gfx 100 scans vs noritsu (and frontier, epson v850)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- Music in the video (free, by me, licensed under CC-NC-SA if you'd like to use): / gimmick-mask
Other photos (free under CC-NC-SA): www.nostreamphoto.com/
Not-remotely-professional instagram that I am terrible at updating: / nostream
in this video, I offer some brief and unscientific but hopefully helpful comparisons between my current scanning setup (gfx 100 + 120/f4 + negative supply holders) and some alternatives - mostly Noritsu scans at max resolution, but also Frontier, v850, v600, and gfx 50s.
chapters:
0:00 intro
1:23 quick comparison
2:44 vs noritsu and frontier, same images
9:11 vs noritsu in more depth
11:41 quick epson v600 comparison
13:22 vs epson v800
15:51 quick comparison vs gfx 50s
17:17 discussion
20:47 thank you for watching :)
---
quick tech specs for nerds:
all photos developed by photolab in berkeley, ca
scanned w/ fuji gfx 100 + 120/4 GF
(film mounted in negative.supply setup)
at f/8
sharpened more than I'd like - to try to match lab scans
color edited to taste with negative lab pro.
all scans are edited.
there's no such thing as a neutral scan,
and this isn't a scientific review.
---
CC Images credits:
None in this video.
![Scanning black and white film & editing images for print. Big print workflow [17x24] Epson V850](/img/n.gif)
Amazing video WOW.... the GX100 compared to Labscans Frontier...You are the only guy ever doen it in such a high end gear comparisons. Thanks so much
cheers!
There is always the question of what are the "right colours" when it comes to colour negative film. Actually, you would have to make a neutral filtered print using an enlarger to have anything close to a reference for correct colours. All scans and conversions are only a digital interpretation of the dyes in the gelatine of the films that were actually made for analogue enlargement.
agreed that color evaluation here is subjective, and I think I say something to this in the scans disclaimer. when it comes to colors, my evaluation is 100% "vibes based." I also don't always find scientifically "correct" colors as measured with a chart etc. to be optimally pleasant.
@@atomikpi Right, "correct" colours are not always pleasing.
But a neutral filtering on a photographed grey card, for example, is the best way to compare devices and today rather profiles...
I would be happy if analogue photography remains stable enough for manufacturers to bring new scanners onto the market with today's technology and know-how.
A new Scanner in Imacon style could be much cheaper today than 20 years ago…
It is quite annoying to work with all these old 8 bit scanners and ancient computers, SCSI interfaces and dongles.
Digital Silver Imaging in Boston offer a 150mp Phase One scanning service called Instant Image Archive. In the new year, I will test it against a Imacon for negatives and Drum for slides and post the results here.
I’d be curious to see it. I’m realizing more and more how much technique matters when trying to get the absolute max out of negatives. And unlike with digital, you don’t get instant feedback.
The frontier scans looks sooo nice.
yeah that classic creamy look we associate with modern film photography.
EM5ii for the win - $300 for a used one off eBay and 64mpx raw pixel shift images. You can leave it mounted and ready to scan:)
Having performed a rather obnoxious amount of resolution testing, the max you can transfer of real optical resolution data is ~2.75mpx/sq centimeter. The lens is almost always the limiting factor and is the likely reason you saw no difference between 50 and 100mpx. I did extensive resolution tests with Adox CMS 20 35mm, the A7R4 pixel shift, and a 220lp/mm Sigma 105mm. I got real ~80mpx resolution out of 35mm with that combo.
Lenses with that resolution don't exist for MF. Even the Hasselblad 500 lenses top out at 90 I believe.
After all this testing, I just use an Epson for LF/MF/Instax, a PIE XAS for 35mm, Silverfast for both. I camera scan Adox 20 and E6. I work in IT from home - I just scan while I'm in meetings. I get super consistent results from Silverfast. I cannot say the same for negative lab pro.
Great video and examples. It was really interesting seeing the lab scans. Happy Holidays!
That’s a nice find! Yeah I think camera scanning is the way to go in 2021, and it’ll only get cheaper.
Btw this is a cool chart of lens sharpness findings of medium format lenses. There’s also a corresponding one for LF (have managed to prevent myself from getting into LF thankfully).
Sorry fat fingers today. web.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
That MP limit sounds about right. I’ve had some scans where I felt like I got 50+ MP out of MF (Mamiya 7 lenses are some of the sharpest, 120 Lp/mm on that chart for the 80mm), but I’ve never tried technical film! You also start finding deficiencies in your technique - rangefinder drift, optimistic focus scales (I typically use the one from two stops wider), tiny amounts of shake, shutter shock, etc. at a certain point, I have to take a breath and just shoot photos haha.
Those are the best resolution summaries I have seen, thanks! I went so far in my research and testing so as to try to quantify the "conversion tax", the lossiness of the process. I found with 35mm darkroom printing then scanning the print, I got 60% more resolution. It what's quite obvious the analog-to-analog darkroom print pulled far more data from the negative, and then that allowed for better conversion to digital via flatbed. Cheers.
This video represents a lot of work and experience. Your vision is very refined compared to many others on TH-cam. Thanks. Very informative.
I've been using a Fuji XT-2 with the 60mm macro @ f/5.6 (theoretically the optimal aperture) to scan 35mm, Noblex 135, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 6x12 for the last year or so. Even with this out-of-date camera body, there is nothing to complain about. Am eagerly awaiting the Fuji XT-5 due early next year which may possess a 40 MP sensor ...
Although I shoot with a Fuji GFX 50s and the 120mm macro, it just seems too clumsy for copying negs IMHO.
Thanks again.
Thank you. I try to make the content I’d want and if it’s overly detailed so be it. (I love entertainment to just not what I’m cut out for, hah.)
I’d try out the GFX! Hopefully the XT5 should come very close. I expect you’d see basically no difference from your xt2 for 35mm and a decent difference for 645 and up. XT5 might actually be better since you don’t have the 1:2 max magnification limit (and the 120 doesn’t do well in the corners with a tube).
So, one thing I noticed is that in my opinion the lab scans nailed the colors quite a bit better. I know I'm going to fly in the face of popular opinion here, but in all of my scanning experience I've not been a fan of negative lab pro. I've compared it quite a bit to silverfast, and while I will definitely not say that silverfast is perfect, in every comparison I've done against Negative Lab Pro, it does a much better job at getting colors closer to correct.
Granted, I've never scanned color negative film using *any* method where I didn't have to spend time correcting colors in post. That's one of its challenges IMO (and why lately I've tended to prefer B&W or slide film, because they are far less of headache than color negative film in post, obviously with their own challenges though).
You’re not alone here. Naive question - is it possible to use Silverfast with RAW digital camera files? No, right? (Haven’t used it in years, and remember it being pricey but good.) any alternatives to NLP you’ve tried and like (that work with RAW camera files)?
I think NLP does colors well most of the time, good enough some of the time, and occasionally kind of bad. (Like on the second Ektar shot of the gate/building, I couldn’t get NLP colors I was happy with, colors look weird and kind of “plastic-y” for lack of a better word.)
Colors are really hard. I used to shoot mostly b&w for exactly that reason, as you mentioned.
No, Silverfast is tied to your scanner only, unfortunately. NLP is probably your best bet for camera scanning, unless you want to try manual inversion.
Alex Burke does inversion manually and all of his shots are gorgeous with stellar colors. He certainly has a very good eye for it. I would check out his channel. I've had him drum scan some 4x5s for me and I was extremely satisfied with the results
@@atomikpi Negmaster is another alternative…
This was so helpful
glad it was helpful!
Finally managed to set aside proper time to watch the video closely and in one go. Following up from the previous video, it's really true that the flatbed results are discernible compared to the rest. Unfortunately, I think due to my own "layman-ness" I find the dslr, frontier and noritsu results quite close in terms of quality in a normal scenario, with only colour/white balance being the most apparent differences. Thanks a lot for the detailed breakdown! Amazing work.
Thank you! I actually feel pretty much the same. I'd be happy with any of those. And the nicer flatbed scans are ok ish too. (but I would be pretty sad if I had to settle for v600 scans, those were obviously worse.)
@@atomikpiCan you please post a video on V600 vs V850 pro. I have a V60 and want to know whether it’s worth going for 850. Thanks
With the Epson v850, did you do a test to find the best height for maximum sharpness; i.e. did you adjust the height of the film carriers first? Just wondering because it could affect a lot.
Hi - yes I've heard of this issue. I used a BetterScanning holder which theoretically should fix some of this but I didn't test manual adjustments as you've said. so I would imagine you could do better! Honestly though, the weird noise is a bigger issue for me than sharpness with the Epson flatbeds.
Thank you for the comparison. It makes me almost want to give up shooting color film. The results from your color negatives are so varied in color fidelity. "Why bother with color film when you have to adjust the colors in Lightroom with NLP in post and on a digital file." That's what I've been asking myself since I started DSLR-scanning my negatives and converting them with NLP...
I mean, I like the process of shooting film. But the end result is still (99% of the time) a digital image. And having to adjust the colors to my liking from my DSLR-Scan seems a little silly. How about you guys? Why are you shooting color film?
Honestly, can’t argue with you. 90% of why I shoot film is the experience (can't beat a Leica for feel, but 35mm is borderline impressionisitic). Especially with film prices going up and up...
Recently, I've started shooting with a mild black pro mist filter (1/8). That and the new nostalgic negative simulation have me liking digital a lot more than I did 6 ish years ago when I got back into film. (was really unhappy with the colors from the Sony digital I had, technically great but so boring and felt like a toy.)
I mean this is why digital has completely taken over lol. There was a time when the ONLY way to get color images was to shoot film. There seems to be some mysticism about the "film look" but for color negatives there is no such thing, everyone scanning the negative is going to have a different interpretation of how that negative should look. Scan your negatives on two different scanners and you'll have two different looks. If you REALLY want to go full analog and shoot film for analog colors, we'd all shoot SLIDE film and project it. A scanner is simply a digital camera that takes digital photos of your negatives and inverts them.
At the end of the day, film and digital are both photography. Whether you shoot with an iPhone, Sony mirrorless, mamiya 7, Pentax 110, Leica m3, you are a photographer. Film, digital, all these different formats are just tools to get the image that you're after. Use whatever tool you feel is necessary to reach the images you'd like create.
Personally, I like shooting film and having the negatives/slides. I like using the cameras. I like trying to push 35mm as far as it'll go. I'm fortunate enough to own a Noritsu scanner and that makes shooting color negative film pretty rewarding. But if color film disappeared tomorrow, I'd be perfectly fine shooting color with digital and black and white on film.
@@EM-ve9bh I think another way of looking at it - and mostly how I do - is just that shooting film is more tactile and fun. (Maybe the results are better, but not dramatically and not all the time, and sometimes things just don't work.) When I can't afford to take a risk or just want good results without the hassle, I shoot digital.
I'm not a professional photographer, just an enthusiast, but I was quite lucky to aquire a Noritsu scanner for cheap. At first, my scans looked georgeous to my eye. Then I began to like them less. Maybe because of a poor C41 development, I'm still not sure (my film is processed in a lab). So time after I was thinking to replace my Noritsu with a DSLR scanning + NLP.
However, after looking at your samples, I guess I won't do this. I liked the lab scans so much more! In my opinion, the colors and tones look so much better on scans from Noritsu and Frontier!
By the way, do you know that you can get RAW files on Noritsu? Yes, there is still a Noritsu color profile applied to them but they they are free of any contrast or sharpening. So one can edit them in a broader way than ordinary 16 bit tiffs. However, personally, I prefer edit 16 bit tiffs anyway.
Very cool. Medium format capable or 35mm only? I strongly considered a 35mm Noritsu in the past (refurbs are not too crazy expensive, though i was worried about software compatibility). But I shoot mostly MF and didn’t want the hassle of two different setups.
Cool to hear about RAW - wouldn’t you have to use NLP or similar though? Or it’s a positive RAW/DNG that you can work with easily?
I was surprised the sharpness difference was basically non existent. Keep in mind I’m using a really good lens (mamiya 7 80mm), mostly on a tripod, on some sharp films, and I still saw very very small differences.
@@atomikpi Actually, now I have a few Noritsus :) At first, it was a Noritsu LS-1100. It's a 135 format scanner. Then I got access to such scanners and now I also have a top of the line, HS-1800 (can scan both 135 and 120 film) and now I also sell them time after time. So I can offer you one if you need :)
Previously, I was talking about thinking of selling my own HS-1800 scanner but I'm going to keep it.
About raws. Usually, raw files from digital cameras are without any embedded color profiles. So one can apply any color profile later in any software. Noritsu raws are raw files for Noritsu software but they can be opened in Photoshop. They are more like tiffs in a way that they already have an embedded color profile. They are not totally "color flat". However, as I said earlier, such Noritsu raws are absolutely uncontrasty and unsharpened. So one can recover any highlights or shadows that are presented on film (the dynamic range is huge!) and can make broader color adjustments. Also, I fogot to mention that such scans are not croped on a longer side. So one can get all the length of the frame!
As for the sharpness and noise, I suppose it's a secondary issue. There's plenty of detail on lab scans. If one needs more, they can apply modern noise reduction that makes just wonders.
The ICE and the speed of scanning are great as well. And the software runs on Windows 10.
Is there a copy stand you prefer when using the GFX 100, the integrated vertical grip has me a little worried on splurging on an expensive Kaiser or equivalent.
Unfortunately, none that I can vouch for. For my purposes, negative supply pro riser is good enough but has some wobble. There's a stand mentioned in kyle mcdougall's video that looks pretty decent and sturdy.
Hey there - Sharing from own experience here.
Depending on which focal lenght you use as a scanning lens, you'll be super happy with the Novoflex MS-REPRO (works up to 100mm). If you're using a scanning lens of 120mm on medium format film, you may prefer to go for a Kaiser RS1 with the RA-101 head (that's what I am using now). The additional height of the Kaiser will also allow you to create contact sheets easily with a LED light pad.
For reference: I'm using the Schneider Macro Symmar 5.6/120mm (v0059) for scanning and the Schneider APO-Digitar 90mm for contact sheets and everything not-macro related.
@@cvandebroek thanks for the information! the kaiser stand looks incredible other than the price. and the Novoflex seems great other than the potential inability to use longer lenses.
you're using that Schneider on a GFX 100(s)? curious if you've compared to the native GF 120mm. (by the way, there were some tests online showing that the GF 120 performs pretty poorly toward the edges with an extension tube, but you can fortunately get away with no tube for MF scanning and don't need the edges for 35mm.)
@@atomikpi The Kaiser stands are available in very good used condition. That's how I bought mine. They are widely available in Germany as solo devices for a reasonable price (paid 280 EUR for mine, in MINT condition), though when looking on ebay (international) they sell for crazy prices. A way to bypass this price increase is to look for the Kaiser VCP 3501 - System V enlarger, they use the same RS1 stand and go for about $250. You can easily remove the enlarger head and replace it by the RA-101 camera head.
I'm using the GFX 50s II to digitise my negatives. Other than the different pixel pitch there shouldn't be any massive difference in results with the Schneider lens on the GFX 100(s). If you're interested in getting the lens, skip the consumer version of it (marked with HM) as that one is too expensive but look out for the industrial version, which sells for a lot less (got mine from South Korea). The only difference from the consumer to industrial version is the fact that the aperture ring doesn't click and apertures are numbered from 1-6 instead of showing the real aperture. But well… The Schneider is at its sharpest and best wide open, so… who cares?
Another lens you may want to look into is the Rodenstock APO-Rodagon D 75mm X2 f/4.5 (I own that one too). It gives the same incredible results as the Schneider, has a larger field of depth (about twice vs. 120mm) and is thus easier to set up. Skip the X1 version, as it's optimised for magnifications unsuitable to the GFX sensor / negative size combo and (most importantly) the image circle only fits up to 6x6 negatives. The X2 f/4.5 is the lens that has also been manufactured into the Flextight X5 scanner.
I've never tried the GF120mm macro - While I'm sure it's a great lens, it's outperformed by both the Schneider and Rodenstock lenses and these are designed specificly for flat field reproduction / inspection purposes.
EDIT: Another thing worth mentioning is the fact that both the Schneider and Rodenstock also have corrections for a much broader light spectrum than consumer lenses have. They are CA corrected from 380-720nm (which covers about every colour film I know) and are colour neutral up to 1000nm.
Happy to share some results or having a chat on the topic, if you feel like it.
@@cvandebroek appreciate it. given that I am getting by OK with my current stand, will probably stick with that and reference this thread if I ever end up sufficiently frustrated. i imagine some german sellers support international shipping and would probably be the cheaper option.
I do find that my old 50s scans are basically just as good as 100 scans, so I don't think you're missing out on anything. (reality is even MF color negative film is outresolved by the 50 MP sensor.)
the 75mm you mentioned looks great. will be looking into that. would love to have a closer working distance to minimize wobble.
want to shoot me a message on instagram (in description)? that way we don't have to post emails publicly. curious to see some samples.