Is a filmscanner better?

Many of you have probably seen the image comparisons between the D100, S2, D60, and scanned film in this site:

http://www.photim.net/Infos/Info-DPI.htm

I have heard many times that no digital camera can provide the same color and resolution quality as a professional filmscanner, and a decent film. But by looking at the images, the results from the filmscanner seem horribly grainy. The contrast and colors looks also very "artificial". They used an AGFA XY-15 filmscanner, but nothing seems to be mentioned about the film. I suppose that they have used an ASA 100 positive film.

I have decided to wait a year or so before I buy a new DSLR, and I am planning to get a 4000dpi filmscanner instead. But after looking at these results, I wonder if a filmscanner is really better.

I would appreciate your opinions on this.

Cheers,
Andre

Andre Remoe said:

Many of you have probably seen the image comparisons between the
D100, S2, D60, and scanned film in this site:

http://www.photim.net/Infos/Info-DPI.htm

I have heard many times that no digital camera can provide the same
color and resolution quality as a professional filmscanner, and a
decent film. But by looking at the images, the results from the
filmscanner seem horribly grainy. The contrast and colors looks
also very "artificial". They used an AGFA XY-15 filmscanner, but
nothing seems to be mentioned about the film. I suppose that they
have used an ASA 100 positive film.

I have decided to wait a year or so before I buy a new DSLR, and I
am planning to get a 4000dpi filmscanner instead. But after looking
at these results, I wonder if a filmscanner is really better.

I would appreciate your opinions on this.

Cheers,
Andre

Click to expand...

You will only get one answer on this site, buy the digital camera. If you are looking for an excuse to buy a digital camera, you have come to the correct site. But it realy is not that simple. Many people will invest thousands in a DSLR system and compare results with a cheapish scanner, you will also be told that scanning is a pain, and it can be. There are a crop of superb scanners around at present, but they cost a lot of money. My favourite is the Creo ismart2/3 (cost from £10700) scanners. These are A3 scanners, can scan 100 35mm in one go at 16bit raw (Soom) at over 4000 dpi optical with XY stitching technology. If you want to eliminate grain/scratches they have an oil bath system that is quite quick to use. If enlargments and quality over about 14 inches is required scanning is best. There will be lots of people with D30s that claim they cover buildings with posters from this camera, fact is film and a larger format would of been better.
If workflow speed and ease of use are more important then a DSLR will be best.

If you are a medium format user scanning on a quality scanner (not an Epson etc) is better than a DSLR. If you are in the medium format market there are many digital backs available and with multi scanning abilities (if the subject allows) can produce better results than film.

This is just as I see it after trying various systems of DSLR and scanners, I have not tried any digital backs. Scanning for me gives me the most flexability with the output. But I want to go digital for some work, were workflow is a bigger priority than flexability in part enlargment and output. In this case the DCS 760 looks favourite for me.

Just going to put on my flame proof suite as most posters here know digital is perfect and film has stopped working (Hehe)
Kevin

Andre Remoe said:

Many of you have probably seen the image comparisons between the
D100, S2, D60, and scanned film in this site:

http://www.photim.net/Infos/Info-DPI.htm

I have heard many times that no digital camera can provide the same
color and resolution quality as a professional filmscanner, and a
decent film. But by looking at the images, the results from the
filmscanner seem horribly grainy. The contrast and colors looks
also very "artificial". They used an AGFA XY-15 filmscanner, but
nothing seems to be mentioned about the film. I suppose that they
have used an ASA 100 positive film.

I have decided to wait a year or so before I buy a new DSLR, and I
am planning to get a 4000dpi filmscanner instead. But after looking
at these results, I wonder if a filmscanner is really better.

I would appreciate your opinions on this.

Cheers,
Andre

Click to expand...

As a user of a Nikon 4000ed scanner and a D1x, I would have to say the results from scanned 35mm film are inferior to what comes from the DSLR.

The only reason I would buy a scanner now would be if my use of digital images was very small and I did not take many photos. (economic)

When I get a reorder from an old job done on film, I think "oo yuck, I wish I shot this digital." Mainly the grain and sharpness is worse. The extra work involved puts it over the edge.

On the side of scanning film, there is more exposure lattitude on neg film. Quite often you can get detail out of an overexposed neg, forget it with digital.

a.

I would really love to see some high quality 4000 dpi scans of 35mm film. The only ones I've found on the web are horribly soft and grainy.

Perhaps at ISO 50 the scanned film has an edge but at ISO 200 and above I think that the D60/D100/S2 gang wins.

Andre Remoe said:

Many of you have probably seen the image comparisons between the
D100, S2, D60, and scanned film in this site:

http://www.photim.net/Infos/Info-DPI.htm

Click to expand...

Andre,

Thanks for the link to the site. It is indeed an interesting test. As a bonus, I got to find out just how much French I have forgotton! I'm sure they claimed that the images were straight out of the device, with no manipulation, but the film images looked over sharpened to me. That might be what contributes to the excessive amount of grain. I'd like to know more about the scanner and software they use, including the scanning settings. I'd also like to know about the film. Any translators out there?

I too am holding off on a dslr. Right now, I think I've struck a good balance using a hybrid system. I use my Canon G2 for snaps. For "serious" photography, I shoot either 6x6 medium format or 4x5, which I scan using an Epson 2450. I have no trouble going to 13x19 and I'm sure I could go to at least 24x30 with no problem. Yes, I know I'd get better results with a dedicated 4x5 scanner, but the money's not there. If I was still a pro I'd have one.

One last thought on workflow. Since we're at the pro digital board I take it your question might be business, not pleasure related. I think that if you're trying to do this to make money you'll find you have to plunk down some serious cash to get a scanner fast enough to provide a reasonable workflow. Fire up Excel and calculate how many images you can process in a day if you're using a scanner. Scanning a couple of portraits a day is one thing, trying to scan and print an 80 photo wedding would be a monumental task.

Good luck,
Doug

Thank you all for your opinions! Now, I have decided to wait until a better quality DSLR sees the day - maybe 6 months from now? As an amateur, I can not really justify a very expensive film scanner, although quality is something that we all want.

Cheers,
Andre

Andrew said:

Andre Remoe said:

Many of you have probably seen the image comparisons between the
D100, S2, D60, and scanned film in this site:

http://www.photim.net/Infos/Info-DPI.htm

I have heard many times that no digital camera can provide the same
color and resolution quality as a professional filmscanner, and a
decent film. But by looking at the images, the results from the
filmscanner seem horribly grainy. The contrast and colors looks
also very "artificial". They used an AGFA XY-15 filmscanner, but
nothing seems to be mentioned about the film. I suppose that they
have used an ASA 100 positive film.

I have decided to wait a year or so before I buy a new DSLR, and I
am planning to get a 4000dpi filmscanner instead. But after looking
at these results, I wonder if a filmscanner is really better.

I would appreciate your opinions on this.

Cheers,
Andre

Click to expand...

As a user of a Nikon 4000ed scanner and a D1x, I would have to say
the results from scanned 35mm film are inferior to what comes from
the DSLR.
The only reason I would buy a scanner now would be if my use of
digital images was very small and I did not take many photos.
(economic)

When I get a reorder from an old job done on film, I think "oo
yuck, I wish I shot this digital." Mainly the grain and sharpness
is worse. The extra work involved puts it over the edge.

On the side of scanning film, there is more exposure lattitude on
neg film. Quite often you can get detail out of an overexposed
neg, forget it with digital.

Click to expand...

I use the Nikon 8000 and scan medium format and Xpan negatives. When compared with images from the Canon 1D and D60 I find they are magnitudes better. I don't scan 35mm negatives so the differences that you are getting could be a matter of acetate real estate. If it's an image that requires high image quality I always shoot film. Otherwise I shoot digital. I am optimistic that the day will come very soon that I can shoot digital exclusively.

Bob

Andre,

A year or so ago, I went the route of the Nikon Coolscan 4000ED. It's a great scanner and will give you very good results.

However, in complete honesty, the ONLY ONLY ONLY time I have wanted to shoot film since purchasing my D1x is when I needed the full field of view of my 24mm lens.

The quality of the files from my D1x in terms of "grain" (noise), color and detail beat out my film scans without a doubt.

If you really want to go the scanning route, you can get very good results, but not without a substantial investment in time and the degradation of quality that comes from capturing imaging information using silver halide and color dyes and then converting that into a digital image via the scanner.

Ultimately, I'm completely sold on my D1x.

Regards,
Micheal Hall

Andre Remoe said:

Many of you have probably seen the image comparisons between the
D100, S2, D60, and scanned film in this site:

http://www.photim.net/Infos/Info-DPI.htm

I have heard many times that no digital camera can provide the same
color and resolution quality as a professional filmscanner, and a
decent film. But by looking at the images, the results from the
filmscanner seem horribly grainy. The contrast and colors looks
also very "artificial". They used an AGFA XY-15 filmscanner, but
nothing seems to be mentioned about the film. I suppose that they
have used an ASA 100 positive film.

I have decided to wait a year or so before I buy a new DSLR, and I
am planning to get a 4000dpi filmscanner instead. But after looking
at these results, I wonder if a filmscanner is really better.

I would appreciate your opinions on this.

Cheers,
Andre

Click to expand...

--
---
Micheal

Andre Remoe said:

Many of you have probably seen the image comparisons between the
D100, S2, D60, and scanned film in this site:

Click to expand...

Andy OZR said:

http://www.photim.net/Infos/Info-DPI.htm

Click to expand...

Andy OZR said:

But after looking
at these results, I wonder if a filmscanner is really better.
I would appreciate your opinions on this.

Click to expand...

Here is mine:

It is very clear that the film scan beats all the digital cameras with respect to sharpness and detail. Neither of the digital cameras even come close. Do not let yourselves be deluded by the graininess in the film scan. Look at sharpness and detail.

Try to download the big original pictures, and then apply Unsharp Mask. If you try to print out the large image as it is, apply more Unsharp Mask than if you resize to 800 pixels horizontally, in which case you can see it clearly on screen.

The detail in the film scan is outstanding. However, with a consumer grade film scanner like the Nikon LS-4000 or LS-40 you will never get such a result, and the digital cameras will beat such film scans without difficulty.

The conclusion is: Film is positively sharper if scanned at a $20 000 scanner, but digital is catching up and will beat any $800-1800 film scanner by a very large margin - even at the time of this writing. Thus, realistically digital is the way to today go unless you can afford a true professional scanner.

The Fuji stands out as the worst alternative. The Super CCD interpolation at full resolution will give a larger image with comparatively less quality, so a maximum resolution would most likely have put the Fuji even further back.

The Canon D60 may be a little better than the D100, but most probably not more than what can be adjusted in any photo editor. Moreover, the differences between the D60 and the D100 are not greater than what could be caused by lens quality differences and/or camera shake. If a zoom was used with the Nikon, then we know it could have been significantly sharper with a prime lens.

Per Inge Oesmoen
http://www.coldsiberia.org/

I had a Nikon Coolscan 4000 for a couple of weeks, along with an F100. I just returned both.

Using the hardware and software that the Coolscan offers, I could scan a slide or neg to better detail than the full size D1-D60-D100 files I've been able to download. Unfortunately, it's just not very forgiving, prefers even-toned images over contrasty ones, I could go on ad-nauseum. Extremely time consuming (not to mention buying and developing film). I shot some architectural interior scenes with same double Nikon SB80 flash setup using coolpix 990 digital (to test flash layout) and F100 shooting film. I was surprised to find that the 990 produced better color and contrast with almost no effort compared to what I could coax out of Coolscan/Photoshop.

Not knocking the Coolscan or the F100. It broke my heart to send them back.They're both terrific. I'm sure I will be disappointed with the D100 body compared to the F100.

I'm on a waiting list for a D100.

Bob

Andre Remoe said:

Many of you have probably seen the image comparisons between the
D100, S2, D60, and scanned film in this site:

http://www.photim.net/Infos/Info-DPI.htm

I have heard many times that no digital camera can provide the same
color and resolution quality as a professional filmscanner, and a
decent film. But by looking at the images, the results from the
filmscanner seem horribly grainy. The contrast and colors looks
also very "artificial". They used an AGFA XY-15 filmscanner, but
nothing seems to be mentioned about the film. I suppose that they
have used an ASA 100 positive film.

I have decided to wait a year or so before I buy a new DSLR, and I
am planning to get a 4000dpi filmscanner instead. But after looking
at these results, I wonder if a filmscanner is really better.

I would appreciate your opinions on this.

Cheers,
Andre

Click to expand...

Thank you guys for your comments. This just reinforces my idea of getting a good DSLR. From what I can see, the film is almost dead, considering that everything is turning into digital. It's just a shame to keep my F90X from now on as a museum artifact, but that's how it is.

Cheers,
Andre

Andre,

I'm also a digital wannabe with an immediate need. I used to use a Nikon LS-2000 and found the scans grainy at 2700 dpi. Ditto on an LS 8000 test that I paid for at a photo store.

Then I tried the new Polaroid SprintScan 4000 Plus. It has a more diffuse light source that is much more forgiving on film grain, a greater depth of field (I believe), a fine scanning software in Silverfast, and sharpness to spare. I'm now getting the scans I was hoping for. Even Fuji Reala scans are quite clean. And it's a quick scanner too. This is not to say that scanning has been made a quick process, it's just better than some others I've tried.

After having said that, I still have to admit that there is something beguiling in the smoothness of the digital images from the D60, D100. And I'm still working much too hard to achieve the level of quality I expect from a 35mm frame. So the next level of resolution will probably prove to be irresistable.

Andre Remoe said:

Many of you have probably seen the image comparisons between the
D100, S2, D60, and scanned film in this site:

http://www.photim.net/Infos/Info-DPI.htm

I have heard many times that no digital camera can provide the same
color and resolution quality as a professional filmscanner, and a
decent film. But by looking at the images, the results from the
filmscanner seem horribly grainy. The contrast and colors looks
also very "artificial". They used an AGFA XY-15 filmscanner, but
nothing seems to be mentioned about the film. I suppose that they
have used an ASA 100 positive film.

I have decided to wait a year or so before I buy a new DSLR, and I
am planning to get a 4000dpi filmscanner instead. But after looking
at these results, I wonder if a filmscanner is really better.

I would appreciate your opinions on this.

Cheers,
Andre

Click to expand...

--
Victor Kapas
digitalwannabee

Robert Bedwell said:

Andrew said:

Andre Remoe said:

Many of you have probably seen the image comparisons between the
D100, S2, D60, and scanned film in this site:

http://www.photim.net/Infos/Info-DPI.htm

I have heard many times that no digital camera can provide the same
color and resolution quality as a professional filmscanner, and a
decent film. But by looking at the images, the results from the
filmscanner seem horribly grainy. The contrast and colors looks
also very "artificial". They used an AGFA XY-15 filmscanner, but
nothing seems to be mentioned about the film. I suppose that they
have used an ASA 100 positive film.

I have decided to wait a year or so before I buy a new DSLR, and I
am planning to get a 4000dpi filmscanner instead. But after looking
at these results, I wonder if a filmscanner is really better.

I would appreciate your opinions on this.

Cheers,
Andre

Click to expand...

As a user of a Nikon 4000ed scanner and a D1x, I would have to say
the results from scanned 35mm film are inferior to what comes from
the DSLR.
The only reason I would buy a scanner now would be if my use of
digital images was very small and I did not take many photos.
(economic)

When I get a reorder from an old job done on film, I think "oo
yuck, I wish I shot this digital." Mainly the grain and sharpness
is worse. The extra work involved puts it over the edge.

On the side of scanning film, there is more exposure lattitude on
neg film. Quite often you can get detail out of an overexposed
neg, forget it with digital.

Click to expand...

I use the Nikon 8000 and scan medium format and Xpan negatives.
When compared with images from the Canon 1D and D60 I find they are
magnitudes better. I don't scan 35mm negatives so the differences
that you are getting could be a matter of acetate real estate. If
it's an image that requires high image quality I always shoot film.
Otherwise I shoot digital. I am optimistic that the day will come
very soon that I can shoot digital exclusively.

Bob

Click to expand...

Yes, this is the pecking order in terms of quality, medium format, pro DSLR, 35mm.

If 35mm was your thing, a DSLR will impress, but not so much if you are a 6x7cm Velvia man.

Me, for my work, the DSLR was close enough for me to ditch the RZ, which I don't miss.

a.

Victor,

Yeah, unfortunately the LED light source that Nikon scanners use is highly columnated. Unfortunately, that means that while sharpness is not increased, grain effects are. (Like a condenser head in an enlarger versus a cold light or diffuser head. And Ctein has demonstrated that a diffuser head results in enlargements that are no less sharp than when using a condensor head.)

In that regard, fluorescent light sources in filmscanners are much better than Nikon's LEDs. Unfortunately, Nikon is probably the only name people think of if they are ready to go the filmscanner route. I have a Microtek ArtixScan 4000t (same engine as the basic Polaroid SprintScan 4000) and I make absolutely grainless uninterposated 13" x 19" inkjet prints from Fuji Provia 100F that I always shoot pushed to ASA 200.

I shot some Reala, that printed out really good as well.

When I shoot digital, I feel that I have wasted a photographic opportunity.

My best,

Ed

Victor Kapas said:

I'm also a digital wannabe with an immediate need. I used to use a
Nikon LS-2000 and found the scans grainy at 2700 dpi. Ditto on an
LS 8000 test that I paid for at a photo store.

Then I tried the new Polaroid SprintScan 4000 Plus. It has a more
diffuse light source that is much more forgiving on film grain, a
greater depth of field (I believe), a fine scanning software in
Silverfast, and sharpness to spare. I'm now getting the scans I was
hoping for. Even Fuji Reala scans are quite clean. And it's a quick
scanner too. This is not to say that scanning has been made a quick
process, it's just better than some others I've tried.

After having said that, I still have to admit that there is
something beguiling in the smoothness of the digital images from
the D60, D100. And I'm still working much too hard to achieve the
level of quality I expect from a 35mm frame. So the next level of
resolution will probably prove to be irresistable.

Andre Remoe said:

Many of you have probably seen the image comparisons between the
D100, S2, D60, and scanned film in this site:

http://www.photim.net/Infos/Info-DPI.htm

I have heard many times that no digital camera can provide the same
color and resolution quality as a professional filmscanner, and a
decent film. But by looking at the images, the results from the
filmscanner seem horribly grainy. The contrast and colors looks
also very "artificial". They used an AGFA XY-15 filmscanner, but
nothing seems to be mentioned about the film. I suppose that they
have used an ASA 100 positive film.

I have decided to wait a year or so before I buy a new DSLR, and I
am planning to get a 4000dpi filmscanner instead. But after looking
at these results, I wonder if a filmscanner is really better.

I would appreciate your opinions on this.

Cheers,
Andre

Click to expand...

--
Victor Kapas
digitalwannabee

Click to expand...

...from the Latin, "to make straight".
(Bonus for the curious)

Personally, I'd save up and get the digital SLR.

I bought a refurbished Nikon LS2000, but found it wat too contrasty.
I bought the Nikon D1 and was well pleased.

The Nikon D1X that I upgraded to delivered a further breakthrough in color tonal range.

Then again, maybe I'm just not using the LS2000 in the right way. I've tried all possible color spaces and scan densities, though.

Eric

the AFGA is a 1998 flatbed scanner, a
non-dedicated film scanner. film will give
better colors and resolution using most of
today's dedicated film scanners. you be the
judge just see URL:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d60.htm

having said that, it's hard to be a pro these
days without digital. you'll lose more than
50% of your work because the customer wants
it now, not later.

What appears to be "grain" in the scanned image is actually "grain aliasing." This is similar in cause to the moire effect. It happens because the scanner resolution is just below the grain clump size (dye clouds based on the grain clumps, really). If the film had been finer grained, the scanner would have missed the grain entirely and given a smooth image. Or if the scanner had been significantly sharper (say, 4000dpi) it would have properly resolved the natural film grain.

To avoid it, one must use a finer grained film (ISO 100) or a much higher resolving scanner.

There is a complete explanation of "grain aliasing" at:

http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Moremira.htm

Andre Remoe said:

Many of you have probably seen the image comparisons between the
D100, S2, D60, and scanned film in this site:

http://www.photim.net/Infos/Info-DPI.htm

I have heard many times that no digital camera can provide the same
color and resolution quality as a professional filmscanner, and a
decent film. But by looking at the images, the results from the
filmscanner seem horribly grainy. The contrast and colors looks
also very "artificial". They used an AGFA XY-15 filmscanner, but
nothing seems to be mentioned about the film. I suppose that they
have used an ASA 100 positive film.

I have decided to wait a year or so before I buy a new DSLR, and I
am planning to get a 4000dpi filmscanner instead. But after looking
at these results, I wonder if a filmscanner is really better.

I would appreciate your opinions on this.

Cheers,
Andre

Click to expand...

--
RDKirk

'I know you're smarter than I am. But I think you're making up some of those words.' Rocky Rooster from 'Chicken Run'

Doug, thanks for the correction.

My original spelling was even worse, but I thought I'd plug it into google and let it sort things out. It came up with a fine suggestion which I trusted a bit too much.

My word was clearly wrong, but it's at least real (unlike my first cut).
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=columnated

Possibly, it even came from the same concept and/or root. (philosophical bonus)

My best,

Ed

Per,

The Nikon 4000 can easily produce a scan better than the one in the mentioned comparison, whilst using it's software package to completely hide the grain. The only applicable comparisons I have seen are with the $3000 Polaroid models or $100,000 drum scanners.

I would upload proof, but the files are over 100mb.

Bob

Per Inge Oestmoen said:

Andre Remoe said:

Many of you have probably seen the image comparisons between the
D100, S2, D60, and scanned film in this site:

Click to expand...

Per Inge Oestmoen said:

http://www.photim.net/Infos/Info-DPI.htm

Click to expand...

Per Inge Oestmoen said:

But after looking
at these results, I wonder if a filmscanner is really better.
I would appreciate your opinions on this.

Click to expand...

Here is mine:

It is very clear that the film scan beats all the digital cameras
with respect to sharpness and detail. Neither of the digital
cameras even come close. Do not let yourselves be deluded by the
graininess in the film scan. Look at sharpness and detail.

Try to download the big original pictures, and then apply Unsharp
Mask. If you try to print out the large image as it is, apply more
Unsharp Mask than if you resize to 800 pixels horizontally, in
which case you can see it clearly on screen.

The detail in the film scan is outstanding. However, with a
consumer grade film scanner like the Nikon LS-4000 or LS-40 you
will never get such a result, and the digital cameras will beat
such film scans without difficulty.

The conclusion is: Film is positively sharper if scanned at a $20
000 scanner, but digital is catching up and will beat any $800-1800
film scanner by a very large margin - even at the time of this
writing. Thus, realistically digital is the way to today go unless
you can afford a true professional scanner.

The Fuji stands out as the worst alternative. The Super CCD
interpolation at full resolution will give a larger image with
comparatively less quality, so a maximum resolution would most
likely have put the Fuji even further back.

The Canon D60 may be a little better than the D100, but most
probably not more than what can be adjusted in any photo editor.
Moreover, the differences between the D60 and the D100 are not
greater than what could be caused by lens quality differences
and/or camera shake. If a zoom was used with the Nikon, then we
know it could have been significantly sharper with a prime lens.

Per Inge Oesmoen
http://www.coldsiberia.org/

Click to expand...