Scanned Superia 100

[Rolo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For information only:

 

In these here parts, , Fuji Superia 100 is a pretty cheap film. Previously I've always regarded it as a lower quality emulsion and my stocks have reduced slowly. Just had a week away with my Leica M's and thought I rid myself of the remaining stock.

 

The lab scans were once again disappointing causing me to scan them lot myself after one or two tests.

 

Here's a sample that quite took me aback when it hit the screen. I think it performed well and demonstrates, to me at least, that there's an exceptional quality to be had from 35mm.

 

Thanks for looking.

 

Rolo

[rob_x2004]

Never had a problem with it. The asia market stuff is even cheaper and you wont pick the difference in that either. Actually I reckon any differences in most films these days is more than overlapped (or determined?) by scanning procedure and lighting conditions. And youve still got post processing up your sleeve.

 

Ps ... Whats the funny burn line in the bumper below the reflection of your MP?

[jplomley]

Nice work Rolo. Wait until you scan transparency film. You may say bye bye to negs!

[Doc Henry]

For information only:

 

In these here parts, , Fuji Superia 100 is a pretty cheap film. Previously I've always regarded it as a lower quality emulsion and my stocks have reduced slowly. Just had a week away with my Leica M's and thought I rid myself of the remaining stock.

 

The lab scans were once again disappointing causing me to scan them lot myself after one or two tests.

 

Here's a sample that quite took me aback when it hit the screen. I think it performed well and demonstrates, to me at least, that there's an exceptional quality to be had from 35mm.

 

Thanks for looking.

 

Rolo

Yes nice work Rolo and good result.

I also like Fuji Superia 100.

Which scan have you ? Epson or Nikon or other ?

[Photon42]

[...] I think it performed well and demonstrates, to me at least, that there's an exceptional quality to be had from 35mm [...]

 

Definitely a correct observation and a nice image. I think I'll try the Ektar somewhen, even though it's a completely different animal.

 

Cheers

Ivo

[Rolo]

Yes nice work Rolo and good result.

I also like Fuji Superia 100.

Which scan have you ? Epson or Nikon or other ?

 

Doc,

it is "other". Ha !

 

Just acquired an Imacon 848. Great quality and 34 mb in 51 seconds. Set for life.

 

Rolo

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Only 34mb Rolo?

 

Tiff?

 

16bit?

[Rolo]

Andy,

You can see from the attached that I'm varying the scan sizes as I learn how to develop my workflow. This is the first batch of film to go through the scanner.

 

For the purposes of seeing what's on the film and processing for LUF, I've used 34 Mb, 16 bit Tiff.

 

For something I felt from the Preview looked as though it could go further, I doubled the size.

 

For discovering what is possible I've scanned to 300 Mb and the odd one to 600 mb, but I really don't need file sizes like that for my holiday snaps. Ha ! The soldier was scanned in the native FFF format and I've just rotated it and saved in TIFF to share.

 

Rolo.

[rob_x2004]

So what actually hapens when you scan at 8000dpi?

[jplomley]

At 8,000 ppi you are scanning into grain and all you will be doing is killing your signal-to-noise ratio. To avoid this you need to oil mount. Very difficult to do on an Imacon. For any dry-mount based scanners, the best you can do is 4,000 ppi. Perhaps 6400 ppi for fine grained B&W film shot with Leica or Zeiss glass, but that is pushing it.

[rob_x2004]

So I figured but it would be interesting to see.

Once I scan at over 2400dpi (ish) I have a noise issue (Im not certain I have ever scanned grain) that I need to address to allow me to edit the images properly.

But it behaves differently depending on the program I use to edit, so I guess it is the softwares on screen preview as much as anything. Just the process of resampling down to a usable file size or pixel dimension rides rough shod over the lot and I wind up with something pretty reasonable.

Interestingly someone put some of my edited 200k web edits into a blurb style book, which presented better than most of their 1-5MB uploads on the magazine style print. At 200k these might have come from 2750 or 5400dpi multi pass scans but would have been resampled to probably just under a MB file before editing because I jsut cant effectively edit a 30, 60, 120, 240MB file.

Seeing a crop from a 8000dpi file would be interesting from the point of view of seeing what is out there beyond the troposphere.