Recommendation on negative scanner

[Huss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, logan2z said:

Thanks, good to know. Because I've heard that stitching can prove very frustrating to get right. 

Exactly.  A 47mp sensor is huge. Only stitch if you use a small sensor.  Best way to tell is try it out - I never stitch my 6x9 or 6x10 images.  

[blackdot]

Has anyone compared the output of something like a Nikon d800 DSLR with 60 Micro and the ES-2 attachment to a dedicated scanner like Imacon or Plustek? Assuming either a high CRI light source or electronic flash. Online opinions are all over the place, but it would be expensive to try this myself to confirm. Some people say they've matched drum scanning with this method, but every single image I've seen so far posted from DSLR scanning looks like a step down.

[250swb]

7 hours ago, blackdot said:

 but every single image I've seen so far posted from DSLR scanning looks like a step down.

But do you know what you are looking at? People post images without any sharpening, some are posted too small to judge, some people don't have any software to invert an image properly, and to be honest some people copy a negative with an absurd setup that's doomed to failure but still think of it as a triumph.

Earlier in this thread there was a comparison between an Epson V300 and a Plustek, and the OP said they couldn't see much difference, and then gradually significant differences were pointed out. And the next stage up from a Plustek as a dedicated film scanner would be an Imacon (given the native resolution of other film scanners maxes around 4000dpi and the Plustek is 3600dpi). But any form of scanner, camera or Imacon, can only capture as much information as the film has in it's emulsion. So if a scan from a full frame sensor of 35mm film using a camera with 24mp can't be improved upon in any significant way by using an even higher megapixel camera it points to the fact that 24mp is capturing pretty well all the information in the negative (using a good setup and not held together by chewing gum and string).

But good post processing will always bring out more, like sympathetic sharpening, getting the contrast right, etc. Which is why an overall trust that people are seeing improvements over a dedicated film scanner should be seen as true rather than demanding they prove it, because proving it doesn't establish a baseline, it only establishes the basic skills of an individual. 

[blackdot]

42 minutes ago, 250swb said:

But do you know what you are looking at? People post images without any sharpening, some are posted too small to judge, some people don't have any software to invert an image properly, and to be honest some people copy a negative with an absurd setup that's doomed to failure but still think of it as a triumph.

Earlier in this thread there was a comparison between an Epson V300 and a Plustek, and the OP said they couldn't see much difference, and then gradually significant differences were pointed out. And the next stage up from a Plustek as a dedicated film scanner would be an Imacon (given the native resolution of other film scanners maxes around 4000dpi and the Plustek is 3600dpi). But any form of scanner, camera or Imacon, can only capture as much information as the film has in it's emulsion. So if a scan from a full frame sensor of 35mm film using a camera with 24mp can't be improved upon in any significant way by using an even higher megapixel camera it points to the fact that 24mp is capturing pretty well all the information in the negative (using a good setup and not held together by chewing gum and string).

But good post processing will always bring out more, like sympathetic sharpening, getting the contrast right, etc. Which is why an overall trust that people are seeing improvements over a dedicated film scanner should be seen as true rather than demanding they prove it, because proving it doesn't establish a baseline, it only establishes the basic skills of an individual. 

If just one person posts a truly excellent scan and describes what they did, that would be sufficient evidence that it can be done by someone competent. I’ve just yet to come across that. 

[TheEyesHaveIt]

Two interesting, but different perspectives here:

https://lightpriority.net/2020/07/04/dslr-scanning-sucks/

 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by TheEyesHaveIt

[250swb]

50 minutes ago, TheEyesHaveIt said:

Two interesting, but different perspectives here:

https://lightpriority.net/2020/07/04/dslr-scanning-sucks/

 

What are the two different perspectives, he prefers DSLR scanning all the way through doesn't he?

[TheEyesHaveIt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, 250swb said:

What are the two different perspectives, he prefers DSLR scanning all the way through doesn't he?

The first link (the article) prefers scanning to DSLRs.

[250swb]

1 hour ago, TheEyesHaveIt said:

The first link (the article) prefers scanning to DSLRs.

Oh I see, I thought the first link came across as an idiots guide to scanning and that was what you were comparing the second link with. But it's full of hyperbole and ignorance in almost in every paragraph. The YouTube video at least argues a good case between two methods.

[blackdot]

3 hours ago, TheEyesHaveIt said:

The first link (the article) prefers scanning to DSLRs.

Thanks for sharing those. The first article is a bit odd giving that the DSLR methodology doesn't seem very sound, but the video is much more interesting.

I found this video as well:

Makes it seem like more of a cross grade between the two. I'm going to watch it again on a proper monitor today rather that on my phone in bed .

Edited September 19, 2023 by blackdot

[TheEyesHaveIt]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

Oh I see, I thought the first link came across as an idiots guide to scanning and that was what you were comparing the second link with. But it's full of hyperbole and ignorance in almost in every paragraph. The YouTube video at least argues a good case between two methods.

Well I think this author had issues with the cost and setup for DSLR scanning (understandable), was not able to nail focus as well with their macro lens, and ultimately preferred the output of the scanner to their Fuji X-T2. There's always room for them to improve their technique, utilize Negative Lab Pro, etc. - but can't fault them for preferring the immediacy of the Plustek scanner.