SL2 Pixel Shift for Scanning thoughts

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

35mm film has a resolution of about 24MP

In my test, you are not gaining much. You get better results using a good lens to scan.

Medium format and large format can have some benefits. I scanned some 6x17 in both ways and didn't make a big difference once printed.

[Photoworks]

fresh from the press

https://petapixel.com/2025/07/23/new-multispectral-film-scanner-is-a-breakthrough-for-analog-photography/

 

[pgh]

4 hours ago, Photoworks said:

fresh from the press

https://petapixel.com/2025/07/23/new-multispectral-film-scanner-is-a-breakthrough-for-analog-photography/

 

Interesting but pretty irrelevant given the cost.

I'm looking for good solutions that are affordable at home.

In the past when I've needed to I've had drum scans made from a commercial lab, and I guess if a commercial lab utilizes this technology that's cool too - I won't expect a much superior result. It looks really good yes, but a few minutes in post can get pretty close to the color from this scanner I think. Seems like the main "breakthrough" in this is producing good color scans without any post work. I get that and it makes sense for a commercial operation, but it's so easy to build a C1 inversion preset for a film stock and batch apply it to camera scans that you have a good starting point to see what you're working with.

For instance, sort out one Portra400 image inversion with it's own white balance and levels to a pretty good place and apply that over 1000 Portra 400 negs, takes a few minutes, and you're in a good place to see what you've got. It's not that different than with digital where when with editing you deal with approximations of the all the final images and only spend real time in post on a select few. Takes a few more minutes with the film images but I don't find it markedly different. 

 

[Photoworks]

10 minutes ago, pgh said:

Interesting but pretty irrelevant given the cost.

I'm looking for good solutions that are affordable at home.

In the past when I've needed to I've had drum scans made from a commercial lab, and I guess if a commercial lab utilizes this technology that's cool too - I won't expect a much superior result. It looks really good yes, but a few minutes in post can get pretty close to the color from this scanner I think. Seems like the main "breakthrough" in this is producing good color scans without any post work. I get that and it makes sense for a commercial operation, but it's so easy to build a C1 inversion preset for a film stock and batch apply it to camera scans that you have a good starting point to see what you're working with.

For instance, sort out one Portra400 image inversion with it's own white balance and levels to a pretty good place and apply that over 1000 Portra 400 negs, takes a few minutes, and you're in a good place to see what you've got. It's not that different than with digital where when with editing you deal with approximations of the all the final images and only spend real time in post on a select few. Takes a few more minutes with the film images but I don't find it markedly different. 

 

Since you are using c1p. You may find this interesting 

https://www.mwilmes.com/toolbox

I personally capture in C1P, but process my color negatives in Lightroom plugin "Negative Lab Pro" . Results are better and quicker to get right.

[pgh]

@Photoworks

Thanks, looks potentially useful, but I'm not on FB or IG so I can't access the information on how to install (installation isn't working). 

I tried NLP, I didn't get on great with it personally - found C1 is still a more efficient workflow for me and I've gotten solid results. Not that I wouldn't mind trying the above software, but I'm not going to re-join social media just to get it. Ah well. 

[jaapv]

On 7/24/2025 at 10:43 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

I made a mistake once while film scanning with the Leica S006 that changed up my technique quite a bit. Basically, I was scanning an 8x10 for a client to make a modest print. I think 40x50cm. I was using my copy stand and the 120mm APO Macro Summarit S. I was shooting at f8 or f6.8 I believe. But for one shot I forgot to turn it from P mode to M mode, and the camera chose f2.5, which is wide open for that lens. That is a very very good lens, and lo and behold, the picture was sharper at 2.5 than it was at f8. Not just the center, but the corners too. 

There were two things going on: The 120mm APO Macro is not quite diffraction limited, but it is close, and the optical performance was better closer to wide open than at f8. But it was also the increased shutter speed. With the S camera, even with mirror pre-release and a studio stand, the release of the shutter causes enough vibration to affect your sharpness. 

So these days I am more likely to try to spend the setup time getting perfect alignment and then stop the lens down to f4 or so, rather than f8. If you are not using a dedicated macro lens, then you might need to stop down a bit more. I also highly recommend using the e-shutter and the countdown timer, if you are not already. I am not sure if it was clear in my first post, but I was using multishot for my film scans, and it does make a difference for larger negatives, but you do kind of trade resolution for acutance. The files get bigger and you get a bit more detail, but the detail is a little softer than it is in single shot. I am not sure how much of this is just magnification, but I have a feeling that more of it is introduced by the camera than by the lens, as least with the APO Summicrons and Sigma macro. 

It might help to use electronic shutter. 

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

It might help to use electronic shutter. 

 Yes, unfortunately the S cameras did not have one. But I do use it in the SL cameras. Multishot uses it automatically. 

[hansvons]

On 7/25/2025 at 3:52 AM, Photoworks said:

Results are better and quicker to get right.

Happy to disagree. The Levels Tool in C1 makes all the difference.  

[misteracng]

I am scanning medium format 6x6 and 6x9 with the SL2s, and there is definately more detail and better color, its obvious, not so on 35mm. I also just tried an S1R with pixel shift, with the 47mp sensor, and there is only a slight benefit and not really on all scans in medium format. THis is scanning fine grain black and white and Ektar/Portra 160.. You work with huge 1gb tiff files which are very slow and you need like 200% zoom to even see any difference compared to the SL2s multishot, so S1R is being returned. Its just not worth the extra time file size.

[misteracng]

As an update to this, I tried the SL2 with multishot for scanning medium format and it works better for me then the s1r, files are much smaller as well. There is a quality improvement, especially tonality. You still need to zoom it to over 100% to really see the difference, but the tonality is a bit easier to see. There is not a huge difference but it is there.

[jaapv]

On 8/1/2025 at 12:12 AM, misteracng said:

I am scanning medium format 6x6 and 6x9 with the SL2s, and there is definately more detail and better color, its obvious, not so on 35mm. I also just tried an S1R with pixel shift, with the 47mp sensor, and there is only a slight benefit and not really on all scans in medium format. THis is scanning fine grain black and white and Ektar/Portra 160.. You work with huge 1gb tiff files which are very slow and you need like 200% zoom to even see any difference compared to the SL2s multishot, so S1R is being returned. Its just not worth the extra time file size.

Actually higher resolutions, pixel shift or otherwise, should reduce grain aliasing. Did you notice this? 

[misteracng]

7 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Actually higher resolutions, pixel shift or otherwise, should reduce grain aliasing. Did you notice this? 

yes, the grain is much finer when zoomed in. That is a main benefit.

 

[pgh]

23 hours ago, misteracng said:

As an update to this, I tried the SL2 with multishot for scanning medium format and it works better for me then the s1r, files are much smaller as well. There is a quality improvement, especially tonality. You still need to zoom it to over 100% to really see the difference, but the tonality is a bit easier to see. There is not a huge difference but it is there.

Are you printing from this at all? How large?

[misteracng]

5 hours ago, pgh said:

Are you printing from this at all? How large?

I mostly print 11x14, sometimes 16x20. I only recently started getting into medium format film so i have limited prints. I will say at 11x14, you can still tell the difference between 35mm and MF, but it is slight, smoother tonality and transitions. On MF scanned and printed at 11x14, tri-X as no grain at all. It almost looks digital. With Tri-X 35mm at 11x14, some grain but looks nice. I suspect 16x20 and up will really start to show the difference. All this with the caveat of optimal exposure, sharp lens, and perfect focus. I will say that at 11x14 you can miss focus a bit on MF and it still looks sharp.

I think the SL2/s multishot implementation is the best version. It gives you the single shot and the multishot everytime and the 8 shift pitures it takes gives resolution and cancels out the bayer filter.

Edited October 3 by misteracng

[LocalHero1953]

I have just scanned a few 4x5 Portra 400 negatives with the SL2-S, 24-90SL zoom at 90mm, and pixel shift. This process gives you a scan at unshifted resolution (6000x4000) as well as the high resolution (12000x8000). After editing one, I cropped it and synced all the edits to the other.
No sharpening, clarity, texture adjustments.

The difference is obvious at this scale. I don't have enough experience of large prints to say if it makes a difference in real world printing or displays.

First the full scene:

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!

Now enlargements of the top right hand corner of the wall of the old mill.
First no pixel shift:

Now with pixel shift:

 

Edited October 3 by LocalHero1953