen. In all fairness, this looks like it has a heavy magenta bias. NCPS has done good work for me but sometimes Velvia is very had to scan.
 
It's very hard to extract, even if you get the resolution there in the first place, 5D2 type detail from 35mm film with a scanner. Ektar has good resolution, but a 21Mp digital file will still appear sharper and more detailed than a scanned 35mm Ektar neg. Mono film is beter still - not needing to be microfilm, just TMX, TMY or Rollei 80S, but can be harder to scan, in terms of grain obscuring information, than colour neg. Looks nice though.

6 by 7 can be scanned to make nicer looking (big) prints than a 5D2/1Ds3/M9 file. Again, you need a good start point, but don't epect MF lenses to match 35mm lenses for local reslution (unless you have a Mamiya 7)

Mike
 
Mike,

yes I know to lower my expectations. but I took a lot of care when shooting the bronica (tripod, cable release, mirror lockup) and got mush at the local level. I wasnt expecting 85/1.4 resolution, but I needed more than I got.

Personally I like 35mm film. I would probably go to digital if I could afford an M9, I have no real desire to shoot 35mm full frame SLRs as they are so big. I have an APS-c canon and my experience has been that slide film and t-grained b&w give me superior results. scanning is a ***** though.
 
I have had great results from NCPS developing and scans. I usually get the budget scans for 35mm and the enhanced scans for medium format 645. I have been very pleased but some of the B&W scans are contrasty if pulled, (this is to be expected). I called and they use F76 plus to develop all the B&W film. All of their color film (C-41 & E-6) processing is dip and dunk by hand, even 35mm. No automated machines to scratch your film. Highly recommend!
 
Great, thanks for the replies so far. Interesting to learn that people are getting better results from their V700's than the lab. I may have to give it another go, I never could get my film quite flat enough with the supplier holders.
 
The BetterScanning holders and anti-newton glass transformed my V700, really a lot, lot better. Makes it a lot faster to use too, you just put on the negs and the glass pins it down flat. For 120 film, you can get extremely good results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom