Corran
Well-known
Many pages ago I mentioned the Bayer filter. That's a separate issue but has nothing to do with the perceived issues with DSLR scanning.
Kamph
Established
How is it a seperate issue? As long as DSLRs are using bayer filters this is very much a part of the issue with DSLR "scanning". I believe Sigma made a camera that circumvented the problemes associated Bayer filters somewhat - the SD9, SD14 and DP12.
brbo
Well-known
Supposedly, Olympus doesn't do Bayer demosaicing in the hi-res mode that some of their higher m4/3 cameras have.
Are they much better at "scanning" film than the rest of the DSLR/mirrorless cameras? I don't know, but I doubt it and I also doubt that Bayer filter is what "breaks" camera scanning.
You just see a lot of bad (color issues) DSLR scans, but you have to remember that there are also a lot of scans made with dedicated scanners that are just as bad...
Kamph
Established
The operator is probably the biggest factor, on that I agree.
Corran
Well-known
The discussion at hand has been about global color control, and malleability of that color. The possible issues wrt the Bayer filter would be in finer detail and possibly color effects at the pixel level due to the array. I have not seen any significant discussion on this but I have not searched it out either. It would not cause issues globally and that was my point.
mfogiel
Veteran
So, where is this 1GB Nikon DSLR to scan my Pentax 6x7 negs?
edge100
Well-known
Bayer filter or not, I'm happy with this amount of fine detail.
It seems to me that a lot of this thread is people concerned that something that works in practice does not work in theory.
edge100
Well-known
My D800 does a fantastic job on my Mamiya 7 negs, and its lenses outresolve your Pentax glass.
I think you'll be fine.
f16sunshine
Moderator
You guys are hilarious!
Whose dog is happier takes measurbating to a whole new level.
As my old High-school soccer coach used to say.... "you two are two dates away from moving in together".
Huss
Veteran
You guys are hilarious!
Whose dog is happier takes measurbating to a whole new level.
As my old High-school soccer coach used to say.... "you two are two dates away from moving in together".
We're just passing time here, waiting for the darn 850 and ES-2 to show up.
f16sunshine
Moderator
We're just passing time here, waiting for the darn 850 and ES-2 to show up.
Another happy customer here at the RFF.
Kamph
Established
And that's the most important thing in the end. I'm not here to say that DLSRs can't get the job done, they clearly can. They are convenient and give sufficient IQ for most applications.
But some here seems to be of the impression that scanners are redundant now. In the future they might become, who knows? But right now I think scanners still deliver better quality. The current line of DSLRs have their limitations. Dmax is one judging by the waves in your picture of the boat. Also, while your crop looks sharp enough there's some unflattering digital artifacts present. The grain looks smeared for an example. I'm nitpicking of couse, and I think DLSR scanning is the road forward for a lot of people. In the end we should be happy with anything that might lead to people shooting more film
bjolester
Well-known
edge100: Impressive detail in your DSLR scan above. I have studied your guide to DSLR film scanning with great interest, thank you for sharing!
When I shoot film I mostly use medium format Provia 100F and Velvia 50/100. Do you believe a DSLR scan set-up will do a better job with capturing shadows in dense slides than the Epson V750 that I currently use?
When I shoot film I mostly use medium format Provia 100F and Velvia 50/100. Do you believe a DSLR scan set-up will do a better job with capturing shadows in dense slides than the Epson V750 that I currently use?
Huss
Veteran
edge100
Well-known
And that's the most important thing in the end. I'm not here to say that DLSRs can't get the job done, they clearly can. They are convenient and give sufficient IQ for most applications.
But some here seems to be of the impression that scanners are redundant now. In the future they might become, who knows? But right now I think scanners still deliver better quality. The current line of DSLRs have their limitations. Dmax is one judging by the waves in your picture of the boat. Also, while your crop looks sharp enough there's some unflattering digital artifacts present. The grain looks smeared for an example. I'm nitpicking of couse, and I think DLSR scanning is the road forward for a lot of people. In the end we should be happy with anything that might lead to people shooting more film
You realise, of course, that this is the internet and that these are highly compressed, 8-bit JPEGs, yes? And that this is not a SOOC shot (it has been processed to taste). Also, Dmax is not a concern on this film (Portra 160). The D800 as FAR more DR than the density range of a P160 negative (NOTE: not the same as the DR of the film).
I have tested this. Over and over again. My D800 outresolves a Nikon 9000ED (and has better Dmax). It is as good as an X1 (better resolution on MF and LF, especially stitched; slightly less shadow detail on dense slides). Drum scans are better. And I can buy a D850 for the price of 10-12 drum scans.
edge100
Well-known
Absolutely, 100% yes. If you're using a modern sensor (Nikon or Sony, 2013-14 or later), it wont even be close.
As an example, all of the images in this post were on Provia 100F (Mamiya 7 or Leica M3), scanned with my D800 (EDIT: Keep in mind that I tend towards very heavy contrast in my final images. These are not 'straight' scans from the slides. But there is a lot of detail available, even in the blackest parts of some of these.)
http://www.mfphotography.ca/michael-fraser-photography/category/new-york-city-august-2017
bjolester
Well-known
I believe I have to check out DSLR scanning in more depth, and see if I can get good results with my set-up.
Thank you for sharing the link to your Provia 100F New York set, wonderful images!
Kamph
Established
Yes, but 8-bit jpegs wont look different from a 16bit file for all practical purposes (since the majority of displays can't show more than 8bit anyway) as long as you don't process them after you convert from 16 to 8 bit. Your point about compression artifacts are true for some webhosting sites such as Flickr though, fair enough.
Do you have any comparison shots between the D800 and Nikon scanner? Also in regards to your D800 outresolving the X1 without stitching, how? Even with 3200 dpi on a 6x7 or 2000 dpi on 4x5 the X1 will produce a much bigger file than the D800, and since both 6x7 and 4x5 can hold more detail than 3200 and 2000 dpi respectively, I dont see how your statement can be true.
Edit: Edge100, I'm sorry if I came across as rude, that was not my intention. I think it's in everyones interest if we find the cons and pros of each solution, I hope you understand
edge100
Well-known
Yes, but 8-bit jpegs wont look different from a 16bit file for all practical purposes (since the majority of displays can't show more than 8bit anyway) as long as you don't process them after you convert from 16 to 8 bit? Your point about compression artifacts are true for some webhosting sites such as Flickr though, fair enough.
Do you have any comparison shots between the D800 and Nikon scanner? Also in regards to your D800 outresolving the X1 without stitching, how? Even with 3200 dpi on a 6x7 or 2000 dpi on 4x5 the X1 will produce a much bigger file than the D800, and since both 6x7 and 4x5 can hold more detail than 3200 and 2000 dpi respectively, I dont see how your statement can be true.
Edit: Edge100, I'm sorry if I came across as rude, that was not my intention. I think it's in everyones interest if we find the cons and pros of each solution, I hope you understand
No worries. All good.
Consider a 6x6 (2.25 inches). That’s 3200 x 2.25 = 7200 x 7200, or 51MP, on the X1.
3 stitched images from the D800 is ~75MP (allowing for substantial overlap, to ensure good stitching). Of course, you can stitch as many as you want. The situation is even more in favour of the D800 with 4x5.
I’ll check to see if I’ve got the 9000ED scans; they’re archived, but I should have them somewhere.
Kamph
Established
I misunderstood you then. I thought you meant that you could achieve better resolution than the X1 without stitching.
A 2000 dpi scan of 4x5 should yield 80mp - meaning you would need stitching to match the resolution. This is without taking the D800s true resolution into account, which should be quite a bit lower than the stated 36mp. With a really good lens (the X1 uses a very high quality Rodenstock lens) and stitching you should be able to match the resolution of the X1, yes.
A 2000 dpi scan of 4x5 should yield 80mp - meaning you would need stitching to match the resolution. This is without taking the D800s true resolution into account, which should be quite a bit lower than the stated 36mp. With a really good lens (the X1 uses a very high quality Rodenstock lens) and stitching you should be able to match the resolution of the X1, yes.