Camera Scanning vs a Dedicated Film Scanner: Which one gives you better results?

[@arnonart]

I started to DSLR scan after 4 scanners that simply didn't deliver. One basic flaw with scanners is that that are simply too slow. I don't have a film camera i just scan old negs and a huge pile of thousands slides. I'm 63 years old and stated to shoot in 1981. Till december 2006 i shot on films, parttime pro as well. I want to inherited my photography to my daughters and i realized i won't have enough time if I'll have to rely on scanners. The DSLR enabled me to work much faster and retrieve shadow details in slides like never before. To my opinion the negative's color accuracy is superb with DSLR. I get raw files that are extremely flexible. The only problem are films that lost their colors and dust. Otherwise I don't look back to scanners and looking forward getting rid of them. I'm on Linux and don't have Lightroom at my disposal. Instead i use Rawtherapee that includes a great negative tool. For the first time i feel i have a chance to accomplish this task in my lifetime.

[@fuglong]

Literally looking for this video for months, thank you!

[@john.rc.3274]

Thank you for your work and analysis comparing the two processes.

[@GivenZane]

Interesting video and good production quality! I enjoyed it, but I noticed three minor flaws in my opinion. First off he didn't turn off Chromatic Noise reduction off in LR; That's why noise was visible in the scanner scan. LR has lots of little auto features like that to make life easier for the average photographer. Second, to make the colors more similar he should have used SilverFast to just scan and not handle the color conversion. Lastly, downsizing the scans to 6 megapixes is to small. That's tiny and Agfa Vista has more resolution then that. I used to shoot a lot of Vista back in the early 2000's. It's a good sharp film stock. I typically keep my files around 12-16 megapixels. To me that seems to be the sweet spot for not T-grain films. Portra 160 can resolve quite a bit more IMHO. Also, one last thing, to improve you camera scans don't use LR. Use something like RawTherapee. The LR de-mosaic algorithm isn't all that sharp or good. RawTherapee's AMAZE de-mosaic algorithm is quite a bit sharper. If AMAZE is creating odd patterned noise RT offers about 6-7 other de-mosaic algo's to choose from. Also you can exposure stack photo's of the negatives to reduce the noise in the final image. It's something astronomers do. Digital noise being random per picture somewhat, by take 6-12 under-exposed files converting then stacking them as layers with the opacity set as %=(100/Exposures Taken) you can reduce the apparent noise quite a bit. Just some helpful tips from someone who's been doing this for two decades now LOL

[@jackskalski3699]

I agree. Also with dslr you can wet mount the film which does change the grain rendition. If you happen to use a Sony a7R4 or 5 you also have pixel shift at your disposal to bypass the sensor filter. I've also seen people use enlarger lenses, which perform very well. The APO variants boost micro contrast. As with everything there are many options. The DSLR scanning workflow can also be automated quite a bit, although not sure there are commercial solutions (probably more in the DIY space).

[@GivenZane]

@@jackskalski3699 I've tried Schneider Kreuznach Componon-S from 50mm to 150mm and I honestly can't recommend them. The contrast is great but the resolution leaves a lot to be desired. IMHO a Olympus OM 50mm F1.8 on extension tubes gives better resolution; if worst contrast depending on the exact model. I love the Componons for wet printing just not scanning. Maybe I'm doing something wrong so any advice is appreciated. I used them on a set of Pentax M42 bellows and like I said I wasn't thrilled. I haven't tried fluid mounting for camera scanning, just for 4x5 on the v700. I'm going to have to try that! The grain alisising is my main issue. Focus stacking helps a bit but not a huge amount. I add a tiny bit of grain to my scans to make them look more natural. So hopefully fluid mounting helps! Thanks!

[@lensman5762]

@@GivenZane How did you use the enlarger lens?

[@stiimpoo]

Finally a proper Review between a Digital Camera Scan and a Scanner

[@poniatowski3547]

Great Video. You could be very happy with either.

[@oliverlison]

I am using two different dedicated film scanners (16MP and 42MP max resolution) that are hitting 20 years of age. I love both of them because they are enough. I simply love the fact that I can scan 35mm frames, have dust removal and the images are near ready to be published. The lens of film scanners are lot sharper in my opinion. DSLR Scanner has probably more synamic range since the tech of filmscanners has stopped to be undergo further development.

[@stephan.scharf]

Thanks for this interesting comparison Jonathan. I prefer the film scan.

[@marcoandres7475]

Shows how the two methods differ. The scanner setup seems simpler and is less expensive. On the surface the mirrorless scan is better. But that isn't the whole story. In the mirrorless setup, Negative Lab pro converts the negative to a positive, while in the scanner setup, Silverfast converts the negative. The fair comparison is to convert the negative using Negative Lab Pro in both cases. For the scanner, in Silverfast scan as Positive, 48 bit HDR raw, output to DNG, and use the same resolution as the mirrorless setup. For both setups include part of the film base in the scan. Negative lab pro can then treat the film base as "white" during conversion. The same methodology can be used to compare mirrorless to flatbed scanners. Freeware Darktable can also do the negative conversion.

[@Ethaningramphoto]

You can also easily do such inversions via Photoshop (even in batch if you prefer). Using levels you can set your white and black points and see how far your exposures are off 😅

[@panh141298]

It doesn't look like the Multi Exposure function is turned on in Silverfast. They state on their site that you need that to reach full dynamic range with the XAs at the cost of longer scanning time. Maybe try that to see if it reduces the color noise?

[@jeli3953]

It would interesting to see how something like the Pentax K-1II would do. Mainly because using Pixel Shift would eliminate interpolation of color, plus 36 MP with no AA filter would capture full detail. Also, for mounted slides, a slide copier attachment on the front of the macro lens instead of using a copy stand would ensure no vibration blur at all and is quick and easy to change slides.

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

Use a ColorChecker Passport would mitigate the interpolation of colors. It really does affect the colors of my negatives.

[@professionalpotato4764]

@@shang-hsienyang1284 How do colorcheckers mitigate the interpolation? That's baked into the engineering due to how 1 pixel is actually 4 pixels RGGB interpolated into 1 colour right?

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

@@professionalpotato4764 it's kind of difficult to explain everything in a comment. You can find many tutorials online on how the colorchecker passport can create a bespoke Lightroom profile for your camera+lens combo under a certain light temperature.

[@monkeysausage2404]

Can you use Negative Labs with the scanner or Silverfast with the Camera? Feels more like how each software renders the files and not so much the device used.

[@JonathanNotley]

You can use negative lab pro with a vuescan DNG or a silverfast .tif but you can also hammer a nail in with a tin opener

[@spokzac12]

@@JonathanNotley Terrible way to take constructive criticism. it's a difference that can be eliminated and is repeatedly asked in your comments.

[@GAROBERBERIAN]

Hi Jonathan, really like the videos. I am thinking over the best way forward re scanning. I have an Epson V850 and want to have higher dpi resolution for my 35mm negs as want to print large prints. One thing in terms of DPI how can you calculate what DPI you get from a DSLR camera of varying mega pixels in comparison to my existing Epson which i have read in terms of actual resolution is about 2400dpi. Eg will my 36mp Nikon D800 have a higher DPI than the scanner. I have read far and wide and cant see a technical way to quantify this. Would appreciate your comments.

[@peterbarna6151]

What about the Plustek scanner, is it better?

[@garciaomar0203]

can you do a nlp comparison between both? Using silverfast to get a raw image from the film scanner and converting it in nlp please!

[@patrickmarquetecken8107]

I have tried all the different solutions, as I shoot 35mm, 120 and 4x5 I like to have all my images have the same look, when using the same type of film. This means using Negafix with silverlight and dedicated scanners. DSLR is good but to have it setup all the time is not something I like. Also I have noticed when you turn off most of the Silverlight options the result is mutch beter on 35mm. Yes it’s more time consuming, but that’s also with large format.

[@Peterriggins]

Thanks for adding a mirrorless scan comparison. I was wondering if you had tried this method when watching your previous scan video. Having worked with scans from Drum Scanners (professionally), Flatbeds and Mirrorless scanning-I’ve found the modern camera scan to be the closest thing to a true drum scan, even at 24mpx for 35mm frames. I think you might not have been truly aligned with your film plane. The upper right of the camera scan looked less sharp than the front of the car. Obviously a dedicated copy stand is important, but even then, the camera needs to be carefully aligned to the film plane with a mirror or test target. I find the mirror to be an easy alignment method. Also, vibrations are important. I wouldn’t put the film on the same table as my laptop because of potential vibrations when releasing the shutter. Once the camera scan setup has all the kinks worked out, I think it is far more efficient than any other home scanning method. I purchased a Sony A7rIV specifically for scanning Medium Format at 61mpx and Large Format in Pixel Shift mode at 241mpx. I’m only using an old 55mm Micro-Nikkor 2.8 and getting great results. You really need to try this with your Pentax 6x7 negatives 😉.

[@swimkidandy]

I use my Sony A7rIV for this with the Sony 90mm Macro lens and the quality of my 120 film is insane. Many people have asked if it was done on a large format camera due to keeping the high resolution during the scanning process. One tip in reducing the vibrations is using the pc-usb tethered method since it allows to mainly control setting while not having to touch the camera or stand. This great since you can place the setup in a dark space and sit in a well lit location and be able to make any need changes. This also doable since I have an automatic film advance/ negative holder for 35mm and 120 that I made from 3d printing. Inspired by the negative lab pro holders but improved upon and made on a machine that cost less than a full set.

[@joshmcdzz6925]

So strange why people shoot film( analog ) only to use a digital camera to take a picture of the negative and edit that image like any other digital image.. Why don't shoot digital which is absolutely neutral and true to live in reproduction and you can edit it in post to look analog or look however you want it..

[@devon2430]

Thanks Jonathan, another very useful video. And congrats on focusing on video quality rather than quantity. 🥇

[@JonathanNotley]

Much appreciated!

[@randallstewart175]

I would have liked to see the same comparison with two modifications. (1) Turn off the ICE type spotting on the scanner. On this scanner, it seems it can have a significant and negative impact on image sharpness . (2) Use a slower, less grainy and sharper film image. Being able to see grain clearly in a computer screen at these image sizes suggests that this is some 400 speed film. A fine grain film might make a comparison much easier to do. While there is nothing to be done about it here, I'm left wondering how this comparison would fair if the scanner used was one of the cutting edge units from 20+ years ago, like A Nikon 5000 or the Minolta 5400 II, rather than this Primefilm model, which at less than $500 in today's currency would fall in the middle rankings of consumer models back in the day. When you consider that the cost of assembling the DSLR rig is about five times that of this scanner, and is a continuing pain in the ass to set up and maintain (unless you buy a full duplicate set of such equipment), I personally think that the choice between the two processes is obvious, but to each his or her own.

[@jw48335]

The PIE XAS resolves, on average, 4300ppi. That is equivalent to the old scanners you mentioned. I have personally tested the 5400ii, A7R4, and XAS. The max I saw out of any frame via scanning was 24mpx of data. The only scenario I got more was to darkroom print and then flatbed scan, which achieved approximately 40mpx with tmax 100. The only exception was Adox cms 20 ii. That film, when shot with the 40mm or 105mm Sigma Art, out-resolves the XAS, and provided data transfer rates between 40 and 50 megapixels when scanned with the A7R4. I give a range because at those resolution levels it impacts data transfer, so chart testing isn't sufficient for a resolution description. Dark room printing the usaf chart got me close to 80mpx or so though:) There was a point where you could see printing larger yielded no additional data. The biggest issue for the cms test was matching the glass to the film. I chose the 40mm and 105mm Art because Roger Cicala's testing found those to be the highest resolving normal and portrait lenses in existence. I did all this in pursuit of deciding if I really needed medium format for the sizes I print, and also, what are the limits of analog.

[@randallstewart175]

@@jw48335 I follow your ;points and generally agree. One issue remaining is that PIE units do not resolve anything close to the manufacturer's ratings, a common problem with all of these currently produced Chinese models. The best PIE model is rated at 8200, but lab tests show that it's maximum capacity to 3250. Additionally, its's software/hardware produce a 210 meg file at that resolution, while only yield 42 meg of picture file, the rest being duplication, noise and the by-products of bad software. Frankly, the same resolution and a much smaller file can be had from a 30 year old Minolta dual Scan IV.

[@jw48335]

@@randallstewart175 I understand what you are saying, but the XAS and XES are rated at 10000 dpi, and out of that, they resolve 4300 and 4100 dpi (respectively). My testing and others have found that to be the case using usaf 1951 targets. The XAS has autofocus so it squeaks out a bit more than the XES. That equates to ~24mpx of real-world data. It compares *very* favorably with camera scans performed with my EOS R. Silverfast iSRD has no practical impact on image quality 90% of the time. I have done a *mountain* of testing on this stuff. I have even done scans using an A7R4 with pixel shift of an Adox CMS 20 frame shot with a Sigma Art 105 :) It does crack me up the people spending all that cash on old scanners.

[@jw48335]

You are plagiarizing my post from another thread on KZbin or from reddit, LOL. I can cite the lp/mm resolution for the 105mm Sigma from memory, along with the Sigma Art 40mm. I used 12 ISO for the CMS 20. It's nice people are referencing the posts with my results, but don't pass them off as your own.

[@randallstewart175]

@@jw48335 Prior to your post in reply top mine above, I've never heard of you nor am I aware of your posting of any research or data. I thought reddit was devoted to silly stories of bad sex. In fact, the more favorable resolution performance you claim of the scanner is about 25% greater than published reports from a German site that has credibility. I chose not to remark on that point because there is no serious standard for these resolution tests, so no way to determine objective accuracy. I'm sure you believe in the validity of your methods, as other do for their own. IMO, the Primefilm models are a piece of Chinese junk, mainly for their dedicated software, but today they seem to be the least worst of what is available new. You are free to disagree.

[@chris_jorge]

Great info. I wonder what a Nikon d850 will output with its amazing dynamic range and color. I use a gfx 50R + a Pentax 67 macro for my rig but I still wonder if a plustek 8200 would be sharper or if the color would be better. :(

[@Verdoux007]

Instead of a bubble level, just use a small mirror on top of the film. That way it doesn't matter if the table is not 100 % level.

[@pakhimli2585]

I don't understand, how do you use a mirror to ensure the film is leveled?

[@cyrfung]

@@pakhimli2585 When you centre the camera lens to align with itself through the mirror, it’s perfectly perpendicular to the mirror.

[@andrejbjorn]

Nice vid. Helpful. Thank you 🙏🏼

[@aklankrisz]

Thanks for that vid but you really should enable Multi Exposure (ME) in SilverFast to "remove" Color Noise. KZbin video: "SilverFast 8 Multi-Exposure (English)" It is said in that video: "Please note that light areas of a negative image before being converted to positive appear almost black. This is where the scanner will produce the most noise."

[@TechnikMeister2]

So I sold all my digital Nikon bodies and kept my EM and four great primes (24,50,85,135), wanting to re-immerse myself in film again which represented 70% of a my career. Now I find I have to find $2000 to get decent scans from my negatives. Whether its a dedicated scanner thats capable of a genuine 4000ppi or a DSLR, light box, macro lens and negatives holder setup, that's what it will cost (here in Australia). I should have done more research. Signed, Disillusioned.

[@danielhacki2562]

Very nicely done! Can you please do a vid or comment on dust removal techniques? I am struggling a lot with dust in my dslr scans…keep up the great work!

[@JonathanNotley]

Do you mean dust removal on the negative or dust removal on the digital file? You can buy negative cleaner at the same place you buy your film chemistry, I think it’s just isopropyl alcohol but I always get a branded one in case it has something special to protect the film. Cleaning the dust off the digital file is just a case of zooming to 100% in photoshop and panning around with the spot healing brush tool.

[@captaindebug]

@@JonathanNotley In terms of work flow, removing dust and scratches on the negs can be very time consuming, so if you're in a hurry auto dust removal must be the way to go.

[@hippolytustheodoras4238]

thanks for the vid - I would have liked to see a comparison of processing a whole roll to really understand the workflow - very curious about the accuracy and results from the bulk scan feature

[@MD-en3zm]

At that scan resolution, I’m not sure we can draw conclusions. 300dpi on a 24x36mm negative is about 0.1 megapixels. 35mm film is generally though to contain somewhere around 10-20 mp of information (although of course it varies between films).

[@JonathanNotley]

Huh? The downsampling retains extra detail from the negatives. You’ll see an enormous difference between a 4k dpi scan down sampled to 3k long-side and a 3k long-side scan. A nice proof of this is an ability to tell the difference between scans on KZbin, which resamples for video resolution.

[@MD-en3zm]

@@JonathanNotley In the video, you scanned at 300dpi - not 4k dpi. Did I misunderstand something?

[@JonathanNotley]

@@MD-en3zm I scanned at 5000dpi on the scanner and whatever the native dpi is on the digital camera body is, minus a bit of wiggle-room for the crop I applied. It's an unfortunate quirk of film scanner branding that the scanner will produce 'maximum detail' at a DPI below maximum for most manufacturers (Epson are one of the worst for this, plustek too!) I think that Minolta are more honest and Nikon can generally be trusted. I think a 4000dpi scan from a Nikon coolscan would look better than a 5000 dpi scan from this Primefilm XAs, which would definitely look better than a 10,000 dpi scan from my Epson V850.

[@JonathanNotley]

@@MD-en3zm Also I think what confused you was that 'preset' box where I can set my output dimensions in Silverfast. The dpi number box is for the digital file the software outputs, it's the slider which moves from green to red that is my acquisition dpi, which you can see I set to 5000

[@MD-en3zm]

@@JonathanNotley That may have been what confused me - I thought you were scanning at 300dpi, which would be a rather useless comparison. Thanks for the clarification!

[@steven1000000000]

Nice comparison. To me, I agree - there's little difference either way. Regarding the colour differences, I'm sure that could be handled in post, based on personal preferences. Something a bit more significant though is that it seemed that there was more noise in the XAs scan? Going back to your Plustek Opticfilm video, it seems like the Plustek has less noise? It would be interesting to see a head to head between the Primefilm XAs vs Plustek. Cost is a big consideration as well - The OPTICFILM 8200I SE can be purchased for around £280 whilst the At the moment, it seems that the XAs is around £450 - £500. Lastly, I'm guessing the Canon setup is £4500+. I've got a Epson V750 pro and have been trying to work out whether there's any point to upgrading to a dedicated 35mm scanner. The Plustek seems to be a good balance between price and performance, given the cost and the seemingly very close performance to both the more expensive XAs, but also seemingly a highend digital camera setup.

[@ThePwig]

the scanner is literally focusing directly onto the grain. what more can you ask? color and contrast can be adjusted after the fact, anyway.

[@CarlGeers]

Not sure that's color noise. Looks like film grain to me. both are acceptable. The film strip auto mode is very appealing even though the scan times are longer. The convenience of not having to baby sit the camera and feed it images is a definite plus.

[@trevorjacques_]

Ya, i agree. I dont think that is color noise. Color film grain is colored, not monochromatic like the lightroom "Grain" effect seems to think it is.

[@slothsarecool]

I prefer the scanner results, maybe the CCD noise just has more of a filmic look to me, and the micro contrast looks better

[@faiosung]

THANKS FOR VERY GOOD COMPARISON. NOT BEING FUNNY, BUT IS THERE ANY POINT AT LOOKING AT 600%?IS IT NOT ALL DIGITAL NOISE AT ANYTHING MORE THAN 100%?

[@JonathanNotley]

The closer you look the more the details come apparent - that’s the point of comparison. You can make anything look the same if you print it the size of a postage stamp and view it from 15ft.

[@faiosung]

@@JonathanNotley if you need to blow it up 6x maybe you need more 6x more megapixels in your scanner/ camera?

[@sam_pesto8943]

Pretty sure you have to crop out all of the film border when converting in negative lab pro and then you can crop out again, makes the colour inversion more accurate

[@JonathanNotley]

Watch around 4:30, the way it works is basically just using lightrooms auto WB dropped off a proprietary curves adjustment applied to invert the negative image and allow LR to work. There’s edge buffer built in (basically a crop tool applied then unapplied by NLP) which I think works at 5% by default. Thinking of NLP as a series of macros for the LR engine rather than its own engine makes it more intuitive.

[@gregoryluna535]

I have a PrimeFilm XA Super Edition and something is definitely wrong. I've been developing my film at Dwayne's Photo and getting basic scans and the negatives. Their scans look fine but all my negative scans have length wise lines. Most are straight but a few are irregular. Every scan looks like hell. Either Dwayne's are scratching up the negatives after their scans or their is a problem on my end. SilverFast, VueScan, and CyberViewX all have the lines. It's a train wreck as I'm trying to scan negative for an ethnographic project.

[@HueyPProductions]

Did you upgrade from Silverfast SE?

[@Alaric2030]

What kind of film scanner are you using?

[@giottodiotto1]

Have you tested improving your scans with a excellent noise removal and sharpening tool as NEAT IMAGE? almost all scans from old film stock wil benevid from a software tool like this,especially for portraits and such.

[@joaodasilva8008]

How do you deal with bent negatives in both cases?

[@Adrian-wd4rn]

Between the plustek and the primefilm xa, which do you recommend? Considering they're the same price.

[@tylerpreston95]

Can you scan via DSLR and Scanner but only use NLP so there is no variables? Or does the XA scanner not allow you to use NLP?

[@JonathanNotley]

Using NLP and Silverfast together in the same image pipeline is like using a horse to tow your car. They’re both methods of transport/(neg inverters). If you like Nate’s curve presets you can just make a Lightroom preset for silver fast jpgs/tiffs

[@gunslingorgunslingorsadf8150]

Seems the camera is best at the center but not the edges, scanner has more detail all around but more color noise... actually what I would expect as an engineer... color noise is easy to remove luminosity noise is more destructive to remove, so I'd still pick the scanner... unless you found the perfect 4000 lens for the camera that had near zero edge effects, which isn't practical.

[@aklankrisz]

Color noise... It's simply the noise level of the scanner electronics. He did not used Multi Exposure. That would solve problem.

[@kyles7087]

Hi there, I have recently purchased a plustek 8200i scanner, and I’m having trouble getting my head around the CMS menu. Specifically the input (working colour space). My understanding is that raw files don’t have a colour profile, but if I use the 48bit mode in order to use the colour cast removal and such, the working colour space seems to be embedded in my raw tiff file. I’m really confused because there is definitely a visual difference between using the ccr in srgb as opposed to wide gamut rgb.. can you possibly help me understand this?

[@javixo1997]

2 things: 1-why such low resolution? If you are comparing sharpness, wasn’t it better to compare the full size files? 2-the “lab” sharpness preset in NLP makes the details muddy, “leave as set” could have been a more fair

[@JonathanNotley]

1 - there’s a resolution limit to 35mm film, even if I scanned it on a phase one a lot of the pixels would just be added bulk. Normalising the files to 3000x2000 let me strip out the fluff and compare relative detail. 2- Aren’t they just presets for the sharpening tab in LR? Maybe leaving them all at 0 would have been fairer

[@javixo1997]

@@JonathanNotley I agree but, 3000x2000 just feels a little low to me. In my experience scanning with my camera I have gotten much higher usable resolution than 6MPx (it might be enough for fuji c200 though, but Gold showed lots of details that would get lost in a 3000x2000 resize). About the sharpening, yes, it just messes up with LR bars but I don’t really like the way it does with Lab

[@jw48335]

@@JonathanNotley I would have used the real-world optical resolution of the XAS, which is 4100 to 4300 ppi, depending on autofocus. My best results with usaf chart testing and t-max 100 came by scanning at 5k and down sampling to 4300. That also yields a nice 24mpx image. My results were consistent with other testers. I find that to be a convenient size for 12x18" prints. Running those files through 2x enlargement in Gigapixel AI gets you to a 16x24" print out of the XAS, and my eyes can't distinguish that print from the output of an A7R4:) This assumes top end glass etc. On a related note, you get ~2700 ppi out of an optimized V7X0 /V8X0 scan. It would be unlikely you would see a difference between that flatbed and the XAS if all you're working with are 6mpx resolution. Cheers.

[@buyaport]

The main advantage of using scanners is that they are great at removing dust spots, Epson does it even reasonably well on black and white images. I have tried using my camera, which requires a lot of effort get it right, and leaves you with the tedious job of finishing the image. Still I have to admit that if I want to share pictures the same day, I "scan" them with my phone and PictoScanner. But else I use a proper film scanner.

[@Adam-pm1cy]

Great! What is the light box thing - brand?

[@JonathanNotley]

It’s called a skier sunray copy box ii

[@andrewbuckler]

Canon R5, light source, negative carrier, macro lens, tripod etc. Easily looking at a $5K set up. In terms of cost, at $500, the Primefilm wins literally ten times over. Good comparison for image quality tho.

[@JonathanNotley]

Yes the DSLR kit is more expensive but I was working on the idea that people interested in the comparison had at least 2/3rds of the camera scanning kit to hand. I guess you could buy a previous-gen pro body and a MF macro lens for far far less.. I heard of people selling d810s for £250

[@andrewbuckler]

Oh yes there are thousands of ways you can go for dslr/ml scanning which could be less expensive. #frankenscan

[@btpuppy2]

What do you set the aperture and iso to in the camera?

[@JonathanNotley]

ISO 100, aperture 7.1

[@dankspangle]

Back again so soon... nice!

[@JonathanNotley]

Yeah but now I’m going back under a rock for 5 months, it’s the way this channel works

[@hanswi336]

No wonder that the NLP scan is green - you're fumbling around with WB, clicking somewhere different to the XA scan... Before you changed the WB it was just equal to XA. The camera scan has definitely way more details and less colour noise.

[@joennick1]

So to confirm gloss side up for negatives when using a camera to scan?

[@joeltunnah]

No. Emulsion towards your lens.

[@JonathanNotley]

Emulsion towards lens. You can tell by the way it reflects light or by facing the mirrored numbers on the film strip towards the lens.

[@mazi2be]

Great comparison👌🏼What scanning mask are you using, is that an integral part of your scanning bed or can you purchase it separately?

[@JonathanNotley]

I got the light source and film holder here: www.skier.com.tw/web/shop/shop_in.jsp?pd_id=PD1599466967388 My copy is the v2 and it looks like he's now selling a v3

[@inigoagote-lamaryyo]

@@JonathanNotley how is that film holder? Im planning in buy one. Thanks! 😊🙏

[@JonathanNotley]

It’s good, I think the v3 is a little overpriced though (mine is a v2). Look at the negative supply co ones too and make a choice

[@inigoagote-lamaryyo]

@@JonathanNotley thanks for answering!! i think i will take ir becouse it has all you need for scanning. thanks!

[@iHR4K]

fun fact - you scanned wrong side in XAS, PIE pointed which side to use in instruction

[@Bigfarmer8]

Nice comparison Jonathan! The Dutch question: What is the difference in price (hardware and software)? Suppose you do not have a macro lens for instance. The lens you are using here costs €1.579 (about $1,785) in The Netherlands.

[@JonathanNotley]

The scanner is $489 at B&H (I must point out that the reflecta RPS 10M is €900, crazy) and the macro setup can be achieved in different ways. I guess if I was to suggest a macro setup for a similar price I’d recommend a film era macro lens with an adapter for a digital camera body you already own. Since manual focus is best it doesn’t really matter if you get something without AF so long as the optics are good. You can pick up one of the copy box things for around €100 which makes a big difference to not only quality but also convenience.

[@Bigfarmer8]

@@JonathanNotley Thanks so much Jonathan. I scan on my three-in-one printer and it is actually not that bad. Improvement is always welcome though. Meanwhile I found out that for my Olympus camera a pretty good macro lens is available from €499 and that might get me into macro photography as well. Cheers!

[@javierabril3406]

I'm not going to say about oranges and apples, but ... shouldn't you treat both images as RAW and invert and edit with the same software? I use Vuescan with my Reflecta to obtain the negative, and later edit in NLP. Multi-exposure cancels out noise, at the cost of a considerable increase in scanning time. Another forgotten detail is that this scanner can handle the entire negative strip, so the time thing is relative, right?

[@JonathanNotley]

Why use two raw conversions when you can use one? I mention the whole roll automation thing around 21:00, it’s the one of the main advantages of the scanner

[@javierabril3406]

​@@JonathanNotley probably in your question is the answer. Greetings

[@ChannelRejss]

@@JonathanNotley The point of it is that you do not do two conversions. You simply create a linear RAW scan first using either VueScan or Silverfast (it still looks like a negative) and then process that RAW file via NLP. That way you can make sure that the actual color conversion is done by the same software. The conversion of colors is not standardized.. both NLP and Silverfast use their respective algorythms for that. Regarding detail: I should note that you applied sharpening during your scans. The LAB sharpen option was on in NLP... not sure if you sharpened the scan in Silverfast too but it's just better to establish an even ground first. You can still sharpen both later to see how both scans are treated by it. Atleast you will be sure that you are sharpening via the same software and by the same amount. Another point regarding the noise; since you are using a photo taken on your digital cam it's being demosaiced by the software (in this case Adobe's LightRoom/CameraRaw). There are different demosaicing algorythms and they are basically converting the raw pixel/color data into the photo. A good example of how different the demosaicing can work is to look at Adobe's horrible demosaicing of Fuji Xtrans sensor photos (very well known issue) and that you get a very different result using something like RawTherapee (free and allows to select/try different demosaicing algorythms) or Capture One. I'm not 100% sure with your setup/gear but afaik a certain amount of color noise supression is also applied in that process (before you even use noise reduction in post). And with that it can also lead to actual color noise of the film stock to be removed, too. All this is to say that digital photography uses a completely different type of sensors and produce the final RAW image it's being digitaly treated/interpreted. So the amount of noise and how it is represented or rather supressed is different. Most cameras like yours use BAYER cmos sensors with its mosaic array. The ones used in dedicated scanners are CCD inline sensors. They produce better color depth/separation and beside all that don't need the kind of demosaicing. That was a lot of text but I thought I might be able to provide some additional info.

[@tugdualroche2348]

You should test silberra film in a next video because Kodak is becoming to expenssive and it could be an interesting alternative.

[@joeltunnah]

There’s always going to be some criticism one could make about such a comparison, but this confirms my findings: the dedicated scanner resolves the grain better, has better color, and removes the dust. Also the camera scanning is fiddly and will show inconsistencies over time. Edit: also color noise reduction is definitely part of the scanning workflow with color images and a dedicated scanner. And there’s no telling if Canon does NR in their raw files, assuming you shot raw and didn’t add any. If you shot jpeg, all bets are off.

[@jlwilliams]

Dust removal only works with color films. If you shoot b&w, it's no help. Also, both methods exaggerate b&w grain (“grain aliasing”) but the film scanner seems to exaggerate it more in my limited experience.

[@joeltunnah]

@@jlwilliams correct, only with color film (except for Ilford XP2), and it’s a tremendous time and effort saver. And if film scanner is “exaggerating” grain (you imply it’s making it worse, I don’t agree), it’s probably because it has a higher overall practical resolution in this task.

[@qiuhongyu1274]

is it me or is your audio super quiet

[@lesspressx]

$5.000 vs $500 worth equipment, not mathcing settings? How relevant this is?

[@joshmcdzz6925]

Film and noise are synonymous.If you don't like noise, you might want to consider shooting digital. The digital scan has a lower resolution and in spite of the youtube compression I see there's less detail in it. Plus, looks too digital...

[@hollywoodheiner6028]

The color noise is honestly also a huge problem on the Plustek and the reason why I gave up on dedicated film scanners. I feel like these scanners can produce very sharp images of 35mm film but at the same time the grain doesnt look as pleasing and more like digital noise, especially color film when it also introduces very nasty color noise. If you compare a home scan from a Plustek with a Frontier lab scan it’s a night and day difference and you won‘t ever scan with your dedicated film scanner again. So I would rather go for the DSLR scanning method, even I find the process is annoying as hell. Yes it is fast… If your setup is ready to go. If you use your digicam for the other stuff as well and you don’t have a copystand and have to use your tripod or you don’t have the space on your desk… I‘m still waiting for a better solution for all of this 😫

[@aprilthunder]

Your volume level is soooo low!

[@JonathanNotley]

TURN UP YOUR SPEAKERS THEN (CAPS LOCK FOR ADDED VOLUME)