New Nikon ES-2 Film Digitizing Adapter & Slide Scanner Announced

Kamph said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is not theory; I've tested it. A 9 image stitch of a 4x5 image (the above shot of the boat is a 9 image stitch) is as good as the X1. Or at least not discernibly worse.

Re: stitching, I generally don't bother. For me, the advantage of DSLR scanning is its massive advantage over consumer and prosumer grade scanners (flatbeds, for sure, but also the Coolscans and Plusteks), rather than its performance with respect to a $15000 X1.

Most of the time, a ~30MP DSLR scan of a 6x7 frame is more than sufficient, and offers greatly superior results vs anything I can get for a comparable price.

I'm all in on DSLR scanning. In my view, it is 100% the future for HQ film digitization. Witness the $$$ Capture One Heritage/Phase One product.
 
edge100 said:
... snip images...

Bayer filter or not, I'm happy with this amount of fine detail.
Click to expand...

IMHO, there's no issue with fine detail in the camera-scan idea.

If there's an issue, it's in color and tonality. Enough of us have done camera-scans of C-41 that produce off-colors. I think I've seen it in from B&W negatives as well.

I'm convinced that when the non-linearity of film is dealt with, we can have excellent camera-scans of C-41 negatives without a lot of manual manipulation.
 
edge100 said:
... snip ...

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).
Click to expand...

I think this is important. Color negative film deals with a wide DR, but records it with much narrower DR in the film.

I've tested it as well and agree with Michael. A DSLR capture of color negative film has no problem with Dmax or dynamic range. The histograms are nowhere near the ends.
 
ColSebastianMoran said:
I'm convinced that when the non-linearity of film is dealt with, we can have excellent camera-scans of C-41 negatives without a lot of manual manipulation.
Click to expand...

My recent images, on multiple film stocks, back this up 100%.

Portra 800 @ EI200 (dev normal C41)
DJaCK8mWsAAMDoZ.jpg


400H @ EI100 (dev normal C41)
DJfDHP8VwAA_0sK.jpg


Portra 800 @ EI200 (dev normal C41)
DJfWiVyW4AINF2Y.jpg


400H @ EI100 (dev normal C41)
DJjGtlfXUAEY4gf.jpg


Expired-but-frozen Reala @ 100 (dev normal C41)
DJpFt16XkAEEeBl.jpg


If anyone is unhappy with these - all done with the D800 and the new non-linear invert-based action - then the problem isn't the scans, it's you.

EDIT: Some odd posterization going on in some of these. That's a web artifact.
 
edge100 said:
If anyone is unhappy with these - all done with the D800 and the new non-linear invert-based action - then the problem isn't the scans, it's you.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be happy and, yes, it's 100% just me. Because it IS subjective.

This is what I get from overexposed (ISO 50 or 100) Fuji 400H:










Expired Fuji Reala 100:








To ME, my scans look better. I'm just not arrogant enough to say that anyone who doesn't like them has a problem.
 
brbo said:
I wouldn't be happy and, yes, it's 100% just me. Because it IS subjective.

This is what I get from overexposed (ISO 50 or 100) Fuji 400H:

<snip>

To ME, my scans look better. I'm just not arrogant enough to say that anyone who doesn't like them has a problem.
Click to expand...

Nah, they don't.

I'm fine with you not being happy with my scans. And you're quite right: ALL of this is subjective. It always has been, always will be. There is no "correct" look for 400H, P800, or any other negative film. Never was. So if your subjective eye does not match mine, that's cool.

What I'm not fine with is constantly having to defend DSLR scanning (and my processing techniques), which is demonstrably superior (or at VERY least, not inferior...which is something, considering the relative costs of a good FF DSLR and macro vs. an X1 or even a 9000ED) to everything up to an X1. There is subjective processing and then there's objectively measurable things like dynamic range and resolution. You can critique the first, but the second is simply fact.

EDIT: FFS, these are drum scans. Good for you for comparing drum scans to DSLR scans (which you didn't *actually* do of course, since we haven't compared the same negs, have we?).

We're done here.
 
brbo said:
To ME, my scans look better. I'm just not arrogant enough to say that anyone who doesn't like them has a problem.
Click to expand...

The ones that you provide that are impressive from a technical standpoint are your drum scans. Nice of you to sneak those in w/o mentioning that! And drum scans do set the standard, no-one here questions that.

This thread is about the new Nikon DSLR solution which is an excellent alternative to non drum scanning .

The drum scan thread on this site really is something else.


https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134187
 
was going to say that this thread has derailed for a couple of post now.

has anyone used the D850 and Negative Digitizer feature yet?
Can't find any articles about it yet.
 
Huss said:
The ones that you provide that are impressive from a technical standpoint are your drum scans. Nice of you to sneak those in w/o mentioning that!
Click to expand...

Sneak? Those?

There is only 1 (one) drum scan between them and it couldn't be more obvious which one is that (well, the worst looking one since it has the least contrast, righ?). Hardly sneaking something in when you even leave the area with air bubbles visible in the scan (and tags on flickr), isn't it? BTW, the rest are scanned with three different desktop ccd scanners.

And if you'd read my posts in this thread you'd see I'm NOT the one who is dismissing camera scans. I'd actually love to see nice looking camera scans from color negative films. I've even participated in one other thread inverting a camera scan before someone called "copyright" on a totally random meaningless snapshot that was used for inversion because he didn't like how the debate was going.

Since I don't own a digital camera I can't do a scanner vs. camera comparison myself. But I get the hint. I'm not going to get any information I'm looking for in this or similar threads. Except that DSLR scans are supposedly super special. But a bit like Nessie.

I almost posted a thread with intention of shooting a roll of C-41, E-6 and ECN-2 film with 36 identical frames and giving them to folks interested in having a go with the equipment they have. I then remembered that RFF is not a place to do this. What if DSL scan doesn't win the popular vote?!!!
 
Brbo, those scans are beautiful, drum scanner or not. The tonal gradation is in my opinion in another league entirely. Is that 3rd shot from Kronborg, Denmark?

Edge 100 you totally lost me. Your scans are fair but not by any means perfect. Just look at the tonal gradation. You also have color casts in your midtones and shadows. This does not show what DLSRs are really capable off, or at least I hope not.

You also don't get to call what is fact or not before you show us some evidence for your claims. Show us some comparisons with a Nikon 9000 and a X1.
 
taemo said:
has anyone used the D850 and Negative Digitizer feature yet?
Can't find any articles about it yet.
Click to expand...

I can't find anyone that has. I've also asked on fredmiranda.com
The ES-2 is just a film holder. It's whatever the secret sauce in the inversion mode on the D850 that is interesting. Because how is it going to cope with all the different types of film? Commercial scanners have profiles for those. Does the D850 have profiles?


I'm thinking it has to be good/great, otherwise why bother?
 
edge100 said:
The drum scans above are technically great but boring.
Click to expand...

What? He just told you that only one of them is a drum scan the rest is from CCD scanners.
Boring is besides the point don't you think? I mean you posted what seem like family pictures.
You're taking great offense every time someone disagree with you. If anyone is doing DSLR scanning a disservice right now it's you and your way of discussing.
 
OK folks,

you all are entitled to discuss and and or agree / disagree

in a CIVIL and RESPECTFUL manner.

You are not entitled to argue endlessly back and forth
insisting YOUR viewpoint is RIGHT,

or TROLL others.

Either of those entertainments will get you banned.

Stephen
 
From what I have seen, the film scanning mode on the D850 is accessed by being in LiveView, then pressing the 'i' symbol, then selecting the symbol for it (I think there are only 3 and this one is C). Then you pick colour or mono and away you go.

But still no-one has tested this yet!
 
Huss said:
Yeah I saw that Corran, it's how I got my info!
But no-one has yet used it (and published about it). Interesting to see how it reverses the red.

www.casualphotophile.com - an excellent website - has said they will test it 'soon'.
Click to expand...

I'd wager that it's some kind of RGB curves normalization and a non-linear inversion.

That would certainly be a trailblazing approach that no one has ever thought of before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rumbliegeos
Medium format digitizing on a budget challenge
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
das
das
Andprayforrain
Nikon D850 for digitizing
Replies
14
Views
1K
Huss
H
W
JJC Film Scanning Adapter Kit
Replies
5
Views
2K
webouser2
W
G
Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED new user advice?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Chriscrawfordphoto
Chriscrawfordphoto
J
  • Article Article
Movie Film to Digital Video Conversion: What you need depends upon your priorities and pocketbook!
Replies
6
Views
1K
EarlJam
E
Back
Top Bottom