redfalo Posted February 23, 2008 Share #1 Posted February 23, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have to confess: regarding digital photography I´m a late convert. Until recently I was convinced that the best 35mm slide films still beat digital, in particular if you don´t have full frame. Nonetheless I bought an M8 two month ago. And now I know better. I recently did some test shots comparing the M8 with my M7 loaded with Velvia 50. Those tests were driven by curiosity and clearly do not hold up to scientific scrutiny. I just wanted to compare my private analog workflow, which has evolved over several years, to my private digital workflow. No doubt that both could be improved a lot, especially the quality of the scans. (For example, never got used to Silverfast. I find the OEM software which came with the scanner – a Konica Minolta 5400 II bought in the fall of 2005 – much more convenient...) The slides were developed by a professional lab in Duesseldorf. I scanned them with the 5400II at 2700 dpi, 16 bit TIFF with ICE. Careful tone correction for each color and little sharpening (unsharp mask, 40%, 2 times) in Photoshop. The M8 shots were done at ISO 160 in DNG, developed in LR, no sharpening. The first two examples are taken with the same lens. From my point of view those shots clearly show that the M8 beats the Velvia. The last one is taken with the Cron 35Asph on the M7 and the 21Asph on the M8 (which becomes a 24mm due to the crop factor). When you look at the same detail you have to enlarge the M8 shot much more than the M7/Velvia shot. This is where analog still matches digital... M8, Elmarit-M 90/2,8 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! M8, Elmarit-M 90/2,8 detail M7, Velvia 50, Elmarit-M 90/2,8, detail M7, 21 Asph, M8, 21 Asph, detail M7 21 Asph, detail M7, Velvia 50, Summicron-M 35mm Asph/2.0 M8, 21 Asph M7, Velvia 50, Summicron-M 35mm Asph/2.0, detail M8, 21 Asph, detail Large versions of those pictures and some more test shots here: M8 vs. M7 & Velvia 50 - a photoset on Flickr Bottom line: Even without fullframe, my M8 workflow yields much better results than my analog workflow, even while using the sharpest slide film available. BTW this does not mean I won´t use my M7 anymore. I will continue to make slides for projection purposes but won´t use it for prints anymore. Yours Olaf Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! M8, Elmarit-M 90/2,8 detail M7, Velvia 50, Elmarit-M 90/2,8, detail M7, 21 Asph, M8, 21 Asph, detail M7 21 Asph, detail M7, Velvia 50, Summicron-M 35mm Asph/2.0 M8, 21 Asph M7, Velvia 50, Summicron-M 35mm Asph/2.0, detail M8, 21 Asph, detail Large versions of those pictures and some more test shots here: M8 vs. M7 & Velvia 50 - a photoset on Flickr Bottom line: Even without fullframe, my M8 workflow yields much better results than my analog workflow, even while using the sharpest slide film available. BTW this does not mean I won´t use my M7 anymore. I will continue to make slides for projection purposes but won´t use it for prints anymore. Yours Olaf ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/46134-m8-vs-m7-velvia-50/?do=findComment&comment=490742'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 Hi redfalo, Take a look here M8 vs. M7 & Velvia 50. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rob_x2004 Posted February 23, 2008 Share #2 Posted February 23, 2008 Your scan routine for the 5400ii sounds pretty sus. ps I dont doubt your resolution assertions re the Mate, and I havent scanned any velvia, but the 5400ii as soon as you go to four times pass you will see another lift regardless of 8bit 16bit and colour output space. Sharpening? If you scan it right there is almost no room for sharpening and regional adjustments of contrast curve will do more for you. If you understand how and have the horsepower to edit you have the 16pass 16bit 5400dpi 240meg files to play with but you have to watch how you handle the noise, locally again withe LAB seems to work, and of course when you resample down to a size you are printing or posting BEFORE you do you image editing...then thats a moot point. But with the amount of green spot you have going there...maybe worth considering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfalo Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share #3 Posted February 23, 2008 Your scan routine for the 5400ii sounds pretty sus. what do you mean by "sus"? shitty? what would you improve? slides were scanned 4 times, BTW. and I did not use the MATE... regarding 16pass 16bit 5400dpi 240meg: I maybe would have the horsepower but definitely don´t have the time. Scanning would last at least 15 minute per slide... So maybe the conclusion is: with a rather sloppy / lazy workflow the M8 yields better results... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted February 23, 2008 Share #4 Posted February 23, 2008 Olaf, why post these suss images if you haven't the time to scan properly, better to say that you are lazy and sloppy and that's why you use the M8 in the first place than present this half baked image comparison. p.s. watch your highlights Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted February 23, 2008 Share #5 Posted February 23, 2008 Sorry about the colloqualisms Redfalo Sometimes call the M8 a mate. Sus..I just meant half arsed. No one is doubting the resolution of M8. I guess the comparison really, is M8 V underutilized domestic scanner. The velvia looks good by the way, on my screen one velvia crop looks nicer and you can do a lot about the noise. Velvia would cost me about thirty five, forty bucks a roll processsed unmounted. I guess I would want to do a good job scanning it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted February 23, 2008 Share #6 Posted February 23, 2008 Maybe I missed something, but why did you scan a 35mm slide @ 2700 on a scanner capable of 5400 ppi? Image comparisons between film and digital capture need to be printed. Viewing massive crops of film on a computer screen doesn't indicate what a print would look like at all. Prints from Minolta 5400 scans can be significantly improved by using a "Scanhancer". It produces a diffused light source that more closely approximates the look of a print made with an analog enlarger. More info here: Official Scanhancer Site Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted February 23, 2008 Share #7 Posted February 23, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) M7 & Velvia looks nice...M8 resolution is higher maybe but the files don't look as good. andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfalo Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share #8 Posted February 23, 2008 Well, I usually scan with 2700 instead of 5400 dpi because I could not detect any significant difference between the results, apart from the file size. Maybe its true that the scanner (or my cabalities of using it) is the weak link. But on the other hand prints made from my own scans are much better than prints done directly from the slide at a lab. I´m going to print those shots as well. Unfortunatly it´s a rather difficult to discuss them with you... I just gave 5400 dpi a try. Those two scans were made using the Konica Minolta software with the following settings: 5400 dpi, TIFF 16bit, scanned 16 times, ICE. This is the maximum the 5400II has to offer. It does not do the trick, from my point of view. I´m going to try it with silverfast, too. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/46134-m8-vs-m7-velvia-50/?do=findComment&comment=490892'>More sharing options...
geoffreyg Posted February 23, 2008 Share #9 Posted February 23, 2008 FWIW I've never had good results from scanning 35 mm film. I've tried all sorts of scanners, Dimage Multi II and Imacon 363 as well. Just doesn't seem to have detail close to the M8. Reasonable enough for an 8x10 print, but not really good enough for larger. The M8 can go much larger, easily to 11x14, and more depending on your criteria. My interest is in architectural work, so resolution of the tiny brickin the background is important, for example. Where film works well for me is in the 6x6 size, where a good scan really has the qualities I'm looking for. The M8 is close to that, but I'm not sure yet if it is really as good. (keep the flames). But a scanned 6x6 at high res is 130 mb file (300 dpi at 16"x16" output), add some layers, and one is up to 300-450 mb per file. Gets a bit heavy duty on the equipment. 3 files per gig. M8 gives a good printing file for less size, quickly. 35 mm film is, for me, an anachronism, sadly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted February 23, 2008 Share #10 Posted February 23, 2008 Prints from Minolta 5400 scans can be significantly improved by using a "Scanhancer". I would like one, but I think they were for the 5400, the 5400ii has a different carrier. Any idea if it will fit? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted February 23, 2008 Share #11 Posted February 23, 2008 Redflo the last two scans were at 5400etc? You are into an area you are getting an aweful lot of noise in the files and maybe things would be improved if you looked after that before reampling and converting to jpg. Life isnt perfect but green and blue speckled bricks and windows ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tmchao Posted February 23, 2008 Share #12 Posted February 23, 2008 Seems Chromatic Aberration happened around fingers of M7. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfalo Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share #13 Posted February 23, 2008 Redflo the last two scans were at 5400etc?You are into an area you are getting an aweful lot of noise in the files and maybe things would be improved if you looked after that before reampling and converting to jpg. Life isnt perfect but green and blue speckled bricks and windows ... Yes. Scanned like described above. Afterswards small tone correction in PS for each colour channel & little sharpening like the other shots. All in TIFF, 16 bit. (File size is 238 MB...) Afterwards I cut out the detail, converted the file to 8 bit, saved as JPG (quality: 9), then chose "save for web" with high quality. What can I do do reduce the noise? Re chromatic abberation: I cannot see why this should be a matter. It´s not pausible that exactly the same lens (21mm Asph) with exactly the same f-stop (f=4) shows chromatic abberation on the M7 while it doesn´t on the M8. It´s either sloppy workflow [maybe something went wrong with the development of the film? The lab, HSL in Düsseldorf, is used by many pros...], a hardware or a software problem or really the inferiority of the analog system. I´d really appreciate if other people with experience in both worlds could comment on this. Yours Olaf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 23, 2008 Share #14 Posted February 23, 2008 Sorry, but this thread is pointless, the comparisons meaningless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfalo Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share #15 Posted February 23, 2008 Sorry, but this thread is pointless, the comparisons meaningless. I´d appreciate if you´d bother to explain why. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted February 23, 2008 Share #16 Posted February 23, 2008 Sorry, but this thread is pointless, the comparisons meaningless. With respect James, I disagree. Many of us have a film history but an almost exclusively digital recent past, whilst retaining the desire sometimes to dabble in analogue. It actually IS interesting to know whether the M8 has better/worse/roughly equal resolution regardless of whether one chooses an excursion into film for reasons of absolute quality or for reasons of a particular look and feel. People like the OP who stray innocently and with innocent intentions into this minefield will and do get slammed and I think it's rather unedifying to watch. Just cos the poor sod didn't use a wet drum scan at 50,000 dpi doesn't make him a bad person. What he has shown is that with reasonable care in an established workflow that makes sense to him and with which he is familiar, the M8 has more resolution than the film. Now I am quite certain that if he had handed the film over to Ansel Adams, better results could have been had. That's not the point. The point is that he has taken more time and care on the film file than on the M8 file and it has yielded inferior results, however much better they might have been in a perfect world. And if he'd dared to compare an M8 file with D200 file, he'd have been slapped down with 'oh but if you'd only used PixelMonkey III noise reduction in Lab mode with Sharpness R US capture sharpening and Alien Frog output shapening you'd see that the M8 file is MUCH better... especially if you'd used a rare RAW development program available only in shareware and with the instructions in Urdu.' T Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
okram Posted February 23, 2008 Share #17 Posted February 23, 2008 By the way, I dont know, but suppose that M8 files are better than D200s? I know thats not the point, Just asking... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gid Posted February 23, 2008 Share #18 Posted February 23, 2008 I don't see any problem with this thread. The OP is discussing a comparison of his personal (private) analogue work flow with his personal digital work flow. He hasn't made any heretic claims about digital being "better" than film. If the results that he is getting with digital are just as good (or better) than his film results, in his opinion, then that is all that matters. He made no scientific claims about his comparisons. As it happens, I do find these types of thread interesting - real world experiences. Best Gid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdi Posted February 23, 2008 Share #19 Posted February 23, 2008 With respect James, I disagree. Many of us have a film history but an almost exclusively digital recent past, whilst retaining the desire sometimes to dabble in analogue. It actually IS interesting to know whether the M8 has better/worse/roughly equal resolution regardless of whether one chooses an excursion into film for reasons of absolute quality or for reasons of a particular look and feel. People like the OP who stray innocently and with innocent intentions into this minefield will and do get slammed and I think it's rather unedifying to watch. Just cos the poor sod didn't use a wet drum scan at 50,000 dpi doesn't make him a bad person. What he has shown is that with reasonable care in an established workflow that makes sense to him and with which he is familiar, the M8 has more resolution than the film. Now I am quite certain that if he had handed the film over to Ansel Adams, better results could have been had. That's not the point. The point is that he has taken more time and care on the film file than on the M8 file and it has yielded inferior results, however much better they might have been in a perfect world. And if he'd dared to compare an M8 file with D200 file, he'd have been slapped down with 'oh but if you'd only used PixelMonkey III noise reduction in Lab mode with Sharpness R US capture sharpening and Alien Frog output shapening you'd see that the M8 file is MUCH better... especially if you'd used a rare RAW development program available only in shareware and with the instructions in Urdu.' T I don't think anyone is really trying to bash him, it is just that scanned velvia (or many films) can do a lot better than shown - and not just drum scans either. But that said, the M8 can do a lot better as well - the last shot in particular, which has a LOT of artifacts. I find that for many situations, film simply is better for me. I shoot it develop it, scan it and print it myself and get a look that hasn't been duplicated with digital. Especially B&W, but color as well. But the real point here is that given his workflow and scanning technique, the M8 is his best choice. There's nothing to fault there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted February 23, 2008 Share #20 Posted February 23, 2008 I don't think anyone is really trying to bash him Err... if this isn't bashing, I'm not sure what is! Olaf, why post these suss images if you haven't the time to scan properly, better to say that you are lazy and sloppy and that's why you use the M8 in the first place than present this half baked image comparison. Tim ps otherwise I agree 100% with what you said! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.