Jump to content

Useful to shoot some slide film – BEOON+M10


Guest Nowhereman

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wilson - I'll be interested in hearing your conclusions on what you try, as I haven't carefully tested various alternatives. On some of the issues:

 

Lens: of the ones you mention, the 50mm Rodagon the enlarger lens is likely to be the best because of its flat field. I think the 60mm Companion S won't give you a 35mm full frame on the BEOON.

 

White balance: I've only tried AWB. The Autograph LED light pad that I use costs about the same as the one you mention. It has a  color temperature of 6500K (cool white). That might be better than 5400k, as I recall reading a recommendation to calibrate monitors to 6500K, if I am not mistaken. Not a good idea to use old fluorescent light boxes, except that could be okay for B&W negatives.

 

Shielding the BEOON: I just make sure that no light is falling on the BEOON by closing the blinds on the window directly in front of it. Also, I place a black sheet on the free section of the light pad, but I didn't seen a difference whenever I forgot to do that. There's no need to put a cutout around the BEOON frame mask

 

Exposure: I've used autoexposure so far with the M9 and MM, now with the M10 I'll try matrix autoexposure for which you need to use Live View.

 

Focus: with Live View and magnification focussing is easy, but I had no problem focussing with the BEOON loupe. Generally, once the BEOON is focussed there's no need to refocus. But in another thread someone mentioned that transparency film is thicker than negative film. So, when changing film types it's best to refocus. 

_________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presuming that you will be scanning with a color depth of more than 8 bits per channel, the scanner will use 6 bytes for each pixel. Saving to an uncompressed TIFF file will yield a file size of 6 times 24 millions, i.e. 144 megapixels megabytes. The DNG format as used by the camera is more economical in terms of storage space.

 

However, in the image as delivered by the scanner, each pixel represents the output of three photo cells. A pixel delivered by a camera with an Bayer CFA contains interpolated data. Hence, it's possible that the scanner's resolution is better.

Edited by pop
Silly typo
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

really, so you are telling me that 30MB on your method is the same as 140MB on my method wth my Coolscsan 9000 (scanning 135mm-size slides)???  Me thinks not; but then again for most purposes (e.g., web and small to medium size prints) it may not matter.

 

Yup, that is exactly what I'm saying: the 24MB DNG of the M10 results in a143MB TIFF file, with the latter not having more information than the DNG. What you're getting out of your 140MB TIFF file out of your  Coolscan 9000, not the last word in scanners, is the equivalent of the M0 file, DNG or TIFF. It's not the bloated size of the TIFF output (lots of empty bits) of a scanner file that is the determining factor; it's the true optical resolution and the dMAx.

 

Also, as far as I know, the Imacon Precision III that I've used has better scan quality than the Coolscan 9000, with greater true optical resolution and greater dMax. And, shoot me if you will, but I find my M10 digitalizations are at least as good, if not better than what I have been getting with the Imacon.

_________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

On reading your post I headed over to SpeedGraphic; the A4 LitEnergy is quoted as being 5200K

 

Typo by me.

 

All the lightboxes I can find for sale in the UK, which disclose a colour temperature, are either 5000º or 5200ºK i.e. regular daylight. In that I can correct this in Capture One at post production, I suspect this would not be a major issue.

 

I have found that my usual Provia 100F or its Agfa clone Precisa CT100 are quite cool blue/green looking compared with the much missed warmer/richer Kodachrome. This is particularly noticeable where I have been using my Summitar 5cm lens, which I have more or less now retired to display. This is as I now have both the 1999 LTM Special Edition 50mm Leica lenses, the e39 type V Summicron and e46 Summilux III. I am particularly looking forward to film results from the Summilux, which I only got this week. I am going to a family event back in the UK this week-end and taking my M7 with the Summilux on it, using a Rayqual adapter ring. 

 

Wilson

Edited by wlaidlaw
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, that is exactly what I'm saying: the 24MB DNG of the M10 results in a143MB TIFF file, with the latter not having more information than the DNG. What you're getting out of your 140MB TIFF file out of your  Coolscan 9000, not the last word in scanners, is the equivalent of the M0 file, DNG or TIFF. It's not the bloated size of the TIFF output (lots of empty bits) of a scanner file that is the determining factor; it's the true optical resolution and the dMAx.

 

Also, as far as I know, the Imacon Precision III that I've used has better scan quality than the Coolscan 9000, with greater true optical resolution and greater dMax. And, shoot me if you will, but I find my M10 digitalizations are at least as good, if not better than what I have been getting with the Imacon.

_________________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

what are the pixel dimensions of the M10 raw files?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I read the first post and thought, ok that's a pretty strangely exposed frame because the shadows are so extremely dense. I realise it can be due to many things, of course, like quality of the light at the time and how it fell, the film, meter behaviour etc and most importantly exposure decisions, so I certainly don't mean this as criticism.

 

For me, as a film-only photographer who is also happy to scan, any comparison to digital is irrelevant but I shoot and scan slide film more than any other emulsion and have very little problems bringing out details in the shadows.

 

Ultimately it is whatever works for the individual. Some prefer to digitize others to scan.

 

But of course, the more people shoot film and in particular slide film, the better.

 

Philip

 

Philip - You're right: the shadows are so dense because that is how the slide is; there simply is no detail in that deep shadow: exposing for the highlights in bright tropical light will often result in the deepest shadows. Sometimes it feels as it the "good light" in the tropics lasts only three minutes before sunrise or sunset: by 7:30 am on clear day in Thailand, the light is already blazingly bright.

 

Considering the "slide film"  in this topic of this thread, please let us know why you shoot slides more than any other emulsion.

 

Here is another digitalization with my BEOON setup, taken in 1997 in Tuscany with an M6 and E100S, probably with a Summicron 50:

 

 

36530558011_54932c3084_b.jpg

_________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looked up the answer to my question, which based on what i found the pixel dimension of a full tes M10 raw fil is about 6000x4000. That is about the same as a full res scan with my coolscan 9000. So it very well could be comparable. Would need to view on my screen to know for sure.

 

For larger size film format the M10 would lose the edge. For example, the pixel dimension of a 6x9 scan is approx 12000x8000. If there would be a way to digitize the neg with an M10, i suppose the max would still be 6000x4000?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know, sounds like neither do you.

 

There are also many other factors, like accuracy of color reproduction and softness of edges and 3D effect of a film plane's DOF.

 

Dedicated film scanners are made to optimize the reproduction of these attributes.

 

It is impossible to judge the effectiveness of this reprodiction with your M10 with the compressed low res files that are allowed on the forum.

 

It looks promising (at least with 135mm format film), however.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just the resolution but also the dMAX. I doubt that the Coolscan is as high as the 4.2 of the Imacon. And the M10...

The Nikon is supposed to have a density range of 4.8 - but I have no idea if that's true.

 

I've seen holy wars break out between scanner-users and 'DSLR-scanner' users over on RFF. I don't really see the point of all this willy-wagging, to be really blunt. We're all film users.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Mitch, I shoot slide film because I like it. It's that simple. It's been like that since the 80s when I began photographing.

 

I may have misunderstood what you wrote at the start of the thread about the file size of converted DNG TIFFs and scanner TIFFS, so this is fwiw. I am pretty sure that in most cases a TIFF from a scanner does not contain lots of empty bits. Files from MakeTIFF may well though, I have no idea. From reading the colorperfect.com page about MakeTIFF it seems it uses three other programs to convert DNGs to TIFF. So the apparently bloated file size could have something to do with how this three-way tango works. With respect to scanners the one exception I can think of would be scanning b&w as colour with resulting extra image data from the colour channels. In my experience, there is nothing to be gained by scanning b&w this way so those bits would be "empty" in a way.

 

In any event, the ultimate proof of the pudding is in the eating which in this case means the quality of the image that comes out of the scanner or camera. The Coolscan 9000 is a very capable scanner with an impressive (theoretical) density range that is around the same as the current Flextights. Best of all, as with most dedicated film scanners it is possible to do multi-sampling and multi-passes which helps with dense images, something which is particularly useful with slide film. I'm not sure a digital camera would be able to do the same actually but perhaps it is possible.

 

All this waffling on my part to say that if you're happy with your setup with the M10 that's completely OK with me. The results also look very good. I tried digitizing (as I posted in this forum a few years ago) using an EOS 5D2 and the results are perfectly fine. But for me to even consider leaving my scanners for a digitizing setup there needs to be an easy way to scan medium format film and so far I have not seen one.

 

br

Philip

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

For medium format and larger, I find the Epson V700 is OK. However I suspect it would be much improved by a Better Scanning variable height film holder to get optimum focus. I don't really take enough 120 medium format film to warrant buying it, as it will not hold my 70mm film either. I will be trying to scan that with the BEOON. 

 

Wilson

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...But for me to even consider leaving my scanners for a digitizing setup there needs to be an easy way to scan medium format film and so far I have not seen one...

 

Philip - I hold no brief for digitalizing with a camera as opposed to scanning with a scanner. My experience started with scanners. It wasn't very good, and I'll summarize it here, so that others can see where I'm coming from. BTW, I've never had any interest in medium format film.

 

Around 1996, I managed to pick up Leafscan 35 for $10 from the Baltimore Sun newspaper that was retiring a bunch of those scanners as well as some Leafscan 45 scanners. Apparently, the Leafscan 35 had a 4000 ppi resolution and a dMax of 3.7. It seems that the following are the dynamic range requirements for various output and input is as follows:

 

Photographic Print                1.4–2.0

Color Negative Film               2.2–2.4

Standard Color Slides           2.7–3.0

Professional Color Slides      3.2–4.0

 
As I was scanning Ektachrome and Kodachrome slides shot in high contrast of tropical light, the Leafscan 35 was not adequate. In any case, the software was old and already problematic on the Mac operating system that I was using at the time; and I ended up junking the scanner.
 
Then, around 1997, I bought the Imacon Precision II, which eventually had a free upgrade to v.III, which had a true optical resolution of 6300 ppi and a dMax of v4.2. While that dynamic seemed fine for slides, I found that I had to do substantially more color correction than I now need to do with the BEOON + M10 combination. I used it for several years and then started shooting with digital cameras from 2006 until December 2016.
 
As I hadn’t used the Imacon for some ten years and gave it to a friend in December 2015, when I was “sure” that I would never do film again; but he couldn't get it going — it has a SCSI interface — and returned it to me.
 
In December 2016, in three 10-hour days, I managed to get the old OS X 10.6.8 installed on an old Mac PowerBook to run the (legacy) Imacon ColorFlex 4.04 software and got the SCSI-to-FireWire Orange Converter and Granite (power) SCSI Terminator going so that all this works — only to learn, on the third full day of my effort, that this scanner was losing sharpness at the trailing end of the 35mm frame (as the negative is fed into the scanner in portrait orientation).
 
Further research showed that Imacon scanners require periodic maintenance fairly often. After some hours of searching the web, I found out that the cause of the sharpness loss is slippage of the belts that drive the holder mechanism. I had to replace these belts and some springs. Although, apparently, I can buy the belts and springs in the US or the UK at about US$5–10 each, I gave up because these scanners often require belt replacement every six months or so. The belt problem also makes the film frame shift in the holder as it goes into the scanner, so that a small portion of the scan is often cut off. I now remember from ten years ago that I often had this problem, but didn't know there was a solution. By the way, there is no batch feed solution for this scanner — and one full res (6300 ppi) 35mm scan takes 12–15 minutes. 
 
As I didn't want to make a career out of the care and feeding of this Imacon scanner, I decided to dump it. I couldn't sell it with a good conscience. Basically, even if I was prepared spent $14,000 on a new Hasselblad X1 — same 6300dpi resolution as my Imacon but twice the speed — I don’t think it would make sense because I don’t think the drive mechanism on the new scanners has changed. That means, in my view, that these Hasselblad scanners only make sense (beyond the price issue) in a photo lab environment, where they can be serviced and maintained regularly.
 
The choice, then was a Plustek or other scanner still produces, as I didn't wand to get into legacy systems. But the Plustek has a dMax of only 3.6, which wasn't enough for my slides. I had no interest in the Pakon, which not only was a legacy machine, but also was designed with small prints in mind. Then, I learned about the BEOON...and that's the story. I understand that other people have different considerations.
_________________
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're telling me: the $395 asking price for a mint BEOON that I mentioned in post #9 is a typo: the guy is asking for $495!

 

But here is another scan of a Kodachrome 25 slide, a few years before the last one. On seeing this one my son said, "I haven't read The Jungle Book for a while." This was taken with the M3 and a Summicron 50 lens.

 

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

For copying, you need some extension tubes or a bellows. A BEOON usually comes with three that you can use singly or in combinations. I think the consensus is that while you can use a 50mm photographic lens, a 50mm enlarging lens may be a better bet due to their flat field. Of course these have no focusing so need to be used on a focusing device or mount. You can buy a reasonable Rodagon or Companon for very little money. I bought a 50mm Rodagon, 60mm Companon S and Rolleigon 50mm for £55 for the lot at a camera fair a couple of years ago. 

 

Wilson

Edited by wlaidlaw
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For copying, you need some extension tubes or a bellows. A BEOON usually comes with three that you can use singly or in combinations. I think the consensus is that while you can use a 50mm photographic lens, a 50mm enlarging lens may be a better bet due to their flat field. Of course these have no focusing so need to be used on a focusing device or mount. You can buy a reasonable Rodagon or Companon for very little money. I bought a 50mm Rodagon, 60mm Companon S and Rolleigon 50mm for £55 for the lot at a camera fair a couple of years ago. 

 

Wilson

Hence the benefit of the BEOON.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve - I don't have any experience with copy stands other than the BEOON, and don't know what are the best alternatives.

 

There are chapters on copying and closeups in editions of The Leica Manual (publisher: Morgan & Morgan). In the 13th edition (1956):, there is information on the

 

1.     Focaslide: this requires attachment to a tripod  or enlarger; with a tripod I would worry about vibration.

 

2.    Reprovit II enlarger:  a huge piece of equipment.

 

3.     BEHOO: consist of four legs and could have positioning problems each time one changes frames to be copied.

 

4.      BELUN: most fascinating because it is even simpler than the BEOON and looks stable. The problem is that it's made for an LTM camera, and I wonder whether there could be way to fit an M-mount or other type of camera on it.

 

 

The 15th edition (1973) of of The Leica Manual has information of the Bowens Illumitran, which I believe can be found on eBay. A similar unit is the Asahi Pentax/Honeywell Repronar, but one has to make sure that once can find a way of mounting the camera that one wants to use, and that one can find spare bulbs.

 

 

BTW, the other day I found, accidentally, for download online the 3rd edition (1938) of the  The Leica Manual. It's a 400MB download in TIFF, which can easily be concerted in Acrobat to a 40MB pdf.

_________________

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...