p.1 #1 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
Are there any suggestions regarding the resolution for a digital camera used for scanning medium format negatives.
I plan on using Negative Lab Pro and lightroom.
p.1 #2 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
Hi Figtrees
Depends on your objective.
If all you want to do is have a high quality 8x10 printed from the whole negative that is different than wanting to print larger than 8x10, or print from a cropped piece of the negative, or trying to digitally store every last bit of information stored in the film from an archival basis.
For 8x10 print from whole negative a 7Mpix to 14Mpix camera would do
For 8x10 print from 1/4 area of negative (1/2 each dimension) 28Mpix to 56Mpix camera
For achival of every last bit of detail in the negative, you would need to go to a drum based scan.
Note that this is only pixel resolution and does not take into account the need for a good lens and stable picture taking environment etc.
Just my opinions of course and others may have other recommendations
p.1 #3 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
I camera-scanned 4x5 black and white film at 2,667 ppi with good success. With the equipment I was using, I didn't find that higher resolution produced better image quality (just more pixels, which is not the same thing!)
If you don't want to wet scan, I've heard that people get good results with this device (but I haven't used it personally): https://shop.lomography.com/en/digitaliza-120-scanning-mask People are also using old enlarger negative carriers to hold the negative during camera scanning (but if you're going glassless you have to worry about the curve of the film).
I wet scanned (also known as fluid mounted) the negatives and was very careful about dust, but I still ended up having to do a lot of spotting. The bad news regarding spotting is that Lightroom sucks for large amounts of spotting... I use Lightroom (almost) exclusively, so this was one of the rare times I had to go into Photoshop (where spotting is extremely quick and easy).
My workflow involved shooting in RAW, developing the RAW files in Lightroom, stitching in Lightroom, inverting in Lightroom and then exporting the negative as a TIFF, spotting in Photoshop, and then importing back into Lightroom. You can edit the inverted negative in Lightroom, but all the sliders are backwards (which drove me crazy).
p.1 #5 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
Joel, a good rule of thumb is 300 ppi (pixels per inch) for a high quality print with a Canon or HP printer, and 360 ppi for Epson. So let's say you have a Canon printer, 300 ppi x 20 inches = 6,000 pixels on the long edge; it would be 4,800 pixels on the short edge.
You can definitely print good quality at lower resolutions. There are a lot of variables in play. If people are pressing their noses up against your print, then 200 ppi might not look great, but it could be fine at normal viewing distances for a 16" x 20" print.
If you can shoot a single frame, then your life will be much simpler. To get to 2,667 ppi on my 4x5 negatives, I had to stitch 12 frames together. Not only does that take longer, but also with some negatives stitching doesn't work because there isn't enough distinctive detail for the software to put the pieces together.
p.1 #6 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
Rob
Sorry for the misunderstanding but I was asking about Camera megapixels in scanning a negative , not printing a negative.
Is there a limit in Camera megapixels advantage. Is 24 megapixels enough or does a Sony A7RIII produce a better scan?
p.1 #7 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
You do have to start with your intended output and work backwards, so talking about printing resolution is exactly where you need to start. You'll need a really good macro lens and an accurate way to make sure that the camera, lens and film are precisely parallel in alignment. The good thing about copying medium format is that it's fairly easy to, with a good macro, copy smaller portions of the film and stitch them together for higher resolution. Of course, the type of film and how it was shot will determine how much you can get out of it.
The conversions I've seen with Negative Lab Pro so far have been underwhelming, but that may be also that the examples I've seen might be from users who don't take that result into Photoshop after for further processing. Black and white negs are easy but color negs are a different beast altogether.
Start your copying project with what you have and if you need higher resolution, either buy the appropriate camera or learn to stitch.
p.1 #8 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
FIGTREES wrote:
Rob
Sorry for the misunderstanding but I was asking about Camera megapixels in scanning a negative , not printing a negative.
Is there a limit in Camera megapixels advantage. Is 24 megapixels enough or does a Sony A7RIII produce a better scan?
Joel
As Peter notes, it's all about the total number of pixels. Your 24 MP file is 6,000 x 4,000 pixels. A printer that calls for 300 pixels for every inch can print 20" on the long side at 300 ppi (20x300=6,000). More camera resolution is better, up to a point.
You could shoot overlapping frames with a 24 MP camera and stitch them together in Lightroom. That would give you lots more pixels to work with, but creates additional challenges.
You do not need a "macro" lens (macro means 1:1 or higher magnification) -- unless you're after high resolution crops from your negatives, or you're planning to stitch many high resolution frames together. I used an Olympus OM 90/2 "macro" lens (really 1:2) and it was excellent for this purpose. I also had the Olympus OM 80/4 macro lens (a proper macro lens); the 90/2 was easier to use and produced equally good results. You do want a lens that has a nice flat field. Many people use reversed enlarging lenses for this purpose.
A suggestion: just try it. Don't get too fancy. Just take a negative, tape it down onto a clean piece of glass with low-tack tape, set it over a nice even light source, put your camera on a tripod, and let 'er rip. You'll quickly find what you're happy with. (Assuming you're using a decent lens...)
p.1 #9 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
Going to 16"x20" requires more than just pixels. You also have to have a solid stand where the sensor plane is the same as the subject, a high quality flat field lens and even lighting.
p.1 #10 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
Hi Figtrees
Here are some more specifics on the calculation.
To view an image at about 12 inches, you need about 300 ppi.
The average viewing distance of a 16x20 would probably be twice that so you might get away with 150 ppi
If the negative is 6 x 4.5 cm the 4.5 cm would line up with the 16 inch edge. For 300 ppi that would be 4800 pixels . For 150 ppi that would 2400 ppi.
I will assume that the you are using a 35mm senstor with an aspect ratio of 1.5
That would mean that for 300 ppi you would need 4800 x 1.5 = 7200 pixels. For 150 ppi you would need 2400 x 1.5 = 3600 pixels
So for ~12 inch viewing you would need 4800 x 7200 = 34.56 Mpixels camera
and for 150 ppi you would need 2400 x 3600 = 8.64 Mpixels camera.
So other factors come in to play. Most DSLR sensors are Bayer sensor where each 2x2 array of pixels read RGBG so the resolution is not exactly equal to the sensor pixels meaning to compensate you would want higher number of pixels to compensate. You are also limited by the edges of your lens and how much vibration you have when taken the image.
So the calculations above are approximate yet would get you in the ball park.
How you the print is viewed depends on the viewer. The average person will not look closer than the diagonal distance of the image yet not everyone is your average viewer. A few will look real close looking at the detail.
Hope this gives you an idea of how the numbers were derived so it helps you make a decision on what you need.
p.1 #11 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
bwcolor wrote:
Going to 16"x20" requires more than just pixels. You also have to have a solid stand where the sensor plane is the same as the subject, a high quality flat field lens and even lighting.
Yes, solid advice. The good news is that this doesn't have to be very expensive. I used a tripod I owned already, and a camera and lens I owned already. LED light panels have become dirt cheap compared to even a few years ago (although if you're shooting colour negatives or chromes you should spend more to get consistent and appropriate lighting). Supplies for fluid mounting can be extremely affordable. I used Gamsol odourless mineral spirits, Duralar acetate, and a brayer (roller) -- all of which should be available at your local art supply store.
To get everything level I remembered an old trick from my darkroom days that works very well. Place a mirror in the position of your negative, and then adjust your camera until your lens is centred in the reflection.
One other thing that's important is masking out extraneous light. Ideally you want to put a mask around the negative. If you're using an enlarger's negative holder, and shooting the whole frame, then you have the masking problem solved. However, if you're shooting only part of the negative (for cropping, or for stitching multiple frames) then masking is a bit trickier. The solution I devised is at this link (again, very inexpensive).
p.1 #12 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
16x20 doesn't sound that hard from FF 24mp. Assuming that the original negative is good and everything is done right, of course.
A level might help get the back of the camera on a parallel plane with the film. You might be able to get stuff square by looking at the back of LV. But I doubt things are going to go well if things aren't flat.
p.1 #13 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
Anyone here done both flatbed scanning and camera scanning of medium and large format negatives? Just wondering what the results would be given the same negative. Currently I scan using my Epson V850 scanner and am happy with the results but if camera scanning produces better results I'd experiment with it.
p.1 #14 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
"LED light panels have become dirt cheap compared to even a few years ago (although if you're shooting colour negatives or chromes you should spend more to get consistent and appropriate lighting)."
For black and white those should be fine but most of the cheapo panels have really shitty CRI ratings - usually grossly deficient in the R9 range making them likely very difficult to obtain consistent color across the spectrum. Electronic flash, tungsten or high CRI fluorescent sources would all be better choices than most LEDs. One of the best LED sources I've measured with my Sekonic C700-U weirdly enough is my iPhone 11, but that's not a realistic source to use for camera scanning.
p.1 #15 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
"Anyone here done both flatbed scanning and camera scanning of medium and large format negatives? Just wondering what the results would be given the same negative. Currently I scan using my Epson V850 scanner and am happy with the results but if camera scanning produces better results I'd experiment with it."
We're typically happy with whatever our current hardware gives us - until we compare it to something new. It's been quite a while since I scanned on a flatbed scanner but with every one I acquired, I was forced to re-scan everything I had scanned before - until I finally, somewhere around 1998 got my first Howtek drum scanner and my second Howtek in 2001. Then I pretty much started a twenty year long project of re-scanning everything that had been scanned previously, even commercial drum scans. Lately I've been experimenting occasionally with cameral scanning of both color negs and transparencies using a Canon 5DSR and either a Zeiss Milvus 100mm Macro or one of the new Canon TS-E Macros which are on par with the Zeiss and the results have been better than any flatbed and very very close to the drum. The biggest issue is being perfectly parallel with all components of the camera scanning. If you're off even a small amount you will lose significant detail somewhere across the frame. Flatbed scanners don't suffer from this and certainly drum scanners, which only see a tiny spot of film as it rotates past the lens, don't either.
p.1 #16 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
Peter Figen wrote:
"Anyone here done both flatbed scanning and camera scanning of medium and large format negatives? Just wondering what the results would be given the same negative. Currently I scan using my Epson V850 scanner and am happy with the results but if camera scanning produces better results I'd experiment with it."
We're typically happy with whatever our current hardware gives us - until we compare it to something new. It's been quite a while since I scanned on a flatbed scanner but with every one I acquired, I was forced to re-scan everything I had scanned before - until I finally, somewhere around 1998 got my first Howtek drum scanner and my second Howtek in 2001. Then I pretty much started a twenty year long project of re-scanning everything that had been scanned previously, even commercial drum scans. Lately I've been experimenting occasionally with cameral scanning of both color negs and transparencies using a Canon 5DSR and either a Zeiss Milvus 100mm Macro or one of the new Canon TS-E Macros which are on par with the Zeiss and the results have been better than any flatbed and very very close to the drum. The biggest issue is being perfectly parallel with all components of the camera scanning. If you're off even a small amount you will lose significant detail somewhere across the frame. Flatbed scanners don't suffer from this and certainly drum scanners, which only see a tiny spot of film as it rotates past the lens, don't either. ...Show more →
Couple more questions.
1. Do you do multiple scans of a 4x5 and stitch together?
2. How's the dynamic range of the image from the camera? Do you retain the details on both ends ( whites and blacks ) or do you lose something that is in the negative that doesn't make it to the digital image.
p.1 #17 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
chez wrote:
Couple more questions.
1. Do you do multiple scans of a 4x5 and stitch together?
2. How's the dynamic range of the image from the camera? Do you retain the details on both ends ( whites and blacks ) or do you lose something that is in the negative that doesn't make it to the digital image.
Thanks.
1. I stitched 12 frames together to get 2,667 ppi out of a 4x5 negative. Higher resolution (with my setup) simply meant more pixels rather than more actual information. I'm sure a good drum scan could do better.
2. No problem. Nothing left behind from black and white scans. I don't know about colour.
I found that camera scanning gave me better results than my V750 with BetterScanning templates. It was also way faster, even including the processing time for stitching.
p.1 #18 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
It's interesting that you got 2667 ppi. The drum scanner goes from 8000 to 4000 then to 2666.67, which is normally rounded up to 2667. That's normally enough for most 4x5's but it really depends on the emulsion, the lens, the aperture and subject as to whether higher resolutions make any real difference. Certainly not for any color neg, but for T-Max100 or Velvia it can.
p.1 #19 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
Peter Figen wrote:
It's interesting that you got 2667 ppi. The drum scanner goes from 8000 to 4000 then to 2666.67, which is normally rounded up to 2667. That's normally enough for most 4x5's but it really depends on the emulsion, the lens, the aperture and subject as to whether higher resolutions make any real difference. Certainly not for any color neg, but for T-Max100 or Velvia it can.
I'd love to say there was a scientific rationale for 2,667... but that's just how it worked out from a practical point of view; I didn't want more than 12 frames to stitch and I was using a 6,000 x 4,000 pix camera.
With my setup, higher resolutions became incredibly labour intensive (many more frames to shoot). I tried a few times to see if there were benefits; there weren't. With a better lens and a different camera, there might have been.
More importantly though, for my purposes I was getting all the resolution I needed. This is 13,309 x 10,657 before cropping -- plenty of pixels for me.
p.1 #20 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
I understand about not wanting too too many images to stitch. One project for the L.A. Natural History Museum many years ago, they needed a portion of a map scanned to go to something like 20 ft wide. Couldn't cut the map out of the book (vintage) and there was no way to get it on the scanner. I hung whatever Canon I had at the time out over the map and moved that sucker a little bit for something like two hundred frames. Way too big to stitch at once back then so I stitched it in sections and then finally stitched the sections together after that. The whole thing took about 14 hours and it was far from perfect, but at least it was good enough.
