siddho
Newbie
sometimes i read about somebody who uses a digital camera to scan film.....
anybody has any experience with this method ?
is the quality equal to a lets say an epson v700 ?
anybody has any experience with this method ?
is the quality equal to a lets say an epson v700 ?
tsiklonaut
Well-known
IMHO, with a good macro lens and holder setup it will be better than V700.
The newer big dSLRs have highly developed and finetuned internal "software-brain" (CPU) that smoothens, noise-shapes and sharpens up the details in multiple levels and stages - it's basically firmware-software capability (since CCD sensors themselves are very compromised sensors and need a lot of back-end computer calculation support to draw out and interpolate a "nice" image out of a limited Bayer-sensor), so it will "look" much sharper for your eyes than a flatbed scan.
With a lot of Photoshoping you can get similar results from a V700/750, but it's a lot of skillful PP work in comparison of "FF dSLR scanner" where most of this work is done through camera's internal CPU signal-processor with a split second (and yes, it goes through it even if you shoot raw).
If you look for the very best from your analog work without internal or external "software tricks" during scanning - only the high-end drum scanners will do since they render the film emulsion's details the most naturally.
All IMHO of course.
The newer big dSLRs have highly developed and finetuned internal "software-brain" (CPU) that smoothens, noise-shapes and sharpens up the details in multiple levels and stages - it's basically firmware-software capability (since CCD sensors themselves are very compromised sensors and need a lot of back-end computer calculation support to draw out and interpolate a "nice" image out of a limited Bayer-sensor), so it will "look" much sharper for your eyes than a flatbed scan.
With a lot of Photoshoping you can get similar results from a V700/750, but it's a lot of skillful PP work in comparison of "FF dSLR scanner" where most of this work is done through camera's internal CPU signal-processor with a split second (and yes, it goes through it even if you shoot raw).
If you look for the very best from your analog work without internal or external "software tricks" during scanning - only the high-end drum scanners will do since they render the film emulsion's details the most naturally.
All IMHO of course.
Glenn2
Well-known
Yes, I've done exactly that. So far only with a couple of Kodachrome slides.
My setup is D800e, 60mm Micro Nikor (it does 1:1) and SB800 flash aimed into a homemade light sphere. I also have a Nikon CS-5000 which was used to scan the same slide.
Initial results seem to indicate that the camera beats the scanner, and the CS-5000 isn't any slouch. So far my rig is a very crude prototype and needs to be refined before it can tackle the years of slides that I've shot. What the camera system can't do is handle dust and scratches like ICE does.
I haven't tried it with negative material yet but that is planned when I have some spare time. A working unit will need a better means to hold slides/film in correct alignment than what my prototype has. Right now I just lay the slide over an opening in the light sphere. An LED flashlight aimed into the sphere provides enough light for focusing using live view at high magnification.
It's getting late here and I'm still recovering from a bout with pneumonia but will try to post some examples soon.
Glenn
My setup is D800e, 60mm Micro Nikor (it does 1:1) and SB800 flash aimed into a homemade light sphere. I also have a Nikon CS-5000 which was used to scan the same slide.
Initial results seem to indicate that the camera beats the scanner, and the CS-5000 isn't any slouch. So far my rig is a very crude prototype and needs to be refined before it can tackle the years of slides that I've shot. What the camera system can't do is handle dust and scratches like ICE does.
I haven't tried it with negative material yet but that is planned when I have some spare time. A working unit will need a better means to hold slides/film in correct alignment than what my prototype has. Right now I just lay the slide over an opening in the light sphere. An LED flashlight aimed into the sphere provides enough light for focusing using live view at high magnification.
It's getting late here and I'm still recovering from a bout with pneumonia but will try to post some examples soon.
Glenn
Classique
Well-known
I tried something similar using Sigma DP2M "scanning" 6x6 negative. I used tablet as a backlight (app that basically puts up white background) and I laid negatives on a plexiglass raised a bit by film caps and shot it - had to raise it so to not capture the pixel density of the screen (lightbox may be better). Since I was just trying if it can be done (my normal means of scanning MF is old Epson 4490), I shot it hand held at f/4 using the close up adapter. Preliminary results look pretty good since I was able to get at least the same, if not more detail from the negative as the scanner (resolved the film grain but not as sharp as I would like). So, after I thought more about it, next time I will try with film in the film holder for 4490 and dp2m fixed on tripod with aperture 5.6-8.
Since I have seen that the detail of dp2m come close to D800e (or so they say), I would think scanning negatives with D800e would actually work very well (interchangeable lens and available macro lenses mean you can scan negatives of all sizes). My guess would be that it would surely surpass the quality of V700 BUT comes at a trade of setting up your own system and the inconvenience of scanning one by one (no ICE eitiher).
Since I have seen that the detail of dp2m come close to D800e (or so they say), I would think scanning negatives with D800e would actually work very well (interchangeable lens and available macro lenses mean you can scan negatives of all sizes). My guess would be that it would surely surpass the quality of V700 BUT comes at a trade of setting up your own system and the inconvenience of scanning one by one (no ICE eitiher).
mani
Well-known
mdarnton
Well-known
I've been doing it for several years with my D300, after finally giving up on flatbed scanners, which seem doomed to give a smeary image, no matter how much you pay. The result are great, and I have my eye on a D800, or maybe the new Leica, to get better. So, http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/7183241686/
Alignment is critical, and the way to get it perfect is to put a mirror on the negative stage, and tilt the camera around until the reflection of the lens that the camera sees is exactly centered in the viewfinder. If you aren't going to get this absoultely perfect, don't even try. My Micro-Nikkors (I have three of different vintage) all come in best at just about f/8, so you can't count on DOF to cover misalignment.
I had read somewhere about the possibility of grain dithering (against the sensor pixels) giving larger grain, and initially, at the pixel peeping level, I thought that was happening, but when I made some 13x19 prints and they looked no worse than sliver prints would, I realized that the grain had been there all along, but no previous scanner had been able to get it. For 2-1/4, the camera isn't better than a scanner (effective resolution drops to worse than half what it is for 35mm, since the resolution is 2800 per neg, not per inch).
All the negs I've been copying have been Tri-X. If I were doing something finer, I'm sure a better camera would do a better job, but I think I've tapped the limits of Tri-X with my setup.
Alignment is critical, and the way to get it perfect is to put a mirror on the negative stage, and tilt the camera around until the reflection of the lens that the camera sees is exactly centered in the viewfinder. If you aren't going to get this absoultely perfect, don't even try. My Micro-Nikkors (I have three of different vintage) all come in best at just about f/8, so you can't count on DOF to cover misalignment.
I had read somewhere about the possibility of grain dithering (against the sensor pixels) giving larger grain, and initially, at the pixel peeping level, I thought that was happening, but when I made some 13x19 prints and they looked no worse than sliver prints would, I realized that the grain had been there all along, but no previous scanner had been able to get it. For 2-1/4, the camera isn't better than a scanner (effective resolution drops to worse than half what it is for 35mm, since the resolution is 2800 per neg, not per inch).
All the negs I've been copying have been Tri-X. If I were doing something finer, I'm sure a better camera would do a better job, but I think I've tapped the limits of Tri-X with my setup.
Aristophanes
Well-known
craygc
Well-known
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I use my 5D in that way, with either the Tamron 90mm Macro or an Ohnar slide copier that I picked up for £15.
I use the Tamron on a copy stand with the negatives sitting on my light box. The Ohnar can just be pointed at some white cloud.
The Tamron is far more flexible and I use it for up to 6x9 negatives and slides. The Ohnar is much more convenient and immune to vibration but the quality is not quite as good, though fine for internet display and filing purposes.
I use the Tamron on a copy stand with the negatives sitting on my light box. The Ohnar can just be pointed at some white cloud.
The Tamron is far more flexible and I use it for up to 6x9 negatives and slides. The Ohnar is much more convenient and immune to vibration but the quality is not quite as good, though fine for internet display and filing purposes.
Snowbuzz
Well-known
I don't know why, but I've been scorning these methods as wrong on some completely illogical, film Luddite level. I've looked at Ming Thein's Hasselblad 'scans' with his D800E and although they look nice, they look a bit too sharp imo. Too digital. Perhaps I'm just used to my crappy flatbed scans and I don't know what I've been missing. I also wonder about a digital camera wrecking tonality and chopping dynamic range.
Anyway, I tried this out myself today with a Fuji X-E1 and a wide-angle lens (not macro). I used a 4x5 pinhole Delta 100 negative on a colour-corrected Just lightbox. I chose the pinhole picture because it looks very rounded and 'analog'-like: the pinhole reduced resolution quite a bit. This is what it looks like:
Yeah, well, the picture ain't art but, gee, it looks awfully similar to the flatbed scan. I still have to make a print to compare but it seems as though this might actually work. I suppose getting a macro lens and stitching may allow large prints. I'm not 100% convinced yet but we'll see.
Anyway, I tried this out myself today with a Fuji X-E1 and a wide-angle lens (not macro). I used a 4x5 pinhole Delta 100 negative on a colour-corrected Just lightbox. I chose the pinhole picture because it looks very rounded and 'analog'-like: the pinhole reduced resolution quite a bit. This is what it looks like:
Yeah, well, the picture ain't art but, gee, it looks awfully similar to the flatbed scan. I still have to make a print to compare but it seems as though this might actually work. I suppose getting a macro lens and stitching may allow large prints. I'm not 100% convinced yet but we'll see.
L David Tomei
Well-known
I've used my old D70 with a 50mm Tessar (another old lens) on a PB-6 setup to digitize Tri-X negs, although I do have a new Epson scanner. The main problem I have encountered is getting the right illumination. I found that you can get a good cold light source using a computer monitor but it still needs some fiddling to get a clean image.
The results are OK but I have not been able to maintain resolution, as can be seen in this 40 year old photo of my daughter. Also, the D70 on the PB-6 bellows requires a small amount of cropping.
David
The results are OK but I have not been able to maintain resolution, as can be seen in this 40 year old photo of my daughter. Also, the D70 on the PB-6 bellows requires a small amount of cropping.
David
mdarnton
Well-known
I don't think a Tessar has any possibility of doing the job well. When I set up my rig, I tried a bunch of lenses. ALL camera lenses failed miserably. Four enlarging lenses (Nikkor, Componon and some others) were only slightly better. What you really need is a lens that's designed for 1:1 or similar. Also, aperture is critical. I ran a series of half-step tests on my micro-Nikkors, and even a half-step from optimum is visibly inferior.
L David Tomei
Well-known
You may be right but I tried my 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor, and a bunch of others including a Summicron 50mm and a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor. Can't say I saw much of a difference. I assumed that since the Tessar is fixed focus and doesn't have a focusing helical, it was likely an enlarging lens. I suppose I should just get off my butt and unpack my new Epson and do the scans correctly... but that just isn't as much fun.
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Check out Ming Thein's excellent blog.
He digitizes his negatives with a D800e with a Nikor 60mm macro and archives great results!
He digitizes his negatives with a D800e with a Nikor 60mm macro and archives great results!
ZeissFan
Veteran
The Tessar is a decent flat-field lens. In fact, it was used with many macro setups before Zeiss offered the Makro Planar.
The Tessar also was used as an enlarging lens for certain Zeiss Ikon enlargers.
I would tend to think that a true macro lens would be the preferred lens. I'm a bit surprised that an enlarging lens mounted on bellows didn't work out well.
I've always wondered how it would do with medium format, considering that you're actually shooting to a format that is smaller than the original.
I would think it would be best if you could turn off in-camera sharpening. I also wonder if a camera without the Bayer filter would be best for this type of setup.
lukitas
second hand noob
I'm doing this with a D3100 and an extension ring.
It's a bit fiddly getting everything just right (I still have to work on my light source), but I am getting excellent results, better than the scans from the lab, better than a 9 megapixel negative and slide scanner. I can see the grain of 400 ISO film, and I have full frame with a little bit of borders.
I overexpose my negatives about 1 stop, this seems to give a little more tone in what will become the highlights.
You do need software that converts raw negatives to raw positives before you can comfortably edit them for contrast and exposure. You can work on the histograms with negative files, but this is mostly guesswork, and you'll have to go through the positive files again anyway.
One good thing is that the built-in meter applies some exposure correction on your negatives : depending on exposure mode, they'll all be exposed to the same mean gray value.
It's a bit fiddly getting everything just right (I still have to work on my light source), but I am getting excellent results, better than the scans from the lab, better than a 9 megapixel negative and slide scanner. I can see the grain of 400 ISO film, and I have full frame with a little bit of borders.
I overexpose my negatives about 1 stop, this seems to give a little more tone in what will become the highlights.
You do need software that converts raw negatives to raw positives before you can comfortably edit them for contrast and exposure. You can work on the histograms with negative files, but this is mostly guesswork, and you'll have to go through the positive files again anyway.
One good thing is that the built-in meter applies some exposure correction on your negatives : depending on exposure mode, they'll all be exposed to the same mean gray value.
Eric T
Well-known
I tried this a number of ways and could never get satisfactory reversals of my negatives.
I probably just don't have the patience. I struggled getting sharp scans from my V700 scanner and don't want to spend the money on a better scanner.
So I rarely shoot film now and just let the digital camera take care of this step.
I probably just don't have the patience. I struggled getting sharp scans from my V700 scanner and don't want to spend the money on a better scanner.
So I rarely shoot film now and just let the digital camera take care of this step.
L David Tomei
Well-known
I wasn't able to find any reference to use of the D800e to digitize negs but I assume he uses a PB-6d setup. Since I found that the greatest problem relates to finding a satisfactory cold light source (I used a monitor cranked up a bit as a light source), I am very curious what he uses as a light source. Of course, there's the talent/experience factor at work here as well.
tsiklonaut
Well-known
That's the thing when scanning through digital camera's signal processing "brain". They've always seem to be too "digital": oversharp, overenhanced microcontrast and sterile looking. But then again, it's todays trend: to oversharp images.
In the past I've "scanned" my 6x7s with a Canon G11 and in fact they "look" mighty tack sharp and giving me impression like this mere interpolated 10MPs already resolves the grain level, but it's actually a fundamentally fake impression since the camera's signal processor renders the Bayer CCD (semi-weighted pixel interpolaton/demosaicing algorithm) details into "dot-like" objects, some merged, some separated, with enhanced microcontrast around the sharper details etc. The internal signal processing engine does that through complex mathematical calculations, signal/noise shaping etc and it does it on on multiple levels from precisely-mapped geometrically perfectly distributed pixels (film emulsion is actually randomly distributed) to give you a false impression of very sharp details when viewing @ 100%.
With today's advanced softwares correcting the geometry isn't such a big problem stiching multiple shots per scan. But personally speaking from the results I've got myself and from the others I've seen the camera-scans never look "rich" or "soulful" from smallest bits to overall tonality when viewing the image to full, still having this undeniable "digital" feel in it. If you see the same film through the loupe or enlarge the same photo through enlarger or scan through a well operated drumscan it will have different look from smalles "grain" details to the overall tonality. So this "resloves the grain level" on camera-scanning talk is mostly BS IMO. From curiosity I'm hoping to run some tests with my Sigma DP2 with a macro setup soon - expecting the scans will probably look utterly sharp and grainy from the Foveon X3 sensor (unlike Bayer sensor it records full pixel information on each location, like the true film-scanners) and to see how the internal True II singnal-processor combo renders it. Being into music this whole thing reminds me the "virtual-analog" synthesizers of today with their built-in signal-processing engines that never sound as good as true analog synths yet they are more convenient to use
Imacon/Hasselblad already visited and experimented on the camera-scanning technology route way back on their advanced digital MF-sized sensors and high-end macro lenses but still opted to design and build a specialized scanner (X1/X5), I guess to bring forth this true "analog-feel" in the scans the best possible way they can. You can't switch off the built-in signal engine in digital cameras since otherwise you'd see an ugly Bayer-sensor "true" image. Adding a false (faked) sense of sharpness and microcontrast isn't the thing for the analog realm which is random by nature - it's better for the digital with artificially perfect pixel distribution. IMHO, if you prefer that "digital feel" in your analog images just shoot digital and forget the film. Emulate or simulate the "film-look" with software on your digital captures, it's much easier and more convenient than to shoot film and scan it through a digital camera's Bayer filter-array and signal-processor engine to drag you on the same digital-camera capture level with a little bit of "film-taste" added. All IMHO of course.
Cheers,
Margus
mdarnton
Well-known
If you can't see much difference, you're definitely doing something wrong! My Summicron and 50/1.4 Nikkor were both disasters, especially at the edges. Take a look at my Flickr stuff--you should be getting good grain resolution equally the same all across, from corner to corner. I'm thinking with a camera upgrade from my current 12Mp, it will be even better.Regarding sharpening problems: at better resolutions you can't sharpen copies of B/W negs because what the sharpening process sees as "detail" is the grain, and all it does is sharpen and increase it. I have my D300 set to a more or less neutral position, with a small amount of sharpening, and that's all the sharpening they get. If you are working at lower resolutions, where the grain isn't resolved, you can run a sharpening routine and it will have some good effect on the detail.
If you're using something like a G11 to "scan", it just isn't going to dig into the detail of the film, and the results are going to look "digital". You can blame the camera for that if you want, but since you called BS on my process, I guess I will call BS on your observation.
Properly done, film scans with camera look great, and very much like my silver prints. . . . or better, because I do much more "darkroom" work on them. I don't think anyone will accuse my film/camera scans of being "digital" looking!I will say, however, that this is a highly technical process, perhaps beyond the abilities of a lot of people who are trying it, based on what I'm reading in this thread.