Film Scanners - any point ....?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SS
  • Start date Start date
S

SS

I have a Canon FS4000US film scanner. Seems to work OK and has good reviews.
I am a little disappointed when zooming in on detail that it seems rather
grainy. OK I am zooming in a lot on distant faces but will a better scanner
give any improvement in results or have I simply got down to the film grain
(most films ISO 200 or 400) and thats the limit. Is there any technique I
can use or any software that will 'improve' the results i.e. less grainy and
more detail? Neatimage does a cracking job on grain but does not improve
detail. Unsharp mask simply accentuates the grain. I have tried multiple
pass scans but no noticeable difference (even up to 16 passes). Any advice
gratefully received.
 
SS said:
I have a Canon FS4000US film scanner. Seems to work OK and has good reviews.
I am a little disappointed when zooming in on detail that it seems rather
grainy. OK I am zooming in a lot on distant faces but will a better scanner
give any improvement in results or have I simply got down to the film grain
(most films ISO 200 or 400) and thats the limit. Is there any technique I
can use or any software that will 'improve' the results i.e. less grainy and
more detail? Neatimage does a cracking job on grain but does not improve
detail. Unsharp mask simply accentuates the grain. I have tried multiple
pass scans but no noticeable difference (even up to 16 passes). Any advice
gratefully received.
Click to expand...

Hi SS...

Just thinking out loud... if you've got down to the grain,
how could there possibly _be_ any more detail ?

Wouldn't the digital equivalent of that being looking at
only one pixel, and wanting more detail in it?

Take care.

Ken
 
Exactly - is 4000 dpi getting to that stage? Is it the scanner? would a
scanner with better dpi give better results or just the same? Indeed how can
I tell if its the film or the scanner? is there some test I can perform?
 
SS said:
Exactly - is 4000 dpi getting to that stage? Is it the scanner? would a
scanner with better dpi give better results or just the same? Indeed how can
I tell if its the film or the scanner? is there some test I can perform?
Click to expand...

Hi...

Dunno, hopefully the real pro's here will tell us :)

Only test I can think of is to mask a tiny portion of a
good slide, then scan that teensy bit at 4000. (best I've
got is 3200). Do it several times. (individually, not
multi-pass)

Then look at them all at 100% or greater side by side.

If there's such a thing in the real world as random, then
noise will be it. Grain however will be static.

So - if it's consistently in the same place, it's grain.
Otherwise, it's noise. A worthwhile experiment, if nothing
else.

As for neat image - try a little edge preserving smooth,
first. Just one old guy's opinion, but I like it.

Take care.

Ken
 
SS said:
I have a Canon FS4000US film scanner. Seems to work OK and has good
reviews.
I am a little disappointed when zooming in on detail that it seems rather
grainy. OK I am zooming in a lot on distant faces but will a better
scanner
give any improvement in results or have I simply got down to the film
grain
(most films ISO 200 or 400) and thats the limit. Is there any technique I
can use or any software that will 'improve' the results i.e. less grainy
and
more detail? Neatimage does a cracking job on grain but does not improve
detail. Unsharp mask simply accentuates the grain.
Click to expand...

Unsharp mask _after_ Neatimage. (If you want a file that looks almost as
good as a dSLR image, Neatimage, downsample (bicubic in Photoshop) to 2100*
dpi, then USM.)

*: Resample back to 4000 dpi to make sure you aren't losing detail. But you
won't be.
I have tried multiple
pass scans but no noticeable difference (even up to 16 passes). Any advice
gratefully received.
Click to expand...

Try Fuji Reala, Velvia 100, or Velvia 100F (all ISO 100 films that capture
lots of detail). Shoot on a tripod (with mirror lockup if you're using an
SLR).

But the bottom line is that enlargements of much over 8x, even with the best
film, won't show as much detail as enlargements of 7x or lower. If you want
11x14 or larger prints with detail, get a Mamiya 7 and an MF scanner.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
The grain is not a problem with your scanner but with the film. I use
the FS4000US and the optics are quite good and actually accentuate
grain less than other high-end scanners, from the scans I've looked at.
It does have some problems putting enough light through slides,
however.
 
Exactly - is 4000 dpi getting to that stage? Is it the scanner? would a
scanner with better dpi give better results or just the same? Indeed how can
I tell if its the film or the scanner? is there some test I can perform?
Click to expand...
Grain is not uniform and forms patterns if you blow it up far enough.
At 4000 dpi the grain in ASA 400 film is quite evident, 200 seems to
be much more uniform.

Just do two scans of the same image and go for maximum enlargement. Do
you see the same small patterns in both images, or is it just random
noise?

I use a Nikon LS-5000ED and am quite happy with it. It's difficult to
find grain in ASA 100 and slower, but it's there in 200 and 400.

What kind of film and speed are you scanning?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
 
SS said:
Exactly - is 4000 dpi getting to that stage? Is it the scanner?
would a
scanner with better dpi give better results or just the same?
Click to expand...

Scanners differ in more than just their sampling density / resolution.
But everything else being equal, and assuming good enough capture
quality/technique (tripod, MLU, quality lens, etc.), yes there can be
more detail than a 4000 ppi scanner can extract (from lower ISO film
anyway):
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400-5.htm

Bart
 
Back
Top