Sheet Film Scanning Considerations - Large Format Friday
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июн 2024
- For a large number of photographers working with film, digital output is something we must consider. Today I'm showcasing three options for scanning your large format sheet films: flatbed scanning, DSLR/mirrorless scanning, and drum scanning. To help demonstrate their differences, I'm taking four sheets of 8x10" Fujifilm Velvia 100 and seeing what kind of detail and color I can get out of each method. While there's no way they'll be the same, each method has its advantages and disadvantages.
-------------------------------------------
LFF 4x5 Starter Kit Giveaway
marrash.com/lffgiveaway
You have until 11/13/2020 @ 11:59EST to sign-up!
-------------------------------------------
Questions? Send me an email: largeformatquestions@gmail.com
Support the Channel here: www.paypal.com/paypalme/matm/5
Content by Mat Marrash: www.matmarrash.com
#largeformat #filmphotography
00:00 Intro
01:00 8x10 Slides
01:39 Flatbed Scanning
03:27 V700 Setup
05:14 V700 Scans
06:13 DSLR/Mirrorless Scanning
07:47 Mirrorless Setup
08:59 Mirrorless Scans
10:54 Drum Scanning
13:13 Drum Scans
14:14 Opinion Time
17:15 In Closing 
Хобби
![Megan Thee Stallion - Rattle [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qY6qwqVCsww/mqdefault.jpg)
digitizing with a camera:
you should try shooting parts of the image and stitch later, it is easy and very cheap!
just use your tripod, align it perfectly vertical with a mirror at film plane till you see the lens in the center of the image. Stop down to f/8 with enough DOF and move the image from shot to shot by hand. Any misalignment is no problem, the stitching can solve that!
With this technique you can get any resolution you want with any camera, just increase the amount of stitched images.
Always nice and useful content. Ive got into large format recently and your videos are very informative. Thank you
Thanks for the comment and welcome to large format! It's always great to have new people to share work and ideas. Let me know if there are any questions or topics you'd like to see covered.
Thanks for the video Mat! This is an important topic. I have tried the DSLR scanning it’s time consuming and a pain for me. I think the scanners and drum scanning are the best options for digitizing 4x5.
Wow you really help me with this. I think I will stay with my favorite lab. Thanks for sharing
Great presentation and information. I am currently in the process of trying to decide which of two directions, scanner or DSLR, so very timely. Cheers!
Thanks and be sure to keep us updated on which route you choose!
I scan almost all my film with an Epson V750. Many years ago I had some pencil drawings drum scans with fantastic results, since I bought the scanner I use that when I can.
For me the flatbed scanner fulfills 90% of my needs. If I need more, like you did, then I’ll have someone with more skills do a scan.
Thanks Tyler, prior to making this video my thoughts exactly. After seeing those mirrorless scans, I may be changing up the workflow!
I use my digital twice a year, so definitely not buying a new system. I'm happy with Epson v850 for most of my work, then get a pro lab to do it for high quality large prints / exhibitions etc.
I have this same scanner and I always go 6400dpi which activates its dual lens super high resolution mode. Yields beautiful (but huge) results!
Great video! I'm very happy with my Epson V-700 as well. The drum scans are beautiful though, and for a special print I would consider using a service. I can clearly see the difference and the drum scans are the best.
Thanks for the comment Martin and hope you get to see some drum scans of your work sometime. They're a special treat and I think every film shooter needs to see one of their own work. Cheers!
My Epson V750 arrived this week, super happy with that using Vuescan and the Negative Lab Pro plugin. Great *.dng files for further edits in Photoshop and Lightroom
Great to hear!
Interesting video, to my eyes the Sony mirrorless “scan” looks the best. Of course we won’t be scanning and selling all of our LF photos so I think it’s the best looking here anyway. If I was making money from it as a business I’d probably get a good drum scan, I had no idea they were so expensive. I’m currently up to 4x5 on a Nikon z7. I know not the best and it’s not lost in me I’m limited on the resolution. For all the 120 stuff I use a coolscan. I wished they had a 4x5 option for the coolscan.
For the film size other than 4x5 I got some black 3mm foam board and cut a holder for the V700. Works nicely and you get a lot more resolution. For 8x10 you would probably have to tape the film with some masking tape to keep it flat.
There are a few methods I've used for unruly film during scanning. I used to tape directly to the glass, but now with the ANR glass I have a few extra options including taping. Thanks for the comment!
Excellent, informative video. Thanks.
Glad it was helpful!
great video as always mat! a quick note - where you were talking about using a dslr/mirrorless to stitch multiple images, move the film rather than the camera!
Yes!! Such an easier way to do it, thanks!
Great stuff! Would have loved to see an additional comparison with a Flexlight scanner.
Thanks Ben! Flextight scanners cap out at 4x5" film, but they are a great option for medium format and 4x5 for sure.
Thanks for the coontent - very interesting.
Thanks for mentioning the drum scanner - I'm sure many photographers do not know about this technology. The real interest of the drum scanner is the extreme sensitivity of the PMT tubes, which allow this type of scan to surpass all others in dynamic range (d/max) pulling the detail out of the shadows. That being said, I have had several large and medium format pictures scanned professionally this way, and I cannot really say I see a difference with my Epson scanner.
I am surprised you are getting only 200MB from your 8 x 10's on the Epson. I have the same scanner, and I get 1.2GB scans from 4x5 negatives at 4800DPI. I usually don't do that, but I still get 600MB scans at 2400, which is what I usually do.
I have an issue with "snip-and-stich" methods. A photograph is a spherical image, made with a spherical lens. Lines converge - there is a perspective. A photograph has a center and four edges. If you divide it into multiple images and stitch them together, you have multiple pictures, each with a center and four edges. Of course you can get the edges to line up so you don't see the divide lines, but you have created a sort of "fly's eye" perspective, imposing on your original composition a new set of compositions, with as many centers as there are snips in your scan. You can try to minimize the imposed perspectives by using the longest lens possible, bringing your lines closer to parallel, but unless you are using a telecentric machine-vision lens you will be altrering the geometry of your original picture by creating a large number of spherical images pasted together. Those practicing these techniques can tell me this is not very perceptible, but they cannot tell me it's not there.
Hey Mat! Great video!
One thing I'd like to see, that is consistently not done in videos like this that compare scanning options, is this exact comparison but with a digital medium format camera option. Digital medium format is the perfect blend between flatbed and DSLR/mirrorless because it offers easy and swift results like a DSLR/mirrorless and also offers 16-bit color like a flatbed.
From my research, drum scanning offers 16-bit color as well, so I'd love to see a digital medium format/drum scanning comparison.
If you need a digital medium format, I have one I can lend you!
Thanks Tyler! Which medium format digital are you working with? Some of the newer medium format options aren't 16 bit, but this might be a comparison worth diving into a little deeper.
@@MatMarrash Hey Mat, I'm working with the P30+. An older digital back but still produces incredible photos
THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO!
Thanks you for this great Info.
Glad it was helpful!
i lucked into a v850 new at a big discount early last year - ( I shoot some 35, and a lot of 120 and then 4x5) I haven't walked off the 8x10 cliff yet
I haven't yet tried the fluid mount process but with 4x5 I am thinking that will be well worth a try - I would go with drum scans if I were going to get a serious large print done- thanks again for an informative session
Well with a big old scanning glass the least you could do is start scanning some film that uses all of that real estate! ;) Cheers on the new scanner!
When scanning BW I find the camera process to give an extremely digital look to the tonal transitions. It takes lot of time on photoshop to get the same look. When scanning with flat bed I find the curve réponse to be closer to what a film is, and spend a minimal time on post processing.
Thanks for the comment Sylvain, I recall hearing from multiple film photographers that older flatbed scanners like older digital cameras will have a "look" similar to film. This is due in part to the CCD sensors in the device and is also a reason some enjoy the look of older medium format digital sensors to newer CMOS ones.
I think youtube compression makes some of the tone graduation a little harder to discern, but the colors on the drum scans seemed the most on point. Do you do much color balancing after the fact either to bring it closer to the slide's appearance or to improve it for viewing on a digital screen?
Thanks Eric! The compression is two-fold, YT + jpeg compression from 1-2GB TIFF files. Takes a lot of squeezing to keep them from breaking a 4K video timeline. I tried my best to match them to the drum scan, as I consider that the closest color to real life.
Great video!! Can i ask where you purchased your anti Newton glass for your flat bed?
Hi Michael thanks for the question. I believe that one was purchased from betterscanning.com; it's not on their site anymore and you have to email them for pricing and details. Cheers!
I use a v700 for scans and I’m mostly happy with it, but I’ve started using my x pro2 with a canon fd macro lens on a copy stand to do smaller film, because I find it’s less fiddly than the 35mm and 120mm holders for the scanner. I sold my Sony A7rii, and I regret that in regards to how much better it would have been for digitizing my film. I love the xpro for everything else, but for film its not ideal. Especially because I just purchased a canon pixma pro 10 to make prints. That said, the fuji is okay for 13x19 prints, so it’ll do for now. I’d sure love to have a gfx for scanning, though! I’m currently trying to figure out the best method for taking multiple images for stitching for my 4x5 workflow. If i can get that worked out, then I’d be perfectly happy with the xpro as a means to digitize :)
Thanks Shannon! You can definitely get some good results out of the XPRO 2, but stitching will be a must. I've seen some folks fix and level the camera on a copy stand and shift the light source and film assembly to keep stitching easy. Moving the camera would be more work on most setups.
I have used drum scanners back in the 90s and I can say that I am happy enough with my Epson V800 or even my V500 for online stuff!!!
Thanks Brian! How did you like working with drum scanners? Was it as much work as it seems (or worse)?
@@MatMarrash I loved using them, oil mounting and all that, quality is the best ... I just can't afford one for home use and my job is in printing pre-press ... digital cameras have basically taken away the need for a company to own a drum scanner, so I don't have access to one anymore.
@@brineb58 Thanks for sharing more of your experience! From what I've seen in my area, many places that offer reproduction and printing services have been moving to medium format digital capture for a while now.
@@MatMarrash right. to maintain an old Linotype Hell dinosaur where one of the 3 fotomultipliers cost more than 2000€ is not justified anymore. A lot of museal archiving work is done today with PhaseOne backs or similar.
I id some digitizing with my Fuji XT camera of 35mm B&W film. You can get good results. But Large format is another game:))
Agreed! Mirrorless cameras are making scanning a breeze with roll film, and with a little work can shine in large format too.
Thanks for sharing! I have an Epson 10000XL that I use for all my large format or damaged photo scans and it's great. I like the idea of the Newton glass too. Question I have is the Epson settings - do you have a suggestion for forcing the scanner to not do ANYTHING with color? I know there are the options at the beginning but it still seems to do at least something to each scan. One example is if I were doing a 4x5 sheet or even a 35mm, depending on where I set up the scan area the image changes in intensity. It must be averaging out the light of the scanner but sometimes the film isn't perfectly straight so I have no option to not overscan and crop later. Have you experienced this and what do you do?
Hey Dan thanks for the comment and question! I know in the color settings in advanced mode on Epson scanners there is the option to check a box to disable any color correction. I use this for scanning and converting negatives, but haven't used it with E6 films.
Thanks as always for the great content. I wonder why a new drum scan technology has not come out yet. Or at least an equivalent. Considering how far technology has come since the days drum scans were being built, especially sensor tech, it amazes me that someone has not come up with something yet. I don't know. Doesn't seem like it would be difficult to build a flat bed type scanner that uses the newest digital sensors and lens to do what a dslr scanner does. Takes multiple images and stiches them together automatically.
Thanks for the comment Thomas! I think like many things in our niche hobby, it boils down to how many units a company can move. Drum scanners with real photomultiplier tubes and high rpm drums were tens of thousands new when there were all sorts of labs and firms that needed them. Market contraction forces us to use the tools we have, but there will always be cool innovations like what we're seeing with DIY scanning, Camerdactyl Mongoose, etc.
I got a new Epson V600 about four months ago as I was only shooting 35mm and 120 so I thought it would be enough. Now I'm getting a 4x5 camera (a Graflex Speed Graphic), had I known back then how badly this hobby would get out of hand I'd have looked into a bigger scanner . Well, I guess I can scan them In two parts and stitch together. I'm planning on building a 4x5 head (3D-printed, in the style of the Intrepid enlarger) for my enlarger anyway, I only scan to see what I want to enlarge. I'm kind of a purist In the way that if I go though the trouble (or a labor of love) to shoot film I want the final result to be all old school analog because if not I might as well shoot digital right? :)
By the way, what kind of results could be had by making a contact print and scanning that as a regular photograph? Would the quality be much inferior to scanning a negative directly?
Mat, why not wet mounting with the Epson? I have the feeling you can squeeze more out of it. Some options in the scanning software can make a difference too.
Good question Nico, I haven't given fluid mounting an honest go yet. The dry mount with ANR glass is a decent middle ground for acceptable quality B&W scans. That being said, I may be switching fully to mirrorless scanning purely out of convenience and owning most of the tools already.
That's amazing. What is the maximum useful resolution of large format?
Great question! Every few years into the digital revolution various outlets will do a film vs. digital test to see where the market is at. One of the most objective tests I saw was by Tim Parkin testing 8x10 versus a 150MP medium format digital back. The 8x10 still had a lot of room to spare in the scan thanks to drum scanning and digital sampling. With a low speed stock, pro processing, and a drum scan, you can easily expect 200MP with gigapixel territory possible at lower DPI prints for massive murals.
I guess I'm both late and in the minority, I actually like the color from the Sony. I had a V700 (that just gave up the ghost), like you I only paid a fraction of what it cost new, I only paid like $200 for it, and got close to 10 years of scans from it. Now I'm contemplating whether to get another flatbed or go the camera scanning route. I also have a Plustek roll film scanner for 35mm and 120 that is getting long in the tooth, I'm just waiting for the day for it to say "That's it!" and I still shoot 35 and 120, so I'm looking for something all in one.
A great option for DSLR scanning is a used Canon 5DS. Fifty megapixels and it can be had for under $1000. I use a macro lens and extension tubes if I want to scan 35mm negatives at maximum resolution.
That's a solid setup for DSLR scanning! I'm still not confident with stitching a scan together from anything larger than medium format, so I'm still leaning heavily on flatbed scanning for LF. For anything smaller, though, DSLR and mirrorless scanning is so convenient!
@@MatMarrash I actually don't stitch. I might try it for the 4 x 5 negatives but even without stitching the images will print up to 30 x 40 and look fantastic.
I enjoyed as always. I am going down the same track, but for 4x5 Question? What light table do you use. I have tried several including Gepe light. Need a better solution
Thanks for the question and comment Mike! In the video I'm using a Reflecta LED light table, and there are comparable ones to it available for less from Monoprice.
May be the worst part would be to find a way to attach correctly the camera in the good position... :) It seems to be a pain if you don't have an enlarger support or a copy bench.
I'm still using the dinosaur Epson 4990 for my 4x5 and some medium format. Still seems fine enough to me.
There's been a lot of love for 4900 and V700 series here in the comments including scanning tips and techniques. Thanks for the comment!
Great topic. Understandably avoided color neg as that could be its own separate youtube channel haha
Also, 50mp canon 5ds running $1300 these days is a lot of megapixel/$ for potential camera scan and +1 to moving film not camera if plan is to stitch
Thanks John, you got that right about color negative films! It's crazy how good a quality scanner you can pickup that's also an excellent camera when you need it. ;)
As you correctly pointed out the feel of a good drum scan is much more ' organic ' than either a DSLR scan or even a flatbed scanner. The cost of drum scanning unfortunately for those who shoot a lot of film is prohibitive. I myself prefer my V700 for more day to day use and save the drum scan for those once in a life time exposures. The quality of a flatbed scan from a V700 @ its optimal resolution of around 2400 dpi is quite reasonable provided that, the height of the holder is adjusted for optimal focus and a more robust film holder is used ( the Epson V700 holders are quite flimsy and really not fit for purpose ). On a different note, I have had some amazing results by using the Topaz AI Sharpener on some of the Epson scans. It really brings these scans to life with the caveat that it doesn't work so well for all negatives or transparencies , and my experience with B&W negs has been rather mixed, something that I hope Topaz would address in their development.
Thanks for the comment! Regarding your Epson V700 and B&W, I've always had an easier time with B&W scanning than color scanning (could be the ratio of B&W to color?). It's funny you mention Topaz, one of our imaging folks at Midwest Photo was just talking about using their software for upscaling and restoration work.
@@MatMarrash Yes, Epson V700 does reasonable job of scanning B&W negs particularly MF and 4X5 but, the 35mm scans compared to my Nikon LS-50 are quite soft. Once properly sharpened up the quality improves quite a lot and heer is where Topaz either does a fantastic job or not. I have also heard great reports about their Gigapixel AI software. One down point of any Topaz AI software is the tremendous demand that it puts on your computer processing power, you really do need the latest top of the line processors and graphic cards. My imac is 10 years old so I do the cooking while it sharpens up.
Although RUclips renders 8 bit color depth only, the difference in quality is stunning. The "virtual drum" scanner Hasselblad Flextight would make the list complete, but those went out of sale as well.
Are you planning on a follow-up concerning data storage and backup? Scans can cost a lot of money. When a single file is worth 50 bucks, it might be a thing to consider.
Thanks Olaf! It was tricky trying to size the scans to show the differences in the video without completely destroying them. If you get a chance to see a drum scan printed, that's when it really shines. Storage and backup, and physical filing are all future topics worth dedicating to future episodes. Thanks as always for the suggestions!
Hello Olaf. As far as I know the resolution for LF on a Flextight is limited - not sure if you could scan parts and stich them later in PS.
My options for LF are the V750 for previews. Screen Cezanne FT5500, which is HighRes 5.3K on my USAF Chart, but pain to fight dust and color/maxD ... ahh no. So the Scanmate 11K outperforms resolutionwise all others but practically due to scanline limits you would need to scan in parts again and stich - even worse the parts do not match exactly in geometry and color. So my workhorse for LF up to 16x20 (yes I do and this is the only option to scan film larger than 14x17 beside the ChromaGraph) is the Heidelberg Primescan. It shines in ColorGamut, resolution (not the best ca.4.6-5K on the USAF) and workflow where drumsize and the mountingstation is key. They are still serviced by HudsonGrafik. ABC scan in Denmark for the Scanmates are out since 2018(?). When you are in the US , Aztek Premier s are the best option but here in Germany Karl is my contact for servicing the D8200.
Enjoy your prints!
Stefan
Thanks for the great video.
Do you have any reference or link for the ANR glass?
Thanks Alain. I purchased mine from BetterScanning, they have to be special ordered after contacting them via email.
@@MatMarrash Thanks Mat
Hi Mat - I have the Epson V800 with the 8x10 area film guide (not the small guide for the top of the scanner bed). Where would I find the 8x10 ANR glass like what you used in the video? The folks at Better Scanning don't have really anything for 8x10. Thanks!
Hi Richard, my glass was purchased via Better Scanning years ago when they did offer larger sheets. There are similar glass that pop up on eBay from time to time, but no readily available options that I know of. Another method that works for folks is building a frame out of craft foam that raises the film slightly above the scanner glass. It's inexpensive, DIY, and results in no more Newton's Rings!
Can I use a wide prime lens for my DSLR camera?
And thanx for the video Mat!
Wide primes have the potential to work, but may introduce their own distortions unless they're designed for up-close/macro photography.
The Sony isn’t getting a lot of love but I thought it looked pretty damn good. Give it 2 or three more years and I’m sure you will be able to pick one up for a third of the price
do you just "flatbed sandwitch" the 8x10 film in between scanner glass and ANR glass ? Is there any 8x10 holder that holds the film suspended as the holders for 4x5 for Epson V series?
Good question, I do just sandwich it with the ANR glass. Epson doesn't make 8x10 holders, but there are aftermarket ones available. I looked into a custom machined frame a few years back, but seldom needed higher-end scans that I wasn't just sending to have drum scanned. Now I may even be using the mirrorless method for all but the biggest enlargements.
Did once a scanner test on medium format, not the best film, not the best objective and a flatbed scanner. Started at 125 Mpixel and going down. At 75 Mpixel many (very) visible details, like small flowers in the far field vanished in a continuum. So I can confirm that medium format requires more than 100 Mpixels in average, 190 sounds correct for high definition shots.
You can also get one of the high end "drum scanner like" scanners like the Flextight scanners. But, they're almost as expensive as the low end drum scanners!!! Not uncommon to see one going for $25K!!! It'd be great to have one, since their performance is almost as good as a drum scanner but you'd have to sell a body part or mortgage your house to buy one!!! :P
It would be amazing to have access to that type of scanner within a competitive price point to medium format digital. Maybe the next step is to give this fluid mount flatbed scanning a try!
I see that the Epson V850 has a special holder that will allow you to do a fluid scan. Have you tried that or that just too much to ask of the Epson scanner technology.
Sophie this a great question. I've seen several very positive examples of using the fluid mounting kits. Initially I thought it was a lot of hassle but the benefits in color, contrast, and sharpness are noticeable even in reduced quality web uploads.
I believe the Epson 750/850 is good enough.
The advantage of those scanner is ICE which cameras do not have.
I am using a dedicated filmscanner which beats every camera in my opinion. You put them into the scanner press start and thats it. Ideal for batch scanning.
Thanks for the comment Oliver. Do you like using the ICE function in the scanners? I've not had positive experiences with it and usually do spotting in Photoshop/Lightroom.
@@MatMarrash I am using a 35mm dedicated film scanner. That is maybe different from flatbed scanning. ICE does not recognise 100% of all artifacts but it is better than nothing. ICE does not work with black and white films.
With my film scanner I can scan negatives in batches of 6 with a separate laptop and load them to the server. I can do something else on my main computer in the meantime. The approach scanning negatives with a digital camera takes a long time too. There are many steps to handle. Positioning and cropping negs are not automated with DSLRs
Great video. Thanks for all of the info! How do you get accurate focus with additional height of the ANR glass? Do you get a custom size that is specific to Epson scanners? If so, is it the same height as the stock holders so you can use the film with holder setting with the Epson software?
Good question! The ANR glass is for use with the film area guide, not any particular holder. The Epson has a fixed focus that just reaches the top of the scanning glass (ANR is out of focus) so all is good.
@@MatMarrash First, thanks for the incredibly fast response! I understand the ANR would not be used with a holder. But the film area guide is intended for use when the film is laid flat on the scanner: files.support.epson.com/docid/cpd4/cpd41530/source/scanners/source/placing_originals/tasks/placing_film_area_guide_pv800_v850.html When using a film holder, the film is obviously raised above the glass. If it is fixed focused, how can both options be available and work?
@@justoutofframe5146 While I don't believe it's adjustable, the scanner has two focus settings (two lens system), one for film holders and another for the film area guide/reflective scanning.
@@MatMarrash Yes!!! That is what I am asking. :) If you set it for use with area guide, it will be for flat on the scanner. So how would that work with the ANR glass? If you set it for film holder it will be for holder height. If you use that, the ANR glass height would need to be identical to the film holder height. I am moving to 8x10 from 4x5 and want to use your technique, but want to get the correct thickness on the ANR glass.
@@justoutofframe5146 it will work because the ANR glass is placed above the film, the film sits between the two pieces of glass.
it seems like just doing a simple white balance adjustment when scanning on the flatbed would've made it much better.
For scanning 4x5 I recommend Polaroid 45 ultra (it's a dino). As well this scanner can handle smaller formats but it's not meaningful. Only perfect for 4x5/ 2,500dpi, a good compromise between cheap flatbed, pricey flextights and drum scanners.
Hey Stephan thanks for the comment and suggestion. I'd never heard of that Polaroid scanner before!
@@MatMarrash ccfl tube, no led. But easy and cheap to replace. Film holder is of metal , whole scanner is build like a tank.
One of the considerations people never talk about is that if you are a professional photographer, purchase of equipment is tax deductible, and there is the option of lease or lease to own. Also tax deductible. The cost of drum scanning can be passed on to the client.
Very good point Andrew!
whoa whoa, for DSLR scanning, what about image stitching? I DSLR scanned a 6x9 medium format negative using 4 shots and stitched them together to create a 11000 x 5700 image.
It seems that the V700 scans have some reddish nuance, especially in the scans with the tree. Why does it happened? Thanks 😊
Hi Daniele thanks for the comment! All of the Epson scans appeared this way and I think some of it is the color bias of the CCD sensor in the scanner, but also a little of it is my attempts to color match the file to the drum scan (which is way more subtle).
Mat Marrash is a GAMER??
I'm more than just a camera and some big sheets of film ;)
I too would like a clearer understanding of how you use the ANR glass. I assume you place the film directly on the platen and the ANR on top of the film. Which side of the film is up and which side of the ANR is up?
Hey Jim thanks for the question. You want to place the film emulsion side down on the scanner glass, then the etched side of the glass on top of the film base. This helps keep the film flat and absorbs excess heat from the scanning lamp.
Just to be perfectly clear: When you say "the etched side of the glass on top..." , you mean the etched side of the glass goes face down on the film, i.e., the etched side of the ANR glass is in contact with the non-emulsion side of the film. Correct?
Hey Jim, you got it. Film base = non-emulsion side = shiny side of the film. In printing as well as scanning, you want to get the emulsion facing the paper/scanning/camera for best results.
I know you're specializing in large format.
But would a v600 be a good starter scanner for someone shooting 6x9?
Thanks!
Jason
Hey Jason thanks for the question! The V600 should work fine for medium format, though you may want to look into aftermarket holders for the film. I got my ANR glass from betterscanning and they have some good options for flatbed scanners. There's lots of DIY and 3D printed scanning holders out there too!
@@MatMarrash what's anr glass
@@ganzonomy it's a type of finely etched glass that helps prevent Newton's Rings, there's some examples starting here:
ruclips.net/video/pqMVMlaA6G0/видео.html
Can you rent or borrow a modern digital camera that has around 45-60 MP together with a macro lens? Way faster and better than Epson-flatbed scanning.
And no hassle with stone age software that needs bronceage computer You only need a light table or enlargers head as a lightsource and a reprostand or tripod for the camera.
I have an Epson Perfection 4870 -- this is an old scanner that was obsolete when you got your V700. I use film holders made for a 4990, modified by clipping off the alignment tabs and removing the spacer feet (to get the film close enough to the glass for the 4870 to focus). I use Vuescan, with 4x multi-sample, and despite claims that the optical resolution is "only" 2400 ppi, I get significantly better scans at 4800 (could be the testers didn't use multi-sample). I pull an honest 30 megapixels from 35mm film, and the limitation on 4x5 is how big a file I'm willing to deal with -- my most recent scans were about 90 megapixel at 16 bit gray (181 MB files uncompressed), but that was only at 2400 ppi from 4x5; I could have quadrupled that pixel count. Your V700 should be able to pull a gigapixel out of a 4x5 and make it actually count using 4x or 16x multi-sample, if you have enough RAM to work with that size file.
My opinion, a good, modern flatbed can still beat a DSLR or mirrorless from large format. For 35mm, definitely not (because you can get your 200-ish megapixels from the tiny frame by using a macro lens), and likely not for 120 (still 200-ish megapixels) -- but for large format, there's no sense spending the money for a fresh, new digital camera if you're not already a deep-pockets digital photographer. I mean, good grief, you spent $5000 or more for that 8x10 camera and its lenses and tripod and film holders -- why would you consider spending even more than that just to digitize your film, when a $500 used Epson scanner can literally do the same job (BTW, it can -- proper settings in scanning will WAY beat what you showed for the flatbed).
With multi-sample scanning, a top end flatbed using fluid mounting (an option available for all the Epsons in the V line) can come close to a drum scanner -- if not edge it out (not least because a new V850 is "only" about $1200).
Thanks for the comment. I can tell you're passionate about getting the most out of your flatbed scans and you've outlined a way I've not tried to eek a little more out of the V700.
@@MatMarrash I apologize. It didn't occur to me that "deep pockets" was disparaging. Just saying, unless you've already got equipment I'll never be able to afford, you won't beat a $700 flatbed and $200 in add-ons (fluid mount unit), with optimal settings, with a DSLR or mirrorless for even twice the money. Setting optimal focus and setting up for fluid mount, OTOH, will get everything possible out of your V700. The focus improvement alone vs. film on the glass will make a huge difference.
Thanks for the reply and I appreciate you offering an alternative that is more cost effective than what's shown in the video. Fluid mounting and multiple passes are something I haven't tried on a V700 but worth exploring further. Also, I see with fluid mounting there are some kits that come with a mounting holder and some that don't. I'm guessing the systems with a holder are the way to go?
@@MatMarrash I'd get the holder. It includes a grid so you can line up the film with the scan -- no "skew" adjustment, or very little. And on my 4870, multi sample doesn't make multiple passed, it just reads the sensor multiple times at each position in a single pass. Slower than single sample, but not like four passes would be.
@@SilntObsvr Thanks! I'm still on the fence about one, but if I go the wet scanning route will look for a holder kit.
Who do you use for drum scans?
The drum scans in this video were done by Lightwork Lab in NY.
Would the Epson V700 be practical for scanning 4x5 sheet film?
V700's are great for scanning sheet film! Or at least I hope so, been using mine for over a decade!
one thing i think that should be mentioned is that as time goes on, legacy scanner hardware and software support will dry up. epsons scan sofware is nearly 10 years old and in that time windows has gone through two major releases and USB is now at version 3. i dug out my v300 last month that i had not used in 5 years and i was worried windows 10 would not recognize the scanner or the software was vapourware. yes, silverfast is available to buy but its in the same boat since its software. ive already had audio hardware become obsolete when the software was discontinued due to usb 1.0 concerns. id be hard pressed to buy a scanner in 2020 thats based on software and hardware thats more than 10 years old, especially if the company producing it isnt actively supporting the software. it takes just one windows or mac update to break the drivers.
the dslr copy stand method to me, as a hobbyist, is the best digitizing method for 4x5 at this time, even though you are not getting 1:1 pixel to grain reproduction. ive actually been copy stand capturing my 4x5s since i started shooting in 2014 since a v800 was expensive and i had a dslr already. current cameras and sensors make the reproductions better. for online sharing, i find this method more than sufficient. i would think most current LF shooters have a dslr kicking around to use. if i really need a higher fidelity scan, i will just pay a lab to have to have it drum scanned.
Very good point about legacy support and driver issues. This is one of the things that's held me back from buying a drum scanner. I think going forward I'm going to transition my harder B&W and color scans to mirrorless capture. For those really special prints nothing beats a drum scan, and I'm happy to pay the lab for their time and upkeep. Thanks for the comment!
@@MatMarrash i should also say thanks for making this video as i was considering once again if a v800 should be on my shopping list. having seen your results and compared with what i am currently doing, i dont think im missing out, the pictures are enjoyed with others all the same. :)
Oh God! It's Frank Grillo!
How different is ANR glass from ground glass? Could you just plop a ground glass on top of the film in the flatbed?
Good question! They're not too different, but I suspect a ground glass would cause more scattering of the light and lower overall transmission, changing how much the scanner is able to see during a pass. Could be worth a try.
@@MatMarrash I'll give it a shot next time I'm scanning! I have an Epson 4990, which is like the V700 but older (and cheaper)
used original A7R, here around 500,-, Sigma 70mm, 300,-. Under a thousand you're getting a far superior color depth and dynamic range compared to all-plastic (lens etc) Epsons. Flatbeds are honestly the biggest bottleneck for good color to overcome. I don't see a noticeable difference compared to my Imacon lab scans anymore. And I mean right out of my Sony.
Thanks for the comment Melvyn. There's a lot of love in the comments for flatbeds, but good to hear some first hand accounts from folks using mirrorless cameras to scan.
DSLR scanning can be a good way to proof images but it's not the end of the road. a V800 or V850 can out perform a sony in color and resolution by far and if you need to go the extra mile you send those special exposures to the lab for drum scanning. DSLR/Mirrorless scans work for a lot of people for your argument doesn't hold water. I mean it's not like Sony mirrorless cameras are known for having good color science, actually quite the opposite is the case.
which scan resolution for 4x5 do you suggest ?
Hey Chris thanks for the question. I think for DSLR/mirrorless scanning any resolution up to 100MP is manageable, and flatbed scanning upto 2400 DPI is good. If you want higher res than either of those, drum scanning or Flextight scanning is the way to go.
@@MatMarrash thanks, no it's only for my instagram (joking). I will not print bigger than 50x70 cms
Those slides have a blue tint. Developing not at parameter?
Why not wet scan on your V700 at 3200 dpi
You can get better results from mirrorless scanning by creating custom DCP profiles with a color target in Lumariver profile designer. If you send me a raw file from Sony, I can show you. I already have a custom profile for that camera that would work well, but you really need to create o profile for your light source.
how do you scan 4x5
Try oil mount on your Epson
Definitely something to explore in the future!
@@MatMarrash better use filmkleen. No messy oil residues to clean off. filmkleen evaporates without trace after using it.
I bet you I can make a gigapixel scan of respectable quality (far better than what you did with the camera) with a budget of under 1k so isn't like the way you do it is the only way. Instead of relying on gimmicky features of expensive cameras (pixel shift) use a macro lens and shift the whole film or camera and do an image composite, by using a good lens and a sturdy mount on the camera you can scan with insane resolutions on a budget, the extreme is using microscope objectives, a lowly 4x .1NA objective already rivals a drum scanner in regard of DPI (about 7K DPI) you can go higher with objectives of larger NA, up to 113K DPI for the insane who somehow builds a rig to use immersion objectives and do not care to oil their film. The big disadvantage of this is that is slow and involves lots of work doing image stitching (mostly automated nowadays) and dealing with hundreds of photos, but for anyone that is on a budget and needs drum scanner like performance there is that.
What is a 1.2 GB scan for?
Mainly for seeing if my laptop can melt through a table while rending a video timeline. ;)
I 'm no photographer but I understand some film shooter shoots film because of the look that is very different from bayer filter look. So why then subjecting your film to the bayer filter interpolation instead of buying or using affordable full rgb color dedicated scanner.
Ibrahim I think you answered your own question. Affordable and full RGB color scanner rarely occupy the same sentence.
The Howtek examples looks washed out, as if there's a thin haze overlay. It doesn't look right; not from a drum scan. I'm guessing the embedded color space is something like Adobe Wide Gamut RGB, intended for post. You may have missed converting the file into sRGB colorspace for the video presentation?
Anyhow, digital camera scan and stitch will provide the equivalent spatial and tonal resolution as a drum scan. If the material spans density range greater than the digicam native, exposure blend. As you said, use a pixel shift capable camera. That not only increases the resolution, but also effectively backs out the Bayer filter interpolation. You get better tonal resolution as well.
Automation in film transport would make life more convenient. If you're handy, check out motorized XY linear stages from China. Something usable should be no more than a few hundred dollars.
is all those photos from india ??
These are all from Senegal on the West coast of Africa. Thanks!
ay i got that laptop :D
MSI's been killing it with laptops lately. Solid components, easy to swap/upgrade parts, and an affordable price point.
Yeah stick an M.2 In swap the ram sorted 😂
My tutor had a Mac it broke within 3 months lol 😂
A scan remains a scan, a poor interpretation of the original silver print, which remains irreplaceable.
DSLR with stitching is the worst method. Not consistent and reliable and flatbed scanning works best. Less shit to deal with.
Man, there are some passionate fans of flatbed stepping up to the plate in the comments section. Not a lot of love for the mirrorless scans here.
@@MatMarrash Of course I'm biased, but I think the mirrorless looks a little too... digital? Matt Carver uses wet mount scanning on an Epson flatbed and his framed print of a liquor store looked amazing (if anyone else saw that i don't think he drum scanned the final print either?)
@@camerachica73 What do you mean with mirrorless looks too digital? Depends all on how you handle the files…
The way I see it mirrorless/DSLR scaning is a crutch at best, it's not meant to be a final solution like it seems people are trying to make it. Flat bed models, since the release of the V700 and later, do a fine job for making pretty large prints and if you want to go really big or are doing a gallery show then sending the film out for drum scanning might be the way to go. Why anyone would want to shoot a large format image that has the capability of producing incredible detail and resolution and then take a picture of it with a 36mp camera and call it good is beyond me? Ben Horn does a comparison of epson vs Drum scan in one of his videos and there is an obvious difference but it's not miles of difference and it really shows that the flat bed tech has gotten really good in recent years. I think people get crappy results from Epson because they use all of the bells and whistles in the scanning software like unsharp mask and dust reduction that screws up the final product.
@@Raevenswood You are right, a single shot with 36mp is not going to do large format justice, but if you scan in sections and stitch, you get way better result.
All of the scans you showed were poor scans.
NO YOU DON'T need to digitise your film!
You guys are all "half Hearted". I have been a traditional 'Analogue' professional photographer since 1970 and have produced images on film and prints on paper or to 4m or larger mural sizes from ALL film formats without 'Digitising' or 'Scanning a frame of film! Yes I DID CREATE and STILL own Australia's inaugural Digital Photographic Imaging Bureau (Digital Masters Australasia) working with Kodak, Fujifilm, Nikon, Canon, Polaroid and Apple systems and support but I could still pop down to my professional photo suppliers and buy all the chemicals and trays to make traditional 20" x 24" fibre, analogue chemical based prints!