Does MF color slides scanning in 24 bit still make sense today?
Hi, I am trying to make up my mind as if I should still use my scans made on a Scitex Eversmart limited to 24 bit output sRGB (not supported by the more recent software). Besides, I have done RAW processing from digital cameras for years, and the almost infinite gradient gives way more post processing options and richer results, at least on screen. I am now tempted to digitalize my slides again with the camera instead (currently Sony A7R, with stitching in LR I have most accessories needed). Do you think that the visible gain on Epson Ultrachrome prints for instance is worth a try? I am set on not investing on another scanner. Thanks for your feedback! Best regards Paul Schilliger
The large increase of colour gamut alone would make this worthwhile for photos that can benefit from gamut representation larger than sRGB, quite apart from the question of gradiants. Of course doing this with a camera limits you to the native pixel count of the sensor; this may be fine depending on how much stitching you are prepared to do and what size prints you want to make. You also need a high enough quality of lens to produce edge to edge sharpness unless you intend to do a lot of stitching, and you need to provide for accurate focus (depth of field is extremely narrow) and totally accurate alignment between the media and the sensor plane (ZigAlign is excellent for this). As well, the quality and evenness of the lighting under the media matters to the accuracy of the captures. These are things that a good scanner looks after sui generis, but one needs to be explicitly aware of using a camera. BTW, recent stitching work I have done in both LR and PSCS (latest versions of both) indicate to me that while LR is quite good, PSCS can do a more accurate job, with more tools for fixing tiny mismatches. Mark From: Paul Schilliger <pschilliger@sunrise.ch> To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:01 AM Subject: Does MF color slides scanning in 24 bit still make sense today? Hi, I am trying to make up my mind as if I should still use my scans made on a Scitex Eversmart limited to 24 bit output sRGB (not supported by the more recent software). Besides, I have done RAW processing from digital cameras for years, and the almost infinite gradient gives way more post processing options and richer results, at least on screen. I am now tempted to digitalize my slides again with the camera instead (currently Sony A7R, with stitching in LR I have most accessories needed). Do you think that the visible gain on Epson Ultrachrome prints for instance is worth a try? I am set on not investing on another scanner. Thanks for your feedback! Best regards Paul Schilliger _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/mgsegal%40rogers.com This email sent to mgsegal@rogers.com
On Jan 13, 2016, at 5:01 AM, Paul Schilliger <pschilliger@sunrise.ch> wrote:
I am trying to make up my mind as if I should still use my scans made on a Scitex Eversmart limited to 24 bit output sRGB (not supported by the more recent software).
So long as the scanning software isn’t doing any sort of automatic adjustment or clipping, especially per-image adjustment, the color space that it tags the resulting images with shouldn’t matter. You can simply profile the output of the entire capture process, ignoring any embedded profiles.
I am now tempted to digitalize my slides again with the camera instead (currently Sony A7R, with stitching in LR I have most accessories needed).
Only you can decide if the effort is worth what you’ll put into it. You might or might not gain anything from the different workflow. The A7R with good glass should easily out-resolve 645 film; unless you’re looking to reproduce the shape of the individual film grains, it should be all you need as far as resolution goes. And it definitely has more dynamic range than any film. Sony has had some trouble figuring out RAW file formats, but the compression artifacts they’ve introduced shouldn’t be a factor for what you’re describing. Were I starting from scratch with digitizing medium format film, I’d go with a DSLR workflow. But if I already had a quality film scanner, I’d be reluctant to stop using it. Cheers, b&
Ben, Reading Paul's question - carefully - it would appear to me that (a) he can no longer use this scanner, (b) he has no intention of buying another scanner, and (c) the scans he has already made with it are in sRGB working space, which means that any data that existed pre-scan exceeding sRGB is now clipped and gone forever. In those conditions, if he needs more gamut he needs to reprocess probably along the lines he is thinking. Mark From: Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> To: pschilliger@sunrise.ch Cc: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:45 AM Subject: Re: Does MF color slides scanning in 24 bit still make sense today? On Jan 13, 2016, at 5:01 AM, Paul Schilliger <pschilliger@sunrise.ch> wrote:
I am trying to make up my mind as if I should still use my scans made on a Scitex Eversmart limited to 24 bit output sRGB (not supported by the more recent software).
So long as the scanning software isn’t doing any sort of automatic adjustment or clipping, especially per-image adjustment, the color space that it tags the resulting images with shouldn’t matter. You can simply profile the output of the entire capture process, ignoring any embedded profiles.
I am now tempted to digitalize my slides again with the camera instead (currently Sony A7R, with stitching in LR I have most accessories needed).
Only you can decide if the effort is worth what you’ll put into it. You might or might not gain anything from the different workflow. The A7R with good glass should easily out-resolve 645 film; unless you’re looking to reproduce the shape of the individual film grains, it should be all you need as far as resolution goes. And it definitely has more dynamic range than any film. Sony has had some trouble figuring out RAW file formats, but the compression artifacts they’ve introduced shouldn’t be a factor for what you’re describing. Were I starting from scratch with digitizing medium format film, I’d go with a DSLR workflow. But if I already had a quality film scanner, I’d be reluctant to stop using it. Cheers, b& _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/mgsegal%40rogers.com This email sent to mgsegal@rogers.com
On 13 Jan 2016, at 12:01, Paul Schilliger <pschilliger@sunrise.ch> wrote:
I am now tempted to digitalize my slides again with the camera instead (currently Sony A7R, with stitching in LR I have most accessories needed). Do you think that the visible gain on Epson Ultrachrome prints for instance is worth a try? I am set on not investing on another scanner.
If you’ve images that you want more out of then get them scanned on a PMT drum scanner. We’ve done camera capture here since the Leaf Volaré was launched in the 90s — it’s cheap and quick but still no comparison to a proper drum scan even though we now use dedicated glass and cameras like Nikon's D800E. Oil mounting on the drum gives cleaner (and less distorted) results than you can get from *any* other capture method. And the spot illumination on a proper drum, not one of those fake CCD ‘“virtual" drums, cuts flare to a minimum. -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
participants (4)
-
Ben Goren
-
MARK SEGAL
-
Martin Orpen
-
Paul Schilliger