Is this picture blurry or am I imagining things? (Shot on film)

Please click for full size image. Did I focus it wrong? Shot on Kodak Gold 200. Some other pictures turned out soft in my opinion. Am I just being nitpicky or is this a normal shot for film? (Shot on Minolta Maxxum 600si)

It's definitely not good. Aside from the weird flare, it looks like very poor digitization. How was it digitized?

I agree, I don’t know what happened with digitization. Maybe it was overexposed?

Scanned to TIFF, 3200 DPI 9n Epson v550. usually images turn out better but this set didn’t turn out great. Other images from a point & shoot shot on Ultramax turned out much better developed at the same time:

I’m wondering if it was the roll. I’m getting 2 more rolls developed today so will make a test out of it.

sybersitizen wrote:

It's definitely not good. Aside from the weird flare, it looks like very poor digitization. How was it digitized?

pcunnin wrote:

I agree, I don’t know what happened with digitization. Maybe it was overexposed?

Scanned to TIFF, 3200 DPI 9n Epson v550. usually images turn out better but this set didn’t turn out great. Other images from a point & shoot shot on Ultramax turned out much better developed at the same time

I can confidently state that your flatbed scanner is incapable of delivering the full resolution captured by a decent lens on 35mm film. I don't know of any consumer level flatbed that can do it. The resolution numbers you see in scanner specs mean nothing. They refer to the theoretical ability of the hardware but don't relate to what happens in practice when scanning through a sheet of glass, as they must do.

I've owned lots of flatbeds myself and have a V500 now. It's great with prints, but it's quite disappointing with slides compared to my dedicated film scanner, or even compared to digitizing using my A77 and macro lens.

100% crops of the same slide digitized with A77 RAW, A77 JPEG, Epson V500, and PrimeFilm 7200 scanner:

The camera versions were captured at 24MP; the PrimeFilm version was captured at 3600 PPI (roughly its maximum practical resolution). They were then resampled to match the Epson version scanned at 3200 PPI (far beyond its maximum practical resolution).

My god, the Epson looks terrible. I’m tempted to return mine although I haven’t noticed any problems until now, your samples show the v500 to look absolutely horrible and blurry. I’d say the best are the macro lens even better than the primefilm?

How is the primefilm in general, vs using a macro lens, in terms of speed, practical results, and quality, according to your judgement?

sybersitizen wrote:

I can confidently state that your flatbed scanner is incapable of delivering the full resolution captured by a decent lens on 35mm film. I don't know of any consumer level flatbed that can do it. The resolution numbers you see in scanner specs mean nothing. They refer to the theoretical ability of the hardware but don't relate to what happens in practice when scanning through a sheet of glass, as they must do.

I've owned lots of flatbeds myself and have a V500 now. It's great with prints, but it's quite disappointing with slides compared to my dedicated film scanner, or even compared to digitizing using my A77 and macro lens.

100% crops of the same slide digitized with A77 RAW, A77 JPEG, Epson V500, and PrimeFilm 7200 scanner:

Update: I cannot find a Primefilm 7200 scanner online but i have found a PF3650u film scanner at a reasonable price. What do you think about this model?

pcunnin wrote:

My god, the Epson looks terrible. I’m tempted to return mine although I haven’t noticed any problems until now, your samples show the v500 to look absolutely horrible and blurry.

You can use it for things other than film (prints, documents, etc.) and it will be great.

I’d say the best are the macro lens even better than the primefilm?

Looks that way to me too, but digitizing color film with a camera means you have to color correct for the orange cast and deal with dust and scratches manually. Those things can be automated with a film scanner.

How is the primefilm in general, vs using a macro lens, in terms of speed, practical results, and quality, according to your judgement?

I could go either way. For once-in-a-while scanning (which is all I do now that I've stopped shooting film and my whole slide collection is digitized) I like to use the film scanner.

Update: I cannot find a Primefilm 7200 scanner online

They're backordered at B&H and Adorama and might actually be discontinued. The newer models in that series are probably even better, but they cost a lot more.

but i have found a PF3650u film scanner at a reasonable price. What do you think about this model?

I had a similar one in that series and didn't like it. Reviews are mostly positive, though ... so maybe mine was just a dud.

You could also look at the Plustek line of scanners. They're pretty popular.

Oh, and the software provided with inexpensive film scanners is usually poor. You should also budget for a purchase of VueScan software, which is what I use.

Yeah, since those scanners are pretty old I'm worried about the software not working, but supposedly Vuescan has them working.

Do you have to manually "push" the negatives through individually after they're scanned? (On the 7200 and 3650) Seems like a DSLR scan might be more efficient in this case, since one scan will take a few minutes, then you've got to put through the next frame.

pcunnin wrote:

Yeah, since those scanners are pretty old I'm worried about the software not working, but supposedly Vuescan has them working.

Even if the original software works, it's far more limited than VueScan and I was never able to get good colors with it.

Do you have to manually "push" the negatives through individually after they're scanned? (On the 7200 and 3650)

Yes. That's not a big deal IMO. The holder can handle a strip of six negatives.

Seems like a DSLR scan might be more efficient in this case, since one scan will take a few minutes, then you've got to put through the next frame.

Speed is definitely an advantage when using a camera ... but there are some disadvantages too.

Thanks, I'll give it a shot, thanks for your response on the other thread.

Rig idea located here for anyone curious:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63178787