Flat bed Scanner (9000F) vs DSLR scanning

[pinholecam]

I've always been curious on the two.
There is some patchy evidence that shows that a DSLR 'scan' is faster and 'cheaper' than going out to buy a flat bed scanner like the Canon 9000F which is able to scan 35mm film.
Of course this is provided that one owns a DSLR in the first place.

I made a make shift holder for a strip of negative, placed a white sheet of paper behind it and shone 2 table lamps on the paper to provide a even white light source. Placed the DSLR on tripod in front of the negative with a 100mm macro set at f8 and took a shot.

Original full image

100% crop from Scanner (9000F)

100% crop from DSLR

Colors aren't anything to shout about and my lousy rig attracted a lot of dust on the negative.
But to me the difference in detail between flatbed and DSLR 'scan' is shocking



Am I missing something here? (Eg. Scanner not setup properly)

 

[soken]

It is interesting. I want to do a comparison like this 2 after I got my dynax 7 which is on the way from eBay. I will compare it with my a850 which is 24mp. .

 

[David Kwok]

Indeed it's DSLR with your Macro win hands down. But how much did you pay for your DSLR + Macro + Tripod versus Canon 9000F ?
I'm sure a drum scanner will do better, just how much better. Those motors moving in the flatbed scanner has too much vibration to give you such a detail result.

Curious though, I notice that you have a lot of fine colour noises in the DSLR, are you using a high ISO ?

 

[pinholecam]

It is interesting. I want to do a comparison like this 2 after I got my dynax 7 which is on the way from eBay. I will compare it with my a850 which is 24mp. .

That will be interesting to see.
I did try a simple trial with GF1 + 20/1.7 on 6x6 film w/o regard to filling the frame and I did see better result too.

Indeed it's DSLR with your Macro win hands down. But how much did you pay for your DSLR + Macro + Tripod versus Canon 9000F ?
I'm sure a drum scanner will do better, just how much better. Those motors moving in the flatbed scanner has too much vibration to give you such a detail result.

Curious though, I notice that you have a lot of fine colour noises in the DSLR, are you using a high ISO ?

Ha..ha... indeed. That ran through my mind too. Its a ~$2300 'scanner' in this case.
But I think if one already has a DSLR, then its a way to do the 'scan' w/o spending another $200 for the flatbed, not to mention the size of the scanner, speed to scan and quality. (my main problem with the flatbed I have is size (no space in house), time, o/p quality)
I did try a GF1 w/o macro lens on 6x6 film. It did not cover the full frame of the m4/3 sensor this way, but it got pretty good details vs scanner as well. So in theory, a 2nd hand camera (eg. G1 at $250 or $350-400 APS-C DSLR in bns) an extension tube and cheap manual 50/2 may well do a decent job. Not that cheap at $400-600, but maybe better results.


Noticed the 'noises' as well, but after processing (ie. auto balance; invert color; 1pt sharpen), so not too sure yet if this is grain on the film that has been accentuated by the sharpening and processing or something else. Too bad I saved over the file in this case. Certainly something to look into in future trials.

 

[pinholecam]

Been awhile since I developed a roll of film.
Luck has been pretty unkind to my film cameras with unexpected mechanical issues or light leaks causing me to loose a few rolls over the few months.

Anyway, finally finished a roll on my Flexaret IV and made the negative copy using my DSLR with a 100mm macro lens.
So here's an update.
This time, I simply used the negative holder provided by my Canon 9000F.
Lighting came from 2 table lamps shining on a white piece of paper.

100% crop

It was very fast too. The whole process including setup was perhaps only 15-20mins.

 

[raytoei]

pinhole,

most interesting... when you have time, i may want to ask you to show pic of your setup. the image quality is indeed "interesting".

 

[allenleonhart]

Am I missing something here? (Eg. Scanner not setup properly)

i'm guessing in camera sharpening might be a reason hmm.

 

[pinholecam]

pinhole,

most interesting... when you have time, i may want to ask you to show pic of your setup. the image quality is indeed "interesting".

Here is the setup. Its well....pretty raw...

i'm guessing in camera sharpening might be a reason hmm.

I really don't think so. I tried the same sharpening method for both and even tried out doing more for the scanned copy, but results were different.
Of course I can be wrong.
What makes you think its the in-camera sharpening.
Just take the 100% crop example from the top (ie. post #1)
I don't think the scanned version can be made to look like the DSLR copied one. (at least on Paint.net and Elements 8.0 that I am using)

 

[Nikkornos]

My approach is simpler. I use a high quality 3M tape to tape the 4 corners of the film slip directly onto a light box.
Of course, the light box is clean and free of dust.
The light box does not have any heat and easy to work on.

I stand the light box vertically using an angled rule. The I mount the D cam (D90 or D60) with the Nikkor 50mm 3.5 micro. Working distance is fine.
Perhaps, as you you illustrated, a 90mm macro is better.
The camera is leveled using the X/Y bubbles on the ball head.

I would turn off the ceiling light to avoid reflections on the film strip.

I am supposed to pick up the Epson scanner but still have yet done so, because the D cam method is very effective.
When it comes to high volumn or quick turn around, i still send to RGB or Konota.
RGB charges me about $20 per 120 film. Konota is cheaper (KAM CHENG Price).

 

[declan]

Hi guys, may I know how did you invert the negative to a colour positive image?

 

[pinholecam]

Hi guys, may I know how did you invert the negative to a colour positive image?

Its usually called Invert Colors or Filters > Adjustments > Invert (For Elements)

 

[declan]

Hi pinholecam, thanks a lot for the tips. I have tried inverting the negative however i can only get a blue image. Is there any way to turn the blue image to a normal positive image ? Thanks.

 

[kgston]

Hi pinholecam, thanks a lot for the tips. I have tried inverting the negative however i can only get a blue image. Is there any way to turn the blue image to a normal positive image ? Thanks.

Do an auto level

 

[pinholecam]

Hi pinholecam, thanks a lot for the tips. I have tried inverting the negative however i can only get a blue image. Is there any way to turn the blue image to a normal positive image ? Thanks.

Yes, as mentioned by kgston, after inverting, do an auto level or use a WB adjustment tool to select the white/grey point within the photo.

I've also tried to do a camera custom WB on a overexposed negative. It inverts with less blueness but still has a bluish cast and far from ideal.