If you line your lens/camera up perfectly you will get even better results. Use a mirror on top of your negative holder, and then line the centre focus point up with the centre of the lens. I too use the 7Artisans, and this line up trick gives cracking results! Also, focus at f2.8 on the grain, then take the shots at f8. Great video, as always.
@@ochatimothy2336 You have the shallowest DoF at the widest aperture, so nail focus here and then when you stop down the DoF increases and will keep you in sharp focus even if there are minor undulations as you scan trough the roll of film. It’s just the way I do it, and I think the EFH guy advised me to do it this way. Cheers.
@@oldtownpaul that makes sense, thanks a lot. I always try to focus at f8 but somehow always get slightly out of focus results. it made me gave up dslr scanning entirely because i was too frustrated. will try again with your technique! thanks again, cheers!
Thanks for checking out our equipment and camera scanning generally! Great to see you try out camera scanning and finding it an interesting proposition for your workflow! We're really looking forward to seeing what you do with it.
I work at a city archive as a photographer. And we have since a couple of years switched to DSLR scanning. For me it's the future of digitalising film. If the camera is out of date we replace it with its newer model and can continue without having to change my workflow. I have the luxury of using the best sensors but with camera like the xt-4 that I use personally as well you can quickly get solid results. With stitching you can go as far as you want. I certainly do that at my job if I need a certain size or if it's a endangered object (glass, colour negatives and positives). Of course I rather still use a flextight scanner. But since Hasselblad has been taken over by DJI I doubt support for these scanners are going to exist for long. I might make a channel one day about my film photography and my job at the archive.
Personally after developing myself and scanning myself for some time, I was pretty shocked of how much the quality compares to flatbed scanners that I had. But I feel like a lot of youtubers that made video on this didn't mention how tricky it is like you mentioned in the process. Trying to control the stray lights from the lightpad, getting the film flat, or making the film align with the camera sensor... This all could be easier if I pruchased dedicated holders & copystands, but frankly they're not worth that much.. Coming from China, I legit saw the same holder being sold for $50 back home, while in the US, the same product rebranded goes for $300. And with these money spent on developing, scanning equipments, and the time spent ensuring they're dust-free, flat. Really does compare to the lab prices. Whether if my effort/quality is worth all that I've used to go to labs, gives them 15 rolls. And receives scans that same day, or within 2~3 days with amazing results. But man, the price of develop+scanning are super high. When you're doing these urself, theres a lot more rolls you need to go through before you can make "profit". Plus there's a huge curve before the results are as good as labs in my opinion
Hey, could you tell me what is the name of the brand of the holder that you see on the Chinese website? Like Taobao and such, I am trying to find one here in China
I’ve found the diminishing returns point for a 24mp camera scan to be four shots on 120. Even just doing a simple two stitch (left side of neg, right side of neg) is a HUGE bump over a single shot and barely takes any more time.
@@zguy95135 yeh this is what I do generally. Though I do have problems with some images in the stitching process. Images with a lot of empty space sometimes don't stitch. So annoying
I tried doing this with large format and I agree that you can get good results, but I found the process extremely painstaking and if there's not a lot of detail in the negatives, it's really hard to get a good stitch.
A quicker method is taking 8-16 frames in continuous mode an stack them in post. It is important that there is minimal movement between each shot. The shake introduced by the mechanical shutter or the own hands is usually enough, if the camera is not fixed to sturdy. Before alining and stacking the scans they can be upscaled up to 4x their original resolution (2x per axis). This way you get noise-free super-resolution scans on any camera. Of corse it´s even faster and simpler if your camera supports sensor-shift super-resolution by default.
I've been DSLR-scanning all my analog photos and I've been consistently happy with the results. I keep improving my setup (went from a Canon 6D to a Sony a7r2, amazing improvement) and I'm super happy with my scans!
My 46 mp d850 and stellar zeiss 100 mm makro planar are a phenomenal combination. I use them tethered to light room. I had most of the other pieces needed, a rolling camera stand, a powerful led photo light. The valoi is taped to a piece of mat board taped to a sheet of translucent plexi over the light in my desk top side drawer. I'm getting huge sharp files. Not paying $20+ for mailing, developing and scanning per roll.
Great comparison. I made a film holder out of plywood - basically a box with a 35mm carrier on one side and a 6cm carrier on another. Works pretty well.
The lens you needed for this was the Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro. Affordable (compared to the Nikon 105mm Macro) & stunning results. A total sleeper lens made in Japan. I'd use it for wedding portraits 10-15 years ago. Still have it & use it for my digital scanning. Mint! I knew you'd love the results of digital scanning. I've told you a few times over the last few years, Kyle. You could totally sell the Coolscan 9000 & get a killer digital setup & never look back & gain so much time to do more of what you want...lol 😉
Cheers, Michael! I actually just got a GFX100s to use for a project this year, so it'll also become my scanner. The Coolscan is up for sale now (I'll miss it!)
@@KyleMcDougall Awesome mate. Check out the Essential Film Holder system also. Way cheaper than the Valloi & won't leave roller marks or micro scratches on your negatives. EFH has dedicated masks for each medium format type also (645/6×6/6×7). It's better than the Valloi IMO. Happy free time mate!
Valoi equipment are great! I get amazing results with the Sigma Art 70mm macro lens a Sony A7ii and taking multiple photos of the negatives and stitching in lightroom, and it’s so much quicker than conventional scanning!
I use an old school slide copier, used with a digital camera. The brand name was "OHNAR Slide Copier". Very cheap on E bay. You load the film into the holder in strips, and the copier is attached to the camera lens mount so no need for a support or seperate film holder with no alignment issues. I use flash fired directly into the slide copier diffuser. I adjust exposure by adjusting the flash power.
Great timing. Got the last bit of Valoi kit in the mail I needed this week. Diving into scanning tonight! 20+ years of negatives to digitize and archive.
I used to scan 35mm and 120 with a Epson flatbed and didn't like the blurry files I got! When I built my first dslr scanning setup I finally made some quality scans of my frames and I haven't looked back! I would not want a slow nikon dedicated film scanner today as DSLR scanning is my go-to method!
I use an Olympus em1 mk2 with a super Takumar 55mm/f1.8 to scan my film. In 135 i scan at native resolution of 20 mpx and get great result. For 120 my camera have a super resolution mode which make a sensor shift to create 80mpx image. Sometimes i do also 80mpx scan of 135 but it is less common since 20mpx is enough. Both look impressive and for me, it's the best setup to scan since it can also be used to make digital photos.
I've been enjoying camera scanning for the past year. It's fast, modular and offers high quality images. I'm currently using a Canon 6D mkii with essential film holder, I also have a dedicated copy stand for DSLRs and high CRI LED light. Stitching a 6x7 image with 6 overlapping shots gives me massive files with amazing quality. It's tedious but I usually save the stitching process for special images or for printing. My recommendation to those getting into camera scanning is don't cheap out on your build. I bought a modern macro lens (used) and sold an older macro lens because the quality was so bad. Buying a dedicated copy stand was sturdier than my previous build. I also bought some accessories as well (tether cable, batter adapter for wall plugs, etc). It's still significantly cheaper than a Nikon Coolscan 9000 but may be more expensive than a flatbed. It all depends on what you have available to you.
I had the Coolscan 8000 complete with glass holders, but the speed (or lack of) drove me nuts. Also had an Epson flatbed in the past which was fine with larger formats, but also slow. Now doing camera scanning and, while not perfect it really is the best option for me, hands down. Great video as always!
It seems every option really does have pros and cons. The Coolscan I love because it is simple, and it gives you incredible results with no messing around. But yeah, the speed and flexibility of a system like this really is great.
One additional consideration I really like (based on how I process film scans, YMMV) is that when "scanning" with my X-T3, I can apply any of their film simulations in post. When I shot some expired Kodak stuff and really wanted to crank the vintage, washed-out colors I used Classic Negative. When I wanted a lower contrast look right off the bat I could pick Eterna. It really gives a lot of rapid creative control for those who want to use it. Also, from the cost standpoint, older DSLRs that have a solid 20+ megapixels (probably plenty for people not looking to make massive prints or are just scanning 35mm) can be found all day for
For me, I went the camera scanning route simply because it’s faster than anything else I’ve used. I standardized on Negative Supply film holders and went with the Sigma 70mm macro art lens (the new one) paired with the Canon R5 and a strobe for the light source. It’s fast, and gives excellent performance.
Do you still recommend the Sigma 70mm macro art after having used it for a long time? I want to build my own setup and have read a lot of positive comments regarding this lens.
I find it to be sharper than flatbed scanner because of the fine tuning you can do with the macro lens. If you can manually focus to the grain perfectly and have everything level, then it's perfection in comparison with cheaper flatbed scanners.
Great video Kyle and interesting to see the comparisons to the scanners. I use an Olympus OMD EM1 mk2 with their 60mm macro. The HiRes pixel shift feature is brilliant for film “scans”. This gives me 80 MP images and another bonus is that the pixel shift provides for improved (100%) colour accuracy over regular digital images since it avoids the Bayer mosaic which interpolates adjacent photo sites to average the RGB information which provides 33% colour accuracy! I find this really improves the quality of the digital camera scans of my 6 x6 cm film captures.
Pixel shift is excellent for reproing negs. At least you get the same image quality that a scanner trilinear RGB sensor can output, though it still loses in the optical path. As scanners only use a thin line in the center of the optics, thus they do not suffer from the degraded image quality at the corners. The other benefit of scanners is the controlled light path that only illuminates a small part of the neg at any given moment, optimally using a condenser lens. Pixel shifting is not so much about the color accuracy, but the lack of upscaling that happens without it. All normal bayer captures are upscaled, and you never get rid of the softness it causes and the washed out micro contrast. Scanners are purpose build machines. As long as you don't go for Epsons or any of the other crap.
In my opinion, the best film scanner you can buy nowadays is the Pacific Image Prime Film XAs super edition. It’s like a modern day Pakon, but the XA can scan at a true 5000dpi optical resolution. You can find it on sale often for $480 at B&H Photo.
It's one of the worst rated scanners out there. Since you mentioned B&H, here's an excerpt from a customer review: Cons: Film loading is problematic. Advancing film is slow and alignment is off. Buttons do not consistently respond. Will not Eject film or slide. Bundled software produces poor quality scans compared to VueScan. Noisy. The sound of plastic gears intermittently advancing film suggests the quality of a plastic toy. Poor documentation on both the hardware and the bundled software.
@@abhijit-sarkar I owned it for a few years with no problems, other than the cumbersome software interface. Still one of the best options available although I liked the Pakon better for its color science and speed. I since moved to digital and haven’t shot a roll of film in more than a year.
Kyle...I much appreciate the time you spent making this comparison video. I too have a Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED film scanner that I used maybe two times since I bought it years ago when Nikon announced they were discontinuing film scanners. The high-resolution scans just took so long for me. I recently chose to dive into the digital camera film scanning (known as re-photography) and decided to go with the Negative Supply Pro Film Carrier 35 with their Light Source Mini. I made the camera stand base by sandwiching two 3/4" MDF boards together and rounding-off the corners and attaching rubber feet underneath, giving me a solid 1-1/2" "weighty" and inexpensive base. For the riser, I bought an inexpensive 2-foot section of galvanized "black pipe" from Home Depot and firmly attached it to the MDF base. It is rock-solid and can be taken apart in 15 seconds. I'll mount my Sony A7 IV 33MP mirrorless camera with the Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro lens to the black pipe with the Manfrotto 035RL Super Clamp. I own Negative Lab Pro, but I'll also consider Silverfast HDR 9, which offers the SRDx Plug-in for Photoshop. This plugin removes dust and scratches for camera film scans, even without the infrared channel provided by traditional scanners. Silverfast also converts the negative to a positive via its NegaFix feature, which also has presets for various film types. I'll provide my feedback after I find time to test this setup.
I wasn't happy with my epson, especially for 35mm so I build my own set up. I bought a monitor stand with a glass panel base so I can put the light panel + the film holder on it and it's easier to slide the whole light panel to take multiple shots. I bought a 50mm enlarger lens for durt cheap (20€) and with some extention tubes the results are very good. My digital camera has a full frame sensor so I can scan negatives with a 1:1 magnification ratio which is good enough for small prints or social media. If I want to blow-up a frame I can extend the tubes and take 4 shots which gives mindblowing details, it really choked me, haha.
For 35mm only I use the Nikon ES-2 film digitizer. You screw it on to the front of the micro lens and attach it to the camera body. End of set up. The film plane and sensor plane are automatically aligned without you having to do anything and they stay that way even if you move the camera. I can swing the camera in a large circle while I take the image of the negative or slide, literally, and still get crystal sharp images because the whole unit moves as one. It's a pity they don't make an attachment for medium format as well. Other manufacturers should follow suit. Its a cheap set up and it cant fail.
I need to get the Valoi setup, I’ve been camera scanning since 2016 and never wanted to spend the money on a real negative holder system (they didn’t exist until the Negative Supply ones and those are $$$). Dealing with janky setups is such a pain in the ass and I just don’t have the patience for it anymore… If I could just slap the negative in there and not deal with reflections around the edges and film flatness anymore I would probably shoot a lot more film again. btw if you don’t have a camera, go micro 4/3! They are SO cheap and product great results, and you can get away with not needing a 1:1 macro which are less expensive. I honestly regret going from my GX85 to a Sony A7ii for scanning, full frame opened a massive can of worms lens wise for very little benefit.
The image quality when "scanning" 35mm negatives with the 60mp Sony A7rIV, the Sigma 105mm 2.8 DG DN macro and the Valoi Film Advancer is amazing. It's imho almost indistinguishable from my Epson V750 scans, but the "scanning" is way faster with the camera. I can scan an entire 35mm film in less than 5 minutes(!).
Great idea getting the GFX50R for scanning and shooting, you could even use it for 4x5 scanning and simply sell the Coolscan for as much as the body would cost. I bought the 50R in large part due to your review, I’d love to see some more content of you making good use of it! It seemed to suit your style of shooting well…
Thanks, Kyle. Your video was the first in-depth look at this process that I had. I have an Epson V600 and I'm not happy with the scans. After watching your video I spent a day doing research. I decided to get the Valoi system. I have 3-4 rolls of 120 sitting on my desk waiting to send off. The reason I haven't sent them off is because of the price of the scans. I figure anything over 28 rolls of film the system will pay for itself. And to your point, I don't even bother doing 35mm film on the Epson. I've got 6x6, 645, and 67 format cameras. So, there you are.
I was fortunate to have been provided the Fuji 100s, with an amazing bellows extension, fitted with a 90mm Schneider large format enlarger lens on a Kaiser 5513 copy stand. With scans that open up to 400mb files. It’s beyond any scanner that encountered, even Imacon drum scans of some of my past works. When I flip the Kodachrome transparency 35mm to the backside, The scan I was picking up the layers of the dies in the film emulsion, was actually mind boggling to look at on my monitor. Of course this is an extremely expensive system that was sent me. But it does show me that going forward turning a good digital camera into a scanner is an extremely viable and efficient option
I'm getting back into black and white film photography, and home developing, but still wanted to digitize the photos for post production. I settled on camera scanning as well. I bought an old Nikon bellows and a slide/negative copier on ebay for less than $100. I already had a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 to do the lens work, but those can be had for about $40-50 too. I'm still putting all my equipment together, so this video couldn't have come at a better time. I'm glad the results will be acceptable. I'll be shooting full-frame on my Sony A7II with a Nikon adapter. Thanks for the great video.
@@valoico I definitely recommend giving it a try. The reviews at optical limits demonstrated virtually zero distortion on that Loawa 65mm macro. While less important for scanning there's zero fringing as well, pretty incredible lens. Based on those results it quite possibly beats out the Fuji 80mm macro. I moved up to it from the 7Artisans mark 1 and thoroughly enjoy it. Admittedly it costs twice as much though.
I honestly like the Camera scans a lot! Another plus is the RAW image from your camera (generally speaking not YOUR camera) will be way smaller file size than these crazy 500mb Tiffs I get from my v800. I might try this one day myself and compare.
That's because scanners have trilinear RGB sensor, the file sizes are larger because they contain 3x the information. Your 20MP digital camera only outputs 1x20MP, its the upscaled from the raw file into 3x20MP. While a scanner outputs 3x20MP, and does not upscale at all. This is also why scanneras will always outperform digital cameras, not the only reason though.
$300 Olympus EM5ii +$75 old macro = 64mpx 4:3 raw scans, and you can leave it set up as a dedicated scanner. If you want more, go for the A7R4 - 240mpx hi-res composite.
On a related note, 35mm Portra 160 + Sigma Art 105mm then A7R4 composite in pixel shift scanning = >60mpx of actual optical resolution data. If you want Fuji GFX resolution out of 35mm film, this will achieve it. Medium format really isn't necessary, lol.
@@robertleidner9703 Not that I'm aware of. I have rented one on two occasions when I had scans that I wanted to get everything I could out of. I also did an initial test where I rented one to see what I could get out of Adox CMS 20 when using the sharpest lens for 35 mm ever made. I concluded the adox film stock offers more resolution than any digital sensor currently on the market. I'm an engineer with a photography hobby and covid gave me a bunch of time to burn.
I have tried it with an a7riv. There's not much benefit of using pixel shift because 60mpx is more than enough resolution in most cases. You also need to use Sony Imaging Edge software to merge the files into one image. That extra process didn't play nice with Negative Lab Pro last time I tried.
@@robertleidner9703 We should bug Kyle to do one. That would be a headline grabber if he is able to declare he got more resolution out of analog film than a D850 can grab :-)
I use an even cheaper setup; 16mp fuji XE1 and a $50, 50mm pergear lens + macro ring; still works great for old folders & TLRs and if I feel like there's more resolution left, as you said, just take 2 shots and stitch them.
For dust and scratch removal of camera scans if you have Photoshop there is a very powerful built in solution. Open your image and go Filter - Noise - Dust & Scratches, remarkably powerful and easy to finesse. For problem files I make a copy of the image layer and apply the filter to that then black mask it and ‘paint’ it in, but it is very good even in semi auto modes.
I've spent way too much on my DSLR scan set up, optimizing every component to top DSLR scanning spec only to find out NLP converts negatives horrendously, I have no clue what's going on, but glad to see it worked out for you.
There’s a number of variables that makes scanning with a camera a little tricky. Getting everything refined takes some time. I’ve been fine tuning my setup for about two years, and until just few months ago, really got everything really dialed in. Here’s some things I’ve learned that have made the biggest improvements: 1. Having a bright enough light source. - Not having bright enough light source will make all color scans look yellow or brownish. 2. Use a macro lens. - I found after months of trial and error of using a zoom lens with extension tubes gave really bad results. I tried a prime lens with extension tubes and it was better, but once I got a macro lens, image quality went WAY up. 3. Use the histogram on the digital camera. - If you don’t give your SLR enough light when taking a picture of your negatives, NLP to compensates in post and color film can look really bad. - Watch your histogram. You want the data more to the right side. - Dense negs will need more light, thin negs will need less light. 4. Shoot in manual mode. - This goes along with step 3. I’ve gotten the best results from keeping a fixed aperture and ISO, then adjusting shutter speed for exposure. - Dense negs will need more light (slower shutter speed) and thinner negs need less light (faster shutter speed) - Overall, I use a faster shutter speed to help reduce vibration. - Match the negative to look the same on the lcd screen as it looks to your naked eye and you’ll get a properly exposed negative. 5. Learn Negative Lab Pro. - This step is a lesson all on it’s own (and this post is LONG 😆) so I’ll keep it short. - mess with all of the settings until you understand what each adjustment makes. - white balancing correctly makes big improvements. Auto WB works sometimes, and some times you’ll need to make manual adjustments. - There are a bunch of different color profiles to use. Try them until you find one that looks the best with your negative. I use different profiles for different negs. 6. Manual focus your SLR lens on the film grain to get the sharpest image. - This takes some practice on finer grain films, so shoot a roll of 800 or 3200 speed so you’ve got some chunky grain film. Zoom in as far as possible with your SLR and slowly manual focus on the grain. You’ll see when it comes into focus, and your neg will look sharp. It takes time and a lot of trial and error to get great film scans, but it is possible. I hope some of these tips help out! 😎🤘🏻🤘🏻
My experience exactly. I have the same Valoi set up. Xt3, and an adapted Canon FD 50mm macro. The duster works well. No real difference with 120 files with my Epson V550, but 35mm scans are transformed from mediocre to excellent.
@@CreatorJuice No stitching. Never even thought of doing that. The XT3 gives plenty of resolution IMHO. I few things to consider. 1. For the 50mm Canon lens, you really need to add extension tubes, in order to fill the frame. I use the cheaper Viltrox tubes. 10mm for 120 scans and 16mm for 35mm scans. 2. Set up can be a faff. To improve workflow, I have my copystand and Valoi set up permanently next to my computer. I transfer the files direct to Lightroom using Fuji Acquire software (free) and a usb-c connector. This way, as soon as I click the shutter, the scan appears automatically in LR. Getting Fuji Acquire to work with LR is a PITA. But can be done. 3. A remote shutter release or using the shutter on the Fuji App is quicker than the 2 second timer. Sorry about the brain dump!
Best way to compare these is to shoot Xt4’s longer side to cross the shorter side of the film and then stitch. Fairer comparison. Easy to stitch since film odds 2D
I prefer the Nikon 9000, but not everyone can access these. The advantages for me are image quality, convenience, workflow, desktop space, and digital ICE. People often forget that spotting their images with DSLR scanning is an additional pain.
I think I’ll stick to my plustek. It’s so fast and good. Medium format is usually paid work so I don’t mind lab scans until I save up for a cool scan. I don’t want a bulky setup like this tbh.
For a while I used a fuji setup to camera scan too, I found the sharpening really work well when you add just a bit on the texture slider as well, it really brings the grain out in a nice way. Especially when Fuji files are known to not sharpen very well using LR's engine and can cause "worms" when pixel peeping
With 120 film it's easier to get closer and do multiple shots to ultimately end up with a stitched "panorama" shot to get the whole negative. I've done some 6x9 negatives scanned as high as 13000 x 10000 pixels just by taking multiple offset shots to get the whole negative.
Thanks for sharing your experience. The only thing I'd say is that for better results you got to have a better lens. Also, with larger formats, you definitely should have stitched since you didn't really achieve the full potential of the camera scan and the negative. I have a Canon EOSR, 30 megapixels, with a Laowa 100mm 2x magnification, and I can definitely get larger files if I stitch, even larger than the Coolscan you showed to be honest, and yes, investing in a decent lens is not fun, but the whole setup is still cheaper than dedicated scanners.
It's great to see such results from these types of scans, but there's a big problem. The vast majority of people out there with digital cameras can't afford such a setup. Most people don't have relatively high end cameras, for a start. Even an X-T4 is expensive kit for most people. And, unless you're going to be printing your pics, you might as well just use a cheap, 24MP or less camera if you go down this route. You could just as easily buy a 35mm scanner and get away with spending less money. Then, you have the price of a good copy stand, one that doesn't "rock" around every time you touch it. And, the idea of having to stitch together a medium format pic like a panorama doesn't appeal to me. Software can make mistakes and inevitably does. Plus, the price of the film carriers is another thing. Not every country has cheap prices for these bits of equipment and whilst it may sound like a good price in the UK or US, they can be prohibitively expensive elsewhere. My point is whilst scanning your film using a camera is a great idea, it mightn't be the best option for many people, for all sorts of reasons. It would put people off using film because why go through all the BS of having to try scan their film when they could just take a pic and dump the files off their digital cameras to begin with.
Scanning is one of those situations where everyone is going to have different budgets, needs, preferences, and so on. All I can do is share these tests, and my opinions, and let other people come to their own conclusions on what they prefer/need/can afford.
I found using small aperture can bring up more of the film grains while large aperture can lose some details due to more difficult to focus precisely, but it great reduces film grains.
Invested in a camera scanning system because it was obviously the best choice for scanning different formats at good quality and good price! It's cheaper if you obviously already own a digital camera ofc. A camera with +40MP for 120 and above would be a great upgrade though. I've been using the Sony A7III with the Sigma 70mm F/2.8 with the Essential Film Holder, it's been great! I really think a high pixel camera with a good lens could beat the Coolscan for 120 and above though I might be wrong.
Thanks a lot. Very useful and clear. One thing I don’r understand. Why the investment in a macro lens. For close up, I use a fairly cheap set of extension rings. Since everything is stationary, you don’t even need contacts for communication with the camera.
I think there is also something to say for having smaller files from the lower resolution medium format scans because of storage space. Sometimes it's just not worth having huge image files if you are not plannig to do much (e.g. printing) with them anyways. You might as wel chose to save on storage space in that case and get professional scans for the negatives you intent to print, or for any other reason you might need the full resolution
Have scanned this way for a while using my “old” EOS R and the adapted EF 100L macro, with Negative Supply transporter equipment. Much better than my old Epson flatbed which is now only brought out if I use my XPan. One issue that I have is that all of the transporters that I see are better if you have uncut rolls, but even so, the first frames are never taken up by the transport mechanism and have to be pushed through manually until the film reaches the mechanism. If your rolls are old and have been cut for storage, the first frames on each strip need to be manually pushed through meaning that the transport mechanism is only used for half the frames on each strip.
You are totally right that archive scanning is a problem. It's actually relatively hard to do this, though of course not impossible! We have been looking into it - though I'm not sure how much of the community would be interested in paying a premium for it - personally what I do is just push the rollers out of the way and manually move the film through when it's a strip. - Arild
I don’t do film scanning, but if I were to suggest a couple of lenses to do it with, I would suggest the Laowa 100mm macro lens (full frame) or the Laowa 65mm macro lens (crop). I have the 65mm and it’s amazingly sharp and has basically no chromatic aberrations. I bet either of them would be great for this purpose.
They're good, but the 65mm is very close to the price of the native fuji 30mm macro. At that point I would go with native glass. I don't know about other brands though.
As someone who has truckloads of negs that I'd love to scan, this video is invaluable, thanks! I have a Nikon DSLR so that covers the camera. I'm guessing that I could also use my tripod to hold it in position over a light source and neg holder. Seeing your results shows that for me a dedicated neg scanner might be an unnecessary investment.
The Skier Pro System Sunray Box III also looks like a nice system. Just caught on to it this afternoon. Maybe you can do a review or give thoughts on that system also. Great review on the Valoi.
Personally I bought a monitor stand with a glass base. It's heavy and not bad looking at all. I adapted a plate on the vesa mount to fix my camera and it works very well ! And it cost me less than 30€ !
Just put a link in the info section. This was a cheaper one from here in the UK, a place called Speedgraphic. www.speedgraphic.co.uk/copy_stands/cs500_medium_copy_stand/25946_p.html
Honestly my opinion is,if you want to get your job done get a tripod to do the scanning, it has worked well.Only issue is that i have to get it set every time I'm scanning but it is worth it.
Thanks for the comparison, would love to see this with a better lens and a Sony a7RIV with pixel shift. Also if by chance you stumble upon a Hasselblad H6D 100mpix, would love to see that with its 400Mpix pixel shift
My GFX 50R set up is nearly ready. I’m using a micro nikkor 55 mm which came highly recommended in many of the forums. Have the essential film holder, but still looking for a good solid copy stand that won’t break the bank. Some of the adapted photo enlarger stands look great, but it seems difficult to pick them up now at reasonable prices.
I actually just bought the 60mm Contax macro for my GFX100s setup. As for a copy stand, I just bought this one after searching for a lot of solutions. www.novoflex.de/en/products-637/desktop-studio-magic-studio//repro-products/magicstudio-repro-2794.html Novoflex stuff is rock solid, and so far it's been great! Only downside is the height. It wasn't quite tall enough with the 100s and the Pentax Macro 120mm, but should be good to go with a shorter focal length.
Hi Kyle. IMO it doesn’t really matter about references to colour (colour conversion, inversion, saturation, etc) at all when it comes to ‘scanning’, and certainly not when discussing physical scanning techniques, so there’s not much relevance in mentioning this stage of the workflow in this sort of video IMO (although obviously I recognise the importance of a good conversion of the digital ‘scan’). Scanning is the initial step of taking analogue media and capturing it into the digital domain. Anything that happens after the digital capture is likely the same regardless of how the image was captured. So you can have a DNG or a TIF of an image photographed by a DSLR, or captured by an Epson flatbed or other scanner of your choice, and how good that capture is will ultimately dictate the quality of the final image, and certainly what you can use it for (eg blowing up to large print versus small resolution for social / web etc). I think DIY scanning with a DSLR has come a long way since I used to do it. In 2020 and 2021 I felt like there was a new film scanning gizmo being launched or touted every few months at one point. It’s all good though and anything that makes it easier for film users to get results they’re happy with is a win in my my book. However, the key thing with DIY DSLR scanning is consistency and a workflow that works for the user. Both take time. Both are not without frustration. Many people have used DSLR scanning to construct their own budget solutions for digitising and so may of these are fantastic. It’s a DIY project that can be as good as you are prepared to make it. But getting consistent results every time can be tricky and time consuming, and time consuming can turn an enjoyable hobby into something laborious that can start to reduce the enjoyment of using film. I know this personally as I had a DSLR scanning workflow with my D90 for 3 years. In those days, Valoi didn’t exist and Pixl-latr was in Hamish’s head. Both these two devices (and others like the Negative $$upply kit) for sure have made good DSLR scanning captures much more achievable, but by the time you factor in a macro lens (I know there are decent cheap ones), a decent light source (you absolutely need one with high CRI) and a copy stand (tripods work but precision height adjustment isn’t really very easy), you will still be hampered time-wise by levelling (likely a one-shot, but unless you never move your set up, it needs to be factored into each scanning ‘session’). Then there is focussing on the negative itself (focusing manually with visual peaking indication is probably a must too, although the older DSLRs, even high end ones, don’t have it). Then you have image stitching. Even with a decent DSLR by today’s standards, if you want to do 120 film justice you need high resolution which, unless you have a very expensive DSLR, means stitching images together. Nick Carver touches on this in one of his videos. One word - headache. What I’m saying is, to do DSLR scanning well and consistently well giving you a digital capture of the negative with maximum flexibility, takes time. Time per negative. Then on top of all that you have dust correction which just doesn’t exist with DSLR scanning. Yes a rocket blower helps a lot, as does an anti-static brush (that Valoi adapter looks very fancy but at what cost) etc, but when you want/need to do this for rolls and rolls of film, week after week, month, etc … it gets too much (IMO). I enjoyed doing my DSLR scanning but even when I had the process nailed (good enough for me) it was still frustrating and to started taking enjoyment away from my film photography because it took so long and I had to be involved in every single image capture. Working in the dark, bent over a lightbox with my D90, then looking at a scan or stitched image an hour later and realising something was wrong and I had to repeat one/some scans was soul destroying, eventually pushing me over the edge. In the end I decided I wasn’t going to let that impact my love of using film so I bought an Epson v850 and Silverfast 9 and I’ve never looked back since. The cost of a good DSLR scanning set up is not incomparable to the price of an Epson flatbed. Dedicated scanner HW with decent negative holders, an IR channel for colour film dust correction, a decent lens and good software is light years ahead of DSLR scanning in terms of workflow. And that’s the important word here - workflow. DSLR scanning definitely can yield excellent results - no question. However, rather than reviewing ways to digitise a negative, it needs to be viewed from a workflow perspective and how that can be applied to doing image and image after image, roll after roll, for months…years. Cheers.
I agree with your conclusions. I have been fairly happy with my older Epson flatbed for medium format and up. And my old Minolta film scanner was OK for 35 mm, although slow and finicky. But not good enough to be worth figuring out how to get the serial interface going with a newer computer. I have a light table on a copy stand, which works fairly well with the Epson film/slide holders. (Canon DSLRs with a Canon macro lens.) Definitely going to give Valoi a look - more convenience for not a bad price. Too bad Nikon went out of the film scanner business, but you can’t argue with the economics.
I've been waiting for a video like this from you for a while. Thanks a lot! I know you must have so many videos or ideas for videos already in the pipeline, but one I would find interesting (if you have the time) is comparing film grain emulation (Film Convert, Dehancer, etc) for video. I really like your video work so I'm curious about your opinion regarding those.
Might be worth it to some to know that the resolution differences will differ from format to format based on the lens (focal length) you are using, and minimum focus distance, etc. When I scan on my mirrorless setup, 35mm ends up being the most cropped and 67 fills the most of the sensor.
Great video. I also saw your video with the GFX100 but I have to wonder how an inexpensive full frame camera with Pixel Shift like the Pentax K-1 with 7360x4912 pixels (with an also inexpensive Tamron SP AF 90mm macro lens or with your Pentax 645 120mm) would fare against the Nikon scanner.
I went a slightly different direction. I'll be scanning on X-T4 same as you but I got the Essential film holder from UK (Still waiting - long lead time) and Laowa 65mm macro lens. Also bought RALENO LED Video Soft Light Panel based on Hashem's (Pushing Film) recommendation which can serve a dual purpose. While I have spent more money on optics rather than film holder I think it's a better setup overall. That being said I'm happy and thankful you made this. Now I know what to expect and everyone else won't have the same dilemma I had before spending the ££
More sample math for those interested - cs9000 (real optical resolution of 3900 dpi) vs. Sony A7R4 high-resolution composite mode (19,008 px x 12,672 3:2, and converted pixelshift2dng utility). Further assume 100lp/mm lens resolution and tmax 100 film, so that the film has more data than either method converts. What do you get in terms of *real* optical data in your digital scan? 85mpx for the cs9000 (~9200x9200), 160mpx for the Sony (12672x12672). When does it matter? Only if you print larger than 30 x 30 inches. The dynamic range is effectively the same, because the scanner can do multipass now to account for the difference. Having said that, you can run the cs9000 image through gigapixel AI, and even on a 2X enlargement producing a print you will *never* see the difference. It's no longer about how much detail you can convert to digital - it is about *workflow*. Want dust removal (I DO!!!) - go scanner. Want fast scanning with more work to produce a finished image? Go camera.
Interesting but not for me. I use Epson V800 scanner with Silverfast - this gives a lot of adjustment - histogram, contrast, sharpness -while scanning rather than all in Lightroom later. I use the time it takes to scan to multitask and tweak already scanned images so overall it doesn't take that long.
lol, the medium format would just out resolve the film at this point. No one shooting a medium format digital camera would bother scanning a medium format negative.
I‘m scanning with a rather cheap EOS 700D, a cheap 50mm and a macro-ring…and results are more than fine. Especially considering that my photos are not printed on walls…not yet at least 😂
I now digitally scan with my 45mp mirrorless Nikon with a previous mount 60mm macro which I owned before returning to film photography recently. I find it better to use a low output level for the backlight and under expose the scan a third or so because there seems to be a disparity of lighting across the thick and thin areas of the original film. I then add some exposure/contrast compensation in post. When scanning medium format film I take several scans across the image, number dependant on whether its 645, 6x6 or 6x9. At the moment I pano stitch these in LrC before reversal. I have had no problem with matching the images but the film frame do not usually align (even if they have been Transform aligned first). That might be more about my Essential Film Holder device's 'looseness', or Lightroom. I do get a better stitch in Photoshop but Negative Lab Pro doesn't usually like the .dgn file that Ps produces. I have yet to try previously reversed image 'pano-ing'...
One item you don't show in the description is the copy stand you use. I'm curious about that as I do a lot of work with flat lays at the moment. Any chance of a recommendation for that type of gear?
I used a cheaper one: www.speedgraphic.co.uk/copy_stands/cs500_medium_copy_stand/25946_p.html Although it'll be the first thing I upgrade. I wasn't a huge fan.
I see this method as a quick and dirty method of getting "A" digital image and that's about it. The film has all three colors at all photosites or points, the Bayer sensor in your camera unless it is a Foveon, does not, each pixel is either red, green, or blue and then the colors are computed by a mathematical guess so all colors you see on your digital camera captures are NOT from captured photons. A film scanner is a line scanner and has one row of red, one row, of green, and one row of blue pixels so every photosite or point on the film which once again, has all three colors in it and is scanned by all three colors of the line scanner. I really think that most people do not know that each pixel on their camera sensor is only one color. The sensor underneath the colored coating on each pixel is actually black and white. Some people clean off the color filters to create a black-and-white digital camera. It's up to the individual, with a true film scanner, all three colors are scanned at every photosite on the film so all colors are the result of captured photons through the lens of the film camera or your digital camera which plays fill in the missing colors by mathematical computation. Open up a raw file in Raw Therapee, click on the raw tab and turn off the interpolation, and magnify at 1600. You will see red, green, and blue little squares which are the actual pixels. There are two green pixels for every red and blue. While still viewing, back it out and it will look black and white with a green hue. The Bayer sensor can give great results with the interpolation required but scanning film with a Bayer sensor defeats half the beauty of film and that is to capture all the colors at every photosite or point on the film.
In my Opinion. No Scanner (and iam testing alot) comes close to the quality of my Nikon Z7II DLSM Scans. The Workflow is a bit tricky and not so smooth like a Flatbed Scan but hey. The Quality is on Top. Testet with a Epson V850 Pro in max Resolution.
Great video, man. I actually just switched last month to the same setup. Xt3 and 7artisans. Digging the results. If you are looking for a copy stand but don’t want to spend 300 bucks, or whatever. I bought a large wooden cutting board, a 18inx1in steel pipe, a 1in pipe floor flange, then a Small Rig clamp with 1/8in adapter. Just put it all together and added a screw-on tripod head, and the whole thing cost me like 50 bucks. If anyone has questions or if I didn’t explain that correctly, feel free to ask away. Thanks! Keep up the hardwork, dude.
Hello Kyle . Negative Scanning untill last week for me was really frustrating with my epson 4990 . Last week i started to scan my negatives with my nikon d7000 and the resaults was decent . As you mentioned the big advantage is the speed . Regards.
Hi, thanks for the video. Quite interesting to get them. I sold my EPSON V850 last year and switched to camera scanning. I wasn't happy with prints form the epson scans even after many hours of editing. I used them for 5x4" black&white stuff. After using a XT4 with a old Leica 60mm macro lens I'm so happy. Printing on A2 paper is really great.
Great video. I already have a GFX 50R but do not have a Pentax lens and have never used adapters before but at the price of the Fuji macro lens it is a very interesting proposition. Just so I am clear you set the camera to auto and the lens on the A setting and the camera and lens talk to each other? I shot film back in the day when film was the only medium and at the height of the COVID lock-downs I came back to film and now shoot both.
i was looking at the 7artisans macro lens for scanning but reviews suggest it’s rather soft at the edges even stopped down. seems like you got good results though - i had always previously been looking at vintage macro lenses (canon FD, nikon etc)
New to scanning, but any reason why there are significant differences in perspective for the different scans. You can see converging lines on some of the verticals for both camera and flat bed scans. Why would this be the case?
What are the contraindications of using a 1:2 macro lens on full frame when scanning 6x7 films on FF? A 6x7 or 6x4.5 film is much larger than a fullframe sensor, so I will get a scan resolution close to the sensor resolution. am I wrong? I have a Sony A74 and I'm considering buying a Voigtlander Macro 65mm (1:2) or 110mm (1:1). 65mm seems to me to be optically better and more usable for everyday use. In my opinion, the difference will only occur in the case of 35mm film scanning. I will be very grateful for your opinion.
If you line your lens/camera up perfectly you will get even better results. Use a mirror on top of your negative holder, and then line the centre focus point up with the centre of the lens. I too use the 7Artisans, and this line up trick gives cracking results! Also, focus at f2.8 on the grain, then take the shots at f8. Great video, as always.
I am looking at getting into scanning like this and this would help a ton... Thank you for the advise!
I'd be careful with shooting at f8, due to diffraction kicking in earlier at closer distances, f5.6 might actually be sharper.
sorry new here, why do we need to open up at f2.8 to focus?
@@ochatimothy2336 You have the shallowest DoF at the widest aperture, so nail focus here and then when you stop down the DoF increases and will keep you in sharp focus even if there are minor undulations as you scan trough the roll of film. It’s just the way I do it, and I think the EFH guy advised me to do it this way. Cheers.
@@oldtownpaul that makes sense, thanks a lot. I always try to focus at f8 but somehow always get slightly out of focus results. it made me gave up dslr scanning entirely because i was too frustrated. will try again with your technique! thanks again, cheers!
Thanks for checking out our equipment and camera scanning generally! Great to see you try out camera scanning and finding it an interesting proposition for your workflow! We're really looking forward to seeing what you do with it.
tempting stuff. Are you planning on going into 4x5 inch Large Format?
Happy we were able to make this. Definitely learned a lot and excited to go down this route in the future!
I work at a city archive as a photographer. And we have since a couple of years switched to DSLR scanning. For me it's the future of digitalising film. If the camera is out of date we replace it with its newer model and can continue without having to change my workflow. I have the luxury of using the best sensors but with camera like the xt-4 that I use personally as well you can quickly get solid results. With stitching you can go as far as you want. I certainly do that at my job if I need a certain size or if it's a endangered object (glass, colour negatives and positives).
Of course I rather still use a flextight scanner. But since Hasselblad has been taken over by DJI I doubt support for these scanners are going to exist for long.
I might make a channel one day about my film photography and my job at the archive.
Personally after developing myself and scanning myself for some time, I was pretty shocked of how much the quality compares to flatbed scanners that I had. But I feel like a lot of youtubers that made video on this didn't mention how tricky it is like you mentioned in the process. Trying to control the stray lights from the lightpad, getting the film flat, or making the film align with the camera sensor... This all could be easier if I pruchased dedicated holders & copystands, but frankly they're not worth that much.. Coming from China, I legit saw the same holder being sold for $50 back home, while in the US, the same product rebranded goes for $300.
And with these money spent on developing, scanning equipments, and the time spent ensuring they're dust-free, flat. Really does compare to the lab prices. Whether if my effort/quality is worth all that
I've used to go to labs, gives them 15 rolls. And receives scans that same day, or within 2~3 days with amazing results. But man, the price of develop+scanning are super high. When you're doing these urself, theres a lot more rolls you need to go through before you can make "profit". Plus there's a huge curve before the results are as good as labs in my opinion
Hey, could you tell me what is the name of the brand of the holder that you see on the Chinese website? Like Taobao and such, I am trying to find one here in China
Me too! I'm in China. I have been looking at the 那些胶卷. It doesn't look as good as the Valoi though, especially when it comes to accessories.
Get an Essential Film Holder. Way better than the brand featured here, and heaps cheaper.
@@mpk33 basically what I mean. almost every holders out there are overpriced
@@messsucher I think the EFH is still fair. And a return policy on defects. Can't say that for the Chinese stuff. Not worth the risk.
Once you start stitching 6+ overlapping frames together for 120, the results are quite stunning. it is more time consuming and finicky though.
I’ve found the diminishing returns point for a 24mp camera scan to be four shots on 120. Even just doing a simple two stitch (left side of neg, right side of neg) is a HUGE bump over a single shot and barely takes any more time.
@@zguy95135 yeh this is what I do generally. Though I do have problems with some images in the stitching process. Images with a lot of empty space sometimes don't stitch. So annoying
@@theoswinscow oh yeah, skies can be a real pita
I tried doing this with large format and I agree that you can get good results, but I found the process extremely painstaking and if there's not a lot of detail in the negatives, it's really hard to get a good stitch.
A quicker method is taking 8-16 frames in continuous mode an stack them in post. It is important that there is minimal movement between each shot. The shake introduced by the mechanical shutter or the own hands is usually enough, if the camera is not fixed to sturdy. Before alining and stacking the scans they can be upscaled up to 4x their original resolution (2x per axis). This way you get noise-free super-resolution scans on any camera. Of corse it´s even faster and simpler if your camera supports sensor-shift super-resolution by default.
I've been DSLR-scanning all my analog photos and I've been consistently happy with the results.
I keep improving my setup (went from a Canon 6D to a Sony a7r2, amazing improvement) and I'm super happy with my scans!
My 46 mp d850 and stellar zeiss 100 mm makro planar are a phenomenal combination. I use them tethered to light room. I had most of the other pieces needed, a rolling camera stand, a powerful led photo light. The valoi is taped to a piece of mat board taped to a sheet of translucent plexi over the light in my desk top side drawer. I'm getting huge sharp files. Not paying $20+ for mailing, developing and scanning per roll.
Great comparison. I made a film holder out of plywood - basically a box with a 35mm carrier on one side and a 6cm carrier on another. Works pretty well.
The lens you needed for this was the Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro. Affordable (compared to the Nikon 105mm Macro) & stunning results. A total sleeper lens made in Japan. I'd use it for wedding portraits 10-15 years ago. Still have it & use it for my digital scanning. Mint!
I knew you'd love the results of digital scanning. I've told you a few times over the last few years, Kyle. You could totally sell the Coolscan 9000 & get a killer digital setup & never look back & gain so much time to do more of what you want...lol 😉
Cheers, Michael! I actually just got a GFX100s to use for a project this year, so it'll also become my scanner. The Coolscan is up for sale now (I'll miss it!)
@@KyleMcDougall Awesome mate. Check out the Essential Film Holder system also. Way cheaper than the Valloi & won't leave roller marks or micro scratches on your negatives. EFH has dedicated masks for each medium format type also (645/6×6/6×7). It's better than the Valloi IMO. Happy free time mate!
Valoi equipment are great!
I get amazing results with the Sigma Art 70mm macro lens a Sony A7ii and taking multiple photos of the negatives and stitching in lightroom, and it’s so much quicker than conventional scanning!
What would be the purpose of taking multiple photos of the same picture? The quality isn’t great with just taking 1 frame? To scan?
I use an old school slide copier, used with a digital camera. The brand name was "OHNAR Slide Copier". Very cheap on E bay. You load the film into the holder in strips, and the copier is attached to the camera lens mount so no need for a support or seperate film holder with no alignment issues. I use flash fired directly into the slide copier diffuser. I adjust exposure by adjusting the flash power.
Great timing. Got the last bit of Valoi kit in the mail I needed this week. Diving into scanning tonight! 20+ years of negatives to digitize and archive.
Good luck!
I have a camera scanner setup based on, ironically, a Leitz Valoy enlarger stand. The Valoi accessories look great!
I used to scan 35mm and 120 with a Epson flatbed and didn't like the blurry files I got!
When I built my first dslr scanning setup I finally made some quality scans of my frames and I haven't looked back!
I would not want a slow nikon dedicated film scanner today as DSLR scanning is my go-to method!
i'm actually surprised you haven't already made a video about this, excited to watch it right now
As mentioned, never really wanted to invest in a setup just for a vid because of the Coolscan. But glad I was finally able to make this!
I use an Olympus em1 mk2 with a super Takumar 55mm/f1.8 to scan my film.
In 135 i scan at native resolution of 20 mpx and get great result.
For 120 my camera have a super resolution mode which make a sensor shift to create 80mpx image.
Sometimes i do also 80mpx scan of 135 but it is less common since 20mpx is enough.
Both look impressive and for me, it's the best setup to scan since it can also be used to make digital photos.
I've been enjoying camera scanning for the past year. It's fast, modular and offers high quality images. I'm currently using a Canon 6D mkii with essential film holder, I also have a dedicated copy stand for DSLRs and high CRI LED light. Stitching a 6x7 image with 6 overlapping shots gives me massive files with amazing quality. It's tedious but I usually save the stitching process for special images or for printing. My recommendation to those getting into camera scanning is don't cheap out on your build. I bought a modern macro lens (used) and sold an older macro lens because the quality was so bad. Buying a dedicated copy stand was sturdier than my previous build. I also bought some accessories as well (tether cable, batter adapter for wall plugs, etc). It's still significantly cheaper than a Nikon Coolscan 9000 but may be more expensive than a flatbed. It all depends on what you have available to you.
I had the Coolscan 8000 complete with glass holders, but the speed (or lack of) drove me nuts. Also had an Epson flatbed in the past which was fine with larger formats, but also slow. Now doing camera scanning and, while not perfect it really is the best option for me, hands down. Great video as always!
It seems every option really does have pros and cons. The Coolscan I love because it is simple, and it gives you incredible results with no messing around. But yeah, the speed and flexibility of a system like this really is great.
One additional consideration I really like (based on how I process film scans, YMMV) is that when "scanning" with my X-T3, I can apply any of their film simulations in post. When I shot some expired Kodak stuff and really wanted to crank the vintage, washed-out colors I used Classic Negative. When I wanted a lower contrast look right off the bat I could pick Eterna. It really gives a lot of rapid creative control for those who want to use it.
Also, from the cost standpoint, older DSLRs that have a solid 20+ megapixels (probably plenty for people not looking to make massive prints or are just scanning 35mm) can be found all day for
the timing of this was so perfect! was looking at this exact debate just this morning to replace my epson flatbed - thanks for the comparison
Hope it helps!
Just what I needed. Nice to see a similar less expensive option vs the negative supply product.
I was a little less excited when I found the digital camera he's using is $1500
For me, I went the camera scanning route simply because it’s faster than anything else I’ve used. I standardized on Negative Supply film holders and went with the Sigma 70mm macro art lens (the new one) paired with the Canon R5 and a strobe for the light source. It’s fast, and gives excellent performance.
Do you still recommend the Sigma 70mm macro art after having used it for a long time? I want to build my own setup and have read a lot of positive comments regarding this lens.
@@laurencewhite4809 Absolutely. It's a great lens, and a great value.
I find it to be sharper than flatbed scanner because of the fine tuning you can do with the macro lens. If you can manually focus to the grain perfectly and have everything level, then it's perfection in comparison with cheaper flatbed scanners.
Great video Kyle and interesting to see the comparisons to the scanners. I use an Olympus OMD EM1 mk2 with their 60mm macro. The HiRes pixel shift feature is brilliant for film “scans”. This gives me 80 MP images and another bonus is that the pixel shift provides for improved (100%) colour accuracy over regular digital images since it avoids the Bayer mosaic which interpolates adjacent photo sites to average the RGB information which provides 33% colour accuracy! I find this really improves the quality of the digital camera scans of my 6 x6 cm film captures.
Pixel shift is excellent for reproing negs. At least you get the same image quality that a scanner trilinear RGB sensor can output, though it still loses in the optical path. As scanners only use a thin line in the center of the optics, thus they do not suffer from the degraded image quality at the corners.
The other benefit of scanners is the controlled light path that only illuminates a small part of the neg at any given moment, optimally using a condenser lens.
Pixel shifting is not so much about the color accuracy, but the lack of upscaling that happens without it. All normal bayer captures are upscaled, and you never get rid of the softness it causes and the washed out micro contrast.
Scanners are purpose build machines. As long as you don't go for Epsons or any of the other crap.
After seeing the red neon color render by your camera scan, I'd like to keep my cool scan for some more decades!!!
In my opinion, the best film scanner you can buy nowadays is the Pacific Image Prime Film XAs super edition. It’s like a modern day Pakon, but the XA can scan at a true 5000dpi optical resolution. You can find it on sale often for $480 at B&H Photo.
For 35 it sounds like a great option. Unfortunately we're still lacking options for multi format.
It's one of the worst rated scanners out there. Since you mentioned B&H, here's an excerpt from a customer review:
Cons: Film loading is problematic. Advancing film is slow and alignment is off. Buttons do not consistently respond. Will not Eject film or slide. Bundled software produces poor quality scans compared to VueScan. Noisy. The sound of plastic gears intermittently advancing film suggests the quality of a plastic toy. Poor documentation on both the hardware and the bundled software.
@@abhijit-sarkar I owned it for a few years with no problems, other than the cumbersome software interface. Still one of the best options available although I liked the Pakon better for its color science and speed. I since moved to digital and haven’t shot a roll of film in more than a year.
Kyle...I much appreciate the time you spent making this comparison video. I too have a Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED film scanner that I used maybe two times since I bought it years ago when Nikon announced they were discontinuing film scanners. The high-resolution scans just took so long for me. I recently chose to dive into the digital camera film scanning (known as re-photography) and decided to go with the Negative Supply Pro Film Carrier 35 with their Light Source Mini. I made the camera stand base by sandwiching two 3/4" MDF boards together and rounding-off the corners and attaching rubber feet underneath, giving me a solid 1-1/2" "weighty" and inexpensive base. For the riser, I bought an inexpensive 2-foot section of galvanized "black pipe" from Home Depot and firmly attached it to the MDF base. It is rock-solid and can be taken apart in 15 seconds. I'll mount my Sony A7 IV 33MP mirrorless camera with the Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro lens to the black pipe with the Manfrotto 035RL Super Clamp. I own Negative Lab Pro, but I'll also consider Silverfast HDR 9, which offers the SRDx Plug-in for Photoshop. This plugin removes dust and scratches for camera film scans, even without the infrared channel provided by traditional scanners. Silverfast also converts the negative to a positive via its NegaFix feature, which also has presets for various film types. I'll provide my feedback after I find time to test this setup.
I wasn't happy with my epson, especially for 35mm so I build my own set up.
I bought a monitor stand with a glass panel base so I can put the light panel + the film holder on it and it's easier to slide the whole light panel to take multiple shots. I bought a 50mm enlarger lens for durt cheap (20€) and with some extention tubes the results are very good. My digital camera has a full frame sensor so I can scan negatives with a 1:1 magnification ratio which is good enough for small prints or social media. If I want to blow-up a frame I can extend the tubes and take 4 shots which gives mindblowing details, it really choked me, haha.
Julien, you should make a video!
For 35mm only I use the Nikon ES-2 film digitizer. You screw it on to the front of the micro lens and attach it to the camera body. End of set up. The film plane and sensor plane are automatically aligned without you having to do anything and they stay that way even if you move the camera. I can swing the camera in a large circle while I take the image of the negative or slide, literally, and still get crystal sharp images because the whole unit moves as one. It's a pity they don't make an attachment for medium format as well. Other manufacturers should follow suit. Its a cheap set up and it cant fail.
ES-2 only produces JPEG in live view. What type of output files are you getting?
Very interesting episode. I stopped scanning because I disliked results and time it took with flat bed. I will definitely give this a go, thanks
You're welcome. Cheers.
I need to get the Valoi setup, I’ve been camera scanning since 2016 and never wanted to spend the money on a real negative holder system (they didn’t exist until the Negative Supply ones and those are $$$). Dealing with janky setups is such a pain in the ass and I just don’t have the patience for it anymore… If I could just slap the negative in there and not deal with reflections around the edges and film flatness anymore I would probably shoot a lot more film again.
btw if you don’t have a camera, go micro 4/3! They are SO cheap and product great results, and you can get away with not needing a 1:1 macro which are less expensive. I honestly regret going from my GX85 to a Sony A7ii for scanning, full frame opened a massive can of worms lens wise for very little benefit.
The image quality when "scanning" 35mm negatives with the 60mp Sony A7rIV, the Sigma 105mm 2.8 DG DN macro and the Valoi Film Advancer is amazing. It's imho almost indistinguishable from my Epson V750 scans, but the "scanning" is way faster with the camera. I can scan an entire 35mm film in less than 5 minutes(!).
Great idea getting the GFX50R for scanning and shooting, you could even use it for 4x5 scanning and simply sell the Coolscan for as much as the body would cost. I bought the 50R in large part due to your review, I’d love to see some more content of you making good use of it! It seemed to suit your style of shooting well…
GFX100s is on the way. 🙂
@@KyleMcDougall you are going to have next level scans! Beyond resolution, tones transition and colours rendering will increase greatly
Thanks, Kyle. Your video was the first in-depth look at this process that I had. I have an Epson V600 and I'm not happy with the scans. After watching your video I spent a day doing research. I decided to get the Valoi system. I have 3-4 rolls of 120 sitting on my desk waiting to send off. The reason I haven't sent them off is because of the price of the scans. I figure anything over 28 rolls of film the system will pay for itself. And to your point, I don't even bother doing 35mm film on the Epson. I've got 6x6, 645, and 67 format cameras. So, there you are.
I was fortunate to have been provided the Fuji 100s, with an amazing bellows extension, fitted with a 90mm Schneider large format enlarger lens on a Kaiser 5513 copy stand.
With scans that open up to 400mb files.
It’s beyond any scanner that encountered, even Imacon drum scans of some of my past works. When I flip the Kodachrome transparency 35mm to the backside, The scan I was picking up the layers of the dies in the film emulsion, was actually mind boggling to look at on my monitor. Of course this is an extremely expensive system that was sent me. But it does show me that going forward turning a good digital camera into a scanner is an extremely viable and efficient option
Very interesting to hear, Christopher. I actually just picked up a 100s and will be experimenting with that.
That sounds fascinating. Do you still have those scans of the backside of the film? I would love to see that
I'm getting back into black and white film photography, and home developing, but still wanted to digitize the photos for post production. I settled on camera scanning as well.
I bought an old Nikon bellows and a slide/negative copier on ebay for less than $100. I already had a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 to do the lens work, but those can be had for about $40-50 too.
I'm still putting all my equipment together, so this video couldn't have come at a better time.
I'm glad the results will be acceptable.
I'll be shooting full-frame on my Sony A7II with a Nikon adapter.
Thanks for the great video.
Thanks for doing this. I only have an older Epson 4490 and I think its time to move on, especially after seeing the results you were getting. Cheers.
You're welcome. Cheers.
The Laowa 65mm macro for aps-c is a very well regarded lens, while still being quite cheaper than some flagship macro lenses.
Just ordered my copy for scaning negatives on my XT4, now waiting for the essential film holder.
Not tried this one, but another Lawoa I tried had terrible distortion...
-Arild
@@valoico I definitely recommend giving it a try. The reviews at optical limits demonstrated virtually zero distortion on that Loawa 65mm macro. While less important for scanning there's zero fringing as well, pretty incredible lens. Based on those results it quite possibly beats out the Fuji 80mm macro. I moved up to it from the 7Artisans mark 1 and thoroughly enjoy it. Admittedly it costs twice as much though.
A Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro will give you stunning results at a reasonable price. It's a sleeper lens made in Japan.
55micro-Nikkor & an adapter, $60-70
I honestly like the Camera scans a lot! Another plus is the RAW image from your camera (generally speaking not YOUR camera) will be way smaller file size than these crazy 500mb Tiffs I get from my v800. I might try this one day myself and compare.
That's because scanners have trilinear RGB sensor, the file sizes are larger because they contain 3x the information. Your 20MP digital camera only outputs 1x20MP, its the upscaled from the raw file into 3x20MP. While a scanner outputs 3x20MP, and does not upscale at all. This is also why scanneras will always outperform digital cameras, not the only reason though.
$300 Olympus EM5ii +$75 old macro = 64mpx 4:3 raw scans, and you can leave it set up as a dedicated scanner. If you want more, go for the A7R4 - 240mpx hi-res composite.
On a related note, 35mm Portra 160 + Sigma Art 105mm then A7R4 composite in pixel shift scanning = >60mpx of actual optical resolution data. If you want Fuji GFX resolution out of 35mm film, this will achieve it. Medium format really isn't necessary, lol.
is there a video with someone using the a7riv for this?
@@robertleidner9703 Not that I'm aware of. I have rented one on two occasions when I had scans that I wanted to get everything I could out of. I also did an initial test where I rented one to see what I could get out of Adox CMS 20 when using the sharpest lens for 35 mm ever made. I concluded the adox film stock offers more resolution than any digital sensor currently on the market. I'm an engineer with a photography hobby and covid gave me a bunch of time to burn.
I have tried it with an a7riv. There's not much benefit of using pixel shift because 60mpx is more than enough resolution in most cases. You also need to use Sony Imaging Edge software to merge the files into one image. That extra process didn't play nice with Negative Lab Pro last time I tried.
@@robertleidner9703 We should bug Kyle to do one. That would be a headline grabber if he is able to declare he got more resolution out of analog film than a D850 can grab :-)
First comment! Great rundown of hopefully what film shooters can do to get the most from their negatives and combat film costs to keep shooting!
Cheers, Nathan.
I use an even cheaper setup; 16mp fuji XE1 and a $50, 50mm pergear lens + macro ring; still works great for old folders & TLRs and if I feel like there's more resolution left, as you said, just take 2 shots and stitch them.
For dust and scratch removal of camera scans if you have Photoshop there is a very powerful built in solution. Open your image and go Filter - Noise - Dust & Scratches, remarkably powerful and easy to finesse. For problem files I make a copy of the image layer and apply the filter to that then black mask it and ‘paint’ it in, but it is very good even in semi auto modes.
If I took anything away from this video it’s I want a Coolscan!
I've spent way too much on my DSLR scan set up, optimizing every component to top DSLR scanning spec only to find out NLP converts negatives horrendously, I have no clue what's going on, but glad to see it worked out for you.
There’s a number of variables that makes scanning with a camera a little tricky. Getting everything refined takes some time. I’ve been fine tuning my setup for about two years, and until just few months ago, really got everything really dialed in. Here’s some things I’ve learned that have made the biggest improvements:
1. Having a bright enough light source.
- Not having bright enough light source will make all color scans look yellow or brownish.
2. Use a macro lens.
- I found after months of trial and error of using a zoom lens with extension tubes gave really bad results. I tried a prime lens with extension tubes and it was better, but once I got a macro lens, image quality went WAY up.
3. Use the histogram on the digital camera.
- If you don’t give your SLR enough light when taking a picture of your negatives, NLP to compensates in post and color film can look really bad.
- Watch your histogram. You want the data more to the right side.
- Dense negs will need more light, thin negs will need less light.
4. Shoot in manual mode.
- This goes along with step 3. I’ve gotten the best results from keeping a fixed aperture and ISO, then adjusting shutter speed for exposure.
- Dense negs will need more light (slower shutter speed) and thinner negs need less light (faster shutter speed)
- Overall, I use a faster shutter speed to help reduce vibration.
- Match the negative to look the same on the lcd screen as it looks to your naked eye and you’ll get a properly exposed negative.
5. Learn Negative Lab Pro.
- This step is a lesson all on it’s own (and this post is LONG 😆) so I’ll keep it short.
- mess with all of the settings until you understand what each adjustment makes.
- white balancing correctly makes big improvements. Auto WB works sometimes, and some times you’ll need to make manual adjustments.
- There are a bunch of different color profiles to use. Try them until you find one that looks the best with your negative. I use different profiles for different negs.
6. Manual focus your SLR lens on the film grain to get the sharpest image.
- This takes some practice on finer grain films, so shoot a roll of 800 or 3200 speed so you’ve got some chunky grain film. Zoom in as far as possible with your SLR and slowly manual focus on the grain. You’ll see when it comes into focus, and your neg will look sharp.
It takes time and a lot of trial and error to get great film scans, but it is possible. I hope some of these tips help out! 😎🤘🏻🤘🏻
Did you correct the whitebalance, then croped the image and only then converted the image? This should solve it…
@@sebastianfichtner1876 I've tried everything believe me
Hmmm, strange, I've always had such good results with NLP compared to everything else.
My experience exactly. I have the same Valoi set up. Xt3, and an adapted Canon FD 50mm macro. The duster works well. No real difference with 120 files with my Epson V550, but 35mm scans are transformed from mediocre to excellent.
I have an xt3 and I'm looking at your exact setup with the lens. Do you stitch 120 film? I'm worried about the quality if I do a single shot
@@CreatorJuice No stitching. Never even thought of doing that. The XT3 gives plenty of resolution IMHO. I few things to consider. 1. For the 50mm Canon lens, you really need to add extension tubes, in order to fill the frame. I use the cheaper Viltrox tubes. 10mm for 120 scans and 16mm for 35mm scans. 2. Set up can be a faff. To improve workflow, I have my copystand and Valoi set up permanently next to my computer. I transfer the files direct to Lightroom using Fuji Acquire software (free) and a usb-c connector. This way, as soon as I click the shutter, the scan appears automatically in LR. Getting Fuji Acquire to work with LR is a PITA. But can be done. 3. A remote shutter release or using the shutter on the Fuji App is quicker than the 2 second timer. Sorry about the brain dump!
I got the valoi holders for 35mm and medium format. they're great!
I use Valoi for my 35mm love it and my epson v500 is ok for 120!
Best way to compare these is to shoot Xt4’s longer side to cross the shorter side of the film and then stitch. Fairer comparison. Easy to stitch since film odds 2D
I prefer the Nikon 9000, but not everyone can access these. The advantages for me are image quality, convenience, workflow, desktop space, and digital ICE. People often forget that spotting their images with DSLR scanning is an additional pain.
Been curious to try this with my Fuji GFX and an extension tube… thanks for the video!
I think I’ll stick to my plustek. It’s so fast and good. Medium format is usually paid work so I don’t mind lab scans until I save up for a cool scan. I don’t want a bulky setup like this tbh.
The Plustek is amazing for 35!
Which model are you using? The 135i has auto feed but not rated as highly as the 8200/8300.
Maybe I’m the only one but kept thinking that I would like to see the Holga shots from “camera scanning”. Much film meta.
😁 Next video!
Been using my A7r3 and a 105 lowa macro lens with a basic holder and I've been really happy 👍
Great breakdown of scanning with an SLR! 😎🤘🏻🤘🏻
Thank you.
@@KyleMcDougall You’re welcome! 😎👍🏻
For a while I used a fuji setup to camera scan too, I found the sharpening really work well when you add just a bit on the texture slider as well, it really brings the grain out in a nice way. Especially when Fuji files are known to not sharpen very well using LR's engine and can cause "worms" when pixel peeping
Just bought this exact same combo. Excited to try it. :)
With 120 film it's easier to get closer and do multiple shots to ultimately end up with a stitched "panorama" shot to get the whole negative. I've done some 6x9 negatives scanned as high as 13000 x 10000 pixels just by taking multiple offset shots to get the whole negative.
Thanks for sharing your experience. The only thing I'd say is that for better results you got to have a better lens. Also, with larger formats, you definitely should have stitched since you didn't really achieve the full potential of the camera scan and the negative. I have a Canon EOSR, 30 megapixels, with a Laowa 100mm 2x magnification, and I can definitely get larger files if I stitch, even larger than the Coolscan you showed to be honest, and yes, investing in a decent lens is not fun, but the whole setup is still cheaper than dedicated scanners.
Been looking for a comparison like this, thanks!
You're welcome. Cheers.
It's great to see such results from these types of scans, but there's a big problem. The vast majority of people out there with digital cameras can't afford such a setup. Most people don't have relatively high end cameras, for a start. Even an X-T4 is expensive kit for most people. And, unless you're going to be printing your pics, you might as well just use a cheap, 24MP or less camera if you go down this route. You could just as easily buy a 35mm scanner and get away with spending less money. Then, you have the price of a good copy stand, one that doesn't "rock" around every time you touch it. And, the idea of having to stitch together a medium format pic like a panorama doesn't appeal to me. Software can make mistakes and inevitably does. Plus, the price of the film carriers is another thing. Not every country has cheap prices for these bits of equipment and whilst it may sound like a good price in the UK or US, they can be prohibitively expensive elsewhere. My point is whilst scanning your film using a camera is a great idea, it mightn't be the best option for many people, for all sorts of reasons. It would put people off using film because why go through all the BS of having to try scan their film when they could just take a pic and dump the files off their digital cameras to begin with.
Good point mate. Negatives belong to only one type of film holders. Those in darkroom enlargers. x)
Scanning is one of those situations where everyone is going to have different budgets, needs, preferences, and so on. All I can do is share these tests, and my opinions, and let other people come to their own conclusions on what they prefer/need/can afford.
I found using small aperture can bring up more of the film grains while large aperture can lose some details due to more difficult to focus precisely, but it great reduces film grains.
therefore reduces sharpness
Invested in a camera scanning system because it was obviously the best choice for scanning different formats at good quality and good price! It's cheaper if you obviously already own a digital camera ofc.
A camera with +40MP for 120 and above would be a great upgrade though.
I've been using the Sony A7III with the Sigma 70mm F/2.8 with the Essential Film Holder, it's been great!
I really think a high pixel camera with a good lens could beat the Coolscan for 120 and above though I might be wrong.
Thanks a lot. Very useful and clear. One thing I don’r understand. Why the investment in a macro lens. For close up, I use a fairly cheap set of extension rings. Since everything is stationary, you don’t even need contacts for communication with the camera.
I think there is also something to say for having smaller files from the lower resolution medium format scans because of storage space. Sometimes it's just not worth having huge image files if you are not plannig to do much (e.g. printing) with them anyways. You might as wel chose to save on storage space in that case and get professional scans for the negatives you intent to print, or for any other reason you might need the full resolution
For sure. It'll be different for everyone based on what their intentions/needs are.
Have scanned this way for a while using my “old” EOS R and the adapted EF 100L macro, with Negative Supply transporter equipment. Much better than my old Epson flatbed which is now only brought out if I use my XPan. One issue that I have is that all of the transporters that I see are better if you have uncut rolls, but even so, the first frames are never taken up by the transport mechanism and have to be pushed through manually until the film reaches the mechanism. If your rolls are old and have been cut for storage, the first frames on each strip need to be manually pushed through meaning that the transport mechanism is only used for half the frames on each strip.
You are totally right that archive scanning is a problem. It's actually relatively hard to do this, though of course not impossible! We have been looking into it - though I'm not sure how much of the community would be interested in paying a premium for it - personally what I do is just push the rollers out of the way and manually move the film through when it's a strip.
- Arild
as always great, consistent comparison, thanks man!
Oooo, try film scanning with a film camera next!
I don’t do film scanning, but if I were to suggest a couple of lenses to do it with, I would suggest the Laowa 100mm macro lens (full frame) or the Laowa 65mm macro lens (crop). I have the 65mm and it’s amazingly sharp and has basically no chromatic aberrations. I bet either of them would be great for this purpose.
They're good, but the 65mm is very close to the price of the native fuji 30mm macro. At that point I would go with native glass. I don't know about other brands though.
@@mastaw The Laowa does go to 2:1 magnification though, which I think is rare on first party lenses. I think Canon has a 5:1 lens.
@@just_eirik Ah I wasn't aware of that.
As someone who has truckloads of negs that I'd love to scan, this video is invaluable, thanks! I have a Nikon DSLR so that covers the camera. I'm guessing that I could also use my tripod to hold it in position over a light source and neg holder. Seeing your results shows that for me a dedicated neg scanner might be an unnecessary investment.
The Skier Pro System Sunray Box III also looks like a nice system. Just caught on to it this afternoon. Maybe you can do a review or give thoughts on that system also. Great review on the Valoi.
This was super helpful for me. Thanks very much!
Which copy stand are you using? I have really struggled to find a good one that isn’t really expensive - any advice greatly appreciated!
Personally I bought a monitor stand with a glass base. It's heavy and not bad looking at all. I adapted a plate on the vesa mount to fix my camera and it works very well ! And it cost me less than 30€ !
Yes I was curious about this myself. Was the copy stand part of the kit, or did you provide it separately??
Just put a link in the info section. This was a cheaper one from here in the UK, a place called Speedgraphic. www.speedgraphic.co.uk/copy_stands/cs500_medium_copy_stand/25946_p.html
Honestly my opinion is,if you want to get your job done get a tripod to do the scanning, it has worked well.Only issue is that i have to get it set every time I'm scanning but it is worth it.
Thanks for the comparison, would love to see this with a better lens and a Sony a7RIV with pixel shift. Also if by chance you stumble upon a Hasselblad H6D 100mpix, would love to see that with its 400Mpix pixel shift
My GFX 50R set up is nearly ready. I’m using a micro nikkor 55 mm which came highly recommended in many of the forums. Have the essential film holder, but still looking for a good solid copy stand that won’t break the bank. Some of the adapted photo enlarger stands look great, but it seems difficult to pick them up now at reasonable prices.
I actually just bought the 60mm Contax macro for my GFX100s setup. As for a copy stand, I just bought this one after searching for a lot of solutions. www.novoflex.de/en/products-637/desktop-studio-magic-studio//repro-products/magicstudio-repro-2794.html Novoflex stuff is rock solid, and so far it's been great! Only downside is the height. It wasn't quite tall enough with the 100s and the Pentax Macro 120mm, but should be good to go with a shorter focal length.
Hi Kyle. IMO it doesn’t really matter about references to colour (colour conversion, inversion, saturation, etc) at all when it comes to ‘scanning’, and certainly not when discussing physical scanning techniques, so there’s not much relevance in mentioning this stage of the workflow in this sort of video IMO (although obviously I recognise the importance of a good conversion of the digital ‘scan’). Scanning is the initial step of taking analogue media and capturing it into the digital domain. Anything that happens after the digital capture is likely the same regardless of how the image was captured. So you can have a DNG or a TIF of an image photographed by a DSLR, or captured by an Epson flatbed or other scanner of your choice, and how good that capture is will ultimately dictate the quality of the final image, and certainly what you can use it for (eg blowing up to large print versus small resolution for social / web etc). I think DIY scanning with a DSLR has come a long way since I used to do it. In 2020 and 2021 I felt like there was a new film scanning gizmo being launched or touted every few months at one point. It’s all good though and anything that makes it easier for film users to get results they’re happy with is a win in my my book.
However, the key thing with DIY DSLR scanning is consistency and a workflow that works for the user. Both take time. Both are not without frustration. Many people have used DSLR scanning to construct their own budget solutions for digitising and so may of these are fantastic. It’s a DIY project that can be as good as you are prepared to make it. But getting consistent results every time can be tricky and time consuming, and time consuming can turn an enjoyable hobby into something laborious that can start to reduce the enjoyment of using film. I know this personally as I had a DSLR scanning workflow with my D90 for 3 years. In those days, Valoi didn’t exist and Pixl-latr was in Hamish’s head. Both these two devices (and others like the Negative $$upply kit) for sure have made good DSLR scanning captures much more achievable, but by the time you factor in a macro lens (I know there are decent cheap ones), a decent light source (you absolutely need one with high CRI) and a copy stand (tripods work but precision height adjustment isn’t really very easy), you will still be hampered time-wise by levelling (likely a one-shot, but unless you never move your set up, it needs to be factored into each scanning ‘session’). Then there is focussing on the negative itself (focusing manually with visual peaking indication is probably a must too, although the older DSLRs, even high end ones, don’t have it). Then you have image stitching. Even with a decent DSLR by today’s standards, if you want to do 120 film justice you need high resolution which, unless you have a very expensive DSLR, means stitching images together. Nick Carver touches on this in one of his videos. One word - headache. What I’m saying is, to do DSLR scanning well and consistently well giving you a digital capture of the negative with maximum flexibility, takes time. Time per negative. Then on top of all that you have dust correction which just doesn’t exist with DSLR scanning. Yes a rocket blower helps a lot, as does an anti-static brush (that Valoi adapter looks very fancy but at what cost) etc, but when you want/need to do this for rolls and rolls of film, week after week, month, etc … it gets too much (IMO).
I enjoyed doing my DSLR scanning but even when I had the process nailed (good enough for me) it was still frustrating and to started taking enjoyment away from my film photography because it took so long and I had to be involved in every single image capture. Working in the dark, bent over a lightbox with my D90, then looking at a scan or stitched image an hour later and realising something was wrong and I had to repeat one/some scans was soul destroying, eventually pushing me over the edge. In the end I decided I wasn’t going to let that impact my love of using film so I bought an Epson v850 and Silverfast 9 and I’ve never looked back since. The cost of a good DSLR scanning set up is not incomparable to the price of an Epson flatbed. Dedicated scanner HW with decent negative holders, an IR channel for colour film dust correction, a decent lens and good software is light years ahead of DSLR scanning in terms of workflow. And that’s the important word here - workflow. DSLR scanning definitely can yield excellent results - no question. However, rather than reviewing ways to digitise a negative, it needs to be viewed from a workflow perspective and how that can be applied to doing image and image after image, roll after roll, for months…years. Cheers.
I agree with your conclusions. I have been fairly happy with my older Epson flatbed for medium format and up. And my old Minolta film scanner was OK for 35 mm, although slow and finicky. But not good enough to be worth figuring out how to get the serial interface going with a newer computer.
I have a light table on a copy stand, which works fairly well with the Epson film/slide holders. (Canon DSLRs with a Canon macro lens.) Definitely going to give Valoi a look - more convenience for not a bad price.
Too bad Nikon went out of the film scanner business, but you can’t argue with the economics.
As soon as the video started I thought it was a joke because I saw the Holga 🤣
😁
I've been waiting for a video like this from you for a while. Thanks a lot! I know you must have so many videos or ideas for videos already in the pipeline, but one I would find interesting (if you have the time) is comparing film grain emulation (Film Convert, Dehancer, etc) for video. I really like your video work so I'm curious about your opinion regarding those.
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind!
Might be worth it to some to know that the resolution differences will differ from format to format based on the lens (focal length) you are using, and minimum focus distance, etc. When I scan on my mirrorless setup, 35mm ends up being the most cropped and 67 fills the most of the sensor.
Good point. Cheers, Owen.
Now I just want a Nikon CoolScan!
Great video. I also saw your video with the GFX100 but I have to wonder how an inexpensive full frame camera with Pixel Shift like the Pentax K-1 with 7360x4912 pixels (with an also inexpensive Tamron SP AF 90mm macro lens or with your Pentax 645 120mm) would fare against the Nikon scanner.
I did a video a few months ago scanning with a cheap older Fuji APS-C camera. You should check that out. I was surprised.
I went a slightly different direction.
I'll be scanning on X-T4 same as you but I got the Essential film holder from UK (Still waiting - long lead time) and Laowa 65mm macro lens. Also bought RALENO LED Video Soft Light Panel based on Hashem's (Pushing Film) recommendation which can serve a dual purpose. While I have spent more money on optics rather than film holder I think it's a better setup overall.
That being said I'm happy and thankful you made this. Now I know what to expect and everyone else won't have the same dilemma I had before spending the ££
EFH is a better system & waaaay cheaper. Also doesn't leave roller marks or scratches on your negatives.
More sample math for those interested - cs9000 (real optical resolution of 3900 dpi) vs. Sony A7R4 high-resolution composite mode (19,008 px x 12,672 3:2, and converted pixelshift2dng utility). Further assume 100lp/mm lens resolution and tmax 100 film, so that the film has more data than either method converts. What do you get in terms of *real* optical data in your digital scan? 85mpx for the cs9000 (~9200x9200), 160mpx for the Sony (12672x12672). When does it matter? Only if you print larger than 30 x 30 inches. The dynamic range is effectively the same, because the scanner can do multipass now to account for the difference. Having said that, you can run the cs9000 image through gigapixel AI, and even on a 2X enlargement producing a print you will *never* see the difference.
It's no longer about how much detail you can convert to digital - it is about *workflow*. Want dust removal (I DO!!!) - go scanner. Want fast scanning with more work to produce a finished image? Go camera.
Interesting but not for me. I use Epson V800 scanner with Silverfast - this gives a lot of adjustment - histogram, contrast, sharpness -while scanning rather than all in Lightroom later. I use the time it takes to scan to multitask and tweak already scanned images so overall it doesn't take that long.
I’ve always wondered what results someone would get scanning film in this process but with a medium format digital camera.
lol, the medium format would just out resolve the film at this point. No one shooting a medium format digital camera would bother scanning a medium format negative.
I‘m scanning with a rather cheap EOS 700D, a cheap 50mm and a macro-ring…and results are more than fine. Especially considering that my photos are not printed on walls…not yet at least 😂
I now digitally scan with my 45mp mirrorless Nikon with a previous mount 60mm macro which I owned before returning to film photography recently. I find it better to use a low output level for the backlight and under expose the scan a third or so because there seems to be a disparity of lighting across the thick and thin areas of the original film. I then add some exposure/contrast compensation in post. When scanning medium format film I take several scans across the image, number dependant on whether its 645, 6x6 or 6x9. At the moment I pano stitch these in LrC before reversal. I have had no problem with matching the images but the film frame do not usually align (even if they have been Transform aligned first). That might be more about my Essential Film Holder device's 'looseness', or Lightroom. I do get a better stitch in Photoshop but Negative Lab Pro doesn't usually like the .dgn file that Ps produces. I have yet to try previously reversed image 'pano-ing'...
One item you don't show in the description is the copy stand you use. I'm curious about that as I do a lot of work with flat lays at the moment. Any chance of a recommendation for that type of gear?
I used a cheaper one: www.speedgraphic.co.uk/copy_stands/cs500_medium_copy_stand/25946_p.html
Although it'll be the first thing I upgrade. I wasn't a huge fan.
I see this method as a quick and dirty method of getting "A" digital image and that's about it. The film has all three colors at all photosites or points, the Bayer sensor in your camera unless it is a Foveon, does not, each pixel is either red, green, or blue and then the colors are computed by a mathematical guess so all colors you see on your digital camera captures are NOT from captured photons. A film scanner is a line scanner and has one row of red, one row, of green, and one row of blue pixels so every photosite or point on the film which once again, has all three colors in it and is scanned by all three colors of the line scanner.
I really think that most people do not know that each pixel on their camera sensor is only one color. The sensor underneath the colored coating on each pixel is actually black and white. Some people clean off the color filters to create a black-and-white digital camera. It's up to the individual, with a true film scanner, all three colors are scanned at every photosite on the film so all colors are the result of captured photons through the lens of the film camera or your digital camera which plays fill in the missing colors by mathematical computation. Open up a raw file in Raw Therapee, click on the raw tab and turn off the interpolation, and magnify at 1600. You will see red, green, and blue little squares which are the actual pixels. There are two green pixels for every red and blue. While still viewing, back it out and it will look black and white with a green hue. The Bayer sensor can give great results with the interpolation required but scanning film with a Bayer sensor defeats half the beauty of film and that is to capture all the colors at every photosite or point on the film.
In my Opinion. No Scanner (and iam testing alot) comes close to the quality of my Nikon Z7II DLSM Scans. The Workflow is a bit tricky and not so smooth like a Flatbed Scan but hey. The Quality is on Top. Testet with a Epson V850 Pro in max Resolution.
Great video, man. I actually just switched last month to the same setup. Xt3 and 7artisans. Digging the results. If you are looking for a copy stand but don’t want to spend 300 bucks, or whatever. I bought a large wooden cutting board, a 18inx1in steel pipe, a 1in pipe floor flange, then a Small Rig clamp with 1/8in adapter. Just put it all together and added a screw-on tripod head, and the whole thing cost me like 50 bucks. If anyone has questions or if I didn’t explain that correctly, feel free to ask away. Thanks! Keep up the hardwork, dude.
Thanks, Danny!
Hello Kyle .
Negative Scanning untill last week for me was really frustrating with my epson 4990 . Last week i started to scan my negatives with my nikon d7000 and the resaults was decent . As you mentioned the big advantage is the speed .
Regards.
Epsons work best as contact sheet scanners, scan the whole roll at one go and choose what frames you want to actually use.
Hi, thanks for the video. Quite interesting to get them.
I sold my EPSON V850 last year and switched to camera scanning. I wasn't happy with prints form the epson scans even after many hours of editing. I used them for 5x4" black&white stuff.
After using a XT4 with a old Leica 60mm macro lens I'm so happy. Printing on A2 paper is really great.
Great video. I already have a GFX 50R but do not have a Pentax lens and have never used adapters before but at the price of the Fuji macro lens it is a very interesting proposition. Just so I am clear you set the camera to auto and the lens on the A setting and the camera and lens talk to each other? I shot film back in the day when film was the only medium and at the height of the COVID lock-downs I came back to film and now shoot both.
So, basically this is just one large sales pitch !
Slides, Bucko, does it do slides? You could have abnwered that right up front.
Hi Kyle! I used the Musicbed link above but there is no discount on the other end? Has it expired? Thanks!!
Sorry, Sarah. Lemme check and update it.
i was looking at the 7artisans macro lens for scanning but reviews suggest it’s rather soft at the edges even stopped down. seems like you got good results though - i had always previously been looking at vintage macro lenses (canon FD, nikon etc)
New to scanning, but any reason why there are significant differences in perspective for the different scans. You can see converging lines on some of the verticals for both camera and flat bed scans. Why would this be the case?
What are the contraindications of using a 1:2 macro lens on full frame when scanning 6x7 films on FF? A 6x7 or 6x4.5 film is much larger than a fullframe sensor, so I will get a scan resolution close to the sensor resolution. am I wrong? I have a Sony A74 and I'm considering buying a Voigtlander Macro 65mm (1:2) or 110mm (1:1). 65mm seems to me to be optically better and more usable for everyday use. In my opinion, the difference will only occur in the case of 35mm film scanning. I will be very grateful for your opinion.