Finally someone using a medium format camera to scan film. I’ve been always searching online to see if anyone has experimented with it, glad to see finally someone taking the chance.
@@Huginn1000 True but glad to see someone doing it. Mind you this is without using the enhance feature in Lightroom as well, I can only image the results after that.
Thank you for this video, it clearly tells me that Coolscan will remain in demand for a long time, like the film itself, among those who want to see colors and color shades.
I have been using the Mamiya 645 80mm f4 macro with extension tube set for over 2 years on the Fujifilm 100, if you want even bigger files, try to pixel shift and you'll get a huge file with more detail than you ever need.
@@yunhaojiang7708 Most of the Mamiya glass perform well when stopped down to f8 or beyond, one of the weakest lens is the 50mm shift lens, but when stopped down to f16, this lens is capable of corner to corner sharpness. The difference between modern glass and old glass is sharpness at wild open, so unless one is looking for sharpness at wider apertures, there's no point spending money on the new lenses. All old lenses performs well stopped down, also sharpness has very little meaning for moody shots, older lenses render more film like than modern lenses, that's why value of old lenses are relatively high and some are crazily expensive. I use my GFX for capturing paintings and landscapes, these older lenses are as good as the Fuji's lenses when stop down but with better film like rendering when shoot at wider apertures.
Seven years ago I started to collect gear and started to experiment of scanning film with DSLR. My gear so far is Nikon D610, Sigma 105mm 1:2.8DG MACRO HSM lens, Sigma 70mm 1:2.8 DG MACRO lens, Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon-D 2 X 1:4.5 f=75mm lens, ARTOGRAPH LightPad 920 Light Box, and KAISER RS-1 Copy Stand. I have same experience with focusing, it is hardest part of scanning with camera despite of having expensive Copy Stand. For shooting in magnification of 1:1 or more, I'm planning to make custom Copy Stand with thick steel tubing. I would also like to connect 4K monitor for focusing instead of using Camera's own monitor.
For macro I've been using the GF 45-100 with the 16mm macro extension tube and have been very happy with the results for macro photography of architectural models. It does involve buying another fuji lens but the 45-100 is a mainstay on my camera and main travelling lens so could be worth looking at it depending on how long you keep the kit zoom lens for.
But the Fuji GFX set up does not have digital ICE, right? So any imperfections - dust, scratches, etc. - have to be removed manually. Nikon's ICE combined with the newer versions of Vuescan is pretty good at restoring old, beat up negatives that would be impossible to restore manually. If for no other reason that this, I still think the Nikon dedicated scanner is superior.
I think you will find out soon that VueScan does not use the Digital ICE that is developed by Kodak. It is their own algorithm and not always do a good job on dust/scratches removal. Also, the Nikon scanner is very sensitive to scratches, with films developed by Noritsu machine that uses rollers to transport the film, the scratches are nearly unremovable, even with highest settings. Also, not to mention that Nikon's software is outdated, VueScan does not support full roll preview on 5000 ED which makes it hard to predict the alignment of the frames on 35mm films, and Silverfast cannot output RAW on dust removal (it is basically a must for NLP to work). I think these drawbacks are enough for me to start moving on something better. It's true that GFX won't have dust removal ability, but cleaning the film isn't that hard, a electric dust blower can get rid of most of them, the rest can be cleaned inside LR (their algorithm is excellent compared to VueScan's). Lastly, considering the speed of scanning, I really don't want to spend 1+ hour on scanning one roll of 35mm with Nikon again, it's noisy and slow. You can easily retake one picture on GFX (if you have dusts or something), but it's gonna take a while to rescan with Nikon.
I started with a cheap copy stand from BIG which was around 70€ when I bought it but now goes for over 100€ but was never really that amazed by it as it didn't have an adjustment to make sure the focal plane is perfectly parallel to the film. So I replaced it with a diy solution consisting of: - wooden board (40x40cm) - metal tube with a flange to attach to the board (50cm length) - Manfrotto Superclamp and thread for tripod heads - Smallrig tripod ballhead And I also got myself an Arca Swiss compatible L-bracket which makes scanning 645 a bit easier.
I’ve been amazed at the scan quality I get from my Fuji XT20 and an older Nikon 60mm macro lens. Honestly better than any lab scans I’ve gotten short of drum scans. Even then, the only real difference is resolution. I’m really hoping Fuji comes out with an apsc camera with pixel shift so I can get super high-res scans.
I have a cheap setup that really works for the mounting issue. I just mounted my $30 Neewer ball head to the wall with a $6 Camvate mount, placed a $20 Neewer sliding rail on the ball head and now I have the ability to adjust distance and level in all directions from a solid surface, for $56. It was actually only $26 for me since I already had the ball head. This way it takes up no space, and actually means I can wall mount my camera when I'm not using it. That alongside with a cheaper lightbox/film holder would give you quite a bit of room for a better second hand macro lens with better corner shapness. The Laowa 65mm 2x Ultra Macro APO is around $320 used and would be a great option if you don't mind manual focusing. The ideal would be the used 80mm macro, but that's out of budget at $600 used.
I am using a GFX50R, negative supply 120 mask, for lens I’m using a bronica PE 100mm, 40mm GFX extension tube and GFX broke a adapter. I am able to get a full 6x9cm negative filling the frame. The 100mm gets me perfect flatness and sharpness @ 5.6. I have tried scanning with other macro lenses and sure enough, none of the 35s can resolve as good on the GFX sensor.
I’ve been pleased with using the pixel shift function of my Panasonic S1R, combined with my home made wooden copy stand I made with two sliding dovetails. The challenge to me has been combining files from minimalist shots from my 6x17. PS: tethering was the solution for me to nailing super-critical manual focus.
Have you thought about adapting an enlarger lens? I would think that would work beautifully once the mechanics of it are figured out. Certainly would be flat at least. If you're still looking for something in addition to the Pentax that is.
In my setup I found to be the lenses coating the most important variable. I used an old macro as well, and always had issues with lens flair. Then I opted for the very cheap 7artisans 60mm macro, and even though it's softer then the vintage lens the fact that the coating is modern, and fresh really changed the quality of my scans
I am going to try this setup as I have the gfx 50s and a very nice Mamiya 120 macro. However I have to say that to my eye the coolscan has a luminous appearance and a warmth (and I don’t mean colour) that the gfx does not achieve. In all these side by side samples the coolscan wins for feel. It’s a subtle thing but I noticed it right away. There’s a luminous look that an imacon or flextight (and apparently the coolscan) resolves that the digital sensor cannot translate from the neg. How it captures the subtlety of bounce light. Good video though the nova flex stand was good to find out about. I will be interested to see how it stacks up against my v700 which is nowhere near as good as the coolscan but with the better film scan holders and some calibration I have made perfectly good meter wide print from Mamiya 7 scans .
I have been waiting for this! The novoflex riser looks really good. The comparison mti the coolscan has surprised me. the but more details to get out is amazing.
I have the GFX 100S as well and just bought a Hasselblad macro lens and adapter to do the same thing. I bought a dedicated mount and table as well. I'm excited and hopeful this will all work out.
Hi Kyle, how are you dealing with dust? I've switched to an old laptop dedicated to the Coolscan to use Nikon Scan and I've been happier than using Vuescan + NLP and it also gives me really great dust removal as a bonus. Your new setup looks appealing with regards to speed though.
When you scan, you have full control of the lighting etc. I would imagine that the resolving power of a macro lens, and the resolution of the sensor would be key. So the dynamic range etc won’t matter much. And a mechanical setup to make stitching easy to do.
Useful info. My experience is that the 100MP is very good but with 35 mm film in particular, far beyond what is needed to match optical quality printing from the original neg. The advantage for me in shooting with a DSLR and converting the negs is speed. I had a commercial lab with Scitex scanners that made brilliant scans in batches. However, I am now retired and Scitex is dead. A good solid copy stand is a must. The lack of options on the market these days is real as so many seem to be set up for phones. The Novoflex seems a good choice. I use a Negative Supply stand that is very solid for a FF35 but would be shaky for a MF most likely though the 100S seems like it could work. Using the Manfrotto adapter is a must for Kyle as he uses his camera for his personal work. Adding more pieces adds to the possibility of shake and misalignment. I am fortunate to be able to mount my camera permanently with no adapters. The Pentax macro seems an excellent choice and is an avenue that many would be well served by. In the end, a setup that is solid and can be locked down eliminates a lot of the complaints of sharpness and alignment. I eliminate shake with using LR remote tether and the f12 key to fire the shutter. Manual focus is easy and with a good film transport base such as the Valoi or Negative Supply , focus stays on point as the film is advanced. The real bonus for me in the use of a DSLR is the RAW file functionality and the massive improvements in sensor technology as evidenced in the reduced noice in shadows from the Nikon in comparison to the Fuji.
Good call on the copy stand - very few to zero options between high-end and wobbly cheap. Having used a tripod for ages, I got fed up with setup time and shifted over to my diy version of what ends up being very similar to what you have (I use a Negative Supply setup for 135 only). From birdwatching I have an old spotting scope tripod with pan/tilt head and a hide clamp (an apparatus that slides over the vertical tripod tube to clamp onto window ledges in birdwatching hides); from my macro photography days I have a Novoflex Castel-L macro rail and a very decent Nikon macro lens. Combine the two together: Take the centre column out of the tripod, attach the hide clamp to the bottom, and the macro rail to the pan/tilt head of the spotting scope; clamp hide clamp to tabletop. Works very well so far for me even with my pretty hefty DSLR setup, Nikon D800E and 200mm f/4 micro. Only limitation is length of copy stand in combination with current lens: I estimate the total height to be perhaps slightly greater than yours, but I have to rack it out fully (I'm also using quite a long lens QR plate) to get to about 1:1 with the Nikon lens for 135. Will almost certainly need a shorter f/l 1:1 macro lens to do 6x7 (I usually do a stitch of 2 frames) - sadly I sold my Nikon 60mm a while back.
Question for you? Have you ever tried using the 400mp pixel shift mode to scan a 4x5 negative? That is my dream setup, a 4x5 camera and the gfx100s to make 400mp scans. I'm currently shooting with an RZ67 and scanning with a Canon 5DSR and a Tokina macro lens. I'm using a Kaiser RS2 copy stand and light source. My technique is to take a total of 9 captures of the 67 negative using a 3x3 grid and then stitching them together in light lightroom. The results are roughly 235mp. It is a slow and tedious process but I shoot tethered which saves me some time vs copying images over from the card. It's a pretty decent budget setup but someday I would like to upgrade to a 4x5 camera and a gfx for scanning
I use a Kaiser copy stand. Very sturdy and not expensive and the head is geared. Just upgraded the lens to the RF 100mm L macro for my old EOS R body. For me, at this moment, 30mp is enough and the lens is the most important factor. For me, the issue is the negative carrier. I use Negative Supply but they’re all designed in a similar way. If you’re scanning and entire roll that is uncut, it’s not so bad but if your negatives have been cut into strips, then the advancing mechanism only picks up the film half way through the strip. The first few frames, advancing is manual.
I've been using a Canon EOS R5 with sigma 70mm macro lens (the new one, it's crazy high resolution) and Negative Supply carriers. For me, the camera scanning is key as it's just so much faster than pretty much any dedicated film scanner I've used, being able to capture pretty much any roll in less than 2 minutes. It's cool seeing the GFX 100S being used, but for my uses, the 45MP of the R5 has been proving to be more than enough for pretty much any output size I've needed to put out. Obviously, everybody will have their own needs, but I've found that once you get up into the 40-50MP+ range, you have a lot to work with. I'd be curious how much sharper 100MP would be. Even though it's double the MP, the actual pixel dimensions aren't really that significantly different, and there are a lot more really performant lenses with the smaller sensor.
The Coolscan appears to be picking up way more fine detail which is perhaps being masked by CMOS noise. Also the Nikon is giving you a full spectrum scan which you can somewhat see here, not something anyone might notice outside of a side/side comparison in either case. The subtle color transitions on the Coolscan though do look a lot smoother.
I believe this is likely a matter of lenses used. If the lens on camera scanning does not resolve as high as the Nikon one, it doesn't matter how many MP your camera can do. The lens is what people should focus on. Scanner and enlarger lenses are the way to go here. 4000ppi is something no macro can do (at least not to my knowledge).
@@GurmeetSingh-fr8uo Flatbed scanners are never the best for film. They are designed for other purposes and film scanning is solely a side business. Depending on which type of film you scan, you may be better of with camera scanning or go for a dedicated film scanner. 35mm scanners are quite affordable. Look for PrimeFilm Xas for example. True 4000dpi scanning.
@@cvandebroek There is a class of scanner known as a 'Pro Flatbed', these are among the best scanners ever made. Creo/Scitex produced them among a couple others. Usual models are the IQSmart 2 and 3, Eversmart Pro and Supreme I/II. These are on par with and sometimes superior to drum scanners. Very different from the Epson offerings. I have an Eversmart Supreme II and it produces incredible quality scans, the best I've seen. It was between this or a Tango, and the ESII is way easier to work with.
Loving seeing your DSLR scanning journey! One think I might recommend trying , especially with the bigger negatives, is actually getting in even closer and essentially pano stitching the photos to get an even bigger scan!
ETC., I've done that in the past for other types of projects and it had worked brilliantly. I'm considering it here as well, particularly as I'm sitting with the gh6 in high res mode. Which gives a 100mp file, but is still a MFT sensor. If you use a good macro that eliminates barrel, etc, you shouldn't have much issue stitching. The question becomes, how much res do we really need? Usually by around 50mp give or take, we are already down to grain.
Finally, someone tried scanning with GFX100S. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Looks fantastic! I have to write the next thing to my thinking list, doh... :D
I was really surprised to see you sold the Coolscan! That thing has been a staple for your channel. I recently had a similar choice to make and I went with Plustek's 120 Pro, but it was tough. I'm really impressed by the GFX!
Sir, I got a picture off the internet and I used Topaz Gigapixel to enchance it. Then I used my cell phone and looked at the picture. I saw something entirely different than the original image. It was almost like the picture was taken, yet the negative of that picture was instilled in the picture of previous pictures. I saw faces, body parts, crosses, lights on walls, different people. Hope u understand the question.
Ack, I kept meaning to make a comment on your previous video but didn't get the chance. This is a pretty boss setup! I use my 24 mp A73 with the excellent Laowa 100mm lens and get pretty okay results. My biggest tips for anyone looking into scanning medium format but not wanting to invest in a pricier digital camera: 1- rotate your camera to match the longer side with the longer film side. This is kind of obvious but for example with 6x45 I line the 3 of 3:2 sensor with the 6. 2- stitching works pretty well actually. I used Affinity Photo initially but now Capture One's built in one. I heard Light room is even easier. My usual flow is 1 image for 645, 2 for 6x6 and 3 for 6x9. I usually get close to 20mp for 645, about 40 for 6x6 and easily above 50 for 6x9. It could be optimized but it's pretty good. For positioning I line the 3 on my sensor with the 6cm on the film and get roughly a 6x4 (cm) image so I take 2 of em for 6x6 and 3 of em for 6x9. If you really wanted you could maybe stitch your 6x7 negatives with the gfx for even more resolution but it's probably unnecessary and more a hassle than anything lol Misc: If you have a macro lens that goes closer than 1:1 or a smaller image sensor you can get up to some shenanigans like getting surprisingly high res files from 35mm half-frame photos. Sure they are grainy but hey. Try this with your xt4 some time for the heck of it. One downside to dslr scanning is that once your film is cut it becomes cumbersome and annoying to scan it lol Color could be another (I don't use light room so I'd have a hard time converting it to a positive). I almost wish I had the tidy Valoi setup with the integrated light. Keeping things not moving is a bit annoying if you don't have that and use like the efh (which is otherwise pretty good mind you) My personal biggest editing hassle tbh are what looks like bleeds on the edges of my negative and usually I need some gradient filters to fix this. I have heard that's just a shadow being cast by the essential film holder onto the film.
You mean Nikon 9000? Min 0:48 the second best scanner in the market? coming from a PRO like you must be a very different setup, so from 0 to 10 whats your opinion?
Is it useful to take multiple bracketed exposures and combine in HDR software? Or is the dynamic range of film sufficiently limited for a single exposure on the GFX?
I have a Pentax 645z and a fantastic 645 120mm macro lens. Would this be a good choice for film scanning. I use that camera for my commercial work but am new to film scanning. Appreciate your advice
Not yet. I was wondering if it was a good option before buying something else just to scan with. I have the Pentax 645z and a 120mm macro but I also have a canon 5d mkiv and a 100mm macro. Any thoughts?
With that 120mm macro being 1:4, are you not able to get the negatives to fill the frame of the GFX? I was hoping the lens was at least 1:2 or better at 1:1. I'm looking for a macro lens too. I've been using a Nikon D800E with the 105mm 1:1, but with the.resolution of the 100S I want to find something to use with it.
Hey guy, I just saw your video and it is really well done. I am wondering about the vignetting that you are getting with the Contax lens. While I am an old film guy, I have never scanned anything, but I wonder which f-stop you are using, and I wonder if the vignetting clears up when you stop the lens down a bit. My memory of the Contax macro lens that you are using is that it was of such high quality that you should be able to stop the lens down and keep the resolution that you have been getting closer to the centre of the image. Also, the Nikon 60mm micro/macro film lens from the 80's had a reputation for edge to edge sharpness. It would be interesting if you were to try that lens. That lens was incredible and if you have a friend who still has one I would try that lens as it was considered a flat-field lens and was designed with copy work in mind, and it was blazingly sharp.
Can't remember the exact aperture, but this was stopped down. Just don't like the idea that it's using the extreme edges, and would rather have something with plenty of coverage.
I have gone through a few lenses on the GFX100s trying to scan negs. My only cameras atm are that and the 67ii so it didn’t make sense to buy outside those systems. Initially the Pentax 67 100mm Macro went okay. Then I bought one of the short Fuji macro rings and was using the GF45 for 6x7 scans which surprisingly worked quite well, and the GF110 for 4x5 scans. Both were pretty fiddly with the focus distance so I recently grabbed the GF120 as they are running a $700 cashback offer here in Australia bringing it down to $2600AUD/£1400GBP. I’ve actually used it for a bunch of other payed work and it gives a really different look for portraits than the 110mm. And it’s one of those lenses that seems to retain its value on the second hand market. If you can borrow one to compare you might find no difference or love it. Early signs are good.
Cool to hear that you've been happy with the 120. I think I'll stick with the Pentax for now, as I'm happy with the performance. And try to find a permanent workaround solution with the stand.
Hey Kyle, I hope you are well and that you are enjoying the British summer. It’s a great place to be this time of year. I have a Frontier SP3000 which is great for Colour 35mm & 120 but I don’t like it for black and white. I also have a GFX 50s so your video piqued my interest as my Frontier is on the fritz and may need an expensive fix. As I only use it for personal use I may just move it on and go with a camera scan set up. So my questions for you (if you don’t mind) are, how do you like it for black and white conversions and do you miss your dedicated scanner now you’ve been without it for a few months? Cheers, Ben
Hey Kyle, thanks for the update of your scanning setup! I was wondering if you are also scanning your 4x5 with the camera setup, and if so, do you need to stitch them from multiple shots? Thanks!
I've only scanned a couple 4x5 sheets, and have done them full frame. It works fine. But there's definitely potential to stitch and get way more from the large format negative.
god that old lens with that kind of results, 100% a go to method for anyone that has a digital camera lying around. I was just scanning my film last night, and I'm still having problems like you said at the end. trying to get the film flat and control the stray lights from the lightpad. I just might get some proper equipments eventually
I have the GFX 100s with the 18mm tube, works exceptionally well on my GF45-100mm f/4. I can focus at 45mm so close, within like 2-3 inches. Images look way better then with the 120mm Macro. Just a thought, not sure how it would work with your setup.
Probably not going to be as sharp on the corners, as non-macro lenses have usually a greater field curvature. Possible solution: find a bellows macro set-up that you can adapt to gfx and use a nice enlarger lens as they are made to have a very flat focus field.
I have the 50s ii. The only lens I have for it at this point is the 35-70. I was considering going this route using one the the Fotodiox options. I’ve never shot macro, so I’m inexperienced in this area. Should I do 20 or 48mm for the extension?
I’ve been scanning 35mm with my Sony A6000 and the 7artisans macro lens, and it works great, but I’m looking to get a gfx (not sure which model yet) as I want to get into digital medium format, and if it can double as my all purpose scanner that is enticing. Would it be better to use something like my A600 for 35mm and use the GFX for strictly medium format scans, or just not worry about filling the entire GFX frame with a 35mm scan and crop in post?
Holy moly my jaw dropped when you said you ditched the 9000 it must be impressive then! I'm using a xt3 right now :) looking forward for the results later in the video!
For your Pentax lens with the novoflex, why don't you just create your own copy stand? A thick and heavy nice wood plate so it's stable, you screw the novoflex on it, some rubber feets, but you cut a square into the wood plate so your film holder can go lower and be flush with the wood plate but it would be resting on your table. Or you can definitely create a "double deck" copy stand. I'm pretty sure you could gain like 10 to 15cm in height (that must be like 2 cups and 1 inch 😂).
Fantastic comparison Kyle! Really interesting results and kudos on keeping your scans so clean using a digital camera. With the 4:3 ratio being so optimal with 645, do you think you’ll give up shooting 67?
@@KyleMcDougall Wow, that's really clean for a 400. Mine are not that clean. Maybe the lab I've been using is not really good and is accentuating the grain on my negatives. Thanks Kyle!
Hi Kyle, I hear people who are really into camera scanning are using enlarger lenses. Have you looked into that? would be interesting to see you explore that and hear your findings. cheers
Hey Kyle, nice video. I have one question here": what software and process did you use to invert the color negatives from neg to pos? Your images in the video are all .TIFF, it seemed to me. The CoolScan may run a multipass and with its software generate a .TIFF file that in theory is superior to a Bayer raw file as there is no wild-assed guessing of missing colors that happens in raw processing of raw files. But you present the shots from the Fuji as tiff as well so some processing has been going on there.
@@KyleMcDougall I recently read that the DNG is often just embedding a TIF, and there isn't any difference. Who knows. Up makes an excellent point regarding Bayer. But functionally, it may be a moot point as the end result quality is so good.
Congrats again on the camera upgrade, timely indeed: I’ve been using a set up similar to yours for the last four years, first with an A7Riii, then an A7Riv. I built my own copystand and light table from solid hardwood and Arca-Swiss rails, it’s not the most portable option but nothing moves unless I want it to. I’m using a well regarded lens on the Sony, their 90mm macro. So when I got the GFX100S last fall, I was immediately curious how the 16 bit files from it would compare with the 14 bit from the Sony. The sensors in the two cameras are in fact identical in technology, same generation and transistor design, the only difference being of course the Fuji is larger, and has the 4/3 aspect ratio. I have one lens right now for the Fuji, a 32-64. I tried a 13 mm extension tube for it: not enough magnification to fill the frame but I was able to compare files, Sony VS Fuji. Using the NegativeLabPro plug-in for LR, I honestly didn’t see any difference between results from the two cameras. Again I wasn’t judging sharpness I was looking at color response. I wanted to see a huge difference but it wasn’t there. Not that I felt the Sony was deficient but I thought the extra two bits of granularity in the Fuji raw files might show something. Still, the Fuji is a better fit for medium format at 6x6 and 6x7. A friend of mine who is well versed in the Fuji medium format world told me that the native 120 macro does not do 1 to 1. So, I am still looking at extension tubes if I wanted to take the plunge on that lens. Anyway, you’ve got a great set up. It’s future proof which is one thing I really like about camera scanning because we know cameras only get better year on year, they are still being developed. Film scanners not so much. I already have an adapter which lets me use Canon EF glass on the Fuji, that lets my 24 mm tilt shift act as a 19 mm wide angle and because it’s a tilt shift it actually has full coverage on the Fuji. Because it seems like none of the Fuji glass is in stock right now I’m also looking at adapting some of my Pentax 6 x 7 glass, so this video is timely indeed. If and when you camera scan transparency or black-and-white the dynamic range available in the resultant files is going to surprise you. It’s amazing how much detail hides in those black shadows of Velvia 50.
Lacking a digital medium format camera, I’ve always been satisfied with my old D800 scanning results, but the desire to get a digital medium format just for film scanning is there.
gonna give this a shot with my GFX and Contax 135 2.8 + extension tube. I've been shooting more film lately and loving it, loving the results, not loving the cost vs quality when compared to GFX. Both GFX and Mamiya give me images I love, but damn do I ever love the 7-10 images from the Mamiya as much as I do the 200 shots I take on the GFX in the same amount of time. Thanks a lot for this video, nothing else like it.
Brennan, heading down the same road. What lenses have you tried? I picked up a TTArtisan 40/2.8 macro, but wondering if the Lumix 30/2.8 macro would be better.
Now you need to shoot some CMS 20 II with that scanning technique! I used the A7R4 with Sony G macro in composite mode for 240mpx to scan CMS 35mm frames shot with Sigma Art 105. I got 100mpx of resolution out of that based on usaf charts, but I think the compositing was a limiting factor. As for adapted lenses for your gfx, you want the Bronica 105mm PE Macro. It is a 1:1 with .35 meter MFD. It was also one of the last new optics they released in the 90s. If you're patient, you can snag one for $250. The 110mm PS or 100mm PE would work, but their MFD is .65 meter and they're and older formula. Great video!
Good to know... Do you see that big of an improvement using the composite mode/pixel shift ? I'm still using a A7III and since I'm shooting medium format an A7RIV sounds pretty nice, even at 61MP.
@@nygmaa Yes, the impact of composite mode when scanning 6x4.5 and 6x8 with common tmax and delta negatives was dramatic vs lab or v8x0 scans. I can't say for sure, but I believe the limiting factor was the lp/mm of the taking lens along with a "transfer tax", which is basically how I think of the loss factor of transition between mediums. That being said, the Sony compositing is a pain in the butt. You are far better off, in my humble opinion, buying an old Olympus micro four thirds for $300-500 that does easier compositing and generates 64 or 80 megapixel raw files and just leaving it set up for scanning. You will still got superior results to any traditional scanner in terms of raw resolution. ...and having explored extensively the options for camera scanning, do I actually use it? Nope. I bulk scan on an XA Super for 35mm and use an Epson v800 for bigger formats. Why? Because I get to an end result far faster, and if needed I can upscale the images by 2-3X with practically no discernible degradation by using gigapixel AI. Is dynamic range better the camera scanning? Nope - 98% of the time. The other 2% I break out the camera and do the camera scanning and then usually realize it was not worth it, lol. I average 65 to 75 rolls per year, I am not a professional. I am an IT engineer with a photography hobby and extra time due to covid. So, I'm certainly no expert, but hopefully this was useful.
@@jw48335 Thank you, It was definitely useful! I'll stick to camera scanning tbh since the camera using for the scans serve multiple purposes but thanks for sharing your input and experience on the matter!
which macro lense would you choose for 35mm scanning? the magnification rate should be more than 1:1 to capture 35mm for this camera since it's 44mmx33mm.....
I would like to try my Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon - D 2 X 1:4.5 f=75mm lens on Fuji GFX 100S camera. This lens is specialized for CCD cameras, macro photography, and duplication of transparencies at reproduction scale of around 2 : 1. The maximum format coverage is 6X7 cms. This lens needs bellows so I'm using Extension Tubes and Pentax Helicoid Extension Tube to find a correct focus.
There no question about the detail, but equally there’s no question to my eyes about the colour of the coolscan being much nicer. Colour is more important to me than resolution (which is why I shoot film in the first place) so I would go the coolscan everytime. I feel like these camera scans look like digital shots now. But these are good results nonetheless, thanks for sharing Kyle.
Pretty crazy use-case for the GFX to get it as a Nikon Coolscan replacement for scanning negatives, but it's funny that even for someone on a much bigger budget than me, the digital camera scanning argument still holds up over a traditional scanner solution these days. You can get just as good (if not better) performance for your money with a camera scanning setup, and when you're done scanning negatives you still have a digital camera that takes great pictures in its own right instead of a big box of specialised electronics that just takes up space in your house or office until the next time you need to scan negatives!
Great video (again). Have you found the aperture sweet spot for the lens both in terms of sharpness but also for having enough dof to handle potential film un-flatness and perhaps not hitting focus 100%?
Hi Kyle - good post. Am considering GFX100s + Kipon new Mamiya/PhaseOne/Schneider - G mount adaptor + Mamiya 120 macro lens. But... need a tall stand! Stand advice crucial. Negative Supply are very expensive - Valoi 360 bundle works well. Like digital - love film :))
Thanks Kyle for all the details! Do you know the Vivitar 55mm f2.8 macro lens? I dont know if it's better or not than your Pentax macro Lens but maybe it would be a good option for your length issue
Hey Kyle, thanks for the multiple videos on the subject. I've had the Nikon scanner and it's a beauty. But getting them serviced anymore is near impossible. I just picked up a Panny GH6 for video work. But it has a very impressive high resolution mode that delivers 100mp image. (As an aside, I got to compare it briefly with the Phase One's 150mp, and they were amazing close!). I also picked up a similar macro to your first video (you got the Artisan 60/2.8?), I got the TTArisan's 40/2.8, which is surprisingly sharp. But I'm wondering how much better the images are with your more costly lens. Did you A/B those as well? Much thanks!
You focus in the grain ? I ave the same set Up ( camera , lens) , and Especially with the 35mm I find it very difficult to clearly see the grain of the negative, I wanted to ask you if it happens to you too and what program you use to capture photos, thank you very much
Yep I've been focusing on the grain. I'm just using the back of the camera zoomed in while focusing, no tethering. Having a solid copy stand is a must, otherwise the micro vibrations make it impossible to focus.
Moving away from my Epson flatbed 4870 after a lab's Coolscan of a 6x6 blew it away. I 'fell' into the 120 f4 Pentax after finding a deal on a 645z at half retail, only 13 shutter clicks . . . 50mgpxl . . . so, I've been doing some 'scanning' using the 645z. The 645 line of Pentax glass in manual focus, even some older autofocus, are 10% the price you pay for Fujifilm GFX. That's the benefit of Pentax legacy glass. While a cheap VisualPlus SV650 light box is fine for up to 4x5 B&W, finding a neutral base and rigging up a color corrected strobe should be better for color. As for 6x12, 6x17, the 645z can take two shots to be stitched and have 100mgpxl results . . . or, I also have an old Oly E-Volt Macro and a OMD with pixel shift producing an 80mgpxl file. However, just moving the 645z closer in macro and stitching two exposures . . .
Did you try using the Pixel-shift option on the GFX100S to scan your negatives? You could try an standard Pentax 645 lens with a macro extension tube(s).
@@KyleMcDougall Also there is "Super Resolution" mode in Lightroom which works quite well so my X-T4 would be enough to scan my negs. It would be nice though if they did a firmware update that included pixel-shift for the X-T4.
Recently picked up a GFX 50S II for this purpose. Keeping a dedicated 35mm scanner around (can’t beat the auto scanning for an entire roll), but said goodbye to the flatbed after using the Fuji. Expensive, but at least it’s going to something that can also take pictures instead of a $3k scanner that stays at home
Could try using a blue filter to counteract the red of the film base so that you're not stretching the chroma information in digital. Sometimes you can get some blocking/banding in the blues when you're pulling them up that far
I have the Nikon 9000 -ED and have been considering going the GFX route with a RZ lens since I have the RZ system. From your example with the 6x7 of what looks like an old gas station, the 3 dimensionality of the subject seems better preserved on the 9000-ed and I think that the less detail in the corners is due to lack of film flatness in the film holder which I find a challenge with the Nikon FH-869S film holder. I have stuck with MF film because of that very ability to suggest the 3 dimensionality of the subject versus a flatter presentation of CMOS digital sensors. Maybe CCD sensors like in the coolscan have a more linear dynamic response and the gfx CMOS file can be adjusted, but I had just watched a review on youtube comparing the gfx50s ii to a pentax 645 with fujifilm 400H and in every shot the film looked more 3d and my brain did not have to do as much processing to understand the image.
Hey! You mentioned linking the files to allow side-by-side comparisons on the computer. Where can I find this link? Mostly interested in comparingthe coolscan results to the 120 Pentax. Thank you!
I couldn’t find a lens which worked for night photos, there was always some orange vignette, perhaps it was from something else but it was incredibly hard to get consistent/good results scanning with a camera. Curious if you tried and had any luck with dark images
What's the rationale behind using a 35mm lens on a medium-format digital camera ? Isn't vignetting to be expected ? Wouldn't it make more sense to use a medium-format lens on a 35mm digital camera since you're using the area with optimal quality ?
Finally someone using a medium format camera to scan film. I’ve been always searching online to see if anyone has experimented with it, glad to see finally someone taking the chance.
You may want to watch this video too: ua-cam.com/video/BVmIhwG0XfU/v-deo.html
This is not true MF camera, the sensor size is slightly larger than FF
Eric floberg does it aswell.
@@Huginn1000 True but glad to see someone doing it. Mind you this is without using the enhance feature in Lightroom as well, I can only image the results after that.
@@Huginn1000 you don’t know what you’re talking about - anything larger than a FF is considered medium format
Thank you for this video, it clearly tells me that Coolscan will remain in demand for a long time, like the film itself, among those who want to see colors and color shades.
I have been using the Mamiya 645 80mm f4 macro with extension tube set for over 2 years on the Fujifilm 100, if you want even bigger files, try to pixel shift and you'll get a huge file with more detail than you ever need.
How's the Mamiya 645 80mm? Is it sharp edge to edge? I have a Mamiya 645 so this lens will be perfect if I can use it on both systems.
@@yunhaojiang7708 Most of the Mamiya glass perform well when stopped down to f8 or beyond, one of the weakest lens is the 50mm shift lens, but when stopped down to f16, this lens is capable of corner to corner sharpness. The difference between modern glass and old glass is sharpness at wild open, so unless one is looking for sharpness at wider apertures, there's no point spending money on the new lenses. All old lenses performs well stopped down, also sharpness has very little meaning for moody shots, older lenses render more film like than modern lenses, that's why value of old lenses are relatively high and some are crazily expensive.
I use my GFX for capturing paintings and landscapes, these older lenses are as good as the Fuji's lenses when stop down but with better film like rendering when shoot at wider apertures.
Seven years ago I started to collect gear and started to experiment of scanning film with DSLR.
My gear so far is Nikon D610, Sigma 105mm 1:2.8DG MACRO HSM lens, Sigma 70mm 1:2.8 DG MACRO lens, Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon-D 2 X 1:4.5 f=75mm lens, ARTOGRAPH LightPad 920 Light Box, and KAISER RS-1 Copy Stand.
I have same experience with focusing, it is hardest part of scanning with camera despite of having expensive Copy Stand. For shooting in magnification of 1:1 or more, I'm planning to make custom Copy Stand with thick steel tubing. I would also like to connect 4K monitor for focusing instead of using Camera's own monitor.
For macro I've been using the GF 45-100 with the 16mm macro extension tube and have been very happy with the results for macro photography of architectural models. It does involve buying another fuji lens but the 45-100 is a mainstay on my camera and main travelling lens so could be worth looking at it depending on how long you keep the kit zoom lens for.
But the Fuji GFX set up does not have digital ICE, right? So any imperfections - dust, scratches, etc. - have to be removed manually. Nikon's ICE combined with the newer versions of Vuescan is pretty good at restoring old, beat up negatives that would be impossible to restore manually. If for no other reason that this, I still think the Nikon dedicated scanner is superior.
I use GFX100S for digital scanning but I still print a picture in my dark room.
I think you will find out soon that VueScan does not use the Digital ICE that is developed by Kodak. It is their own algorithm and not always do a good job on dust/scratches removal. Also, the Nikon scanner is very sensitive to scratches, with films developed by Noritsu machine that uses rollers to transport the film, the scratches are nearly unremovable, even with highest settings. Also, not to mention that Nikon's software is outdated, VueScan does not support full roll preview on 5000 ED which makes it hard to predict the alignment of the frames on 35mm films, and Silverfast cannot output RAW on dust removal (it is basically a must for NLP to work). I think these drawbacks are enough for me to start moving on something better. It's true that GFX won't have dust removal ability, but cleaning the film isn't that hard, a electric dust blower can get rid of most of them, the rest can be cleaned inside LR (their algorithm is excellent compared to VueScan's). Lastly, considering the speed of scanning, I really don't want to spend 1+ hour on scanning one roll of 35mm with Nikon again, it's noisy and slow. You can easily retake one picture on GFX (if you have dusts or something), but it's gonna take a while to rescan with Nikon.
@@yunhaojiang7708insane wisdom thank you. Them electronic blowers are really helpful.
I started with a cheap copy stand from BIG which was around 70€ when I bought it but now goes for over 100€ but was never really that amazed by it as it didn't have an adjustment to make sure the focal plane is perfectly parallel to the film.
So I replaced it with a diy solution consisting of:
- wooden board (40x40cm)
- metal tube with a flange to attach to the board (50cm length)
- Manfrotto Superclamp and thread for tripod heads
- Smallrig tripod ballhead
And I also got myself an Arca Swiss compatible L-bracket which makes scanning 645 a bit easier.
Adding 1 GFX to my basket! 🙂 and thanks for the Novoflex recommendation.
I’ve been amazed at the scan quality I get from my Fuji XT20 and an older Nikon 60mm macro lens. Honestly better than any lab scans I’ve gotten short of drum scans. Even then, the only real difference is resolution.
I’m really hoping Fuji comes out with an apsc camera with pixel shift so I can get super high-res scans.
I’m also using the same pentax 140mm lens on my pentax 645Z and The results are amazing.
I have a cheap setup that really works for the mounting issue. I just mounted my $30 Neewer ball head to the wall with a $6 Camvate mount, placed a $20 Neewer sliding rail on the ball head and now I have the ability to adjust distance and level in all directions from a solid surface, for $56. It was actually only $26 for me since I already had the ball head. This way it takes up no space, and actually means I can wall mount my camera when I'm not using it.
That alongside with a cheaper lightbox/film holder would give you quite a bit of room for a better second hand macro lens with better corner shapness. The Laowa 65mm 2x Ultra Macro APO is around $320 used and would be a great option if you don't mind manual focusing. The ideal would be the used 80mm macro, but that's out of budget at $600 used.
I am using a GFX50R, negative supply 120 mask, for lens I’m using a bronica PE 100mm, 40mm GFX extension tube and GFX broke a adapter. I am able to get a full 6x9cm negative filling the frame. The 100mm gets me perfect flatness and sharpness @ 5.6. I have tried scanning with other macro lenses and sure enough, none of the 35s can resolve as good on the GFX sensor.
I’ve been pleased with using the pixel shift function of my Panasonic S1R, combined with my home made wooden copy stand I made with two sliding dovetails.
The challenge to me has been combining files from minimalist shots from my 6x17.
PS: tethering was the solution for me to nailing super-critical manual focus.
Tethering is a good idea. I'll have to try that out.
how big are your files with pixel shift and without? Asking about medium format. Thanks
Have you thought about adapting an enlarger lens? I would think that would work beautifully once the mechanics of it are figured out. Certainly would be flat at least. If you're still looking for something in addition to the Pentax that is.
I have actually started to look into that.
In my setup I found to be the lenses coating the most important variable.
I used an old macro as well, and always had issues with lens flair. Then I opted for the very cheap 7artisans 60mm macro, and even though it's softer then the vintage lens the fact that the coating is modern, and fresh really changed the quality of my scans
I am going to try this setup as I have the gfx 50s and a very nice Mamiya 120 macro. However I have to say that to my eye the coolscan has a luminous appearance and a warmth (and I don’t mean colour) that the gfx does not achieve. In all these side by side samples the coolscan wins for feel. It’s a subtle thing but I noticed it right away. There’s a luminous look that an imacon or flextight (and apparently the coolscan) resolves that the digital sensor cannot translate from the neg. How it captures the subtlety of bounce light. Good video though the nova flex stand was good to find out about. I will be interested to see how it stacks up against my v700 which is nowhere near as good as the coolscan but with the better film scan holders and some calibration I have made perfectly good meter wide print from Mamiya 7 scans .
i shot my first film recently and can't wait to scan with my gfx too 😄
I have been waiting for this! The novoflex riser looks really good. The comparison mti the coolscan has surprised me. the but more details to get out is amazing.
Yeah, other than the Novoflex just being a little short, it's been awesome.
I have the GFX 100S as well and just bought a Hasselblad macro lens and adapter to do the same thing. I bought a dedicated mount and table as well. I'm excited and hopeful this will all work out.
What a great setup!
Lots of high quality pixels and adapted lenses!
Have a good week!
Thank you.
Hi Kyle, how are you dealing with dust? I've switched to an old laptop dedicated to the Coolscan to use Nikon Scan and I've been happier than using Vuescan + NLP and it also gives me really great dust removal as a bonus. Your new setup looks appealing with regards to speed though.
Hey Diego, I just use a rocket blower and that's it. Dust has rarely been an issue for me.
When you scan, you have full control of the lighting etc. I would imagine that the resolving power of a macro lens, and the resolution of the sensor would be key. So the dynamic range etc won’t matter much. And a mechanical setup to make stitching easy to do.
Useful info.
My experience is that the 100MP is very good but with 35 mm film in particular, far beyond what is needed to match optical quality printing from the original neg.
The advantage for me in shooting with a DSLR and converting the negs is speed.
I had a commercial lab with Scitex scanners that made brilliant scans in batches. However, I am now retired and Scitex is dead.
A good solid copy stand is a must. The lack of options on the market these days is real as so many seem to be set up for phones. The Novoflex seems a good choice. I use a Negative Supply stand that is very solid for a FF35 but would be shaky for a MF most likely though the 100S seems like it could work.
Using the Manfrotto adapter is a must for Kyle as he uses his camera for his personal work. Adding more pieces adds to the possibility of shake and misalignment. I am fortunate to be able to mount my camera permanently with no adapters.
The Pentax macro seems an excellent choice and is an avenue that many would be well served by.
In the end, a setup that is solid and can be locked down eliminates a lot of the complaints of sharpness and alignment. I eliminate shake with using LR remote tether and the f12
key to fire the shutter. Manual focus is easy and with a good film transport base such as the Valoi or Negative Supply , focus stays on point as the film is advanced.
The real bonus for me in the use of a DSLR is the RAW file functionality and the massive improvements in sensor technology as evidenced in the reduced noice in shadows from the Nikon in comparison to the Fuji.
Kaiser makes a solid copy stand, but it is a bit pricey.
As a former Coolscan owner, I knew this day was coming. Corsican is great but so sloooow.
Good call on the copy stand - very few to zero options between high-end and wobbly cheap. Having used a tripod for ages, I got fed up with setup time and shifted over to my diy version of what ends up being very similar to what you have (I use a Negative Supply setup for 135 only).
From birdwatching I have an old spotting scope tripod with pan/tilt head and a hide clamp (an apparatus that slides over the vertical tripod tube to clamp onto window ledges in birdwatching hides); from my macro photography days I have a Novoflex Castel-L macro rail and a very decent Nikon macro lens. Combine the two together:
Take the centre column out of the tripod, attach the hide clamp to the bottom, and the macro rail to the pan/tilt head of the spotting scope; clamp hide clamp to tabletop.
Works very well so far for me even with my pretty hefty DSLR setup, Nikon D800E and 200mm f/4 micro.
Only limitation is length of copy stand in combination with current lens: I estimate the total height to be perhaps slightly greater than yours, but I have to rack it out fully (I'm also using quite a long lens QR plate) to get to about 1:1 with the Nikon lens for 135. Will almost certainly need a shorter f/l 1:1 macro lens to do 6x7 (I usually do a stitch of 2 frames) - sadly I sold my Nikon 60mm a while back.
Question for you? Have you ever tried using the 400mp pixel shift mode to scan a 4x5 negative? That is my dream setup, a 4x5 camera and the gfx100s to make 400mp scans. I'm currently shooting with an RZ67 and scanning with a Canon 5DSR and a Tokina macro lens. I'm using a Kaiser RS2 copy stand and light source. My technique is to take a total of 9 captures of the 67 negative using a 3x3 grid and then stitching them together in light lightroom. The results are roughly 235mp. It is a slow and tedious process but I shoot tethered which saves me some time vs copying images over from the card. It's a pretty decent budget setup but someday I would like to upgrade to a 4x5 camera and a gfx for scanning
I use a Kaiser copy stand. Very sturdy and not expensive and the head is geared. Just upgraded the lens to the RF 100mm L macro for my old EOS R body. For me, at this moment, 30mp is enough and the lens is the most important factor. For me, the issue is the negative carrier. I use Negative Supply but they’re all designed in a similar way. If you’re scanning and entire roll that is uncut, it’s not so bad but if your negatives have been cut into strips, then the advancing mechanism only picks up the film half way through the strip. The first few frames, advancing is manual.
Yeah, all of my film at the moment is cut (from previous scanning methods), but I'm looking forward to scanning some entire rolls moving forward.
you beat the coolscan!!!! Congrats you just won at photography!! Amazing Amazing video seriously!
I've been using a Canon EOS R5 with sigma 70mm macro lens (the new one, it's crazy high resolution) and Negative Supply carriers. For me, the camera scanning is key as it's just so much faster than pretty much any dedicated film scanner I've used, being able to capture pretty much any roll in less than 2 minutes. It's cool seeing the GFX 100S being used, but for my uses, the 45MP of the R5 has been proving to be more than enough for pretty much any output size I've needed to put out. Obviously, everybody will have their own needs, but I've found that once you get up into the 40-50MP+ range, you have a lot to work with. I'd be curious how much sharper 100MP would be. Even though it's double the MP, the actual pixel dimensions aren't really that significantly different, and there are a lot more really performant lenses with the smaller sensor.
I'm curious too! :-)
Hey Adrian, could you use this for 4x5 film?
@@jason-mccarthy Assuming you had a light source and film holders for that, sure.
The Coolscan appears to be picking up way more fine detail which is perhaps being masked by CMOS noise. Also the Nikon is giving you a full spectrum scan which you can somewhat see here, not something anyone might notice outside of a side/side comparison in either case. The subtle color transitions on the Coolscan though do look a lot smoother.
I agree, on every comparison Coolscan colors looked much more pleasing to my eye.
I believe this is likely a matter of lenses used. If the lens on camera scanning does not resolve as high as the Nikon one, it doesn't matter how many MP your camera can do.
The lens is what people should focus on. Scanner and enlarger lenses are the way to go here. 4000ppi is something no macro can do (at least not to my knowledge).
Is Epson Perfection V850 best scanner for film? What is the best one?
@@GurmeetSingh-fr8uo Flatbed scanners are never the best for film. They are designed for other purposes and film scanning is solely a side business.
Depending on which type of film you scan, you may be better of with camera scanning or go for a dedicated film scanner. 35mm scanners are quite affordable. Look for PrimeFilm Xas for example. True 4000dpi scanning.
@@cvandebroek There is a class of scanner known as a 'Pro Flatbed', these are among the best scanners ever made. Creo/Scitex produced them among a couple others. Usual models are the IQSmart 2 and 3, Eversmart Pro and Supreme I/II. These are on par with and sometimes superior to drum scanners. Very different from the Epson offerings. I have an Eversmart Supreme II and it produces incredible quality scans, the best I've seen. It was between this or a Tango, and the ESII is way easier to work with.
Oh wow! Another added value to the gfx!
Big time.
Loving seeing your DSLR scanning journey! One think I might recommend trying , especially with the bigger negatives, is actually getting in even closer and essentially pano stitching the photos to get an even bigger scan!
ETC., I've done that in the past for other types of projects and it had worked brilliantly. I'm considering it here as well, particularly as I'm sitting with the gh6 in high res mode. Which gives a 100mp file, but is still a MFT sensor. If you use a good macro that eliminates barrel, etc, you shouldn't have much issue stitching. The question becomes, how much res do we really need? Usually by around 50mp give or take, we are already down to grain.
Finally, someone tried scanning with GFX100S. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Looks fantastic! I have to write the next thing to my thinking list, doh... :D
You're welcome. Cheers.
Nice report. I am now about renting a GF120 macro and a 100s to shoot some 4x5 negatives in pixel shift mode..
I’ve been looking for a solution like this for a long time! Thanks Kyle
You're welcome. Cheers!
Kyle, do you miss the 9000 now that you’ve been using the camera scanning rig for a while ?
For the most part, no. Happy with a dialed-in camera setup.
@@KyleMcDougall awesome mate, thank you!
I was really surprised to see you sold the Coolscan! That thing has been a staple for your channel. I recently had a similar choice to make and I went with Plustek's 120 Pro, but it was tough. I'm really impressed by the GFX!
Yeah, honestly, I'll miss it a lot. If I could afford to keep both, I would have. The coolscan is so simple to use.
Sir, I got a picture off the internet and I used Topaz Gigapixel to enchance it. Then I used my cell phone and looked at the picture. I saw something entirely different than the original image. It was almost like the picture was taken, yet the negative of that picture was instilled in the picture of previous pictures. I saw faces, body parts, crosses, lights on walls, different people. Hope u understand the question.
Ack, I kept meaning to make a comment on your previous video but didn't get the chance.
This is a pretty boss setup! I use my 24 mp A73 with the excellent Laowa 100mm lens and get pretty okay results.
My biggest tips for anyone looking into scanning medium format but not wanting to invest in a pricier digital camera:
1- rotate your camera to match the longer side with the longer film side. This is kind of obvious but for example with 6x45 I line the 3 of 3:2 sensor with the 6.
2- stitching works pretty well actually. I used Affinity Photo initially but now Capture One's built in one. I heard Light room is even easier. My usual flow is 1 image for 645, 2 for 6x6 and 3 for 6x9. I usually get close to 20mp for 645, about 40 for 6x6 and easily above 50 for 6x9. It could be optimized but it's pretty good. For positioning I line the 3 on my sensor with the 6cm on the film and get roughly a 6x4 (cm) image so I take 2 of em for 6x6 and 3 of em for 6x9.
If you really wanted you could maybe stitch your 6x7 negatives with the gfx for even more resolution but it's probably unnecessary and more a hassle than anything lol
Misc: If you have a macro lens that goes closer than 1:1 or a smaller image sensor you can get up to some shenanigans like getting surprisingly high res files from 35mm half-frame photos. Sure they are grainy but hey. Try this with your xt4 some time for the heck of it.
One downside to dslr scanning is that once your film is cut it becomes cumbersome and annoying to scan it lol Color could be another (I don't use light room so I'd have a hard time converting it to a positive).
I almost wish I had the tidy Valoi setup with the integrated light. Keeping things not moving is a bit annoying if you don't have that and use like the efh (which is otherwise pretty good mind you)
My personal biggest editing hassle tbh are what looks like bleeds on the edges of my negative and usually I need some gradient filters to fix this. I have heard that's just a shadow being cast by the essential film holder onto the film.
You mean Nikon 9000? Min 0:48 the second best scanner in the market? coming from a PRO like you must be a very different setup, so from 0 to 10 whats your opinion?
Is it useful to take multiple bracketed exposures and combine in HDR software? Or is the dynamic range of film sufficiently limited for a single exposure on the GFX?
I have a Pentax 645z and a fantastic 645 120mm macro lens. Would this be a good choice for film scanning. I use that camera for my commercial work but am new to film scanning. Appreciate your advice
That's what I'm using and am very happy with it
you're using the Pentax 645z camera to scan with? oh I thought you were using the fuji and only the 645 Pentax lens.
Not yet. I was wondering if it was a good option before buying something else just to scan with. I have the Pentax 645z and a 120mm macro but I also have a canon 5d mkiv and a 100mm macro. Any thoughts?
With that 120mm macro being 1:4, are you not able to get the negatives to fill the frame of the GFX? I was hoping the lens was at least 1:2 or better at 1:1. I'm looking for a macro lens too. I've been using a Nikon D800E with the 105mm 1:1, but with the.resolution of the 100S I want to find something to use with it.
Hey Steve, the Pentax 645 120 macro is 1:1. It's an f4 lens, which is maybe where the confusion is coming from.
Hey guy, I just saw your video and it is really well done. I am wondering about the vignetting that you are getting with the Contax lens. While I am an old film guy, I have never scanned anything, but I wonder which f-stop you are using, and I wonder if the vignetting clears up when you stop the lens down a bit. My memory of the Contax macro lens that you are using is that it was of such high quality that you should be able to stop the lens down and keep the resolution that you have been getting closer to the centre of the image. Also, the Nikon 60mm micro/macro film lens from the 80's had a reputation for edge to edge sharpness. It would be interesting if you were to try that lens. That lens was incredible and if you have a friend who still has one I would try that lens as it was considered a flat-field lens and was designed with copy work in mind, and it was blazingly sharp.
Can't remember the exact aperture, but this was stopped down. Just don't like the idea that it's using the extreme edges, and would rather have something with plenty of coverage.
I have gone through a few lenses on the GFX100s trying to scan negs. My only cameras atm are that and the 67ii so it didn’t make sense to buy outside those systems. Initially the Pentax 67 100mm Macro went okay. Then I bought one of the short Fuji macro rings and was using the GF45 for 6x7 scans which surprisingly worked quite well, and the GF110 for 4x5 scans. Both were pretty fiddly with the focus distance so I recently grabbed the GF120 as they are running a $700 cashback offer here in Australia bringing it down to $2600AUD/£1400GBP. I’ve actually used it for a bunch of other payed work and it gives a really different look for portraits than the 110mm. And it’s one of those lenses that seems to retain its value on the second hand market. If you can borrow one to compare you might find no difference or love it. Early signs are good.
Cool to hear that you've been happy with the 120. I think I'll stick with the Pentax for now, as I'm happy with the performance. And try to find a permanent workaround solution with the stand.
Hey Kyle, I hope you are well and that you are enjoying the British summer. It’s a great place to be this time of year.
I have a Frontier SP3000 which is great for Colour 35mm & 120 but I don’t like it for black and white. I also have a GFX 50s so your video piqued my interest as my Frontier is on the fritz and may need an expensive fix. As I only use it for personal use I may just move it on and go with a camera scan set up.
So my questions for you (if you don’t mind) are, how do you like it for black and white conversions and do you miss your dedicated scanner now you’ve been without it for a few months?
Cheers,
Ben
Hey Kyle, thanks for the update of your scanning setup! I was wondering if you are also scanning your 4x5 with the camera setup, and if so, do you need to stitch them from multiple shots? Thanks!
I've only scanned a couple 4x5 sheets, and have done them full frame. It works fine. But there's definitely potential to stitch and get way more from the large format negative.
god that old lens with that kind of results, 100% a go to method for anyone that has a digital camera lying around.
I was just scanning my film last night, and I'm still having problems like you said at the end. trying to get the film flat and control the stray lights from the lightpad. I just might get some proper equipments eventually
I use a GFX50S + Canon EF100mm F.28L Macro Lens (when scanning 35mm I add an 18mm extension tube) - EF100mm gives full sensor (GFX) coverage
Ordering that lens. Luckily I have a huge copy stand. Can’t wait to compare to my hacked A7iii rig scans.
May I suggest you try scanning with the GFX using pixel shift? I can’t help but be curious about how 400mp scans turn out
I played around with it a bit. Massive files that are overkill for me at the moment.
I have the GFX 100s with the 18mm tube, works exceptionally well on my GF45-100mm f/4. I can focus at 45mm so close, within like 2-3 inches. Images look way better then with the 120mm Macro. Just a thought, not sure how it would work with your setup.
Probably not going to be as sharp on the corners, as non-macro lenses have usually a greater field curvature.
Possible solution: find a bellows macro set-up that you can adapt to gfx and use a nice enlarger lens as they are made to have a very flat focus field.
I have the 50s ii. The only lens I have for it at this point is the 35-70. I was considering going this route using one the the Fotodiox options. I’ve never shot macro, so I’m inexperienced in this area. Should I do 20 or 48mm for the extension?
surprised by this, can you show examples?
That contax lens aswell as being softer in the corners, also seemed to have a slight green cast too.
I’ve been scanning 35mm with my Sony A6000 and the 7artisans macro lens, and it works great, but I’m looking to get a gfx (not sure which model yet) as I want to get into digital medium format, and if it can double as my all purpose scanner that is enticing. Would it be better to use something like my A600 for 35mm and use the GFX for strictly medium format scans, or just not worry about filling the entire GFX frame with a 35mm scan and crop in post?
Thank you for the great video 👏
Can you tell what camera do you use for this film shots?
Good information. Have you tried scanning using the pixel shift on the GFX?
Holy moly my jaw dropped when you said you ditched the 9000 it must be impressive then! I'm using a xt3 right now :) looking forward for the results later in the video!
Sad to see it go, but couldn't afford to have both!
Hey Kyle, any particular reason for going with the Pentax as opposed to a Contax, Mamiya or GF 120?
after rescanning these does it make you want to repost them again? I know I would lol
For your Pentax lens with the novoflex, why don't you just create your own copy stand? A thick and heavy nice wood plate so it's stable, you screw the novoflex on it, some rubber feets, but you cut a square into the wood plate so your film holder can go lower and be flush with the wood plate but it would be resting on your table. Or you can definitely create a "double deck" copy stand. I'm pretty sure you could gain like 10 to 15cm in height (that must be like 2 cups and 1 inch 😂).
How did you get critical focus? Did you employ focus peaking on the gfx? Could you magnify the screen image on the back of the camera?
Magnified the screen and focused by eye.
Fantastic comparison Kyle! Really interesting results and kudos on keeping your scans so clean using a digital camera. With the 4:3 ratio being so optimal with 645, do you think you’ll give up shooting 67?
Cheers, Nathan. TBH, the 4:3 aspect ratio has always been one of my favourites for composing. I think I'll roll with it for a while.
What 35mm film did you use on that truck photo? I'm really impressed. I have a flatbed Epson and for 35mm is just terrible.
Portra 400. :)
@@KyleMcDougall Wow, that's really clean for a 400. Mine are not that clean. Maybe the lab I've been using is not really good and is accentuating the grain on my negatives. Thanks Kyle!
Hi Kyle,
I hear people who are really into camera scanning are using enlarger lenses. Have you looked into that? would be interesting to see you explore that and hear your findings.
cheers
I have heard a bit about that, but haven't looked into it too much. TBH, I'm quite happy with the Pentax lens right now.
My v750 had broken, time to use my camera now. Thank you.
Hey Kyle, nice video. I have one question here": what software and process did you use to invert the color negatives from neg to pos? Your images in the video are all .TIFF, it seemed to me.
The CoolScan may run a multipass and with its software generate a .TIFF file that in theory is superior to a Bayer raw file as there is no wild-assed guessing of missing colors that happens in raw processing of raw files. But you present the shots from the Fuji as tiff as well so some processing has been going on there.
I was using LR with negative lab pro, and then I export TIFF from NLP to edit in LR. I do keep the DNG as well though.
@@KyleMcDougall I recently read that the DNG is often just embedding a TIF, and there isn't any difference. Who knows. Up makes an excellent point regarding Bayer. But functionally, it may be a moot point as the end result quality is so good.
Congrats again on the camera upgrade, timely indeed: I’ve been using a set up similar to yours for the last four years, first with an A7Riii, then an A7Riv. I built my own copystand and light table from solid hardwood and Arca-Swiss rails, it’s not the most portable option but nothing moves unless I want it to. I’m using a well regarded lens on the Sony, their 90mm macro. So when I got the GFX100S last fall, I was immediately curious how the 16 bit files from it would compare with the 14 bit from the Sony. The sensors in the two cameras are in fact identical in technology, same generation and transistor design, the only difference being of course the Fuji is larger, and has the 4/3 aspect ratio. I have one lens right now for the Fuji, a 32-64. I tried a 13 mm extension tube for it: not enough magnification to fill the frame but I was able to compare files, Sony VS Fuji. Using the NegativeLabPro plug-in for LR, I honestly didn’t see any difference between results from the two cameras. Again I wasn’t judging sharpness I was looking at color response. I wanted to see a huge difference but it wasn’t there. Not that I felt the Sony was deficient but I thought the extra two bits of granularity in the Fuji raw files might show something. Still, the Fuji is a better fit for medium format at 6x6 and 6x7.
A friend of mine who is well versed in the Fuji medium format world told me that the native 120 macro does not do 1 to 1. So, I am still looking at extension tubes if I wanted to take the plunge on that lens. Anyway, you’ve got a great set up. It’s future proof which is one thing I really like about camera scanning because we know cameras only get better year on year, they are still being developed. Film scanners not so much. I already have an adapter which lets me use Canon EF glass on the Fuji, that lets my 24 mm tilt shift act as a 19 mm wide angle and because it’s a tilt shift it actually has full coverage on the Fuji. Because it seems like none of the Fuji glass is in stock right now I’m also looking at adapting some of my Pentax 6 x 7 glass, so this video is timely indeed. If and when you camera scan transparency or black-and-white the dynamic range available in the resultant files is going to surprise you. It’s amazing how much detail hides in those black shadows of Velvia 50.
Insane results!
have you ever played with flimmlab, what are your thought, or how does it compares to neg lab pro?
Thankyou!
Cheers, Bianca. No experience with Filmlab, unfortunately.
Think of it this way: it's a hasselblad x scanner that can also take pictures. What a steal.
Lacking a digital medium format camera, I’ve always been satisfied with my old D800 scanning results, but the desire to get a digital medium format just for film scanning is there.
Kyle, do you think this Pentax lens would work to scan an 8x10 sheet of film on a 32" high copy stand, as well as working on 120 film?
gonna give this a shot with my GFX and Contax 135 2.8 + extension tube. I've been shooting more film lately and loving it, loving the results, not loving the cost vs quality when compared to GFX. Both GFX and Mamiya give me images I love, but damn do I ever love the 7-10 images from the Mamiya as much as I do the 200 shots I take on the GFX in the same amount of time. Thanks a lot for this video, nothing else like it.
This is fascinating, and because I'm getting a gh6 soon... that has a 100megapixel high res mode, that might be ideal for this type of work...
Brennan, heading down the same road. What lenses have you tried? I picked up a TTArtisan 40/2.8 macro, but wondering if the Lumix 30/2.8 macro would be better.
Now you need to shoot some CMS 20 II with that scanning technique! I used the A7R4 with Sony G macro in composite mode for 240mpx to scan CMS 35mm frames shot with Sigma Art 105. I got 100mpx of resolution out of that based on usaf charts, but I think the compositing was a limiting factor.
As for adapted lenses for your gfx, you want the Bronica 105mm PE Macro. It is a 1:1 with .35 meter MFD. It was also one of the last new optics they released in the 90s. If you're patient, you can snag one for $250. The 110mm PS or 100mm PE would work, but their MFD is .65 meter and they're and older formula.
Great video!
Good to know... Do you see that big of an improvement using the composite mode/pixel shift ? I'm still using a A7III and since I'm shooting medium format an A7RIV sounds pretty nice, even at 61MP.
@@nygmaa Yes, the impact of composite mode when scanning 6x4.5 and 6x8 with common tmax and delta negatives was dramatic vs lab or v8x0 scans. I can't say for sure, but I believe the limiting factor was the lp/mm of the taking lens along with a "transfer tax", which is basically how I think of the loss factor of transition between mediums.
That being said, the Sony compositing is a pain in the butt. You are far better off, in my humble opinion, buying an old Olympus micro four thirds for $300-500 that does easier compositing and generates 64 or 80 megapixel raw files and just leaving it set up for scanning. You will still got superior results to any traditional scanner in terms of raw resolution.
...and having explored extensively the options for camera scanning, do I actually use it? Nope. I bulk scan on an XA Super for 35mm and use an Epson v800 for bigger formats. Why? Because I get to an end result far faster, and if needed I can upscale the images by 2-3X with practically no discernible degradation by using gigapixel AI. Is dynamic range better the camera scanning? Nope - 98% of the time. The other 2% I break out the camera and do the camera scanning and then usually realize it was not worth it, lol.
I average 65 to 75 rolls per year, I am not a professional. I am an IT engineer with a photography hobby and extra time due to covid. So, I'm certainly no expert, but hopefully this was useful.
@@jw48335 Thank you, It was definitely useful! I'll stick to camera scanning tbh since the camera using for the scans serve multiple purposes but thanks for sharing your input and experience on the matter!
which macro lense would you choose for 35mm scanning? the magnification rate should be more than 1:1 to capture 35mm for this camera since it's 44mmx33mm.....
Copy stand like a Kaiser are very very expensive and one question, how do you fine tune your lens before taking the photo to the negative?
I use focus peaking. I did a video not too long ago sharing my current complete workflow with the GFX50R.
That’s nice I even like the noise on the gfx
I would like to try my Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon - D 2 X 1:4.5 f=75mm lens on Fuji GFX 100S camera. This lens is specialized for CCD cameras, macro photography, and duplication of transparencies at reproduction scale of around 2 : 1. The maximum format coverage is 6X7 cms. This lens needs bellows so I'm using Extension Tubes and Pentax Helicoid Extension Tube to find a correct focus.
There no question about the detail, but equally there’s no question to my eyes about the colour of the coolscan being much nicer. Colour is more important to me than resolution (which is why I shoot film in the first place) so I would go the coolscan everytime. I feel like these camera scans look like digital shots now. But these are good results nonetheless, thanks for sharing Kyle.
I wonder how the 9000 would have done if you had done some wet mounting. I still dream of having a drum scanner one day.
Pretty crazy use-case for the GFX to get it as a Nikon Coolscan replacement for scanning negatives, but it's funny that even for someone on a much bigger budget than me, the digital camera scanning argument still holds up over a traditional scanner solution these days. You can get just as good (if not better) performance for your money with a camera scanning setup, and when you're done scanning negatives you still have a digital camera that takes great pictures in its own right instead of a big box of specialised electronics that just takes up space in your house or office until the next time you need to scan negatives!
Great video (again). Have you found the aperture sweet spot for the lens both in terms of sharpness but also for having enough dof to handle potential film un-flatness and perhaps not hitting focus 100%?
I shot most of these sample at f8, and was happy with the performance.
Hi Kyle - good post. Am considering GFX100s + Kipon new Mamiya/PhaseOne/Schneider - G mount adaptor + Mamiya 120 macro lens. But... need a tall stand! Stand advice crucial. Negative Supply are very expensive - Valoi 360 bundle works well. Like digital - love film :))
I'm using a large Kaiser stand. The RS1 I believe it is. I'd have to check again. You can find them used every now and then for a decent price.
Thanks Kyle for all the details!
Do you know the Vivitar 55mm f2.8 macro lens? I dont know if it's better or not than your Pentax macro Lens but maybe it would be a good option for your length issue
is there a reason why you didn't use and of the fujifilm gf lenses?
Cost.
Hey Kyle, thanks for the multiple videos on the subject. I've had the Nikon scanner and it's a beauty. But getting them serviced anymore is near impossible. I just picked up a Panny GH6 for video work. But it has a very impressive high resolution mode that delivers 100mp image. (As an aside, I got to compare it briefly with the Phase One's 150mp, and they were amazing close!). I also picked up a similar macro to your first video (you got the Artisan 60/2.8?), I got the TTArisan's 40/2.8, which is surprisingly sharp. But I'm wondering how much better the images are with your more costly lens. Did you A/B those as well? Much thanks!
You focus in the grain ? I ave the same set Up ( camera , lens) , and Especially with the 35mm I find it very difficult to clearly see the grain of the negative, I wanted to ask you if it happens to you too and what program you use to capture photos, thank you very much
Yep I've been focusing on the grain. I'm just using the back of the camera zoomed in while focusing, no tethering. Having a solid copy stand is a must, otherwise the micro vibrations make it impossible to focus.
@@KyleMcDougall grazie mille 🙏
Still happy with the Pentax 120 Macro?
Very!
Moving away from my Epson flatbed 4870 after a lab's Coolscan of a 6x6 blew it away.
I 'fell' into the 120 f4 Pentax after finding a deal on a 645z at half retail, only 13 shutter clicks . . . 50mgpxl . . . so, I've been doing some 'scanning' using the 645z. The 645 line of Pentax glass in manual focus, even some older autofocus, are 10% the price you pay for Fujifilm GFX. That's the benefit of Pentax legacy glass.
While a cheap VisualPlus SV650 light box is fine for up to 4x5 B&W, finding a neutral base and rigging up a color corrected strobe should be better for color.
As for 6x12, 6x17, the 645z can take two shots to be stitched and have 100mgpxl results . . . or, I also have an old Oly E-Volt Macro and a OMD with pixel shift producing an 80mgpxl file. However, just moving the 645z closer in macro and stitching two exposures . . .
Something like a Zeiss 100mm macro Nikon f mount with an adapter might work for you
Very interesting, how would it be with a Canon R5 compared to the Nikon 9000?
Did you try using the Pixel-shift option on the GFX100S to scan your negatives? You could try an standard Pentax 645 lens with a macro extension tube(s).
I did quickly try the pixel shift. Massive files that for me are overkill in most situations.
@@KyleMcDougall I was thinking it might be a good solution for when you scan your sheet film negatives.
@@KyleMcDougall Also there is "Super Resolution" mode in Lightroom which works quite well so my X-T4 would be enough to scan my negs. It would be nice though if they did a firmware update that included pixel-shift for the X-T4.
Recently picked up a GFX 50S II for this purpose. Keeping a dedicated 35mm scanner around (can’t beat the auto scanning for an entire roll), but said goodbye to the flatbed after using the Fuji. Expensive, but at least it’s going to something that can also take pictures instead of a $3k scanner that stays at home
That’s the beauty of it for me. Multi purpose.
Could try using a blue filter to counteract the red of the film base so that you're not stretching the chroma information in digital. Sometimes you can get some blocking/banding in the blues when you're pulling them up that far
And you’ll have less actual colour information to work with in the blue/red axis
I have the Nikon 9000 -ED and have been considering going the GFX route with a RZ lens since I have the RZ system. From your example with the 6x7 of what looks like an old gas station, the 3 dimensionality of the subject seems better preserved on the 9000-ed and I think that the less detail in the corners is due to lack of film flatness in the film holder which I find a challenge with the Nikon FH-869S film holder. I have stuck with MF film because of that very ability to suggest the 3 dimensionality of the subject versus a flatter presentation of CMOS digital sensors. Maybe CCD sensors like in the coolscan have a more linear dynamic response and the gfx CMOS file can be adjusted, but I had just watched a review on youtube comparing the gfx50s ii to a pentax 645 with fujifilm 400H and in every shot the film looked more 3d and my brain did not have to do as much processing to understand the image.
Hey! You mentioned linking the files to allow side-by-side comparisons on the computer. Where can I find this link? Mostly interested in comparingthe coolscan results to the 120 Pentax. Thank you!
I couldn’t find a lens which worked for night photos, there was always some orange vignette, perhaps it was from something else but it was incredibly hard to get consistent/good results scanning with a camera. Curious if you tried and had any luck with dark images
What's the rationale behind using a 35mm lens on a medium-format digital camera ? Isn't vignetting to be expected ? Wouldn't it make more sense to use a medium-format lens on a 35mm digital camera since you're using the area with optimal quality ?
Thanks for review. What you think about 17x6 cm film panoramas ? I use my Epson V600. Maybe you know better solution ?
That's something I don't have any experience with, unfortunately. Also something that I haven't researched yet.
@@KyleMcDougall thanks
Have you tested pixel shift with any negative scans?
I’d like to know too.