35mm negative scanner

[agentlossing]

Double check, but I'm pretty sure the v550's actual optical resolution tops out at 4800dpi.

It's 6400, interpolated up to 9600. Again, probably not necessary, but I have a theory that the grain and detail will look better once sharpened in LR with higher resolution. And these B&W scans I have been doing are probably not that hard to interpolate relatively well.

 

[agentlossing]

Per Epson:

Optical Resolution: 6400 dpi with Epson MatrixCCD® Hardware Resolution: 6400 x 9600 dpi with Micro Step Drive™ technology

So it is actually better than straight interpolation, as it is doing some kind of multiple sampling with a drive that moves at less than full steps, sort of like M4/3 cameras' high-res modes (if I understand it correctly).

 

[gwydionjhr]

That was both interesting and a little disappointing. I have been "camera scanning" negatives recently. I was tempted to buy NLP, and that thread makes it sound great. But also I learned it requires LR6 and I only have LR4 so no deal :-(

I seem to recall seeing something in the NLP forums when I first checked it out about compatibility coming for Affinity, might be worth following up on.

 

[Hendrik]

I've done slide copying on a legacy OM setup (Slide copier, OM 50mm f/3.5 Macro, Bellows, Nikon D300). I've used the Epson V750, which I own, and I've used a borrowed Nikon LS-5000. They all have their strengths. Slide copying is super fast but resists automation. Flatbeds have the advantage of being able to do reflective media, as well. Dedicated slide scanners like the LS-5000 have the advantage of being able to ingest one whole box of slides at a time if equipped with feeders of adequate capacity (IIRC, Nikon's will take up to 40). This makes for a pretty pared-down workflow, almost set and forget. Negative strips can be a bottleneck for dedicated scanners - flatbeds will be more efficient in many cases.

My experience is that, for 35mm slides and negatives, ~6Mpix is a sweet spot for IQ and file weight (I save in tif). One neat trick is to do multiple scanning at higher resolutions and downsample for output. This reduces noise substantially, and is easy to do with Vuescan (recommended).

 

[coffeecat]

I seem to recall seeing something in the NLP forums when I first checked it out about compatibility coming for Affinity, might be worth following up on.

Aha - that would be brilliant!

 

[ralf-11]

what resolution corresponds to the grain of Kodachrome 64??

 

[0000]

I think to to get the right color rendition for your flavor of film, you'd have to take a picture of the calibration chart with the film you are trying to match and have it developed and scanned at a reputable source.

Well, If what you're really after is the look of that film when printed, then you might want to work with a scan of a print rather than a negative scan as the target sample, and as a source use a "scan" that was ballpark-analog-balanced at shooting time, inverted, then white balanced to the same white point as the print scan... just make sure the process is reproducible. Really, though, trying to get the results you want from fixed matrices like that is pretty fiddly and not very flexible, so it's probably worth seeing what the software you're already comfortable with can do first. This is probably getting pretty far from intended topic, though...

 

[ADemuth]

This is probably getting pretty far from intended topic, though...

Yes, yes it is, I'm sorry everybody! Your last input is very helpful though, and gives me some ideas.