Oh what did I start? My experience, with bigger than 35 negatives, is that scenics can never have enough detail or enlargement. But for people and other subjects you can make stunning prints even with a 6Mp sensor DSLR up to 24x36" with careful "preparation."
I do agree that all in house equipment makes it possible to achieve results that outsourcing can't match. That's why I have a Z3100 and the V750 just for my own prints. But I have resisting buying a bigger than 24" carriage printer because my, and many other's, wallspace is limited. Also I think it's only a matter of months before there are large, self contained, thin panel digital displays for minute by minute, daily, weekly programmed display of favorite images.
I totally agree on the idea that any scanning equipment is no better than the operator. The Imacon Flextight (forgot the model name, it was the HUGE one) I was using at work was a great piece of equipment, quite an improvement over the older Imacons. The Flextights work with a magnetic negative mask that bends during scanning (sort of like a drum scanner) and I was very pleased with the results. Scanning is not that tricky but a few things to consider. Now I haven't done it for what seems like an eternity but I do miss shooting my old Hassy SWC and the Mamiyas...
I am thinking about buying a Mamiya M7. Is the image quality (resolution etc.) comparable to a 5D2, or is it better? What megapixel resolution can an optimal scan offer? Thanks for looking into the questions.
ManfredSchu wrote:
I am thinking about buying a Mamiya M7. Is the image quality (resolution etc.) comparable to a 5D2, or is it better? What megapixel resolution can an optimal scan offer? Thanks for looking into the questions.
I haven't got around to getting a 5Dll yet, but from everything I have seen, I would say that the Mamiya 7 is still noticeably better. It's a little closer to it than the original 5D but it still has some way to go.
Ultimately, it's probably going to come down to your scanning equipment, film used and your technique/capabilities with both the scanner and the camera - Drum scanner, best ISO 100 or slower film and a lot of time + expertise, the Mamiya 7 would come out on top if you were going for very large prints of say wide angle landscapes. A dedicated, decent, desktop 4000ppi film scanner would likely be close to what a good 20+MP DSLR could achieve with proper technique. Put it this way, I sold my "cold, dead hands" MF Hasselblad after getting my Sony a900. There are plenty of other reasons to shoot film beyond simple resolution that may or may not be important to you.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Well here is a 100% crop from a Nikon 8000 scan (very nearly as good as a 9000). This is a 4000 dpi scan of a 6x7 Velvia 100F slide from a Mamiya 7 and 43mm lens. The resulting files is over 97 megapixels. This 100% crop is completely unsharpened.
Lotus, I scaled this down in CS4 to half the dimensions on each side, and then back up again to full size, and I could see no significant difference between the original and the end result. I think there isn't 97MP resolution in such an image, regardless of the number of pixels.
With Adox CHS 25 (same as Efke), I find that I can get a high-res 6x6 scan with my V750 resulting in about 25MP. If I go much above that resolution, I get a strong case of diminishing returns. The Nikon 8000/9000 are slightly better, and the Imacons a bit better still, so probably you could get a more with them. The difference isn't huge though.
carstenw wrote:
Lotus, I scaled this down in CS4 to half the dimensions on each side, and then back up again to full size, and I could see no significant difference between the original and the end result. I think there isn't 97MP resolution in such an image, regardless of the number of pixels.
With Adox CHS 25 (same as Efke), I find that I can get a high-res 6x6 scan with my V750 resulting in about 25MP. If I go much above that resolution, I get a strong case of diminishing returns. The Nikon 8000/9000 are slightly better, and the Imacons a bit better still, so probably you could get a more with them. The difference isn't huge though....Show more →
Carsten-
I didn't mean to suggest that there was 97mp worth of resolution, merely that the "resulting files are over 97 megapixels" in size. A drum scanner might get you a little more resolution than the Nikon at 4000 dpi, the Imacons may see a slight advantage (not sure it's worth the much higher cost of the Imacons).
From what I see from by 4000dpi 6x7 scans of 100 IS0 slide film, that it can easily exceed the 21-24 mp DLSR resolution. The detail, at least with the Mamiya 7 lenses, just keep coming. The 39 mp backs would probably on balance be comparable.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Damn. I just got a Mamiya 7 with the 65 and 150. Now I want (need!) the 43. And the 80. And maybe the 50, hell - why not.
Anyone got any of those 3 lenses they want to sell/trade/?
I have none, but have been dreaming about buying one.
Based on my reading, people go for 43, 65, 150 (for those love wide angle) or 43, 80, 150 (for the sake of covering the more evenly distributed range).
Go for 43, 50, 65, 80, 150, IMHO, is a bit waste. I would buy a better scanner in this case -- this thread has turned from midium format rangefinder to how to scan your pictures anyways.
I don't scan, I print optically... so would rather have the extra glass. I think 43 65 80 150 would be a nice kit. Add 50 in exchange for 65 or 43 or maybe just add it... yeah it's a lot of lenses but the gap between 43 and 65 is pretty big. (21mm to 35mm or so, equivalent.)
Lotusm50 wrote:
Well here is a 100% crop from a Nikon 8000 scan (very nearly as good as a 9000). This is a 4000 dpi scan of a 6x7 Velvia 100F slide from a Mamiya 7 and 43mm lens. The resulting files is over 97 megapixels. This 100% crop is completely unsharpened.
carstenw wrote:
Lotus, I scaled this down in CS4 to half the dimensions on each side, and then back up again to full size, and I could see no significant difference between the original and the end result. I think there isn't 97MP resolution in such an image, regardless of the number of pixels.
With Adox CHS 25 (same as Efke), I find that I can get a high-res 6x6 scan with my V750 resulting in about 25MP. If I go much above that resolution, I get a strong case of diminishing returns. The Nikon 8000/9000 are slightly better, and the Imacons a bit better still, so probably you could get a more with them. The difference isn't huge though....Show more →
What makes you think there is actually 24MP of resolution in a DSLR? For one, the color information is much less than 24MP. Second the AA filter trims alot of high density resolution off the image. Third, diffraction may not allow you to have 24MP worth of detail in a given image anyway. Same with missed focus and other sources of loss. Forth the system applies some sharpening in the raw conversion of the image, giving a false result.
As an owner of a Nikon and Epson scanner, I can say that the Nikon flatly blows the Epson away on resolution and just getting the detail off the film. Its not just a little bit better. Most people in the know put the Epson around 2000ppi-2400ppi as its max resolving capability. The Nikon is generally considered good up to 3000-3200ppi. I don't really think my Nikon LS-4000 can really optically capture 4000ppi of detail. These numbers seem consistent with my experience though I do not have the targets to measure and verify the results myself. The difference is taking a 6X7 file from 35MP(2400ppi) to 63MP(3200ppi).
Another thing comes into play that people who shoot miniature format only simply don't think about. Enlargements can be made from any capture size. You can certainly make a billboard size enlargement from 35mm, it just won't have any detail up close. For larger size prints there is more detail and smooth tonality as you go up in the source film size. I can see a difference in fine detail from 35mm and LF even in an 11X14 print. Does 35mm make a nice looking 11X14 print? Sure. But there are little clues even at this level where 35mm is enlarged approximately ~10X but 4X5 is only enlarged ~2.5X.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
I don't scan, I print optically... so would rather have the extra glass. I think 43 65 80 150 would be a nice kit. Add 50 in exchange for 65 or 43 or maybe just add it... yeah it's a lot of lenses but the gap between 43 and 65 is pretty big. (21mm to 35mm or so, equivalent.)
I have the 43, 65 and 150, and rarely feel the need for the 50 or the 80. The 65 and 80 are reasonably close -- the equivalent of 32mm and 39mm on your DSLR. To stay compact, one of the other, and keep to 3 lenses. These 3 lens combos, IMHO, provide good coverage for nearly all situations.
43, 65 and 150mm (21, 32 and 73mm equivalents); or
50, 80 and 150mm (24, 39 and 73mm equivalents).
mrladewig wrote:
What makes you think there is actually 24MP of resolution in a DSLR? For one, the color information is much less than 24MP. Second the AA filter trims alot of high density resolution off the image. Third, diffraction may not allow you to have 24MP worth of detail in a given image anyway. Same with missed focus and other sources of loss. Forth the system applies some sharpening in the raw conversion of the image, giving a false result.
As an owner of a Nikon and Epson scanner, I can say that the Nikon flatly blows the Epson away on resolution and just getting the detail off the film. Its not just a little bit better. Most people in the know put the Epson around 2000ppi-2400ppi as its max resolving capability. The Nikon is generally considered good up to 3000-3200ppi. I don't really think my Nikon LS-4000 can really optically capture 4000ppi of detail. These numbers seem consistent with my experience though I do not have the targets to measure and verify the results myself. The difference is taking a 6X7 file from 35MP(2400ppi) to 63MP(3200ppi).
Another thing comes into play that people who shoot miniature format only simply don't think about. Enlargements can be made from any capture size. You can certainly make a billboard size enlargement from 35mm, it just won't have any detail up close. For larger size prints there is more detail and smooth tonality as you go up in the source film size. I can see a difference in fine detail from 35mm and LF even in an 11X14 print. Does 35mm make a nice looking 11X14 print? Sure. But there are little clues even at this level where 35mm is enlarged approximately ~10X but 4X5 is only enlarged ~2.5X. ...Show more →
Lotus - thanks for the info! Maybe I'll just stick to 43-65-150. That should be a nice setup. As you mentioned not a huge diff. between 65 and 80. Plus I have a Fuji GW670III if I really need the 80-90 focal length.
TWoK wrote:
So what drum scanner can I get for the price of a 5D2? Is there a good site to introduce me to the dreary wold of drum scanning?
You'd be fairly lucky to find a decent drum scanning setup for under $2k. Once you factor in spare drums, fluid, and a mounting station, $5k would be a closer estimate.. There is a very knowledgeable group of people at the Yahoo Group hi-end Scanning. Also, just so you know: drum scanning isn't like just setting up something on your computer desk. Drum scanners take up lots of room and vibrate a lot. You need to have space to set aside for both the scanner and the mounting setup. It doesn't hurt to be familiar with wet mounting, as that is how all film is mounted. You also need to be able to set time aside for scanning. In addition, training/practice is needed to make great scans. There is a reason most people send their stuff away; not only because of the expense, but because someone has experience in operating the machine. Its not as simple as just pressing a button. The skill of the operator will make or break a great scan. However, if you are willing to spend the time and the money, you will have far better scans than either the Nikon Coolscans, or the psuedo-drumscanners, the Imacon/Hasselblad line (they're still CCD based, not PMT; no matter what Hasselblad says). Good luck if you decide to go the route of a drum scanner!sdfsdf
TWoK wrote:
So what drum scanner can I get for the price of a 5D2? Is there a good site to introduce me to the dreary wold of drum scanning?
A drum-scanned Mamiya 7 6x7 image would blow a 5D2 image out of the water. If all I expected was 5D2 IQ, then I might be interested in the premise of the statement. Rather, the question might be, "what drum scanner can I get for the price of the medium format digital back?"
The 43mm is considered (rightly) to be a special purpose lens - 21mm (35mm eq) on a 4x5 aspect is not great for many compositions - lots of foreground. The 65mm is the most popular and for may the only one worth using consistently - for reasons of angle of view, VF compatibility, harmony with the aspect ratio and availability/cost. The 50mm was a late intro, not so many around 2nd hand. The 150mm is both very hard to focus accurately and suffers *very* shallow DOF for many subjects. It is also hard to use fast, lots of ring movement - another special purpose lens. Don't even think about the 210mm (Think that is the FL). The 80mm is wonderful in all aspects.
For those wanting in for less money the Mamiya 6 with the 50mm/75mm is much less $$ for great 6x6 quality, especially with the 50mm. All the Mamiya RF lenses fade to diffraction gracefully and have oodles of res to spare, so they do near/far landscapes very well at say f11/f13. The shutters are without peer. The big Fujis are primitive by comparison but do deliver the goods.
Drum scans are for those with huge amounts of time and patience, keen on chasing down the last 3-5% of IQ. Most frames only benefit if huge enlargements are needed and/or if the DR is very large or if exposure is off (talking E6 here). Imacons lack ICE, so best get good at spotting and antiseptic practices of film care. They also perform sharpening by default, to my knowledge. I advocate the best trade-off is a high quality desktop unit like the Nikon 9000 (caveat: must have glass holder) or my unit, a Minolta Multi Scan Pro with a Scanhancer on board and the mods suggested by Erik Van Goederen (apologies if I mis-spelt your name, Erik). The Minolta is much smaller/lighter and refuses to clip shadows. The Epsons do not have a good rep, but may have improved...I would get a high end N/M before another fancy lens.
To retain that beautiful E6/C41 colour, I load directly into PS with a suitable working space - Joseph Holmes' Chromespace 100 matches the gamut of most E6 emulsions extremely well, and most of his work is with Astia. I use and recommend Astia 100F for its 'malleability' in post, scannability and stately palette. JH's colour variants boost/reduce colour to what is required, and adjust gamut accordingly - very nice result by him. Of course if light is even and you can retain shadow detail nothing matches Velvia 50 for certain subjects. Agree with Tariq's recent post re the work that went into palette devt by K and F and the difficulty of repro'ing it in post.
Currently using a new A900 here in India, much less airport and high temperature hassle than film! Will post results in a month or so with a short report. Many thanks for the regulars here and at getdpi/sony for some great information these past 6-9 months.
phillip thanks for the thoughts! This is a good thread.
I like the Fujis, even though they are more 'primitive'.The lens focus helicoid, lens grip and overall ruggedness seems better than the mamiya, and no batteries to worry about which is a plus. We'll see which wins on IQ when I get a chance to see some images from the M7 setup - have shot a bit but not developed yet.
I would also support Phillips recomandation on the Astia. Used it with a RB67 and I found the colors very pleasing, not o harsh as Velvia, giving also more "felt detail". Also a little less complicated to scan IMHO. Depends of course on the "look" that you want, as much as some like a full range of subtle gray tones in B&W while others want a full contrast image.
