Scanning film - the DSLR way!

[gavinlg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgOTk4ApEYs


I thought this was VERY clever! I realize digital rev didn't invent the idea of doing it with your DSLR, but I'm definitely going to have a try of this!
I might even have a go, and compare the result with some scans from my v600 flatbed! Anyone else want to have a comparison crack?

In addition, (if it works as well as I hope) I might finally have an excuse to get that zeiss ZE 100mm f2 makro-planar I've been pining for recently!

 

[L David Tomei]

Very cleaver guy. Several years ago I bought a Nikon PB-6 bellows setup pretty cheap and mounted my old Micro Nikkor. Since then I have used it to digitize film with my old D70. Until a year ago or so, I couldn't find any mention of this technique but that's changed. The only problem I encounter is the often unwanted and unavoidable cropping of the original frame when using a DSLR like the D70.

David

 

[tlitody]

Just so long as you don't become like him 😀

 

[gavinlg]

Well, here's my first (and very dodgy) impressions - I don't have a lens for dslr that goes over 50mm at the moment, and the sigma 50mm doesn't focus close at all. Ideally I think you'd want a 100-150ish mm lens...

Otherwise the colors and shadow/highlight control seem to be quite good - I can lift the shadows on the RAW 5d files much more than I can from a v600 flatbed scan.

 

[Tin]

I have tried once to use an old slide duplicator from 40 years ago to duplicate a couple of slides. And yes, with a DSLR with a crop factor, you can only copy part of the original. So for this method to work properly, you need a full frame camera. I haven't done enough to say how good this method is, but it is certainly convenient.

Although this setup would not be as good as using a bellow, a slide duplication attachment, and a macro lens, it is a cheaper alternative. Here is a link to a description of this method from ephotozine:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/using-a-slide-duplicator-4813

The duplicator shown in this link is similar to the gadget that I use.

 

[gavinlg]

Ok so this is probably the worst example ever, but keep in mind it's a 100% crop of like 10% of the actual frame, taken with a 12mp 5d with a 50mm sigma lens at f2.5 - the sigma has quite a long minimum focussing distance, so it can only be so sharp and detailed.

What impresses me though, is that I'm getting better tones with that tiny little minuscule crop than I did scanning on either my minolta dual scan IV or epson v600 flatbed - and I can lift or pull heaps of detail either way. In fact, considering the huge crop on this file, I'd bet with a good 100mm macro lens, making sure the negative fills the full frame, and at around f5.6ish (should be maximum resolution all over by then, and not hitting diffraction yet on a DSLR), I could get significantly better detail out of a negative with the DSLR than ANY scanner.

REALLY wish I had a long macro lens to try it out - I might hire a 100mm f2.8L for a day and give it a whirl...

 

[rsosa]

what about re loading the film inside a film can. Putting it inside the camera and advance it with the back of the camera opened?
then use a long tele attached with a DSLR with the infinity focus check technique?
both cameras in tripod may give stable results and the camera should flat the film better?

 

[charjohncarter]

I have built a rig for this and I can't tell the difference between B&W shots from a scan. Color is different, it is hard to get the color correction with the DSLR. The DSLR is certainly much faster.

 

[tlitody]

you can buy a slide duplicator which has the right lens in it and a mount for a canon or digital for £125. And you can get a mount and film strip holder accessory. Setting up on a tripod and lightbox is a pain because you have to get perpendicular alignment perfectly because DOF is very narrow at 1:1

http://www.kauserinternational.com/Photography/Ohnar/ohnar.htm

http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/slide_copying/ohnar_zoom_slide_copier_full_frame/8537_p.html

http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/slide_copying/ohnar_zoom_slide_copier_apsc_size/15137_p.html

 

[gavinlg]

you can buy a slide duplicator which has the right lens in it and a mount for a canon or digital for £125. And you can get a mount and film strip holder accessory. Setting up on a tripod and lightbox is a pain because you have to get perpendicular alignment perfectly because DOF is very narrow at 1:1

http://www.kauserinternational.com/Photography/Ohnar/ohnar.htm

http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/slide_copying/ohnar_zoom_slide_copier_full_frame/8537_p.html

http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/slide_copying/ohnar_zoom_slide_copier_apsc_size/15137_p.html

I wonder if you could get better results with a decent macro lens though - 124 pounds surely couldn't get you much optical quality, however convenient?

 

[gavinlg]

I have built a rig for this and I can't tell the difference between B&W shots from a scan. Color is different, it is hard to get the color correction with the DSLR. The DSLR is certainly much faster.

Very nice!

 

[PatrickONeill]

I was bored one day and made an equally boring post about my dSRL scanning technique. http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105746

 

[Frank Petronio]

Seems like an exercise in demonstrating how bad the Epson flatbed scans are, that they can't compete with the generational and dynamic range losses of using a DSLR to shoot film!

 

[axiom]

hmm.... looks like I need to buy a dslr now

 

[gavinlg]

Seems like an exercise in demonstrating how bad the Epson flatbed scans are, that they can't compete with the generational and dynamic range losses of using a DSLR to shoot film!

Well the thing about the 5d (and plenty of the other modern dslr's) is that as long as you keep highlights in check (histogram lovin), you can lift the shadows a LOT without any degradation. Especially with the 5d, which has an iso50 setting - just make sure you'd got the highlights right where they need to be and then lift the shadows really subtly until it looks 'right'. Even without doing that though, you've probably got about 11.5 or so stops of dynamic range from a RAW file.

The other thing is that flatbeds have horrible optics in them, no matter what you just can't get past that...

 

[Frank Petronio]

Oh I sympathize, from a practical point of view it's a very effective technique when you don't have access to a good film scanner.

But the irony is quite thick....

 

[charjohncarter]

Well the thing about the 5d (and plenty of the other modern dslr's) is that as long as you keep highlights in check (histogram lovin), you can lift the shadows a LOT without any degradation. Especially with the 5d, which has an iso50 setting - just make sure you'd got the highlights right where they need to be and then lift the shadows really subtly until it looks 'right'. Even without doing that though, you've probably got about 11.5 or so stops of dynamic range from a RAW file.

The other thing is that flatbeds have horrible optics in them, no matter what you just can't get past that...

This is correct, but you really have the same features with the histogram on a scanner. One reason I tried my rig was I wanted to see if TriX would look better with the DSLR. It does, but very slightly in the shadow areas. Tmax films are really no problem with either method.

So for me with a difficult Trix negative an enlarger and silver paper is still my favorite. If it has to be digitalized the flat bed scan preserves the shadow quality.

 

[silverbullet]

here is a (not so expensive) solution with a small light box.
The funny thing is the usage of LEGO bricks.........😀

http://www.digilightbox.de/index3.php?section=p_71

 

[tapesonthefloor]

Seems like an exercise in demonstrating how bad the Epson flatbed scans are, that they can't compete with the generational and dynamic range losses of using a DSLR to shoot film!

I absolutely agree. I hate that there's no decent middle-range film scanning solution for someone like me. The world is filled with a few professional products, a few flatbeds that are unsatisfactory with film, and a wide range of really cheap, really terrible dedicated scanners. There has to be some market for a scanner that is both not crap and not over $1000.

Hm. I wonder if Lomography would look into such a device. They've built quite the economy around their films and their cameras. Certainly their users would buy a capable scanner if it was between $300-500.

 

[tlitody]

I wonder if you could get better results with a decent macro lens though - 124 pounds surely couldn't get you much optical quality, however convenient?

Its supposed to be quite a good lens but I can't personally vouch for it.
The beauty of the thing is its simplicity of operation.

If you want something really professsional then have a look for a "bowens illumitrans" but a good one will cost you a lot more. It will do medium and 4x5 as well as 135 or smaller.