Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
digitalising 6x7 and 6x6 films
#1
I wonder if I can digitalise my 6x7 film using my enlarger and a simple flatbed scanner? It should work fine if I properly adjust the focus on the enlarger. However, the scanner always switches his lamp on!

Anyone has experience with this?

Every information is appreciated.
#2
I did never try it the way you describe ... but somehow I doubt that it

will work properly ... the amount of light from the projector is very likely not

enough for a proper exposed scan (just imagine how bright a paper gets,

when it is lighted by the internal light).



The other problem is, the scanner does not turn off the internal light (which it

must do for a proper "through-light" scan).



Somehow I think a better approach would be to place all your film on

a lighttable, fix it in a way that they are flat, and photograph them with

a normal macrolens. Conversion to "positive" can still be tricky for

colorfilm, since you have to get rid of the orange.
#3
Well, th eway you propose won't work unless you significantly modify the scanner.



The best way really is to scan the negatives or positives straight away with the scanner. You need one that can handle light reflected through the negatives or positives, however, and furthermore, you need a scanner with high enough resolution, and this is more true for 35 mm slides and negatives.



Anyway, from what I hear from people who do this on a regular basis, the Canoscan 8900 or 9000 (newest model) is best for this type of work, considering IQ uotput, although the Epsons come a very good second.



Since you want to scan 6X7 negatives, you don't necessarily need the highest resolution of the top end scanners (9600 * 4800 dpi native, i.e., non-interpolated), but could well get away with a scanner that has, let's say, half that resolution. These generally cost a lot less too.



However, do make sure the scanner you get is prepared for scanning film (generally they come with a film scanner attachment if they are capable of dealing with negatives or slides).



HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#4
[quote name='Comte' date='04 June 2010 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1275694085' post='227']

I wonder if I can digitalise my 6x7 film using my enlarger and a simple flatbed scanner? It should work fine if I properly adjust the focus on the enlarger. However, the scanner always switches his lamp on!

Anyone has experience with this?

Every information is appreciated.

[/quote]



I used my Canon 8600F to scan my 6x6 and 6x7 positives and it worked well. It is surprisingly fast compared the Minolta Dual Scan IV I had for 35mm film, and the quality is quite good. Mine was NOS (new old stock)when I bought it, and it came with the proper adapters in the box, and I would do it again for the small amount of money it cost relative to the convenience of what you are proposing. I already had a working flatbed scanner when I bought the Canon, and then gave the previous one to a family member.



Good luck.
#5
Dear all,

thank you for your help!

I didn't think about the low light intensity coming from the enlarger. In fact this would never be enough for a proper scan. Although this way supposed to deliver the highest resolution possible.

I also had the idea to use a macro lens, but the highest magnification is 1:1 and therefore the quality of the film slide would be lost.



So scanners seem to be the first choice?! My Canoscan 4200F only scans 35mm films and calibrating it properly is not an easy task.



The Canon models you propose are rather cheap compared to these professional scanners (there is a Nikon beast for many hundreds of euros and the Epson professional line).

Do you know the difference?



I wonder if these scanners can reach the resolution and dynamic range that manufactures promise.

My Canoscan 4200F supposed to reach 16bits per colour channel. What it really does is 8bits. The software then multiplies the values by 256 and that's what they call 16bit!
#6
[quote name='Comte' date='06 June 2010 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1275833005' post='272']

Dear all,

thank you for your help!

I didn't think about the low light intensity coming from the enlarger. In fact this would never be enough for a proper scan. Although this way supposed to deliver the highest resolution possible.

I also had the idea to use a macro lens, but the highest magnification is 1:1 and therefore the quality of the film slide would be lost.[/quote]

This is actually a general misconception. You use another system for recording which consists of multiple elements, thereby by definition lowering the resolution. The resulting resolution is always equal to the inverse of the sum of the inverse resolutions of the individual components of the system used for recording.

Quote:So scanners seem to be the first choice?!

Yes, you eliminate at least 1 step of possible resolution loss this way.

Quote:My Canoscan 4200F only scans 35mm films and calibrating it properly is not an easy task.



The Canon models you propose are rather cheap compared to these professional scanners (there is a Nikon beast for many hundreds of euros and the Epson professional line).

Do you know the difference?

Partly yes. The Nikon system is more convenient, or rather was more convenient, as you can't get any drivers for it anymore, for the newer OSes, and it isn't manufactured anymore.



The Canon 8900 and 9000 are considered professional line scanners by many, and certainly are at least semi-pro when it comes to capabilities, for smaller quantities anyway, and the pros I know who use it say they get better results from these scanners than they did from the Nikon models you mention, with a lot less work (automatic scratch fixing for example, and better colour balance).

Quote:I wonder if these scanners can reach the resolution and dynamic range that manufactures promise.

Yes, they can. The question is whether your negatives have anything close to this resolution. The short answer is a definite no. But that doesn't matter, because it means you lose as little as possible this way.

Quote:My Canoscan 4200F supposed to reach 16bits per colour channel. What it really does is 8bits. The software then multiplies the values by 256 and that's what they call 16bit!

It means you get jpeg quality, I assume. The 8900 and 9000 AFAIK have true 48 bit capability. I just tried to find some info for the 4200F, and it does look like it should be capable of scanning with proper 16bit/channel output, however. Of course, I can be mistaken, I don't have all the specs. Alternatively you could consider the 5600F.



HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#7
[quote name='Comte' date='06 June 2010 - 07:03 AM' timestamp='1275833005' post='272']

So scanners seem to be the first choice?! My Canoscan 4200F only scans 35mm films and calibrating it properly is not an easy task.



The Canon models you propose are rather cheap compared to these professional scanners (there is a Nikon beast for many hundreds of euros and the Epson professional line).

Do you know the difference?



[/quote]



I can't speak to comparative quality vis-a-vis current flatbed scanners, but I have an Epson Dimage Scan Elite 5400 and am very pleased with its performance. The Epson Multiscan, I think, scans medium format film. Reviews from several years ago (when these were more prevalent) suggested that many of the Nikon models were good, too, so you could look for a Super Coolscan 9000. [I just checked, and there is a new one on Ebay.]



There are a couple items worth considering, though. The primary difficulty with dedicated film scanners is that most of the decent scanners have disappeared from the marketplace. One can still find used scanners, just don't expect any product support. And of course they're not cheap.



Secondarily there is the issue of software drivers, particularly if you use a 64-bit system. At least one individual offers a respectable solution called VueScan: http://www.hamrick.com/. I haven't tried it yet, but as I am migrating to a 64-bit Win7 OS + Photoshop CS5 I expect I may in the near future. Hamrick's software also supports the flatbed scanners, and some users report much better results with his software than their products' software.



In short, you'll have to read old product reviews and decide if any differences in performance are worth the euros. This also may depend on the number of images you have, the quality/repeatability of those images, and the time it may take to scan them all. For many of my nature images, I find it easier to revisit the subjects and rephotograph them digitally, with hugely improved color accuracy as a bonus.



Hope this helps...



Scott
#8
[quote name='Scott - California' date='26 June 2010 - 01:13 AM' timestamp='1277540017' post='709']

I can't speak to comparative quality vis-a-vis current flatbed scanners, but I have an Epson Dimage Scan Elite 5400 and am very pleased with its performance. The Epson Multiscan, I think, scans medium format film.

[/quote]



Aughh, that's supposed to be Minolta, not Epson, referenced on both machines.



Gad, now I am arguing with myself... on the Internet!



Scott



::tiptoes quietly to bed::
#9
HI.

I have an Epson 4870 scanner that is supplied with all the fim holders. I am quite pleased with the results for medium format film. The reflected scan for docs is very good but the mb`s are very high.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)