M9 vs. Scanned film (various ISOs)

[hoppyman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the Coolscan and even the Hasselblad/Imacon Flextights enhance grain way too much.

the only valid way to compare is the way puts did: comparing prints.

or at least get real drumscans.

but thanks for your efforts anyway.

 

Grain clumping antialiasing is a known factor with the Nikon scanners and BW film, however, printing and then scanning that result introduces many new variables, for example the optics of the different scanning mechanisms for transmissive vs. reflective scanning , not to mention the printing process itself.

 

Comparing the best commercial scanning output available with the camera's original image means you have introduced far fewer quality degrading steps.

In my opinion, scanned BW film is 'different' rather than better or worse. Prior to acquiring the M8 (and now M9) I shot Fuji pro transparency film and scanned with the Coolscan V. Printing here A3+ on the Epson 3800, my experience is that the M8 prints are demonstrably superior. From the M9 my early impression is even more of a medium format 'look' to the output.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[innerimager]

As I happen to be scanning some XP2 on my Coolscan 5000 right now, I can't help but chime in here Andy. At full resolution, the coolscan yields about a 6000x4000 pixel image. Grain is magnified by resolution, so we see a 24 MP file's worth of grain in your images. My workflow includes downsampling these files usually to about 6-8 MP. At this size, the grain is very well controlled. Of course, using XP2 yields low grain as well. While I wouldn't want to print 30x40 inch canvases with these downsampled files, they are plenty big enough for my printing needs, and the output is very nice, with a different look than digital B&W files. I disagree that the hybrid workflow is not viable, it most definitely is. Now, having said this, I love the M9 files and may find I shoot film even less than when the M8 was my digital alternative, as getting full frame was one reason to shoot film. But I'll be scanning film to some degree for many years to come. best...Peter

[el.nino]

lets be honest: I don't think anybody is still shooting film because of resolution.

there are a million other reasons to do this (and I shoot film exclusively).

and anybody who ever seriously shot film knows that you can get huge prints the chemical way from these tiny negatives. they might not have all the detail, but often they even look superior to digital files.

[telewatt]

Grain clumping antialiasing is a known factor with the Nikon scanners and BW film, however, printing and then scanning that result introduces many new variables, for example the optics of the different scanning mechanisms for transmissive vs. reflective scanning , not to mention the printing process itself.

 

Comparing the best commercial scanning output available with the camera's original image means you have introduced far fewer quality degrading steps.

In my opinion, scanned BW film is 'different' rather than better or worse. Prior to acquiring the M8 (and now M9) I shot Fuji pro transparency film and scanned with the Coolscan V. Printing here A3+ on the Epson 3800, my experience is that the M8 prints are demonstrably superior. From the M9 my early impression is even more of a medium format 'look' to the output.

 

thats right...the real "out of the box" solution of the Nikon 5000 is much lower...

I have a test of the 5000 and the little Imacon done in a professional "pre printservice Magazin"...(normally they do not test this consumer gear)..and the resolution and sharpness of the Nikon 5000 was far behind the Imacon.....

...I did a test with my negatives and I had to buy one...

 

 

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!

(Leicaflex + Summilux 80mm, T-max 100)

 

...sorry, last posting with my pictures Andy!...

 

Jan

[Jager]

Don't apologize, Jan. Your posted images add a significant dimension to the issues Andy raises. Ergo, you can achieve very high quality scanning results if you have good enough equipment. I love my Coolscan 9000, but it clearly falls way short of the results your Imacon provides.

 

Can I ask, are you using an X1 or an X5?

[telewatt]

to be honest: I don't think anybody is still shooting film because of resolution.

there are a million other reasons to do this (and I shoot film exclusively).

and anybody who ever seriously shot film knows that you can get huge prints the chemical way from these tiny negatives. they might not have all the detail, but often they even look superior to digital files.

 

thats right!.....and testing is not my thing......only some picture to show, what the quality in normal jobs is......and Andy ,sorry for it!...the Imacon / Nikon story allways get me wake up....

 

Jan

[telewatt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't apologize, Jan. Your posted images add a significant dimension to the issues Andy raises. Ergo, you can achieve very high quality scanning results if you have good enough equipment. I love my Coolscan 9000, but it clearly falls way short of the results your Imacon provides.

 

Can I ask, are you using an X1 or an X5?

 

it is the little one...343...

[el.nino]

Ergo, you can achieve very high quality scanning results if you have good enough equipment.

 

Yes, but who really needs these resolutions in everyday use?

I don't think anybody is printing larger than 30x20 (cm) on a regular basis.

the rest (a few pictures a year - if at all) can be drum-scanned or chemical enlarged.

so the thing is: depending on the film the resolution and quality are possible (IF needed).

[redbaron]

While these tests are well done and impressive, I'd like to see a test of the dynamic range of both media. I only shoot relatively low speed black and white film, but I'd still like to see how the current digital sensors handle high contrast scenes.

[charlesphoto99]

I have an Imacon 646 and will attest that it is the best investment I have ever made. It's paid for itself over and over again. Wish I could have said the same for my M8s. My M9 only time will tell.

 

Not only is the resolution and quality much better with the Imacon but also the speed of scanning. Most important as scanning can be really laborious.

[telewatt]

Yes, but who really needs these resolutions in everyday use?

I don't think anybody is printing larger than 30x20 (cm) on a regular basis.

the rest (a few pictures a year - if at all) can be drum-scanned or chemical enlarged.

so the thing is: depending on the film the resolution and quality are possible (IF needed).

 

That's right but in professional work, it is hard to get the films and scans payed!...

..so it is mostly the digital way......by the way...the job, the last picture of the "Sons of Silence" was done digital and analog...and it is not easy to see what picture was analog or digital!......

[Jeff S]

I don't know squat about good scanning, but I have a friend who does. He uses an old Minolta scanner that he rebuilt specifically to deal with b&w film. More importantly, he understands all the steps that he needs to take to ensure that his scans are superior. And they are...as good or better than anything posted here, although the real proof is in the print.

 

My point is that the equipment clearly helps, but just like a photograph, the biggest factor is the person behind the equipment. That's why I'm having him scan some of my favorite negs. Even if I used his scanner, my results wouldn't be close.

 

And if he used one of the Nikons, I'm sure he'd figure out how to get far better results than those posted here. No offense, Andy.

 

Jeff

[adan]

Peter (innerimager): True that the Nikon will scan an area 4000 x 6000 pixels. But that usually results in 15% of the 24 Mpixels being blank slide mount or negative carrier. At 4000 ppi - and setting the scan crop just inside the image area - I get about 19+ Mpixel files.

 

Jeff: no offense taken. I doubt your friend could actually get higher resolution out of the Nikon scanner - that is pretty much hardwired into the lens and pixel pitch. But I'm sure with additional technique and time he (or I) could get more out of the tonality and less out of the grain than these more-or-less straight scans: hot-rodding the scanner with a light source diffuser, multipass scanning, Vuescan, working in post with filters and layers and such.

 

I did it for years - when shooting film was the only option.

[250swb]

@telewatt

What size film is that?

 

It would be a bit naughty if it wasn't 35mm wouldn't it?

 

 

Steve

[nhabedi]

It would be a bit naughty if it wasn't 35mm wouldn't it?

 

Well, he said Leicaflex, didn't he?

[250swb]

Well, he said Leicaflex, didn't he?

 

No, he said 'Leicaflex' on the images on this page, not those posted on the previous page and to which the original question refers.

 

Steve

[markowich]

andy,

very nice test, i just have one comment: in my experience the nikon scanner is clearly inferior to the hasselblad/imacons which - as many people claim- are inferior to drum scanning. this could change the outcome of the test quantitatively but i am sure not qualitatively.

peter

[rob_x2004]

With all due respect...if this was acceptable for 800isoc41 then the post process routine was wrong, or the scanner is a dog. A lot depends I guess on your software and Jan is right. The easy money is on digital wrt resolution, and I dont doubt for on the desk amatuer stuff the m9 has it hands down. Most blokes never figure how to drive their scanners and there are always sixteen ways to skin a cat. Falling back on the "I didnt edit it" excuse is a bit like putting a raw file out without colour balancing it. Its a bit of a nonsense. The thing I find troubling, is all these comparisons are in safe light in controlled conditions, not an outdoors and real world environment. I look at some of the M9 stuff posted around the traps and cant believe the camera is as bad as all that.

 

......

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I look at some of the M9 stuff posted around the traps and cant believe the camera is as bad as all that.

To be fair, the same could be said about any other camera around here, including film cameras:rolleyes:

[rob_x2004]

I dont read too much into lens reports for the same reason. There seems to be a put the brain in a bucket mentality when we read something on the internet.