Camera VS Flatbed Scanning ~ In-Depth Comparison

[@paolociccone]

This is probably the most comprenehsive, clear, unbiased video about the whole negative digitizing saga. THANK YOU! I know how much work this has been and you managed to keep the discussion clear and moving at the perfect pace. This is a very valuable resource.

[@c.augustin]

You mentioned it in passing, but I can confirm it: Using high-res pixel-shift on a camera can make camera scanning viable even for 120 film and (to a certain degree) 4x5! For the same reason you've shown regarding always using 4800 ppi on your scanner. I do use an Olympus Pen F digital, which has an 80 MP mode (together with the Olympus 30 mm macro), and it does give excellent results with 120 film (up to 6x9). Even the 4x5 negatives turn out with details down to film grain. And some of those Olympus m43 models are quite affordable used, so it's an option. Also, a flatbed scanner permanently requires lots of (table) space, while camera scanning can be set up temporarily. Since I already had the Pen F, it was the way to go (and will remain for everything smaller than 4x5); one day I'll go Epson V850 (or whatever model will be available then, but I think the V850 will be the last model), because 8x10 is lurking somewhere in the future … ;-)

[@linsi879]

Super in depth and really helpful. This vid isn’t getting the credit it deserves 👏 👏

[@frstesiste7670]

Lots of useful info in this video. Some comments - Compared my 20 years old Epson 4870 to my newish V850 (height adjusted film holder) on some real world shots and a resolution chart shot. Depressingly little difference in "real resolution" - as expected but the 4870 needed replacement for other reasons. The V850 is faster in use though and comes with film holders with "glass". The glass is a dust magnet but helps a lot for holding curly film flatter. - Compared the above to a camera scan with an Olympus E-M1 Mk II in high res mode. Basic setup with 60mm macro, and just a film holder over a light table so maybe not perfect setup, but pretty good and the camera scan clearly outresolved the flatbed scans. - I don't believe using high-res mode is at the same levels as having a camera with more pixels, but it certainly work OK with completely static subjects like when camera scanning. It also (at least for some cameras) give RGB-data for each pixel without interpolation and the multi exposure used for generating the image have a positive effect on noise. - Hope try a Valoi Easy 35 and while kind of expensive it seems like a setup that once adjusted will be really fast to mount and unmount from the camera and also easy to bring when travelling (at least by car). - I know you showed an example of IR-channel (ICE, FARE etc) dust removal but don't think you mentioned the huge amount of time this can save compared to manual dust cleanup in post processing.

[@anddonephotography]

Solid information from your entire serious. Still fighting the sharpness-demon of my flatbed epson 750. Parts of me say I should fork over a heavy loan to get a Nikon Super CoolScan 9000 ED and make even more bad decisions, but even then it's yet again dated, could die at the slightest touch, and would improve the sharpness maybe a little more at the cost of a used car??????? What a hobby. Looking forward to more videos and wildness from you!

[@adriancozma6102]

I had already owned a DSLR when I started shooting film, and I also wanted a macro lens, so I just got it. Paid $16 for the 35mm and 120mm DigitaLIZA masks, and another $17 for a drawing light box. Since I'm using the camera for photography, it only made sense to me instead of a scanner. I can also wrap everything up very easily and quickly, which I prefer against a permanent spot being taken over by a chunky flatbed scanner. I'm sure there will be flaws in my process, but it honestly is extremely fast and so affordable that it just makes sense. Your video opened up my eyes on the idea of the increasing distance between film plane and sensor, but I was also stitching together 4 shots of 120mm film anyway, especially before I changed the body from a Nikon D5300 to a Nikon D850. For now, the 56 mp seem enough, even for printing large formats.

[@originalann]

Thank you for talking me down from the ledge. I walked by my office and shuddered looking at the hanging film rolls, large format sheets, and stacks of Polas that I’ve had to let sit for 2 years. I wanted to believe there was a better AND faster option and was willing to shell out to get it all scanned. But your video has convinced me to just stick with my old V700 and get it done. Sorry retailers. I’ve put my wallet away.

[@bwellington3001]

1) You can build your own copy stand using hardware store materials and small rig clamps\plates to hold your camera. Add macro focusing rail for extra precision 2) You can use vintage macro lenses, plenty of them around.

[@mgman6000]

That's what I did using a fujixt 20 and vintage minolta macro

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

Excellent video. I will be recommending anyone who is interested in this topic to this video.

[@natediemer1306]

One thing that’s nice about modern cameras with Pixel-Shift is that they can circumvent the issues with Bayer filters and provide files that are both 4x the original sensor resolution AND full-color - the main “downside” is that my 120 megapixel scans are around 600MB 😂 - I also find I sometimes have to sharpen in Photoshop because Lightroom’s sharpening at full resolution just does not compute with how film grain works with such magnification. Oftentimes I actually decrease the image size in photoshop too because I don’t need files more than ~30MP (6x7) for web or printing since I can keep the digital negative at full resolution and already hop into photoshop to remove dust and do a basic sharpening. Resolution and accurate color either via Pixel-Shift or Foveon really are your friend when it comes to camera scanning

[@c128stuff]

My by now fairly old Olympus PEN-F can do 'true color' for each pixel when using sensor shift high resolution. Some Fuji cameras can also do this, and I would be surprised if no-one else does it (Sony is known to have a license on the tech from Olympus for example). It also gets a nice 54mp resolution with that PEN-F, which is very nice for camera scanning with a sensor quite comparable to the one in your GH4. I use a classic macro lens (manual focus Tokina 90mm/2.5 atx macro), as with a micro fourthirds camera you are really only using the center part of the image circle and avoid almost all of the distortion and vignetting issues. But.. you'll need a high quality macro lens for that, and it's not a way to 'save money' as such classic lenses tend to not be cheaper than a decent modern macro lens for most systems, I just happened to have one.

[@leoalejandrolive6020]

The best video for scanning film.. well explained and very easily understood.. amazjng .

[@leoalejandrolive6020]

Hope that you will also discuss large format film scanning.. drum scan ..

[@steveschnetzler5471]

Before buying an "old" flatbed, make sure your computer still supports that model with a driver (normally from the scanner manufacturer). I had to buy a newer model a few years ago, because when the computer OS was updated, the driver was no longer supported. Scanner still worked great, but not with my computers.

[@nonexman]

Did you check with the manufacturer if they had updated drivers? For a period of time 15 years ago, Epson was real bad at this. Now, not at all. They update their drivers often. But, when buying new scanners, do not go cheap or you are wasting your money if you do any photographs. If all you're scanning are paper documents, go cheap. But the CCD sensors in cheap scanners do not have the ability to finese images. You want the CIS sensors for quality and those are more expensive than CCD sensors.

[@myronachtman4304]

Most of the scanning videos on KZbin leave out the most important question... What is YOUR main purpose for scanning film? Do you want a "digital archive" of your family's collection of 3000 color slides? Or are you scanning film for commercial print jobs, like outputting 6' x 4' color banners? In the first objective, speed is the main consideration. In the second, quality and color accuracy are essential. Once you define your objectives, you can then look into workflow.

[@ka4estvo]

There are some pretty good 3d printable solutions, with a film feed system, even motorized. With a lot fiddling prior you'll get fast and good results, like 5-10 minutes for 36 frames. For a small and hectic (read a small child) living space it's unbeatable. But I process only B&W myself, color goes to a lab, so the headaches of color cast and CRI don't affect me.

[@Dr_Petey_Wheatstraw]

I built a lens attachment scanner with 3DP and an OLED phone as the light source and I love it. I will never compare it with any other scanner to keep my infatuation alive

[@ShyStudios]

the best scanner is the one u have

[@kalenderquantentunnel9411]

The amount of data you need in scanning is dictated by the intended output. For most applications any method shown here is more than adequate and I had 6x6 negatives printed to 11 x 11" for exhibtion that I digitized with a 6 MP camera. They looked sharper than what I could produce with my professional darkroom-equipment in a fine wet-print as it was much easier to apply the right amount of sharpening to the digital output, a step where the darkroom is rather limited in possibilities. Just use whatever workflow supports your personal applications best and work for the output. Better cameras may give higher resolving "scans" but you may not need it. I later used a Nikon D800E and later made a step back to a Fuji X-T3 and both are capable of producing very usable results.

[@AmbercoolPhotography]

It's pretty crazy that flatbeds don't come with the consistent ability to scan film completely flat.

[@thealaris]

My ideal setup for scanning film nowdays will still probably be a medium format camera, and a flash as a light source, cause im lil tired of all those weird colors that every type of scanner has, and with pixel shift you can level out thay Bayer grid filters, so each pixel will represent true color more or less, tho its still take so much effort, that idk for how long itll take me to get mad over processes

[@cruxboi]

Thanks for making this video! What about the dynamic range of the image files resulting from the scan? For instance the abiltiy to pull out detail in shadows or highlights when editing the resulting files.

[@ShyStudios]

From my testing both exceed the dynamic range of MOST developed film (~11 stops max). Modern cameras certainly have more dynamic range overall than flatbeds but you can always do multiple camera exposures or HDR scans with vuescan / silverfast if you want to maximize the DR of the files.

[@makaka2000]

I would like to try the JJC es-2 for half the price of origin one

[@ka4estvo]

It's fine, but their light source gives serious vignetting. I opened mine up to see why and there's just not enough LEDs there. It's good enough for maybe phone camera scanning.

[@myronachtman4304]

Do you mean the scanners are overpriced or are they truly overvalued?

[@TK-bx5qs]

Rocket Science 🚀

[@Scar32]

feels kinda cursed scanning film with a digital camera

[@Frisenette]

You probably used more money/time fiddling with the camera setup to pay for the V850.

[@Huginn87OG]

Plus, there's alot of older 24mp dslr's/mirrorless cameras that can be bought for pretty cheap too

[@ShyStudios]

Remember that would just be to match the general resolving capability of MY scanner, more MP is always better because with a camera setup you are limited only by your sensor and your lens when it comes to detail resolving.

[@solidhyrax]

Yep I really like hearing you talk about subject I have nothing to do with. (Psst. you said "CCclean". There's only 2 c's in CCleaner)

[@ShyStudios]

I ALWAYS call it CC Cleaner intentionally.

[@kaneqangut]

there're*

[@solidhyrax]

@@kaneqangut damn it