p.2 #1 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
FIGTREES wrote:
Is there a limit in Camera megapixels advantage. Is 24 megapixels enough or does a Sony A7RIII produce a better scan?
My experience is scanning with the Canon FS4000 (4000 dpi), and currently with digicam plus macro lens. I'll base my recommendation on the notion that you want all the information present on the negative without regard for how it will be used downstream. My rule-of-thumb is 2000 dpi retrieves everything that negative material can record, so 6 MP is enough for a 35mm frame while 20 MP is enough for 6x6. I use ordinary-grade digicams for this purpose with 24MP sensors and a diffused xenon flash. I stop waaaay down to start diffracting and that handles grain aliasing (also solves DOF with film warping).
p.2 #2 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
I'm just finishing up a big architectural shoot (60+ shots plus time lapse) but now have a CD cover to work on and four sets of tax returns to pull together data for but I'll try and pull a piece of film - a good sharp frame of 6x7cm and drum scan it and camera scan it and post the results. Just hope I get it done before everyone gets bored and leaves for spring break.
p.2 #3 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
Peter Figen wrote:
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. ...Show more →
.... I admire for your persistence, or patience, rather than the technical response. Good on you. This morning I had to photograph a small print to generate a file for a small booklet. We have the original negative but it was a matter of finding it and the spare time, which we didn't, and the technical results were, as you said - good enough.
p.2 #4 · Digital Camera Scanning of medium format negatives
chez 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.
I am using the same scanner to scan 6x6, 6x7 medium format, and 4x5" large format negatives. I developed my own workflow to achieve results which indeed are as good as digitizing with my digital camera and merging separate photos (which I didn't enjoy much, therefore scanning is much better for me). Likely poorer flatbed scanning results derive from incorrectly placed negatives onto the scanner glass ignoring that the sharpest focus point of the scanner is about 2-3 mm above the glass surface. Another critical point to do this right is the scanner software - I am using SilverFast 8.0 SE, and it is critical here to lock in how the photo is scanned - either directly placed on the scanner surface or via film holders.
Instead of film holders, I am using my own anti-Newton glass holder where the negative is put in between two layers of glass. The glass holder sits on two additional layers of black cardboard paper to accommodate for the about 3 mm distance from the scanner surface. This is ideal to get very sharp scans - below two recent scans taken from 6x6 negatives (downscaled in resolution for websize publishing).
