Been thinking of this for a long time now and I think it might be the time I just go for it.
My negs are suffering not being seen to their full potential on my V750 Pro.
What you reckon?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Hasselblad/Imacon Camera Model Hasselblad CFH - Hasselblad H1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Photographer Hasselblad shooting Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4080 Image Height 5440 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2008:06:17 14:38:21 Exposure Time 372827/67108864 sec F-Number f/22.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 50 Lens Aperture f/22.0 Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2737 Image Height 3307
>>2791699
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model GR Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:28 08:08:19 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 1.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2138 Image Height 795 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
Do you shoot film professionally and actually need higher quality for your work? Because an X1 is extremely expensive if you're just a hobbyist and I imagine you'd have more fun spending that money elsewhere.
>>2791699
If you buy one I'll pay you to scan my negs
>>2791710
Yeah, cool, not the scanner I was talking about though.
>>2791713
Currently not, however I have a huge backload of personal projects I want to be seen.
Its a huge investment, however its something that Ill have permanently.
>>2791714
No problemo.
>>2791710
>>2791716
They had a x5 at the print lab at graduate school. It was amazing to use, fast, easy, and good scans. The film had to be cut shorter than usual as I recall, like 2 mf shots or 3 35mm slots which was pretty annoying.
They're also hideously expensive. Do you really have that much cash to burn? The x5's are running $20K what are x1's going for?
>>2791744
I have used the X5 and X1 extensively. Now at the moment the X1 has an offer running here in the UK and I am able to get one for £6300 which is insane for a brand new one.
>>2791746
>get one for £6300 which is insane
Correct, when a new 5DSR, appropriate macro lense, and all the studio equipment you would require, and a dedicated computer to tether to and process with, would give you superior scans in a fraction of the time and leave you with change.
I'm on the verge of building a CNC style DSLR film scanner.. I feel like I could build one for about $400 minus the camera.
>>2791699
hassy x1 is a nice scanner, I have an old Nikon and would love an upgrade to something that could do 4x5.
that said, if you have the space, you could probably find someone trying to dump their drum scanner for a quarter of the price and get much better scans.
>>2791770
Don't drum scanners require hella maintenance though?
>>2791847
they are labour intensive and require a good deal of cleaning. but so does the epson V750 if you do wet scanning.
>>2791710
This photo in itself is a meme.
>Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING >COMPANY, LTD.
>Camera Model GR
>Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14
>>2791747
>Why use something designed specifically for the task at hand when you can cobble together an awkward alternative for a bit less?
I think I am going to end up going for it.
>>2791888
Because all of those things also have a utility outside of the narrowly defined task of film scanning.
Because the Habblesad is a deprecated piece of 90's garbage masquerading in a fancy new plastic container and being sold at a price out of all proportion to its value.
Because the results will be better.
>>2791888
Because this is 4chan and ain't nobody got money for a fucking Hassy scanner. Not when a shitty NEX-3 and any old manual macro lens on an adapter will do for not even a tenth of the price.
>>2791910
>Because the results will be better.
>>2791699
>My negs are suffering not being seen to their full potential on my V750 Pro.
If you display digitally, shoot digital. Fucking man up and print if you want your film shit to look good.
Paying any more than a few hundred bucks for a dedicated film scanner is retarded. 5-10 years down the line, when scanners have been updated and have increased resolution and scanning ability, your Hassy will be garbage.
Honestly, if you want your film to look good, darkroom print it. Then scan the 4x5 or 8x10 into the computer using a high resolution photo scanner.
>>2792056
Jokes on you, I don't even own a hat.
I will die of skin cancer.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.6 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:07:29 10:27:38 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/9.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/9.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 4790 Image Height 3371 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Center-Weighted Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Daylight Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2791910
>Because all of those things also have a utility outside of the narrowly defined task of film scanning.
Which is pretty irrelevant when you want a film scanner and doesn't make up for how awkward it is if you don't have a need for them outside of film scanning.
>>2792448
>guy has a Porsche 911 GT3
>it's a really great car for track days, but you can also register it and drive it on the street
>he only uses it for track days
>AWKWARD
He really should have bought a Carrera Cup car, they only cost another quarter milli, and they're actually slower, because they've got to run inlet restrictors and you can't modify them, and you CAN NEVER register it for road use, but hey, if he's only going to use it for track days, he should have bought the DEDICATED FILM SCANNER.
>>2792441
>5-10 years down the line, when scanners have been updated
You are living on a different planet if you believe there is active R&D going on in film scanning. There hasn't been anything new in flatbed, dedicated and drum scanners in well over a decade.
>darkroom print it. Then scan the 4x5 or 8x10 into the computer using a high resolution photo scanner
This has been tried time after time over the years and results are always the same: scanning the negative directly ALWAYS produces a higher quality output than shatbed scanning the wet print. But if you enjoy that workflow, carry on.
>>2791710
>exporting in JPG to edit further
Are you retarded?
>>2792449
>guy wants to scan film
>has no need nor want for a dslr, tripod, macro lens, lighting, etc.
>he should totally buy a dslr, tripod, macro lens, lighting, etc. and scan in a more awkward fashion
>>2792483
>If he wants to spend 6300 fagmoneys on getting the best possible scans, then yes he does have the need and want.
Not if he wants a simple turnkey solution.
>>2792492
the only simple turnkey solution here is if he starts shooting jpegs on digital and lets go of this bullshit.
>>2791710
>Converts raw to JPEG with proprietary Canon software
>Performs white balance and colour modifications to a fucking JPEG
>"I don't want my photos to look like shit"
Oh my fucking GOd
>>2792458
>scanning the negative directly ALWAYS produces a higher quality output than shatbed scanning the wet print
unfortunately this has had to be how I scan my 4x5 negs. I tried scanning directly from the neg on a v700 and get better results from the print.
I was looking at a few old Imacon scanners but from what I read, they can't scan 4x5 at full res. anyone know if the newer Hasselblads do?
>>2792458
Active R&D on scanners in general is still occurring. The only thing you need to make a scanner film compatible is stick a tray and maybe a back light into it. Not really a huge deal to do that, so any future general use scanners will still be able to scan film, only at quality that the current top of the line dedicated film scanners won't match.
So yeah, spending ludicrous amounts of money on something like this isn't really that smart a move. Nothing in the electonics/technology market is immune to this either.
Cameras, computers, TV, phones; All of them go obsolete within a couple of years and drop significantly in price, allowing people who aren't required to be on the cutting edge of anything (Hobbyist film photographers included), the ability to save a ton of money on stuff that works perfectly fine for their needs.
OP just has gear lust.
I can never seem to get the same corner to corner sharpness from dslr scanning that I get from a flextight. I'm thinking it might be my lens? I have nice 50mm 1.4 stopped down to ~f8 on some extension tubes but the edges are super soft.
>>2792706
A macro lens is a MUST if you are concerned with quality. You will never achieve a flat field of focus across the frame with a regular prime at macro distances. Any of the first party, manual focus 50-60mm macro primes will do a great job. Mount really doesn't matter since flange distance isn't an issue with macro work. Just get a dumb adapter for what ever digi cam you use, to whatever mount you find a good deal on for a given macro lens.
You will be amazed at the quality of your results.
>>2791699
DSLR/MILC scan instead. Here is one way: https://luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/CameraScanning.pdf
Or consider a Reflecta MF 5000 or RPS 10M.
Or just shoot directly with a MILC or DSLR.
Flextight user here.
Each scan is different, they all have micro distortions.
For example, on flatbed if you scan a frame twice, the image position might shift a little, but it's easily lined up.
On a flextight, scanning an image twice will show you the distortions that happen to the image from the scanner.. it is because it's bends the film on it's "virtual drum".
Servicing is also a problem, this one had to go for repairs (luckily) under warranty once.
The insert tray is close to the bulb wires and would rub on them every opening and closing until it wore through the insulating coating on the wires and they were sparking.
The main board also had to be replaced I think as it'd crash a lot half way through a scan.
It's extremely expensive for a 486 cpu with SDRAM cobbled together with what is essentially a flat bed line sensor, average enlarging lens (that being said it is still high resolving, 125 lp/mm+ on 35mm - demonstrating how terrible the optics in flatbeds are) with a cold cathode light.
Also you cannot scan the middle 2 frames on a strip of 6 of 35mm, they must be cut into 4's.
You also cannot scan the middle frame of a 3 strip of 6x7, must be 2 strip, unless you use the 617 holder and manually select the scan area.
Also if you accidentally select a film holder setting that's longer than the one you put in, it'll put the entire film holder into the scanner, bend it up, bend the attachment where the film holder attaches too etc. Requiring you to dismantle the case and get inside to pull it up, and hopefully bend things back into shape.
There's no IR dust removal either btw.
What format are you shooting?
>>2794135
>sounds great sign me up
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.6 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:03:15 11:23:56 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/9.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/9.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 5074 Image Height 3412 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2792056
They will be better tbqh
>>2794719
looking great, anon! i hope someone buys a print!
>>2794719
Here is what I mean
>>2791714
Whoa, that's a great idea.
A collective /p/ Hassy X1
We send our negs and a little money and he scans them in for us.
I'd totally do this as I suck dick at scanning.
>>2794135
That's really interesting, I didn't think they would be such a pain to use. I have a Coolscan 8000 and love it but I always heard Imacon had a way better dmax. I guess I'll stick to my Nikon.
>>2794816
It does have good dMax, but if you try to bring up shadows off a slide for example higher than what it looks like on the slide too far you'll see pattern noise.
There's nothing lacking on any slides I've scanned, unless it's the slide itself lacking.
>>2794816
Speaking of slides, since it roll the film on "virtual drum" it needs to be unmounted film, so no -actual- slides.
Unless you pay for the separate slide feeder accessory.
>>2792504
>wants someone to shoot digital instead of film
>recommends jpeg instead of raw
>>2794953
It can handle high dMax, but you shouldn't try to essentially remap high dMax to low dMax on a slide scan, pattern noise appears.
>>2794990
>but you shouldn't try to extract shadow detail from a CCD sensor image, pattern noise appears
fixt
>>2794831
The same lack of flexibility and overall quality, without all the hassle. What's the issue?
>>2791724
why not just use the exact same area of the image for all 4, you sack of shit. I bet you scored an 8 on the science portion of the ACT, if you even graduated from high school.
>>2791744
nice hold on that iron
>>2791724
This really is a terrible comparison.
>>2795165
sorry bb, the imacon scan of the alfa is LITERALLY the only time anyone who wasn't me (the DSLR scanning fag) has posted a scan and a 100% crop in a film scanning thread I've participated in.
And as you can see, I don't spare the bait and shit-talking.
So I had to use his scans and crops and compare them to a similar negative of my own.
Serendipity meant that I had a snap of a Ferrari to BTFO him with.
In case it triggers you more, his was on FP4, and mine was on PanF.
Point is, my crops from a smaller area of a larger negative with a very low-resolving DSLR show comparable sharpness to his stupidly slow and expensive Imacon.
And they rape his shatbed.
>>2795177
If I remember the thread it was GP3. And yours doesn't actually show anything with actual detail on it, yours looks lacking focus, in the image, and in the "scan".
Compounding that you're claiming yours is on Pan F+, but the grain is softer and larger.
>BTFO
Top fucking kek.
2/10 see me after class.
>>2795432
Well the wheel centre is clearly in sharper focus than the badge on the wheel arch.
Compounding also that you don't know much about PanF, is that it's not actually that fine grained a film. I developed that roll in rodinal too.
The grain in the Imacon scan isn't even magnified enough to be resolved, whereas in my scan the individual grains are visible.
The 'apparent' sharpness of the imacon comes down to the way it creates images, pinpoint by pinpoit, sampling each pixel, with no AA filter or bayer interpolation.
The actual effect of this low-magnification, single point method is that it renders grain as noise.
Whereas, you know, the DSLR takes a picture.
>>2791744
>that grip on the iron
Kekkus maximus
>>2795502
You're full of shit. You can see the grain in the flextight sample provided, it is very tight and finely resolved over the bonnet.
Secondly, if yours was so enlarged and resolved, the grain of Pan F+ in Rodinal would look like picture attached. It most certainly doesn't look soft and smeary as in your claimed example.
Thirdly, that is also not how a Flextight works, a Flextight is very similar to a flatbed scanner, main differences are is that it moves the film across the sensor instead of moving the sensor, and rolls the film while doing so. That is actually a bad design, and not an actual advantage like marketing claimed, it is a space saving design. That and uses an enlarging lens at typical enlarger heights. Instead of shitty in house optics, which is why it is tall rather than long.
Rabal fag gtfo with your bs. Your example is rubbish.
>>2796118
And here is some Pan F+ in non solvent straining developer. Nothing but sodium carbonate and catechol.
>>2796118
>Thirdly, that is also not how a Flextight works
I said it samples point by point.
That's exactly how it works.
Whether the film or the scanner moves is totally irrelevant. It's a CCD line-scanner.
Hey, you wanna know what scanning method has no banding distortion and can be infinitely scaled for resolution by varying your scanning time between 1 and 20 seconds?
>it's not the imacon
>>2796130
>Line sensor
>point by point
Top kek, pick only one.
You've been caught out, you don't have a clue what you're talking about it.
Pack your shit up and fuck right off. People aren't interested in being peddled bullshit.
>>2796132
>says the man defending a five-figure ccd line scanner driven by a sub-rasberry-pi processor
I'm not selling anything, I'm just trying to wake people up to the concept.
Surely a person who's anal enough to mix his own chems and perform resolution tests can understand that the absolute performance of any DSLR macro scanning rig is only going to be limited by your patience and diffraction?
I really didn't want to, but I feel like I'm going to need to do a 4 shot stitch of some sharp 35mm to really shut you up.
I'll even time myself start to finish.
>>2796124
Rabalfag on suicide watch
>>2796140
I'm at work for another 5 hours or so, but I'll post it after that.
>>2796277
>>2796142
>>2796137
So I did this one of some Retro 80S in Rodinal.
Unfortunately 1:1 with the EF100Macro wasn't enough to get to the actual grain of this film, and I don't have any EF extension tubes. I'll do another of something else grainier in a sec.
You can see the full res of the Konica's shutter speed dial. That crop is from an area of film maybe 2mm square?
>>2796850
How's that hangover bro?
>>2796853
brehhh
Shot 2 rolls of Tri-X in my new Fuji HD-M though, hanging up to dry next to me.
>>2796860
Have some sony/nikkor scanned Provia
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:19 23:58:49
>>2796850
So this is some sharp HP5. Unfortunately a little underexposed.
>>2796876
Nice.
Some perspective for >>2796870
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:20 00:13:36
>>2796876
Id love to see some more HP5 if ya have any.
whats some nice and cheap macro lens for dslr scan with a rabal? some m42 alternative?
>>2796880
My ja/p/an thread is full of it, it's all I shot for black and white, beside 2 rolls of Neopan.
Also, for background >>2796277 was taken with a tripod mounted EM with the 50/1.2 Ai-S at around f/4; >>2796876 was taken handheld with a New F-1 and FDn 35/2.8 at around f/11.
>>2796878
Was this a single shot, or stitched?
>>2796882
Any dedicated macro lense from any brand will work provided you also get an adapter, and any extension tubes you might need to get to 1:1.6 magnification.
However the Canon 100mm Macro can be found so cheap secondhand, and is such an excellent lense for general use as well as macro, that it should really be your first choice.
>>2796914
>Was this a single shot, or stitched?
Two shots, heavily and sloppily overlapped.
>>2796939
>tfw my two shots heavily and sloppily overlap on ur mom
>>2797717
> IS-A-CON
>>2797717
Imacon fag died from his butthurt?
>>2799832
If I had spent 20 grand on 1990's technology, I, too, would probably be a bit too butthurt to admit youngin's with a couple hundred bucks in odds and ends equipment are gettin equivalent results.
Speaking of butthurt, where has the ragemaster dude with the screen cezanne shatbed been? You know, the guy that raged that everyone else's scans were pure shit.
>>2799852
I think I missed that one.
Googling that monstrosity was amusing though, thanks.
>>2799877
Here's one for sale:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Screen-Cezanne-Elite-Large-Format-Film-Scanner-/191460261877?hash=item2c93ebbff5:g:t3IAAOSwMpZUm3Bo
Bargain price lol. Barely used lol.
>>2796876
HP5+ is grainier than this at the same crop size when resolved. There's probably no more detail on the film for you to resolve, but had there been that much detail on the film to pull out your setup whatever you are doing is not resolving as high as the crops you're providing.
Just like your Pan F+ sample.
>>2799972
>>2799983
>your setup whatever you are doing is not resolving as high as the crop
>meet mort moop blaf
HP5 is "grainier" when you scan it with your Hasselblad-modded shatbed.
I use T-Max Dev, so granted it's probably a little smoother than if you used D76 or something more traditional, but still it just comes down to the difference in how the files are created and what they look like at 100%.
I'm not running away from the reality that a rabal sensor doen't resolve sharp individual pixels no matter what you do with it, but it's still proof of concept.
Getting a closer macro shot and stitching a stack of them together has way more potential than any other scanning method currently in existence.
If I'd used an A7R or 5DS for these, I'd be showing you crops of crops for christsake.
>>2800033
It is the same old kind, just people publish less numbers about it on the internet, so you have to do your own research to get fodder for arguments.
>>2800030
The Imacon isn't introducing noise or artefacts in the scan, it actually suppressed the grain vs a condenser enlarger, since it is effectively a diffuse type enlarger with a line sensor instead of paper.
T-Max Developer is grainier than D-76 and Xtol actually, and just gets grainier the more you dilute it (more dilute solvent).
Digital images are capable of being quite sharp at 100%, the fact of the matter is, your "proof of concept" sucks.
It is also not a proof of concept, it has been done to death many years ago, and with much better results than yours.
>>2800226
Cmon buddy, you've had what, a week now?
Where are your big, sharp 35mm scans?
Going on about HP5 is grainier than this "when it's resolved", but your IsaCon "supresses" the grain?
Take your pick.
HP5 ain't Tri-X, btw. I've found the Tri-X to be a little rougher than the ilford in TMax Dev.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 554 Image Height 800
>>2791699
>My negs are suffering not being seen to their full potential on my V750 Pro.
>>2801128
The grain is not actually well resolved in any of your scans, so I wouldn't be making such a claim about it if I were you.
You have not provided sharp scans to your level of claim. Your Pan F+ is soft and out of focus. Your HP5+ likely doesn't hold enough detail for a high scan, but your scan of it is still poorly resolved.
You haven't provided shit desu.
You steal one of test photos from a long time ago where I was talking about finding development time for GP3 to stroke your own ego, posting it in every scanning thread that comes up, then strut around like your victorious as if you're in some competition.
You shit up threads with your terrible example and then claim shit like "BTFO him with".
And you wonder why myself or anyone else here don't really post stuff.
It's because of edgy morons like you.
>>2802050
>And you wonder why myself or anyone else here don't really post stuff.
I don't wonder, and neither does anyone else who reads the threads.
You either put up or shut up.
I don't browse /o/, but if I did I can imagine me as the guy who put a turbo LS1 in his daily driver, and you as the guy who's paying off a Gallardo.
And some noob comes along and says he wants to run 10s, should I get a Lambo, and we both chime in.
I post a $15k build sheet with shit you need to get your LS1-engined car making 800 horsepower and hooking up. Then I post a time slip of my car running 12.2 on street tyres and 91 octane.
Than you say, HA, my lambo is stock and does 12's all day and link to a magazine article and talking about your launch control and how easy it is.
And then I say, yeah, but my setup can *actually* do 10's, and didn't cost half a milllion dollars.
And then you say w/evs pleb, check out seats in my Lambo, here are some 22's I put on it.
And then one weekend I bolt some slicks on and tune it for 98 and post two slips with an 11.4 and a 10.9. And I mention hey, you could always plumb it for ethanol and nitrous for only a few g's and you'd go faster again.
And then you shit your pants, go on about rollout times and street tyres and your factory warranty, and dismiss it all as a pissing contest.
>but only one of us posted a time slip
>>2802131
>mfw dslr scanning does this to people
not saying you are autistic bro, but youre spectrum as fuck
>>2802300
Makes people post results and disparage and dismiss people who don't? Sounds good.
>>2800033
>is this some new kind of gearfaggotry?
No. DSLR vs flatbed vs drum cancer is old. It just happens a lot more because there's one really dedicated DSLR scanner who shitposts often.
>>2802318
You can say the argument is old, but things have changed drastically with the evolution of the cmos digicam. On the other hand, the flatbeds and drums remain technology from the early 2000's at best.
