anerjee
Well-known
I've been using an epson v700 for scanning medium format, and a minolta 5400 for 35mm film.The quality of my mf scans is not really good, and it has kept me from shooting more mf.
There is a lot of information on the interweb about using a dslr to scan film, but being non-technical, I'm at a loss to understand a lot of it. I expect to shoot multiple shots per 645 or 6x6 image, and later recombine in software.
Perhaps someone here can help me. Some questions.
1. Can I use any digital camera? I only have a micro-4/3 camera -- would that be ok? I'd rather buy a dslr than a mf scanner.
2. Do I need a copy stand, or can I just use a tripod? Is there anything else I can use that can do medium format?
3. Do I need an enlarger lens? Or is a good macro lens enough? What is the difference, and how does it effect the scanning quality?
4. Once I've set-up everything, is it faster or slower to scan with a camera than with a flatbed scanner?
5. Is it a bit perverse to shoot film and then shoot the film? No need to answer this one.
Any pointers, links etc would be highly appreciated.
There is a lot of information on the interweb about using a dslr to scan film, but being non-technical, I'm at a loss to understand a lot of it. I expect to shoot multiple shots per 645 or 6x6 image, and later recombine in software.
Perhaps someone here can help me. Some questions.
1. Can I use any digital camera? I only have a micro-4/3 camera -- would that be ok? I'd rather buy a dslr than a mf scanner.
2. Do I need a copy stand, or can I just use a tripod? Is there anything else I can use that can do medium format?
3. Do I need an enlarger lens? Or is a good macro lens enough? What is the difference, and how does it effect the scanning quality?
4. Once I've set-up everything, is it faster or slower to scan with a camera than with a flatbed scanner?
5. Is it a bit perverse to shoot film and then shoot the film? No need to answer this one.
Any pointers, links etc would be highly appreciated.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
I'd direct your energies to tweaking your v700 -- I've got that scanner and its scans on MF is fantastic. In fact, I've found the bigger the negative the sharper and better the results.
What in particular is "no good" about the scans? If they're not sharp, you may simply need to adjust the height of the neg holder, or spend a small amount for a BetterScanning glass insert to keep the neg flat and even.
I can guarantee you that a DSLR or digital camera shooting a negative will not equal a properly-set up v700 scan.
What in particular is "no good" about the scans? If they're not sharp, you may simply need to adjust the height of the neg holder, or spend a small amount for a BetterScanning glass insert to keep the neg flat and even.
I can guarantee you that a DSLR or digital camera shooting a negative will not equal a properly-set up v700 scan.
mdarnton
Well-known
1. Can I use any digital camera? I only have a micro-4/3 camera -- would that be ok? I'd rather buy a dslr than a mf scanner.
The better the camera, the better the result. I use a Nikon D300; I wish I had a D810. The D300 is better than a flatbed scanner for 35mm, but about equal for 6x6. For 4x5 and above I want something better, like the D810.
2. Do I need a copy stand, or can I just use a tripod? Is there anything else I can use that can do medium format?
Alignment is finicky and critical, either way. The difficulty is about equal, really. My link below tells how to use a mirror to set this up.
3. Do I need an enlarger lens? Or is a good macro lens enough? What is the difference, and how does it effect the scanning quality?
For this work, a good macro is better than a great enlarging lens. I did tests: this is not a guess, and not up for debate.
4. Once I've set-up everything, is it faster or slower to scan with a camera than with a flatbed scanner?
It is very fast, much faster than a flatbed
5. Is it a bit perverse to shoot film and then shoot the film? No need to answer this one.
I do it.
Any pointers, links etc would be highly appreciated.
Link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/7183241686/
The better the camera, the better the result. I use a Nikon D300; I wish I had a D810. The D300 is better than a flatbed scanner for 35mm, but about equal for 6x6. For 4x5 and above I want something better, like the D810.
2. Do I need a copy stand, or can I just use a tripod? Is there anything else I can use that can do medium format?
Alignment is finicky and critical, either way. The difficulty is about equal, really. My link below tells how to use a mirror to set this up.
3. Do I need an enlarger lens? Or is a good macro lens enough? What is the difference, and how does it effect the scanning quality?
For this work, a good macro is better than a great enlarging lens. I did tests: this is not a guess, and not up for debate.
4. Once I've set-up everything, is it faster or slower to scan with a camera than with a flatbed scanner?
It is very fast, much faster than a flatbed
5. Is it a bit perverse to shoot film and then shoot the film? No need to answer this one.
I do it.
Any pointers, links etc would be highly appreciated.
Link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/7183241686/
Merlijn53
Established
A scan from a flatbedscanner is never fantastic!
Put it next to a scan from a Nikon, Minolta or Imacon and you'll understand. I've done all the tricks with my V700 and the result is never better than reasonable. The only reason why a mf scan looks better is because you don't have to enlarge as much as 35mm. If you zoom in, you see that it's just as bad. But you're right, if you optimize the height of the filmholder and maybe use a Better Scanning holder with glass, the results will get a bit less bad. But never fantastic.
As for using a digital camera, just try it. As the OP said, it's a bit funny to take a picture on film and than take a picture of that picture with a digital camera. But if you try, you'll know if it's good enough for you. You don't need an enlarging lens, a macro lens is fine. If you have m4/3, the cheapest might be a 3.5 50mm OM lens with adapter.
YYV_146
Well-known
The digital camera approach is fine. With a good enough digital camera the results can match or exceed the best commercial film scanners. The m43 camera is more than adequate if you can find a good macro for it (close to 1:1 would be best), but to exceed the resolution of 645 film (and get the full film "feel") an A7r or D800 is probably the best option.
I scan my 135 and 645 film with a NEX-7 with the help of extension tubes. It's a cheap setup but delivers beautiful results.
I scan my 135 and 645 film with a NEX-7 with the help of extension tubes. It's a cheap setup but delivers beautiful results.
anerjee
Well-known
I need to take more pictures with m4/3 than a full frame camera to cover the same medium format negative -- correct?
Or can I just shoot at less than 1:1 magnification and come out with equivalent quality?
There are some advantages to m4/3, including greater dof which makes film flatness less of an issue.
Or can I just shoot at less than 1:1 magnification and come out with equivalent quality?
There are some advantages to m4/3, including greater dof which makes film flatness less of an issue.
mfogiel
Veteran
I would look at it from the other end: how big do you print?
A 360dpi gives very good quality, 720 dpi gives excelent quality, and the difference can only be seen close up, so for small prints I use 720 dpi, for anything bigger than 8x10, 360dpi. What does it mean, to make an 8x10 at 360dpi without resizing? Simple, 2880x3600 pixels=10,368 MB. For a 16x20 though, you will need 5760x7200=41,47 MB, so we are getting above the Nikon D800 range for a single shot, and likely more, because the 2x3 ratio makes you crop quite a bit of the image. Therefore, you would ideally need a MFDB or similar, at which point I'd say you either need to stitch, or you buy a Nikon CS 9000, and forget the digital cameras.
A 360dpi gives very good quality, 720 dpi gives excelent quality, and the difference can only be seen close up, so for small prints I use 720 dpi, for anything bigger than 8x10, 360dpi. What does it mean, to make an 8x10 at 360dpi without resizing? Simple, 2880x3600 pixels=10,368 MB. For a 16x20 though, you will need 5760x7200=41,47 MB, so we are getting above the Nikon D800 range for a single shot, and likely more, because the 2x3 ratio makes you crop quite a bit of the image. Therefore, you would ideally need a MFDB or similar, at which point I'd say you either need to stitch, or you buy a Nikon CS 9000, and forget the digital cameras.
aizan
Veteran
do you mean that you want to stitch several shots of the negative together with pano software? that would be interesting to figure out. i imagine you'd want something that provides similar functionality as an alpa xy.
anerjee
Well-known
Yes, I'll shoot several pictures at 1:1 or lesser magnification ratios and then stitch them back as a panorama. Then compare with what I get from a v700.
My issue with the v700 is the general mushiness of the scans -- especially after I compare to what I get from the KM 5400.
I dont own a tripod, so I've got to figure out what will work in the current market.
My issue with the v700 is the general mushiness of the scans -- especially after I compare to what I get from the KM 5400.
I dont own a tripod, so I've got to figure out what will work in the current market.
aizan
Veteran
a copipod or copy stand would work, too. you'd move the negative around underneath instead of moving the camera. maybe get a light table and put rulers along the edges to guide the negative from shot to shot.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Hi anerjee
What desired finish output is it that you seek?
Just to see more detail in your images on screen?
Larger printable files for inject etc...?
Pre-views before going to wet print? ..... etc
For example here is me:
I use my V700 for pre-view and evaluation plus sharing images on the web.
They are sharp enough and have a good range of tones.
I scan very flat and adjust contrast and levels in Post occasionally adding some clarity adjustment to imrpve the appearance of sharpness.
I then will wet print the best or in some cases send those negs out for a pro scan/print. I only shoot B+W film at this point (mostly only).
There is no reason in my world I need a scan better than the V700 can produce from a 66 or 69 negative.
OK so that's me.
The question really is then. Is there a reason in your world. Encouraging you to shoot more MF because your scans seem sharper is like tail chasing to me.
I don't mean to sound crass but it sounds like you want to buy another Digital Camera (which is perfectly reasonable).
If your negative is large enough it requires a stitch.....Scanning with a Digital Camera is more like doing Macro photography than it is like scanning. It takes the joy straight outré of using a Medium or Large format camera.
I post this image often as an example of the V700 and Color Heliar lens.
Does this look sharp enough for the uses I described as my needs?
The 3600 pix is on flickr if you care to take a peek.
When it really is love. by Adnan W, on Flickr
Cheers!
What desired finish output is it that you seek?
Just to see more detail in your images on screen?
Larger printable files for inject etc...?
Pre-views before going to wet print? ..... etc
For example here is me:
I use my V700 for pre-view and evaluation plus sharing images on the web.
They are sharp enough and have a good range of tones.
I scan very flat and adjust contrast and levels in Post occasionally adding some clarity adjustment to imrpve the appearance of sharpness.
I then will wet print the best or in some cases send those negs out for a pro scan/print. I only shoot B+W film at this point (mostly only).
There is no reason in my world I need a scan better than the V700 can produce from a 66 or 69 negative.
OK so that's me.
The question really is then. Is there a reason in your world. Encouraging you to shoot more MF because your scans seem sharper is like tail chasing to me.
I don't mean to sound crass but it sounds like you want to buy another Digital Camera (which is perfectly reasonable).
If your negative is large enough it requires a stitch.....Scanning with a Digital Camera is more like doing Macro photography than it is like scanning. It takes the joy straight outré of using a Medium or Large format camera.
I post this image often as an example of the V700 and Color Heliar lens.
Does this look sharp enough for the uses I described as my needs?
The 3600 pix is on flickr if you care to take a peek.
When it really is love. by Adnan W, on FlickrCheers!
Noll
Well-known
Once you get to 1:1 or 1:2 magnification, keeping the stitched shots perfectly level can be challenging and you will notice seams where better focus meets worse focus.. I find backing off to 1:4 and "only" shooting 4 shots per image (or even further and just doing 2 shots) to be less demanding on your rig and still provides good detail.
ZeissFan
Veteran
If you aren't getting quality scans from the V700, either the scanner is faulty, the negatives aren't flat or your process is faulty.
I first would investigate the flatness of the negatives. The Epson negative carriers are good, but when medium formt film curls, it affects the scan. You probably should invest in a glass negative carrier. That's what I neeed to do. When the negative is flat, the scan should be fine.
What settings are you using? Which software? With the Epson Scanning software, I turn off sharpening and do a minimal amount of contrast adjustment. I've also read from others about turning off the scratch reduction software.
As you know, all scans will require some post-scanning processing - either to remove dust, crop or to make final adjustments to brightness and contras or sharpen. But I don't sharpen until after I resize for the Web.
I would suggest posting a scan or a link to a scan so others here can see the results that you are getting.
Most people seem to be pleased with the Epson V700. I've scanned a lot of film with a much older Epson Expression 1600, and I'm almost always pleased with it, except for trying to scan negatives with a strong curl to them. Hence, my suggestion to invest in better film holders. By the way, I need to do the same.
I first would investigate the flatness of the negatives. The Epson negative carriers are good, but when medium formt film curls, it affects the scan. You probably should invest in a glass negative carrier. That's what I neeed to do. When the negative is flat, the scan should be fine.
What settings are you using? Which software? With the Epson Scanning software, I turn off sharpening and do a minimal amount of contrast adjustment. I've also read from others about turning off the scratch reduction software.
As you know, all scans will require some post-scanning processing - either to remove dust, crop or to make final adjustments to brightness and contras or sharpen. But I don't sharpen until after I resize for the Web.
I would suggest posting a scan or a link to a scan so others here can see the results that you are getting.
Most people seem to be pleased with the Epson V700. I've scanned a lot of film with a much older Epson Expression 1600, and I'm almost always pleased with it, except for trying to scan negatives with a strong curl to them. Hence, my suggestion to invest in better film holders. By the way, I need to do the same.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Stitching photos is a very difficult and tedious task. The scanning exposure for each segment must be nearly exact, and if you plan to scan your negatives using a digital camera, then you will need to set up in manual exposure mode.
Otherwise, you end up with different tones for each part, which is immediately visible. I wouldn't only stitch when you need to stitch and not as a common way to get around other production issues.
I have seen where people are using their digital cameras as scanners, and some results seem very good. Remember, with medium format, you are reducing the size of the original negative and ending up with an image that at most is a fractional part of the widest dimension. However, for Web display, it's probably good enough. I haven't tried this, so I don't know exactly what the limits would be for final presentation.
You definitely will want a lens that has the flattest field and the least amount of rectilinear distortion, and that should be a true macro lens.
Oh, and it's time to invest in a good tripod.
Otherwise, you end up with different tones for each part, which is immediately visible. I wouldn't only stitch when you need to stitch and not as a common way to get around other production issues.
I have seen where people are using their digital cameras as scanners, and some results seem very good. Remember, with medium format, you are reducing the size of the original negative and ending up with an image that at most is a fractional part of the widest dimension. However, for Web display, it's probably good enough. I haven't tried this, so I don't know exactly what the limits would be for final presentation.
You definitely will want a lens that has the flattest field and the least amount of rectilinear distortion, and that should be a true macro lens.
Oh, and it's time to invest in a good tripod.
Merlijn53
Established
The OP is comparing the scans of the v700 with those from the Minolta 5400.
If you do that, whatever you try to optimize the scans from the v700 is absolutely useless. The Minolta is so much better. I had the same combination (now it's v700 and Imacon) and I tried everything to optimize the v700 and it never becomes better than reasonable.
Frank
A Y
Member
I used to think that I need to stitch my MF negs (6x6, 6x9), but after printing at 36x24 inches a native file from my 16MP Sony NEX-5N that I use for scanning, I just take 1 picture of the whole negative, and that's more than good enough.
One important thing with camera scanning is that you get as many of the pixels of the sensor to see the negative as possible. That means having the right macro lens setup and sensor aspect ratio so you can fill as much of the frame with the negative. For my 6x4.5 negs, I use a m43 camera because its identical aspect ratio will let more sensor pixels see the negative.
One important thing with camera scanning is that you get as many of the pixels of the sensor to see the negative as possible. That means having the right macro lens setup and sensor aspect ratio so you can fill as much of the frame with the negative. For my 6x4.5 negs, I use a m43 camera because its identical aspect ratio will let more sensor pixels see the negative.
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
I can't believe there's not modern dedicated scanner (ie not flatbed) that doesn't require some archaic windows xp setup and ancient drivers, surely there has to be something ?
Merlijn53
Established
Well that does not have to be a problem. I got an old Powermac with scsi card for my Flextight II for about €40 and it works flawless.
You could try the Plustek 120, but as far as I know it has no autofocus like the older scanners, so I don't if you get the same quality.
Frank
krötenblender
Well-known
I used to digitize 6x6 negatives with a Leica BEOON with a Leica M Type 240 and a Summicron 50mm ASPH. attached. As backlight I used an iPad with frosted plexiglass cover on the screen. Not really a cheap setup, but the results were pretty good and with a little bit of practice I could "scan" one picture in 5 seconds, including changing negatives, blowing dust away, etc. - I think, with a similar but much cheaper setup, you can get pretty good scans.
Nevertheless, I ended up buying a dedicated MF scanner (Braun FS120), which takes about 15 Minutes for a high quality scan of one negative, but gives me about 50 MPixels of real information (technically the scanner could do even higher resolution, but I think at 50MP the scanner optics is at its limits), removes dust automatically, does multiple exposure and can produce up to 48 bit of color resolution - and blows the Leica M DNG scans away...
And once you know, that there is that much information and detail in a MF negative, you always wonder, if the time and money couldn't be spend better... (if I had the time to maintain a drum scanner for wet mounted negatives...)
Nevertheless, I ended up buying a dedicated MF scanner (Braun FS120), which takes about 15 Minutes for a high quality scan of one negative, but gives me about 50 MPixels of real information (technically the scanner could do even higher resolution, but I think at 50MP the scanner optics is at its limits), removes dust automatically, does multiple exposure and can produce up to 48 bit of color resolution - and blows the Leica M DNG scans away...
And once you know, that there is that much information and detail in a MF negative, you always wonder, if the time and money couldn't be spend better... (if I had the time to maintain a drum scanner for wet mounted negatives...)
krötenblender
Well-known
Braun FS120, pretty good scanner.