Using S for 'scanning' film/slides

[davidmknoble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have so far had the best success with the Leica SL3 and the Leica R APO 100 f2.8 with the Elpro attachment.  Mostly because the distance from camera to negative was more manageable for me.

I am anxious to try the plustek optic 120 for 120 negatives, but haven’t pulled the plug yet.  My Nikon coolscan 5000 is still working for 35mm and hate to let that go,but it may be time!

[Advertisement]

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

[Stuart Richardson]

On 8/6/2024 at 11:23 AM, 250swb said:

I don't think it's as simple as that. We all kind of know the native resolution of the V700, V750, V800, V850 isn't 6400 but more importantly than that is the scanner scans medium format with much greater efficiency than 35mm, and I'm thinking most people here will be scanning 35mm. For 35mm the V850 has a native resolution of only 2300 ppi scanned at 4800 ppi (the maximum, the image doesn't get better just larger at 6400ppi) which is very poor compared with a digital camera. The reason the V850 scans medium format better is because the input size is much larger. All explained here

https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV850Pro.html

Thanks Steve. I did not do this test for this thread...I did it for myself. I don't shoot much 35mm so I did 6x7 which would be my most common use case. I would agree, however, that the V850 is not a real 6400. I just figured I would scan it at its stated maximum and because the size of the multishot was not that far off at 15kX18x for the scanner and 11kX17k for the camera. I did not want to do the calculation to set the dpi to make the scan and the photo the same dimensions. I try to avoid self-inflicted mathematics. In any case, I was trying to show an actual result of a comparison, rather than something theoretical, because I find that, frankly, a lot of people really are not in a position to know. I've been scanning professionally for almost twenty years now and had the equipment around and a test done, so I figured I would share my results and experience. If we are talking 35mm, then yes, I think a properly set up SL2 scan will likely beat the Epson. I don't think it will beat the X5, which is 8000dpi and has a high end lens that focuses directly off the film (the film probably only shows about 4000-5000 dpi of information). I would certainly advise people to set up and buy a camera based scanning setup over an X5 these days, however, as the prices are still extremely high and that money would go much further for them buying a camera like the GFX and a macro lens, along with a light source and holders from someone like Negative Supply. 

The nut that camera based film scanning has yet to crack has been transport and negative handling. The area where the Hasselblad scanners in particular are much better is in that you can quickly and easily place the film in the holder and it will be scanned completely flat and plane parallel to the sensor with a pure light source and no flare, while also not having any glass to clean. This is not an insurmountable hurdle, but a big enough advantage that having both the SL2 scanning setup available and the X5 and V850, I almost never use the SL2 to scan film. The dedicated machines are just better at that side of things. But for people coming in to it without existing machines camera based scanning is going to be the way to go. I am also skewed differently because most of the scanning I am doing is for gallery and museum shows, and the goal is not good enough for home prints or the web, it has to be the best possible reproduction of the work. So far, in my experience, that is through a high end scanner. But for most work and most consumer scanners, a top shelf digital camera and lens will do better, assuming the set up is impeccable (no flare, no vibration, a good high CRI light source with multiple layers of diffusion, proper negative holders, good technique and good negative conversion if using c41). In general, my results with the S cameras were not that great because of the vibration of the shutter/mirror assembly. I remember being surprised once when I was scanning an 8x10 sheet with the S006. I was using a 50kg studio stand and the self timer and shooting at f5.6 or f8 with the 120mm APO macro. I made a mistake and shot it at 2.5 for one frame, and the f2.5 frame was actually sharper. I don't think this was diffraction as much as it was vibration. By going to 2.5 the shutter speed increased enough to minimize the subtle vibration that had softened the previous images. It was subtle enough not to strike me as being unsharp, but in the comparison the 2.5 frame was sharper. In any case, if one does choose to scan with the S cameras I would advise using the highest shutter speed you can get away with while still keeping the ISO at the base setting.

[davidmknoble]

@Stuart Richardson, that is where I think the SL3 has the S system beat in duping negatives. The mirrorless with a 2 sec timer has essentially no vibration and likely with in camera stabilization keeps things steady.  I don’t have anything larger than 120, and that is only about 3% of my film work (because I’ve only been using it for about 2 years).  What you say about the X5 and the bed scanners does make some sense.  I’ve had good luck with uncut negatives using the Negative Supply and gotten fairly flat negatives.  I use the R APO 100 with Elpro at f/5.6 or f/8 for depth of field.

Great detail in your post and I’ll bet those large negatives are fun to hold and look at…