Printing Big: Canon EOS 5D, Bronica SQ, Film Scanning Techniques Evaluated
by Shayok Mukhopadhyay
January 2006; EOS 5D update on April 2006.
Contents
Motivation and Scope
About a year ago, when a full-frame Digital SLR, the Canon EOS 1Ds was
approaching affordability (about US$ 5000 used), I was faced with the question
of whether to go fully digital or get a high-end desktop scanner, viz. the
Nikon Coolscan 9000 (US$ 2000) for my medium format equipment, the Bronica SQ,
soon to be discontinued but available for next-to-nothing on the used market. That
full-frame DSLRs had already surpassed 35mm film was widely accepted, and
claims were cropping up on the web that they'd also surpassed medium format.
With the recent launch of a much more affordable full-frame DSLR, the EOS 5D,
which has specs similar to that of the 1Ds (12.7 MP vs 11MP),
this question will likely trouble a whole new set of photographers, so I
thought it worthwhile to post my
comparison of the 1Ds with Bronica SQ scans,
and in the face of a barrage of criticism that I was testing with
obsolete equipment, update it to a comparison of the 5D with the SQ.
Further motivation was provided by the generous loan of a wet-mount tray
for the Nikon Coolscan 9000 by Michael Grecco, which allowed me to make
a fairly exhaustive comparison of scanning techniques. If nothing else,
this article will hopefully act as a guide to testing methodology for
others.
The article is focused on overall print quality and sharpness. It does not deal
with color fidelity (as that would vary widely from film to film) and does not
care to match color between digital and film exposures of the same scene. Also
left out is the issue of Dynamic Range, an important issue that would require comparison with
both positive and negative film. Neither of these issues is specific to big prints.
Part I. Bronica SQ (medium format transparency film) + Nikon Coolscan 9000 vs EOS 5D (full-frame DSLR)
Apples to Apples: Print Size
Any reasonable comparison has to settle on a target print-size. I
love shooting square images
with my Bronica SQ, printing them big, and framing them
with a 3-inch overmat on all sides. Since 32"x40" is the largest matboard
I'm man enough
to handle, this restricts me to a 26"x26" print. I compared square
as well as a 2:3 (35mm proportions) images from the two cameras, printed to
26" on the long side.
For a chart of equivalent focal-lengths across formats,
see this.
Test Environment
- sturdy tripod
- 16 bit RAW capture on 5D at 100 ASA
- Provia 100F (RDP III) film: 100 ASA 120 size
- Nikon Coolscan with Nikon FH-869G glass carrier, ICE set to normal, 8-bit 1 pass scan
(more on all this in Part II) at 4000 DPI.
- All Bronica lenses were PS series primes; all EOS lenses were USM primes.
- Epson 1270 printer; resulting prints scanned with Epson 1640 flatbed scanner at 800 DPI.
Scene 1: Bronica SQ-A with 150/4 cropped to 2:3 vs EOS 5D with 100/2
Here is the scene we're dealing with, as captured on the 5D.
Each file was sized to 17.33"x26"; the Bronica file had to be cropped as well to get the 2:3
proportions. A
roughly 3"x3" section of each image with no change except for some hue/saturation
adjustment to give them a similar feel and resizing (of the SQ scan) for convenience of presentation
is shown below. Larger sections with no resizing and adjustment are available here.
 |
 |
| Bronica SQ | EOS 5D |
What are the important distinctions between the two files?
The Prints
To make the prints, unsharp masking was applied using
Barry Haynes's "Sharpen Only Edges BH" Photoshop action (see Photoshop 7 Artistry);
this creates a mask that selects the edges in the image and sharpens
only these areas; the SQ
file was sharpened to 350,1,0 (Amount, Radius, Threshold) whereas the 5D was sharpened
to 100,1,0. Why
use unsharp masking in a comparison of cameras? Because that's how the best prints
are usually made.
Each file was left at its "native"
resolution for this print-size, 333 DPI for the SQ scan and 168 DPI for the 5D; the printer driver
was left to do its own up/down-sampling.
Here is a small scan of the prints, which are 3"x3" sections of a 17.33"x26" image. I doubt it's very useful for judging the quality of
the prints, but anyway...
Here's a larger scan of the prints, but honestly, you need to use the source files, sharpen them to your
taste, and print them yourself (or at least view them in an image editor) to get a real feel.
My judgement is:
- Both prints look good, but maybe, just maybe, the 5D print has a smoother, cleaner, sharper feel.
- The 5D scans are easier to print.
- Unfortunately, the 5D does exhibit moire patterns, unlike what some
optimistic commentary on my 1Ds tests claimed. Look at the diagonal
bands of red on the top trapezoidal section of the tower.
Scene 1: Bronica SQ-A with 250/5.6 full-frame vs EOS 5D with 100/2 cropped square
This seems like a comparison so patently tilted against the EOS 5D (cropping out a third of
that puny sensor) that it's almost not worth doing, so I'll merely state the result: the print from the SQ scan shows details that the 5D file doesnt even resolve or turns into moire patterns. Needless to say that for one who shoots square images often, this is a relevant comparison.
Scene 2: Bronica SQ-A with 80/2.8 cropped to 2:3 vs EOS 5D with 50/1.4
Mediocre 5D performance on Traffic Signs
Here's the overall scene as captured on EOS 5D.
Each file was sized to 17.33"x26"; the SQ file had to be cropped as well to get the 2:3
proportions. A roughly 2.5"x2.5" section of each image (circled above) with no
change except for some hue/saturation adjustment to give them a similar feel and sizing down
of the SQ file for convenience of presentation
is shown below. The actual SQ file with no resizing and minimum jpeg compression is available
here.
 |
 |
| Bronica SQ | EOS 5D |
It may or may not be obvious from the jpegs above (it is in the print), but something is not
quite right with the traffic
signs in the 5D files: in the Hamilton Ave sign, the Ave almost
blends into the green background of the sign, while the DO NOT ENTER sign is strangely garbled. Here
are smaller sections (about 1" wide on our target print size) of the files, with the 5D file magnified 2x to clarify the issue:
 |
 |
| Bronica SQ | EOS 5D |
In fairness, it must be pointed out how much grainier the SQ scan looks.
The Prints
Here are scans of 2.5"x2.5" sections of the 17.33"x26" prints that show the traffic signs;
though the actual prints look somewhat better than these scans for both
systems, the 5D
continues to exhibit the 1Ds's problems at capturing the lettering clearly.
| 
| 
|
| EOS 5D unsharpened | EOS 5D, sharpened slightly, making the problem worse | SQ, sharpened optimally
|
Conclusion
The EOS 5D files start off with a cleaner, sharper, less noisy feel than the
SQ scans, which may translate to better prints at the 17.33"x26" size in
many cases. Unfortunately, the 5D files come up short against some objective "hard" measures: high-frequency lines, traffic signs, etc. which show up as disturbing artifacts on
closely examining a print. I would say that such features may well be absent
from a lot of landscape scenes, so if one can avoid them, this may be a non-issue. At
the 26"x26" size, as expected, the SQ easily outperforms the 5D.
Since this is an update on earlier comparison of SQ scans with the EOS 1Ds, many
people will be keen to know how the 5D compares with the 1Ds. If it is an improvement,
it's a marginal, incremental one, traceable to its slightly higher pixel count.
The pixel count is not high enough to resolve all features (e.g. traffic signs)
that are resolved by the SQ scan at the 17.33"x26" print size. It does not solve a significant problem with the 1Ds, viz. moire patterns.
On the subject of moire patterns, I wonder if it is more related to Canon's software that
converts the RAW files to TIFF than the image-capture itself. Adobe has a
Camera Raw plugin that it supplies with Photoshop CS (I'm stuck at PS 6) which reportedly
provides the user a degree of control over the conversion process. If this
plugin supports the 5D format, I would be curious to know if it can help alleviate
the moire issue. Perhaps, even with the traffic sign, whose edges the 5D sensor cannot
quite resolve, it could be turned into a sign with soft edges like in the SQ scan rather than a blotchy
artifact? If you have access to the plugin and are interested in investigating
this further, please contact me and I'll send you the 14MB RAW file.
The next part
of the article is devoted to getting the best scans from the Bronica. And
more square images here.
Part II. Optimal Scanning of medium format film with the Nikon Coolscan 9000
There are many different options available for scanning with the Nikon Coolscan 9000, e.g.
- Glass carrier or not?
- Digital ICE (automatic dust removal) or not?
- Wet mount or not?
- Multi-Sampling or not?
We shall examine these one by one to arrive at an optimal (i.e. practical with respect to time
and effort yet high quality) scanning technique. As before, the benchmark is 26"x26"
prints from 6x6 film, so all dimensions refered to below are sections from 26"x26".
We use the following piece of film, always scanned at 4000 DPI with
auto-exposure switched off, shown here uncropped with no Levels adjustment.
Glass Carrier
My 120 film always comes from the lab with a slight curve. I wanted to determine if this
curve was big enough to affect edge-to-edge sharpness or whether the depth of field of the
scanner lens was adequate to handle the curve. And if I did use a glass carrier, would I sacrifice
sharpness because of the extra surfaces involved? I made 3 different scans (all with ICE off):
- No glass carrier, letting the scanner choose a focus point, which I assumed would be somewhere near the center of the film.
- No glass carrier, but forcing the scanner to focus on the bottom right corner of the film
- Glass carrier, again letting the scanner choose a focus point.
Here's a comparison of an 1"x0.5" area (relative to a 26"x26" print) in the middle-third of the film from scans 1 and 3. To my eye, they're equally sharp.
 |
 |
| No Glass, Center Section, Auto Focus | Glass Carrier, Center Section, Auto Focus |
Does the glass scan look a little darker? More on that later.
Now let's see a 1"x1" section from the lower right edge of the same two scans:
 |
 |
| No Glass, Bottom Right Section, Auto Focus | Glass Carrier, Bottom Right Section, Auto Focus |
Big difference, huh? Let's flip this around, and force the scanner to focus on the bottom-right hand section of the film without a glass carrier (scan 2 above). Much better:
 |
| No Glass, Bottom Right Section, Focus on Bottom Right |
But then, we lost the center!
 |
| No Glass, Center Section, Focus on Bottom Right |
Looks like the glass carrier is a good idea after all for my film if I want to have
edge-to-edge sharpness. But do the glass scans look a little darker?
I think so; I'd turned off auto-exposure, and I'm guessing some light gets absorbed by the glass.
Digital ICE
ICE is an automatic dust and scratch detection and removal technology that
— it is claimed by the patent-holder — works without reducing the sharpness of
the image. It is available on several scanners, among them the Nikon Coolscan 9000 and
Minolta Dimage Multi Pro which too handles 120 film.
Using a glass carrier (as I prefer to) makes one particularly vulnerable to dust. It would
be extremely valuable to determine if the technology works as advertised. (Note: ICE is
not available for use on traditional, i.e. non-chromogenic, B&W film.)
I chose a 3"x3" area at the top-left corner of the film and scanned it with a glass carrier
with ICE switched off, set to Normal, and then Fine. The scans were downsized by 1/3 in each
dimension for convenience of presentation here, but you can see the full scans (with
minimum jpeg compression) here.
 |
 |
 |
| Glass Carrier, ICE off |
Glass Carrier, ICE normal |
Glass Carrier, ICE fine |
To my eye, there's no loss of sharpness due to ICE; it seems some of the bigger pieces of
dust needed
ICE to be cranked up to Fine to be completely removed. This is not usually my experience;
I suspect these more stubborn dust particles were acquired by the film during my wet-mounting
experiments.
Frankly, ICE is better than sliced bread. Anyone who's spent hours touching up a scan, made
a big, expensive print, and gone back to spend more time cleaning the scan will know what I mean.
It makes scanning big film in general, and scanning with a glass carrier in particular, actually
fun.
Wet Mounting
Wet Mounting keeps the film flat, just like a Glass Carrier, but without the danger of
Newton's Rings that happen when
the glass is not totally, uniformly flush (at a level of micrometers) against the film.
I myself have ever observed only one case of Newton's Rings among
all the scans I've made, but maybe I've just been lucky.
It may have something to do with the thickness of the emulsion on the film. Avoiding
Newton's Rings (while ensuring edge-to-edge sharpness) is the primary reason to use wet-mounting.
How does it work?
Nikon does not sell a wet-mounting holder for the Coolscan 9000. You have to use third-party
products, one of them being the Cachet Image Mechanics Fluid Mount Holder developed by
Michael Grecco, who loaned me a sample to try out. It consists of a modified Nikon holder
having a single glass plate; you put a few drops of Kami mounting fluid on the plate,
put the film over that, then put a few drops of fluid on the film, and put a transparent acetate
sheet on the film. Surface tension causes the wet surfaces to stick to each other totally
flat. There will likely be bubbles in the fluid which you'll need to push out by repeatedly
rubbing a soft tissue over the acetate sheet. After this, you insert the holder into the
scanner and scan as usual.
How well does it work?
The quality of scans is the same as sharply focused glassless scans, which in turn are comparable
to Glass Carrier scans (I say comparable because of the slight darkening effect of the
glass). Of course, the wet mount scans never run the risk of Newton's Rings.
 |
|
| Wet Mount, ICE off |
Wet Mount, ICE normal |
However, Wet Mounting does seem to introduce some practical issues:
- Dust: There seems to be a popular belief that wet-mounting somehow helps with dust and
scratches. I dont know about scratches, but wet-mounting simply does not help with dust; in fact,
it seems to make the problem of dust worse (probably by trapping dust particles close to the
film surface) to the extent that even ICE is often not able to eliminate it. Or maybe I need
to get rid of my carpet and vacuum my room more often! Here's a 1.5"x1.5"
section of the image at three different ICE settings (the scans have been resized to half the
original number of pixels on each dimension).
 |
 |
 |
| Wet Mount, ICE off |
Wet Mount, ICE normal |
Wet Mount, ICE fine |
(Interestingly, it seems ICE affects the color of the scan!)
- Susceptibility to Dust: This is difficult to establish scientifically, but it
seems to me that after wet-mounting, the film became more susceptible to dust. Or maybe
the dust just got firmly stuck to the film? I would have
to turn ICE up to Fine to eliminate dust from my glass carrier scans.
- Film Wear: I managed to scratch my film quite a bit in the process, I believe,
of rubbing out the bubbles. Now this may simply be called operator error (I've got wet-mounted
drum scans done commercially where the film came back pristine), but the fact is that you
have to be careful. The scratches dont show up on the scans, fortunately, with or without
wet mounting.
- Streaks from Fluid: Kami mounting fluid is supposed to evaporate, but it actually
left streaks on my film. This would not be apparent in ordinary incandescent light, but was
readily visible when the film was held at an angle under Solux halogen lamps. (This
is the same light I use to examine picture-framing glass after cleaning it.)
I was able to easily clean the streaks with PEC-12.
Multi-Sampling
Orthogonal to the above three options discussed is one of multi-sampling, where the scanner
presumably scans the film several times, and combines the values obtained to reduce
random noise, while significantly increasing scanning time. All the previous tests were
done with one-pass sampling.
Two scans were made, one at 1x sampling, and another at 8x sampling (there a super-fine 16x
that I didnt test), and the midtones were shifted to unrealistic levels to expose noise
in the shadows so that the overall scene would look like:
Here is a comparison of a 2.5"x2.5" section of a dark area of the image from the two
(brightened as above) scans,
resized for convenience of presentation. The actual files (with minimum jpeg compression) are
here.
 |
 |
| 1x Sampling |
8x Sampling |
On the actual files, the noise in the 1x sampling seems a little "busier", but it's not a difference
that would translate to a print, I think.
Conclusion
I've settled on the Nikon FH-869G Glass Carrier with ICE set to normal and 1x sampling
as my standard scanning technique with the Nikon Coolscan 9000 for medium format film.
If you're particularly susceptible to
Newton's Rings with the glass carrier, wet mounting is your only alternative, but otherwise,
it's not quite worth the trouble.
Very interesting tale <a href=" http://groups.google.us/group/n-freeringtones ">how to download ringtones from computer to alltel snap cell phone</a> sofreg
Mxwvgayf Thu, 15 May 2008 21:40:46 -0400
I'm happy very good site <a href=" http://groups.google.us/group/ql-cheaptickets ">new york state fair advance ticket locations</a> 8OO
Ehydphdj Tue, 13 May 2008 22:57:39 -0400
ZuYfgn skfye73mg08dmadvp937fh5v1
barry Fri, 9 May 2008 11:15:33 -0400
bmojscd wfovtrgu fulaqmsew lsbwdmra zuowd wepq xhsfrkio
rnzqdsifc ymkw Wed, 7 May 2008 03:39:36 -0400
bmojscd wfovtrgu fulaqmsew lsbwdmra zuowd wepq xhsfrkio
rnzqdsifc ymkw Wed, 7 May 2008 03:38:29 -0400
xwlz gbxn arzox sgyojzr hlzj luwvkt qcdfevu
vpibarces cqkpmb Fri, 2 May 2008 22:07:34 -0400
adult-diapers , adult-diaper
diaper Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:08:45 -0400
adult-diapers , adult-diaper
diaper Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:59:25 -0400
lingerie , lingerie, lingerie
v Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:54:30 -0400
rx drugs - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field
rxviagra Sun, 6 Apr 2008 03:07:35 -0400
rx drugs - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field
rxviagra Sat, 5 Apr 2008 23:15:31 -0400
rx drugs - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field
rxviagra Sat, 5 Apr 2008 23:15:26 -0400
ledger - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field
ledger Sat, 5 Apr 2008 01:09:35 -0400
ledger - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field
ledger Sat, 5 Apr 2008 01:09:26 -0400
ledger - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field
ledger Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:00:49 -0400
ledger - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field
ledger Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:00:43 -0400
sorry if i mistake this field
drugs Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:55:59 -0400
Sorry, but what is mariburjeka?Jane.
sweet-cf Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:54:44 -0400
Sorry, but what is mariburjeka?Jane.
sweet-cf Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:54:39 -0400
Sorry, but what is kimerikas?Jane.
sweeta-cp Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:21:00 -0400
Any idea why I cannot upload this pic as na avatar on this forum? Some help please?
<a href=googlehlp.com/photo.jpg/>Me in San Francisco2008</a>
Cousenutsaupt Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:46:35 -0400
I represent First Premier Financial Group inc.(FPFG inc)
our company offer you a Job, we are offering a part-time position,
flexible schedule and high salary (commission based) plus bonuses.
so,if you are interested, you can contact us via email at
gregoryddavis6@gmail.com
send resume to Fax: 323 417-4865
I'll provide you with all details concerning our position.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Williams
First Premier Financial Group inc.
Steetawhoxoth Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:38:55 -0500
Thanks for the data. I haven't gone into digital at the high end because I think it is more laborious than sending out a neg for a print... but I'm getting there- and I have some Mamiya 645 stuff I like to shoot handheld. I'll be scanning a lot of my stock from 35 and 645 to print and have been wondering how it would compare to original dig files; I am considering the Canon with 35mm size chip vs. more entry level stuff with the 1.3, or Olympus 2x and can't determine the best course of action. Film still works and can be scanned for output as you discuss good enuf for me. I do worry about the film I have in strips that may not be flat in critical areas, so I was considering the Epson but I'm being told the Nikon scanner is best... ah well, brain hurts...
Alan Harris Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:23:52 -0500
Seems to be a common perception Nikon 8000/9000 scanners cannot handle anything larger than 6x9. I shoot a lot of 6x17 panoramics and scan all of them with a Nikon 8000. It took me some time to develop the right work flow but I defy anyone to find the seams in the three pieces each image is comprised of at anything less than 300% in Photoshop.
Chi Photog Wed, 5 Dec 2007 06:54:17 -0500
Thanks, this is fantastically useful work, especially for me -- I'm planning to buy both the SQ-Ai and the 5D in the near future. This (sort-of) confirms my feeling that I can use the 5D day-to-day and reserve the SQ for situations when I want a really big, fine print.
Jesse Davis Sat, 1 Dec 2007 23:38:15 -0500
Excellent work and Thanks ! I just purchased a Nikon 9000 after having purchased last year an SQ-Ai with a ton of PS lenses,backs, etc... At current prices....MF Bronica is an amateur photographers dream come true !This is great information and thanks for doing the work. The only thing I do different is scan at 2X sampling which provides a little cleaner image than 1X without sacrificing to much extra scanner time that would be required with 4X or 8X .
Cheers,
Stoliphoto
stoliphoto Tue, 15 May 2007 15:48:51 -0400
Fantastic comparison - thank you!However, I'm using 6x9 Fuji Rangefinders (GW690 III and GSW690 III) with symmtrical lens constructions and Fuji Provia 100F (the slide film with the finest grain). 4x Multipass makes a lot of sense, with each additional pass the result is getting sharper. 8x takes too much time.
The results are mind boggling. We print the 130 MegaPixel files at sizes up to 2x3 meters (6x9 feet) and you can stick your nose to the print as close as you want without seeing grain or artifacts.
The Nikon 9000 with ICE is hard to beat, not even with an Imacon because Imacon doesn't feature the superior ICE technology.
The only drawback: scan size is limited to 6x9...
BTW, we use the Coolscan 5000 for 35mm film. Contax with Zeiss prime lenses and Fuji Provia 100F scanned with 4x Multipass allows us to print them up to 60x90 cm (2x3 feet) without grain and an absolutely fantastic color rendition.
Digital still has to go a loooong way.
toyotadesigner Sat, 12 May 2007 17:17:04 -0400
Hello
You are The Best!!!
Bye
Terabanitoss Wed, 9 May 2007 07:09:22 -0400
Thanks for this teriffic job! I don't remember seeing anything else that went to such lengths to compare so many different factors in producing a good print. It was also interesting to have your experience be close to mine -- until I read this article, I hadn't "put 2 and 2 together" and made the observation that it was my 6 by 7 scans WITH GLASS that were coming out dark -- now that I've seen your results come out like mine, I have something to "fix". Thanks again. This is a great job!
(BTW, I have "Neat Image" which I have only used for Nikon D70 and D200 digital shots at 1600 ISO and higher so far (and not with scans), but I plan to try it also with my 9000 to see how it reduces the grain in my scans; let me know if you'd like to see the results.)
Forrest Milder Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:24:30 -0400
David:Nice work,but I wish I had found this essay sooner, before I did many of the same tests myself. (same results)
Tom
Anonymous Mon, 5 Mar 2007 06:29:02 -0500
Great review, thanks. I'm looking for a scanner for my 35mm and 645 transparencies so it's good to see some real comparisons. Your results with wet mounted scans are interesting, and don't match the improvements others seem to get. I would be interested to see direct comparisons between dry and wet-mounted scans on the Nikon 9000.
Roland Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:06:08 -0500
Great job on this comparison.I'm an _old_ pro who shot for about 37 years with film, and the last three with digital.
I had an Epson 4990 that just didn't cut it for me for even 13x19" prints from Pentax 645 Velvia transparencies (not the best film for scanning.) I got a Nikon LS-9000, use it with the glass carrier, and I'm much happier with it. I kept the 4990 for two months after I got the 9000 and made many comparison scans. To my eyes, the 9000 scans had more resolution and more "depth"; they just looked and printed better.
My Nikon D2x in head-to-head comparisons is very close to the 645 scans, very slightly better in some ways, very slightly worse in others. (It blows away most scans from 35mm.) That's OK with me since I'm shooting all digital now, and only use the scanner to bring back to life the 50,000+ transparencies I've taken over the last few decades.
I still think that nothing is as beautifull as a good transparency viewed with a quality magnifier on a light box, but that's not a very practical way to distribute one's work.
Thanks, Shayok, for your nice work.
David Garth Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:26:52 -0400
I recently purchased the Nikon LS-9000, and just received the glass carrier which was on back order. All I can say from my first two scans with the glass carrier is that the results are amazing. At 4000 ppi, it appears to resolve just about all of the detail in my 6x7 Velvia 100 transparency, at least that which is observable with a 8x loupe. From previous tests with my Nikon V-ED slide scanner, I was getting better results with that scanner than from a Howtek drum scan (the Howtek was minimally sharper, but the film grain it picked up versus the Nikon eliminated any benefit that the drum scan may have had). The LS-9000 is obviously a bit better than the V-ED. Even printed at 300 dpi on a Lightjet print, the print size would be 36” x 31”. I’m not sure how the DS-1 Mark II would shape up in a print comparison as the dpi resolution of the print of the same size would only be 93 dpi.With judicious use of Clean Image on my scans, I can virtually eliminate all film grain without sacrificing color accuracy, sharpness or introducing digital artifacts. Unfortunately, I don’t have the Mark II to make a direct comparison. Most of the comparison tests I’ve seen utilize flatbed scanners and resolutions of only 1200 ppi, which is well below the threshold limit of fine grain film from my experience. In any case, I couldn’t be happier with the LS-9000 with the glass carrier, and I’ll only get better results as I just began to use it.
Steve Bunn Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:45:04 -0400
Shayok, thank you for taking the time to publish your test. There are quite a few of us still debating this issue.
Amazing how little the difference in resolution is between 645 vs 5D, but it makes me wonder if 6x7 would not show an appreciable improvement. Of course, 6x7 is more clumsey/bulkier than 645 or 35mm and can approach the 5D in price. Still, if you ever get curious it would make an interesting comparison. Mike
Mike Earussi Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:16:53 -0400
One other thought: When I do a 4000 ppi scan, I use 2000 ppi x 2. I learned there is less noise when doing this. Read this, and heard it in one of the lectures.
However, I usually scan to the ppi I will print at, and size to the final images size, unless I am doing a "master scan" at 2000 ppi x 2.
Cheers
David
David Miller Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:38:20 -0400
I am one of the fortunate (in my opinion) to own the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II. I also own the 8000 ED. I had been photographing both 6x6 and 35 mm, color negs and slide material.
Printing giclee prints of 40 x 60 on the Epson Pro 9600, there is no comparison. The Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II gives the best results all the way around.
I no longer use any wet process, and since I am involved with custom color management for monitor, and printer/ink/substrate, I am confident my giclee prints are salable.
Cheers
David
David Miller Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:33:21 -0400
I think you have another option that you did not evaluate - a glass carrier where both top and bottom glass is AN glass. I constructed a carrier this way and I never get newton rings and see little if any difference between the FH-869G versus this carrier other than never newton rings. The glass I used is etched on one side only and glass thickness is <1mm.
Bob Martin Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:59:20 -0400
There are two tricks with the glass carrier. (1) Use the masks to hold the film off the lower glass. Voila! No Newton's rings. (2) Use the focus tool to measure the focus at several places across the frame, and manually set the focus to the center of the range. Voila! Critically sharp scans across the frame. This all takes time, so I'd never pay for a Nikon 8000/9000 scan: one couldn't spend the time required and make a commercial go of it for any price that anyone could afford. And I've seen several disasterously bad commercial Nikon 8000 scans. Sigh.Personally, I've never seen a test showing an Imacon or drum scanner doing enough better than the 8000 (used correctly!) to make a significant difference in a print. Does anyone have a link to a test that shows otherwise?
FWIW, the 1DS test clearly showed what I seen in 5D vs. Mamiya 7 testing, but the differences here seem much smaller. I wish you had found more blatant Moire, since it is a problem with the 5D.
David Littleboy Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:20:56 -0400
Some of the comments below refer to a previous version of this article that compared the SQ scans to the EOS 1Ds, hence the vitriol about "obsolete gear"
Shayok Mukhopadhyay Fri, 28 Apr 2006 18:05:05 -0400
Very interesting analysis, thankyou for publishing it. I have a large collection of both 35mm and 6x7 format images. I am seriously considering purchasing a Nikon 9000 ED. My only other real option seems to be using a pro shop to perform the scanning. In my area, the affordable ones use an Imacon 848. Do you know of any comparisons of the Imacon to the Nikon? I'd be curious to know by how far the Imacon is superior.
Tony Kirkham Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:06:37 -0400
Very interesting analysis you have carried out here - thank you. I am a little puzzled by one thing though - although not covered in your review. I have a 1Ds II and the images that it produces, although very very good, still do not compare to the best - in terms of resolution - that I have been able to get from my 6x6 (Hasselblad) scanned on a 4990 with comparisons printed at A3. Now that I have orderd an LS9000 I am hoping that it will blow away the already good results of the Epson. I will keep you all updated.
James Symington Mon, 3 Apr 2006 13:02:09 -0400
I was not sure why you did not mention any of the techniques suggested in the Nikon docs that came with the Glass Carrier pertaining to masking techniques to prevent Newton Rings. Did you try those?
Arthur Yeo Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:27:11 -0500
I also ran into lack of consistant sharpness with a Nikon 8000 scanner. I experimented with two forms of mechanical film flatteners that went between the frames, but it was cumbersome. I now use a single glass plate on top to flatten the film in a standard Nikon FH-869S carrier; works well but I get occasional Newton's Rings (and need to look into anti-Newton's Rings glass). Thanks for the data on the wet mount carrier.
Lee Jones Sat, 4 Mar 2006 05:35:56 -0500
All these folks pooh-poohing the Nikon LS-8000 and LS-9000. I wonder how many of them have actually used either one. Again, the assumption (unproven) that a drum scanner will produce a significantly better scan, or that that an Epson 4990 is in the same league as the Nikons.I accept (and have seen with my own eyes) that the 1Ds compares to Nikon-scanned 645 film. Beyond that, I wouldn't place any bets.
If and when my LS-8000 gives out (it's almost five years old as I write this) I'll be faced with a decision... upgrade to the LS-9000 or use the dough for the best full-frame Canon DSLR that I can afford. Hopefully I won't have to face that decision any time soon.
Again, good work on this test. Don't let the naysayers get you down.
Raphael Bustin Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:44:58 -0500
Great review between both systems ; many people have to decide which way to go. Many Guys complaining about "old models" etc. are - as i suppose - computer-freaks. I prefer going out an shoot photos instead sitting in front of an computer. With an scanner the digital workflow ist OPTIONAL, but not NESASSARY as with an DSLR. Other problems are archiving of images and dust on the DSLR-Sensor which brings me back to film and scanner instead of an DSLR.
Joerg F Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:34:27 -0500
So the Digital Camera users are complaining that you are testing obsolete digital cameras - that are 2 years old! My 35 year old Hasselblad (model year same as moon photographs) is not yet obsolete, so this complaint is saying that Digital Photography is not yet a stable platform.
I think I will wait until a 2 year old pro digital camera is not obsolete before I even think of leaving film behind.
In the meantime, I will keep bulk scanning lots of film at oscans.com in Sydney to get the best of both worlds.
Otto Mellar Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:37:02 -0500
A nice piece of experiemental work! Thanks for sharing it with us!
TKThompson Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:20:11 -0500
Yes, if I were in the market for a dated DSLR that's about to become even more dated as the MKII is slated for replacement soon, or my business could afford me buying film, waiting and paying for processing, taking the time to scan, before finally getting a print, then it'd be a very useful bunch of info. As it is, it's like someone today writing a comparative review of a couple of year 2001 cars. Old news.
Stu Geohegan Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:14:02 -0500
Thank you for taking the time to craft this detailed tutorial and passing it along.Also the informed comments add up to a great knowledge base to make decisions from.
walt byrnes
walter byrnes Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:15:04 -0500
I'd say, make the comparison to the 1DS-Mark-II or the 5D or even a 20D. The 1DS is way old technology in many respects. Not that it's bad, just that a lot of what you said has no relevence to current equipment. RAW files from the 1DS-Mark-II or the 5D even before any post-processing has been applied, blow away med. format scanned on the Coolscan no matter who or how much post-processing.
Rick Chang Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:54:00 -0500
What Godfrey said.
Henry Simms Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:47:44 -0500
The trouble with all these digitals, cameras or scanners, is that the prints still look digital. Fiber prints made in a darkroom still look more like photographs.
Al K. Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:46:10 -0500
Good review and great tips, but the trouble with taking time to write about digital is that in a few months it's all worthless because the equipment in question gets discontinued and the next generation requires a whole nother workflow to get decent results. It's a never-ending challenge, the only thing that's constant is that none of these digitals is capable of producing their full potential without a lot of work.
Ian Sheppard Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:41:17 -0500
Maybe what he meant is that everyone's standards are different. For me, anything less than a drum scan is not acceptible for a 26" print, and anything more than a flatbed (such as the Canon 9950F or the Epson 4990)is overkill for 13" prints. That desktop multi-format film scanners such as the Coolscan 9000 produce better scans than flatbeds for 26" prints is, to me, irrelevant.
Godfrey DeClerq Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:36:42 -0500
I'm a little confused by Art's comments. I didnt pay for a mural-sized printer. I send my profiled files to a Lightjet lab for 26"x26" prints. Unless the flatbeds can produce files that can be printed to that size, I dont see the alternative to the Coolscan 9000 (or similar) scanner at that price point. You dont have to spend any time repairing (if that's what "tweaking and massaging" means) the Nikon scans. You spend time interpreting your file for a fine print. Why outsourcing printing implies outsourcing scanning I'm at a loss to understand. The Coolscan costs as much as about 20 good drum scans.
Shayok Mukhopadhyay Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:59:38 -0500
A great report...centring round obsolete gear. Like someone said, the 5D blows away the 1Ds. RAW files from the 1Ds have always needed lots of help in PS, the 5D's are so much cleaner and sharper out of the box there's just no comparison. Given the price and performance of the 5D and the fact the Mark-2 is going to be replaced soon and they'll be a flood of them coming up used, someone would have to be a masochist or a complete idiot to buy a 1Ds unless it was the same price as a 20D maybe. As for the Nikon scanner, with Nikon pulling out of film cameras you can expect the scanners to be next to go, and Nikon's longterm parts support is legendary--for being bad. Nikon wants everyone to forget there's such a thing as film. So anyone who pays $3000CDN or whatever for the Nikon scanner now is buying a soon-to-be white elephant.
Mike Reardon Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:24:24 -0500
Shayok asked " I'd be interested to know how big people are printing with scans from their Epson flatbed scanners. "The largest I print from my Epson 4990 is 13x15 from my RB67. That's the biggest print I can get from my Epson 2400. Since printing larger means outsourcing, in those instances I have the negs drum-scanned, apply PS to the files myself, then scoot the file off for printing.
I can't really fathom why anyone who paid for a mural-sized printer would cheap out on a Nikon 9000 and then and spend hours massaging and tweaking the scans. Likewise if the largest you can print is 13x19 the Epson is more than up to the job and costs a quarter of the Nikon. For half the cost of the 9000 you could get a 5400dpi 35mm film scanner and the Epson 4990 and scan all the way to 8x10 and positives too if necessary. These 35mm-to-120 $2000 film scanners are simply not worth it.
Art Cassaroba Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:13:51 -0500
An interesting review and your conclusions are encouraging: I might add a few notes.1. The goal standard of many film based photographers is an optical print. Whereas the push to digitise film reflects convenience and convenience's mindset, an optical print, either as an ilfochrome or fast disappearing R-type may further support the findings here for digital scans of film.
Equally in printing, the traditional lithgraph technique also produces higher quality at cost and time. Just don't forget it, even if you don't work this way.
2. One remark made on the samples here is that the contrast of the 1DS is much lower. Whereas the digital capture route may be more convenient, the post-imaging production is more time-consuming. I spend at least 2 hours scanning and cleaning for a single 200+MB file. With digital, I lose track of how many hours I spend on photoshop adjusting curves and saturations. It's worth pointing out that compared with 16 bit RAW files, there is (currently) more flexiblity in film based choices, rather than relying on the fixed sensor of the 1S to capture all condition.
3. In monochrome digital scans, the moire pattern you describe leads to great difficulty in achieving a neutral print; metamerism and birefringence make it less competitive for digital imaging with a view to producing the larger sized print. At a smaller 8x12" sample, digital images from the 1DS compare very favourably with colour samples from medium format.
4. On a practical note, I've not seen any photographers regularly their D1s to such a huge enlargement factor.
Good luck and best wishes.
Tony Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:19:02 -0500
I am curious if there isn't inherently less contrast with the 100/2 lens vs. the 150/4 ... the shots of the antennas on top of the building seem to indicate that the Canon shots have less inherent contrast - is this just an artifact of web-quality shots or do you see this in the originals? I would assume that the 100/2 has more elements in it and thus greater chances of lower contrast due to dispersion, more air-glass surfaces, etc.
Patrick Giagnocavo Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:44:18 -0500
Enjoyable. Curious why you felt the need to adjust hue and saturation for comparisons, I'd prefer to see what each "medium" is producing, without subjective changes. The glass carier section was most illuminating. I'm looking into the 9000, but I shoot a lot of 6x12 and I'm not interested in stitching. The Imacon could work but what about my 4x5's. $10K for that scanner is a bit out of my league. I'll stick with my Epson for now. I does a great job on 4x5's and I'm producing some great prints from 2 1/4 color negs from a Rollei Vb and printing to 7x7 & 12 x 12.
Christopher Lovi Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:56:45 -0500
I'd be interested to know how big people are printing with scans from their Epson flatbed scanners.
Shayok Mukhopadhyay Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:25:58 -0500
I agree 100% with Ronald. I am also a pro, scan MF (what little work we still do on 120 that is)on the Epson 4990. With VueScan and multi-pass scanning it does a better job in fact than the Nikon 9000 which we had and send back. As to the 1Ds, again agree, we kept 2 of ours as backups after we got the 1Ds-MK2's, but one look at the files from the 5D and both 1Ds's went bye-bye. No comparison at all, much cleaner, none of the moire. But if someone has the equiptment in question, it's a good article.
Carl Muriata Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:19:34 -0500
Despite the similarity in megapixels the 5D image quality is singificantly improved over the 1Ds (a typical neophyte mistake, and one the manufacturers are getting rich off of) so many of the issues you've raised will apply only to those who own a 1Ds or will buy one used when the prices are far enough below a new 5D. In addition many professionals, myself included, have been getting superior results from the much cheaper Epson 4990 scanner without all the handstands and cartwheels. For medium-format scanning the 9000 is in no-man's land. If the 4990 isn't good enough, pass go and head directly to an Imacon.
Ronald Atwood Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:39:38 -0500
Excellent report, thank you. It's wonderful to see people doing their own science, rather than relying on "expert" opinions and marketing claims. The proof is in the pudding!
Raphael Bustin Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:43:02 -0500
Not going to pontificate. I am very grateful for this review and was especially happy for your comparison scans (i) using different points of focus in the glassless carrier, (ii) the levels of ICE and (iii) between Grecco's carrier and Nikon's. As others, I thank you for taking the time to do the tests and to post the results. Jim
Jim Strain Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:17:06 -0500
Well done. Excellent report.I scan with glass carrier and get occasional Newton's rings. I recently got secondhand 1ds and find it terrific. However the scanned MF gives more vibrant prints in my hands. I use Mamiya 6, RB67 and FujiGW670. The resolution is better in MF, but sharpness better in 1ds. Overall very similar (which amazes me). I've found that allowing for dust problem, scanned Kodachrome 35mm is fabulous.
Gearóid Ó Laoi Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:55:59 -0500
Great report. Thank you for taking the time to share.I would be interested in a similar comparison between a full frame DSLR and 35mm film scans via the 9000ED. Or has that already been done?
Thanks, again!!!
Bill Cain Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:02:24 -0500
I modified the FH-869S carrier to make it a glass carrier. I used AN glass (etched on one side) for both the top and bottom glass, with the AN surface in contact with the film. I also have the Nikon FH-869G carrier and I get newton rings on about 5% of the scan using color negative film. I never get newton rings using the modified carrier and I get edge to edge sharp scan just like with the Nikon FH-869G carrier. I thought the AN glass for the bottom glass would affect sharpness, but I don't see it in my scans.
Bob Martin Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:55:50 -0500
Finally a comparison between medium format film and a DSLR that is sensible. No flatbed scans! Thank you for a very thorough comparison.
Robert Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:31:18 -0500
