pass around scanner test : 1 neg, many scanners

[jacklam]

I would suggest including a gray card in the shot with the still life picture. So we have a standardized reference to adjust color balance and get a more consistent color balance from scanner to scanner. One less variable.

 

[RObert Budding]

Your generous support is appreciated, Rob. We, errr, might discuss the details while cruising with my yacht next weekend - would the Bahamas suit you...?

You bring the yacht, and I'll bring the champagne.

 

[sf]

Zurich, Switzerland. Good morning! ;-) This is going to be one beautiful day over here.

BTW, worldwide shipment typically takes 5 working days from here - so why cut out the "old world" from this - or any place outside the "continent", as you call it?

Besides, I think it could be instructive for people with scanners already on the list but different software (I prefer Vuescan) to join as well.

Cheers.

yeah, different software DOES make a difference - especially post processing (getting from the scan to the JPG). I only mentioned keeping all the postal action inside the US for the sake of simplicity. But, really, it's going to be chaos pretty much wherever things are coming from unless we have ONE source of negs. That's not going to happen for developing reasons, probably. You did produce what looks to be an ideal set of negatives/slides in 35mm. I think I've actually seen that shot before elsewhere - has it been around? I mean, have you used that image for reviews on the internet?

Anyway, I suppose there is not reason to cut out the old world, but we will need to design an organized approach - one that sets a nice flat playing field for the scanners and people and negs and postal work.

 

[sf]

I would suggest including a gray card in the shot with the still life picture. So we have a standardized reference to adjust color balance and get a more consistent color balance from scanner to scanner. One less variable.

Maybe. I don't know. I was thinking more along the lines of untouched, unedited scans. No color balancing, nothing at all. That way, people can see the images in their totally virgin scanned form - color balance themselves on their own computers if necessary.

This needs to be 100% virgin, in my opinion, in order for this to be a truly effective test. Otherwise we aren't looking at raw scans but rather images that have been manipulated.

Of course, JPG compression is going to change the images, but not in the same way or nearly to the same extent.

 

[Lutz]

You did produce what looks to be an ideal set of negatives/slides in 35mm. I think I've actually seen that shot before elsewhere - has it been around? I mean, have you used that image for reviews on the internet?

Thanks George, and no, it hasn't "been around" to my knowledge but I once posted it on a photo.net thread a while ago.

 

[dnk512]

Count me in. I can scan on a Pacific Image 3650u (with ICE) for 35mm, and an Epson 4180 flatbed. May I use vuescan? It does make a big difference on B&W at least.

 

[sf]

OK, I have X-Ray's and Dnk512's addresses and which scanners they are using.

I still need the others mentioned on that list, as well as this most recent poster.

Then, I will create the 645 frames in each medium, and Lutz, I believe is our source for 35mm @5 bucks - which is a fair price.

DNK512 - Epson 4180 & Pacific Image 3650u

X-Ray - Fuji Finescan 5000

 

[tammons]

What sort of 35mm camera are you going to use ??

 

[Lutz]

What sort of 35mm camera are you going to use ??

The 35mm slides and negs were shot with an Olympus OM-1 with mirror lock, tripod, cable release and a 50/2 Zuiko Macro @ f/8. That's one of the sharpest lenses available at optimum aperture.

 

[Lutz]

I just doublechecked on the emulsions: The slides are Elitechromes 200, the B&W negs are FP4, developed in TMax 1+4 for fine grain and optimum tones (see unPSed 100% details of 2900dpi scans attached).

 

[tammons]

No offense and I dont want to get anyone mad but...........

If that is the film you are using, I have no interest in participating. Whats the use of sending film all over the world, if its not the sharpest film available. Elitechrome 200 is okay and Fp4 is a good film too, but IMO, and I will say it again, both systems should shoot Copex or Efke 25 or maybe Illord PanF for B+W, E100G and Velvia and maybe UC film for color negative with a Leica M. I also think you need at least one target shot like I did here. Just that one shot says a lot about the two scanners. The first 3 on this page.

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/drum_comparisons

One reason I say shoot a target is it will show exactly where the scanner resolution breaks down. Hardly any scanners meet their advertized resolution.

Here is an example of Efke B+W. This is the sort of quality we should be shooting for.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/enough-already.shtml

I am also sure the Oly lens is very sharp, and I love olys, and my favorite camera is an OM1, but I doubt it is at a Leica M level with the latest 35mm ASPH lens. Just stopping down from F4 to F8 costs a lot of resolving power with that Leica lens.

One thing with using a Leica is it eliminates lens sharpness questions.

For me the most important determination in scanner selection besides DR is resolving power at the higher levels especially with 35mm and that is probably the entire reason I ended up with a drum scanner.

Also to me I dont see the importance of scanning MF. You can make a good decision based on a 35mm scan.

The reason I say that is that MF lenses are not even close to Leica 35mm unless its a Rollei. You can actually have 2 scanners, one a top drum, the other an average film scanner and get exactly the same results out of MF film due to the lens resolution alone and that exact thing has happened to me.

I have done drum scans of all sorts of film with a lot of cameras and those are some of the sharpest films available. I have also seen a few half baked scanner comparisons and IMO they are a waste of time. They gave it a good try but came up short in a lot of areas IMO. Even the simple one I did is looking pretty pale.

Look at this photo. This is the sort of quality I am talking about. This is a Leica M2 40mm, Illford Pan-F 4000 dpi scan. Download this and check out the pixel edge sharpness.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/Wedel1k_1k.jpg

and a Nikon F with gigabit film. I was told by J+C gigabit is relabeled Copex microfilm and the dev is the older solution. This is a good one too.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/Tobermory_SH_crop_1000.jpg

If you want the very best test results you must use the sharpest film and the sharpest camera system to start.

 

[sf]

I understand your argument here, but it is also important to remember that no way is anyone going to get a manual focus camera - or an AF camera for that matter - focused so accurately on a target that the capability of the lens OR film will be utilized 100%.

We either need to get this together or not do it at all. This ISN'T a resolution test. It's a test to see how each scanner COMPARES to the others.

I will do the 645 - please everyone on the list (except the two who have sent already), send me your addresses. I'm not charging for the film, since this is my idea.

BUT, I won't do this unless we all agree on either buying from Lutz or finding another source. Anyone want to shoot three rolls of film in the name of a good comparason scanner review?

No offense and I dont want to get anyone mad but...........

If that is the film you are using, I have no interest in participating. Whats the use of sending film all over the world, if its not the sharpest film available. Elitechrome 200 is okay and Fp4 is a good film too, but IMO, and I will say it again, both systems should shoot Copex or Efke 25 or maybe Illord PanF for B+W, E100G and Velvia and maybe UC film for color negative with a Leica M. I also think you need at least one target shot like I did here. Just that one shot says a lot about the two scanners. The first 3 on this page.

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/drum_comparisons

One reason I say shoot a target is it will show exactly where the scanner resolution breaks down. Hardly any scanners meet their advertized resolution.

Here is an example of Efke B+W. This is the sort of quality we should be shooting for.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/enough-already.shtml

I am also sure the Oly lens is very sharp, and I love olys, and my favorite camera is an OM1, but I doubt it is at a Leica M level with the latest 35mm ASPH lens. Just stopping down from F4 to F8 costs a lot of resolving power with that Leica lens.

One thing with using a Leica is it eliminates lens sharpness questions.

For me the most important determination in scanner selection besides DR is resolving power at the higher levels especially with 35mm and that is probably the entire reason I ended up with a drum scanner.

Also to me I dont see the importance of scanning MF. You can make a good decision based on a 35mm scan.

The reason I say that is that MF lenses are not even close to Leica 35mm unless its a Rollei. You can actually have 2 scanners, one a top drum, the other an average film scanner and get exactly the same results out of MF film due to the lens resolution alone and that exact thing has happened to me.

I have done drum scans of all sorts of film with a lot of cameras and those are some of the sharpest films available. I have also seen a few half baked scanner comparisons and IMO they are a waste of time. They gave it a good try but came up short in a lot of areas IMO. Even the simple one I did is looking pretty pale.

Look at this photo. This is the sort of quality I am talking about. This is a Leica M2 40mm, Illford Pan-F 4000 dpi scan. Download this and check out the pixel edge sharpness.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/Wedel1k_1k.jpg

and a Nikon F with gigabit film. I was told by J+C gigabit is relabeled Copex microfilm and the dev is the older solution. This is a good one too.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/Tobermory_SH_crop_1000.jpg

If you want the very best test results you must use the sharpest film and the sharpest camera system to start.

 

[tammons]

> I understand your argument here, but it is also important to remember that no way is anyone going to get a manual focus camera

I disagree with that entirely.

> - or an AF camera for that matter - focused so accurately on a target that the capability of the lens OR film will be utilized 100%.

Bracket focus. AF fails too. bracket focus is just part of it.

> We either need to get this together or not do it at all. This ISN'T a resolution test.

Well it is, since scanners are resolution devices too and just part of the equation. Believe me on a drum scanner or even a 4000 dpi film scanner there is a big difference between a 50lp/mm photo and a 80 lp/mm photo.

It's a test to see how each scanner COMPARES to the others.

If you want to look at the best output a scanner can deliver, you need to use the best film and lenses. That is all I am saying. Not trying to be argumentative, but i just got into a long discussion with a scanner tester and the biggest problem was we could not tell really how sharp his film shots are. He had no baseline like a very sharp drumscanned photo.

I will do the 645 - please everyone on the list (except the two who have sent already), send me your addresses. I'm not charging for the film, since this is my idea.

BUT, I won't do this unless we all agree on either buying from Lutz or finding another source. Anyone want to shoot three rolls of film in the name of a good comparason scanner review?

I would do it for free if I had a Leica, but alas I dont. Sorry. Not rich enough. I have several rolls of pan-f, and E100G just sitting here. Maybe I could rent one.

I have a lot of cameras but none quite at that Leica asph level. I do have a Ql17, Contax TVS II and a cy 50mm contax F1.4 and a cy Contax 28mm F2.8 that are both very sharp.

 

[Lutz]

Hi tammons, I AM rich (because I make money from selling slides - LOL!), thus I HAVE a Leica M 35/1.4 asph - believe me, the Zuiko 50/2 is AS good. As for the real world comparison shutterflower was originally suggesting in this thread of HIS, I think it is very well doable with these targets - that's why I originally chimed in. If you can produce better ones let me have a pair for $5. Cheers.

 

[aad]

If we use the same stuff, we should get usable results. I'm using Vuescan now on the DSIV since the OEM software is so whacky.

Do we want to use TIFF instead of Jpeg?

 

[sfb_dot_com]

Ummmmm,

I hate to have to say this, but....

QED

Not surprised tho'

Andy

 

[sf]

have x-ray, DNK512, Aad addresses to far.

Please, others on list send addresses


ChrisN, MelanieC, Robert Budding, and Tammons.

And, surely, if Tammons might offer us a better set of 35mm negs, I'd be game to buy those as well.

Let's hear the final word on paying someone for their slides. I have decided that if we pay Lutz, I would also require a small fee to cover my own. If we don't pay, I won't require it. All or nothing.

Of course. . . Lutz is in Switzerland, and the rest of us are in the USA. So, if anyone in the USA wants to offer a set of 35mm (all three media), that would be great - though I think Lutz's slides look like they'll be perfect for this project.

argh!

 

[tammons]

have x-ray, DNK512, Aad addresses to far.

Please, others on list send addresses


ChrisN, MelanieC, Robert Budding, and Tammons.

And, surely, if Tammons might offer us a better set of 35mm negs, I'd be game to buy those as well.

Let's hear the final word on paying someone for their slides. I have decided that if we pay Lutz, I would also require a small fee to cover my own. If we don't pay, I won't require it. All or nothing.

Of course. . . Lutz is in Switzerland, and the rest of us are in the USA. So, if anyone in the USA wants to offer a set of 35mm (all three media), that would be great - though I think Lutz's slides look like they'll be perfect for this project.

argh!

You dont have to buy anything. If someone feels like contributing they can paypal me.

Let me get my ducks in a row and i will get back to you. I would suggest just one more thing. Take a digital super macro shot of each peice of film as an example of what the film actually looks like. I can do that if I can mind my adapter rings.

That is what this is.....

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/image/34470312

 

[aad]

If someone wants to coordinate, I'll Paypal over some $ to get this going. Shutterflower, you started it! You can collect. Let me know.

 

[sf]

You dont have to buy anything. If someone feels like contributing they can paypal me.

Let me get my ducks in a row and i will get back to you. I would suggest just one more thing. Take a digital super macro shot of each peice of film as an example of what the film actually looks like. I can do that if I can mind my adapter rings.

That is what this is.....

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/image/34470312

If you want to take a macro shot, that's fine. I can't do that. I've just gone my RF645 and my Multi Pro. If someone else wants to do that, so be it.