Fine Tuning a Flatbed Scanner for Film.

[@vladstesttarget]

Hi, very nice video! It's a pity I learnt about it just yesterday, as i would certainly feature it on my blog. Many folks ask how to fine-tune their Epson scanners using Vlads Test Target and from now on I will refer them to this video. The only variation i would suggest is to keep scans as negative, I think its easier to distinguish between scan sharpness-wise when images are white on black rather then black on white. Also because of high contrast of targets, the light may create the halloes around transparent elements, bleeding into black areas. I think they are less noticeable when image is kept as negative. Also why not use USAF 1951 charts on film - they are made to help quantify the resolution of film-scanner system. And one more thing - i think the emulsion should be facing the light source - for simple reason that this will lessen light piping effect in the ESTAR base of Adox film. All the best! Glad i was able to make something useful. Vlad of Vlads Test Target ;-)

[@TheCinematographyLab]

Hey Vlad! Good to se your comment here. I'm glad to know you like the video and I appreciate your observations. I didn't think about keeping the images as negative, but you have a point there and people watching the video and reading your comment may want to try that. I'm going to try it for sure. USAF 1951 targets are expensive. I would like to buy want to test my cameras and lenses and I could use it for the scanner as well. I'm not crazy about knowing the actual resolution of the scanner since this is the only one I have and I'm not planning to buy another one soon. Testing several scanners with the USAF 1951 would be great for someone trying to get the best scanner possible. It would be interesting for sure. I have gotten great results scanning emulsion side down which is most people suggest, but it wouldn't hurt to try the other way around and see the difference. It wouldn't take more than a few minutes actually so, I'm going to try it. I may even make an updated video showing the difference if it is important. You are making great things. Buying the Vlad Target was a good investment for me. I have even thought about cutting a small part of the target, put that film behind the gate of one of my 16mm cameras and use it to project and image and see how lenses perform. They do that at rental houses, I could use your target to do it on a budget.

[@vladstesttarget]

@@TheCinematographyLab Please ping me - you know where - i can send you some film ends which will be perfect to make smaller targets like 16 mm.

[@TheCinematographyLab]

@@vladstesttarget I will. Thanks and thanks for sharing the video!

[@jimpix8019]

Great video. Very informative and helpful. I’ve been in photography since 1976. Pro-labs. And Mac Operater since the 1990’s I’ve used many different methods to achieve the desired outcome. So, I like the nuances shown here. I hope that the viewers understand, that it’s all about the original testing of the set up. Once optimised, you can kiss with confidence with all the workflow that follows. I’ll use some of your tips. I’ve subscribed ✅ May the Force be with you.🌀 Jim🌀 (-: :-)

[@TheCinematographyLab]

Thanks Jim! You've been taking photographs for a long time! That's a lot of experience. You are correct. This method is intended to get the "best" results out of a device that has a fixed resolution and image quality. Once you "calibrate" it using this method things start flowing faster. At that point you can scan film normally. Thanks for watching and subscribing!

[@mjr3204]

Thanks for this. Every video I saw on KZbin uses tray and I like this method as I have a scanner that doesn’t have a compatible tray.

[@Filmboy24]

Awesome Job! This is a great alternative for testing film stocks, cameras and processing!!

[@TheCinematographyLab]

Thanks! I think it's important to be able to test and learn about the process and the condition of the cameras without spending a lot of money. I like your videos btw. Keep up the good work.

[@thegroove2000]

This is very interesting. Thanks.

[@truefilm6991]

That is fantastic! What glass and lighting do you use on top of the film? Just the usual white inside of the scanner lid? I tried to scan 16mm film with an old HP scanner from 2001 (it broke down meanwhile and I had to scrap it), and it never worked, just pitch black images both from color neg and reversal. :/

[@TheCinematographyLab]

Thanks Christian! I have gotten good results with Epson scanners, but this applies to all the scanners that are capable of scanning film. As I mentioned on the video I was getting black images and lines when I tried to scan the film vertically, then I read somewhere years ago that you have to scan the film horizontally. It doesn't make any sense right? Well, for some reason it works that way. The light is the one coming from the lid of the scanner and the glass is just a piece of anti reflection glass that I got with a frame for a dollar at a thrift store. The glass doesn't affect the image, it just keeps the film flat and allows some light go trough. Now, you can do that with any piece of glass correct? You can, but you would get an unwanted effect know as Newton rings. That's why it is important to use this kind of glass.

[@truefilm6991]

@@TheCinematographyLab thanks for the information! Much appreciated. Yes, the good old Newton rings. I remember those from slides in frames with glass.

[@AaronYeoman]

I'm a bit late to your video but it's a great video and very informative. Gonna give the height experiment a go with my v600. Could I ask why it's best to scan horizontally vs vertically? Can you notice a difference and is also the trade off you can't scan as many images in one go as you would when scanning vertically?

[@thegroove2000]

Hi when scanning one row of stills, is the resolution still the same as if scanning each individual still?

[@TheCinematographyLab]

Yes, it is. Resolution is measured in dots per inch (dpi). When you chose a resolution it remains the same regardless of the scanned area, the size of the file is what changes. if you scan a small area the file will be small. If you scan a bigger area the file will be bigger. The reason for me to scan one frame at a time is because the film sits flat on top of the tape. That way the entire negative is flat and in focus, not curved.

[@thegroove2000]

Thanks man. Good to know. @@TheCinematographyLab

[@thegroove2000]

I forgot to ask sorry. Does it have to be glass or could Perspex as an example be used on top of the film? @@TheCinematographyLab

[@TheCinematographyLab]

@@thegroove2000you have to use a special kind of glass known as "anti Newton ring glass" if you use normal glass you get Newton rings. Do your research. I just bought a used picture frame for $1 at a thrift store that had a frosted glass.

[@thegroove2000]

Thrift shop it is then ha ha. Thanks.@@TheCinematographyLab

[@godfree2canada]

ever try thin fridge magnets?

[@TheCinematographyLab]

I have not. Technically you can use any material as long as it raises the negative or the holder from the glass, but you want to use thin layers so you can increase or decrease the distance from the glass gradually.

[@aabood007]

Are you using a scanner that has TMA?

[@TheCinematographyLab]

Yes, I am. I should have clarified that. TMA for people wondering what it means and why you need it means Transparent Materials Adapter (TMA). In order to scan film or any translucent medium you need a scanner that has a light source so the scanner can capture the image. Thanks for asking.

[@eladbari]

@9:55 - How can an old Epson give you like an 8K image? Top normal DPI [without interpolating] for an Epson V600 is 3200DPI. You can even fake 4800dpi and get a 6000x4000 pixels image, yet, not as huge as you got [8K?] +Also, no option to find or DIY some kind of holder at the thickness of 20 tapes? It's impossible to scan freestyle like that 1 by 1...

[@TheCinematographyLab]

I never mentioned 8k in the video. I mentioned 4k and if you do some research you will find that 4k is equivalent to 8.3mp. Even a 10 year old consumer camera (still photo) can render 8.3mp. 1080p HDTV is only 2mp. I mentioned in the video that I can use the scanned image to fill the 4k area. I didn't say the scanner can render the pixel to pixel resolution of 4k. If you compare a very expensive and professional cinema camera with a consumer $200 camera the two of them can capture 4k video, but the image is going to look very different, yes. I was talking about the space that 4k requires, not the actual resolution. I'm sharing an idea here, I didn't know I was supposed to fix the world of scanners and provide a real DIY solution. I guess it would have to be for free too since this is the internet. It is perfectly possible for me to scan the 8-10 pictures that I shoot once in a while, and I get great results. I even mentioned in the video "This is not a good method to scan a lot of pics or motion picture film" Now if you think about it you can use the tape method, find the best spot, measure the thickness of the deck and 3D print a holder that matches that thickness. I guess I'm supposed to design that holder and offer the .stl files for free as well.

[@eladbari]

@@TheCinematographyLab Thanks for clearing that 4K manner. Also, I appreciate your shared thought, yet, not sure why the attitude. I didn't imply you owe people anything. Just pointing out that in the search to find a method that will make scanning less painful and prolonged- it's hard to find a method that could work for scanning a few rolls

[@CS-uc2oh]

This guy is a fool.

[@AaronYeoman]

I'm a bit late to your video but it's a great video and very informative. Gonna give the height experiment a go with my v600. Could I ask why it's best to scan horizontally vs vertically? Can you notice a difference and is also the trade off you can't scan as many images in one go as you would when scanning vertically?

[@TheCinematographyLab]

Thanks. The vertical vs. horizontal may be a thing of the past. I did some research today and I didn't find any information about it. Long time ago I tried to scan 16mm and Super 8 and orientation made a big difference with those small formats. I did some research at the time, I found a thread were they suggested scanning horizontally and I was getting an image when I was not getting anything scanning vertically. Since then the idea got stuck in my mind. It may not be an issue with newer models. You cannot scan as many images in one go, that's correct. The idea here is to get the best possible results, that is in conflict with convenience. The idea is not only to create a small area that is at the best possible focusing distance, but an area that will keep the film flat. If you try to do this with 3 or 4 frames the film is going to hang and curve in the middle and the edges are going to have more chance to curve as well. That would change the distance between some areas of the film and the glass, changing the focusing distance and defeating the purpose. You could try using the holders and raising them with tape, but what if the critical focus point is at a shorter distance? The height of film holders on new scanners like the 800 can be adjusted. They are basically using the same concept. You can do the test using tape and compare the results to the film holder. The difference may be negligible that you may decide to simple continue using the holder.

[@AaronYeoman]

@@TheCinematographyLab awesome many thanks, I see what you mean now about scanning horizontaly. I've just tried with some old 110 film and it has helped. I'll go out and get some tape you mentioned and try your calibration. Could I ask where you got your scan test target? I've found them I think but there seems to be loads of different options. I assume it's just the 35mm version with 3 or 4 frames?

[@TheCinematographyLab]

@@AaronYeoman technically scanning horizontally vs vertically doesn't make any sense, but in reality there is an important difference. I used a "Vlad Target" in the video. It is a strip of 35mm film with 4 fine printed frames. They have worked fine for me. The guy who makes them contacted me and he explained how you can use the numbers in the targets to calculate resolution and stuff and he suggested some things that I should do differently like scanning the other side of the film. Some day I will make another video trying those things.

[@CS-uc2oh]

Dude. Dude. The film holder does exactly what you did with the tape. It holds the negatives at the right distance from the glass. If you had a scanner that came with negative holders, it would be correct out of the box.

[@TheCinematographyLab]

Dude, the film holders put a fixed distance between the holder and the glass. Newer film holders can be adjusted, but they have steps. When it comes to precision nothing comes correct out of the box. It can be acceptable, but it may be improved. The hole idea behind the tape concept is to be able to "fine tune" that distance. The tape I used has a thickness of 0.04mm. That means, you can increase or decrease the distance from the film to the glass and find the spot where the image looks the best. You can even use the film holders and "fine tune" the distance using tape.