Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back  (Read 10913 times)
jhimages
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« on: December 14, 2012, 09:36:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone done any comparisons of medium format backs vs. the Hasselblad scanners from medium format film?  I shoot many scenics and landscapes in 6x4.5, 6x6 or 6x7.  I currently use an Epson V700, but that scanner is not capable of shap scans to extract the full resolution of the film.  I like large enlargements, min 8x10, up to 24x36".  I tend to shoot more freely with a DSLR, but the image quality doesn't compare to my medium format work.  I'm wondering if I'm better off with a Hasselblad scanner than a medium format back...
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2012, 01:00:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Many things to consider.

Film has a look to it that digital does not produce. A DSLR and a MFDB are for the sizes of prints you mentioned pretty much equivalent and have a similar look.
To help you get an initial idea of the high end 35mm DSLR vs the 80mp backs take a look at this article. It's written by anIQ180 owner and landscape photographer.


http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/

So I would say that the first thing you need to consider is why you like your MF film work more. It may be more about the look of film.

The next thing to consider is what software you are using. The v700 is a good scanner and excellent when used with negative film (color and black and white)
and with the right software. Silverfast software for the v700 improves the results you can get with the v700. You can also do wet mount scanning with the v700 with a wet mount kit.

The Hasselblad scanner is very good and curves the film so as to get a more accurate focus avoiding the need for wet scans.

Then you should also consider the costs. A digital back that will exceed the quality of a high end dslr will be expensive. You will be looking at a 60PM back for that.

If you like film there is a lot you can do with the price of a MF digital back.

A few thoughts:
A 6x17 panoramic film camera.
A 6x8 Fuji camera with tilt and shift lenses that go from 50mm to 500mm (all tilt shift)
A Giga Pan for shooting automated stitch panoramic shots. You can literally take landscapes that are 100s of MP with a virtual format bugger than 4x5 film.
An 8x10 film camera.

If you don't like dealing with film though that's a different story. A digital back will be more immediate and if you shoot very large amounts of film it
will pay for itself in the long run.

I enjoy film and it's my preferred medium. SLR Fuji gx680 or my Toyo View 8x10 shooting film or direct to paper.

Here are a couple of examples to give you an idea of what the v700 with Silverfast software can do.


6x8 film


crop from the same negative.



6x8 film


crop from the same negative.



6x8 film


Crop from above.

These scans were done with a v750 (same as the v700, but includes silverfast software) and they are dry scans.


Direct to paper


Direct to paper playing around with imitating vintage techniques.

I'll see if I can fish out some landscapes for you to see too.




« Last Edit: December 15, 2012, 11:43:09 AM by FredBGG » Logged
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1143



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2012, 01:16:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone done any comparisons of medium format backs vs. the Hasselblad scanners from medium format film?  I shoot many scenics and landscapes in 6x4.5, 6x6 or 6x7.  I currently use an Epson V700, but that scanner is not capable of shap scans to extract the full resolution of the film.  I like large enlargements, min 8x10, up to 24x36".  I tend to shoot more freely with a DSLR, but the image quality doesn't compare to my medium format work.  I'm wondering if I'm better off with a Hasselblad scanner than a medium format back...

With a digital back you can also "scan" your film, on the same camera you shot it with, faster than with a scanner and most likely with better results

Just a thought...
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@mamiyaleaf.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2012, 01:45:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

My experience of film vs. digital is summarized here:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2?showall=1

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

Let's put it this way, I was struggling with film.

Another view, by Tim Parkin, is presented here : http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison-comments/

For best quality you need drum scans. I posted samples from my CCD scanner and scan by "High End Scans" scanning service in Germany here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/VelviaScans/

Tim sent me a small part of a Velvia scan at 10000 PPI, resolution wise it outperformed the IQ180. The camera used was the Mamiya 67.

My guess is that the Hasselblad scanners are a bit better than my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, but I guess that they are far from drum scanners. The major limitation of the CCD scanners is D-MAX. You see it in my samples the drum scan have much better detail in the shadows.

Best regards
Erik

Best regards
Erik


Has anyone done any comparisons of medium format backs vs. the Hasselblad scanners from medium format film?  I shoot many scenics and landscapes in 6x4.5, 6x6 or 6x7.  I currently use an Epson V700, but that scanner is not capable of shap scans to extract the full resolution of the film.  I like large enlargements, min 8x10, up to 24x36".  I tend to shoot more freely with a DSLR, but the image quality doesn't compare to my medium format work.  I'm wondering if I'm better off with a Hasselblad scanner than a medium format back...
« Last Edit: December 15, 2012, 02:46:26 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 899


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2012, 04:29:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone done any comparisons of medium format backs vs. the Hasselblad scanners from medium format film?  I shoot many scenics and landscapes in 6x4.5, 6x6 or 6x7.  I currently use an Epson V700, but that scanner is not capable of shap scans to extract the full resolution of the film.  I like large enlargements, min 8x10, up to 24x36".  I tend to shoot more freely with a DSLR, but the image quality doesn't compare to my medium format work.  I'm wondering if I'm better off with a Hasselblad scanner than a medium format back...
It depends on what you are looking for, if it's just resolution a decent MFDB will probably win over none drum scanned images.
I actually prefer the look of Portra scanned to digital shot on anything, I doubt the resolution of my Nikon Coolscanned colour neg is a match for a Phaseone, I just think it looks nicer than anything I've shot with a Canon or Nikon and I don't see the look in any MFDB shots I've seen, as I don't own a MFDB it would be wrong for me to state for sure.
TV here in the UK has lots of programs (Like The Hour) where some editor has hit the "Film look" button, it should be called the "near  film look" button. It's very nice but not the same as quality film.
If it's the "look" you want lots of scanners via Vuescan and high bit scanning will give you it and if it's colour neg like Portra DR that goes on forever.
For workflow if speed was important I would look out for an A3 scanner from Creo or Fuji, great quality and the ability to batch scan various formats and much cheaper than a MFDB to buy.
A Coolscan will easily make very detailed images at the size you said and there is a new MF scanner on the market it will scan upto 612, I just can't remember what it's called!
Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2012, 05:42:13 AM »
ReplyReply

An idea of what you can expect, using simple, unsophisticated scanning techniques (CanoScan S4000US for 135 film), and the alternative of copying 120 film on a D700 digital camera.

The first shot is Kodachrome, as is the black/white one; the third image is a copy of an Ektachrome 6x6 via the digital Nikon.

Rob C
« Last Edit: December 15, 2012, 05:44:11 AM by Rob C » Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2012, 08:01:49 AM »
ReplyReply

In the past I made comparisons between drum scans (better than Hasselblad scans) using 6x6 Velvia and Provia and shots made with a 22MP digital back. Obviously the scan files were much larger but the digital back files were superior in every respect.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2012, 08:08:00 AM by KLaban » Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2012, 08:02:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, welcome back.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2012, 08:24:27 AM »
ReplyReply

+1

Erik
Rob, welcome back.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2012, 08:43:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Do you happen to have a link to your previous posting? It may be interesting for the original poster.

Best regards
Erik


In the past I made comparisons between drum scans (better than Hasselblad scans) using 6x6 Velvia and Provia and shots made with a 22MP digital back. Obviously the scan files were much larger but the digital back files were superior in every respect.
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2012, 08:50:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Do you happen to have a link to your previous posting? It may be interesting for the original poster.

Best regards
Erik

Hi, Erik.

No, I'm afraid not. But I'm not sure that the previous post would help much as I didn't include the resulting images and unfortunately the files no longer exist.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2012, 09:24:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Keith and Erik - thanks for the welcome.

However, it's not looking like it's going to last - the return!

I keep having to keep re-login, and that takes several attempts. Despite having followed the instructions about passwords, posted in the About This Site section, whenever I try to set a new password (the system recognizes Rob C but not the original password) as required, I get a notice telling me that an E-mail has been sent offering a track to follow in order to start again with the new password. This E-mail has never arrived so far.

Rob C

P.S.

I've just tried to send this to the Admin. for help, but pressing the Report button for that tells me it 'doesn't make sense to report my own post'; in this case, I beg to differ!

Could someone else please click the switch and alert the Admin. on my behalf, please? I really would like to be able to revert to the orignal, simple and direct way of checking into LuLa (Hotel Sahara?)!


P.P.S.

I think Admin fixed it for me! Thanks.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2012, 04:27:36 PM by Rob C » Logged

amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2012, 10:09:23 AM »
ReplyReply

An idea of what you can expect, using simple, unsophisticated scanning techniques (CanoScan S4000US for 135 film), and the alternative of copying 120 film on a D700 digital camera.

The first shot is Kodachrome, as is the black/white one; the third image is a copy of an Ektachrome 6x6 via the digital Nikon.

Rob C

Damn, it drives me nuts that you can no longer shoot Kodachrome. There's just nothing like it, and now we can't even shoot Ektachrome Sad If there's one thing I will forever hate digital for it's killing off so many of our artistic options!

Logged
jhimages
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2012, 11:32:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for Fred for this really well written response.  IN using your V750, have you had to play with the height adjustment feature for the film holders?
Logged
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 428


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2012, 11:45:55 AM »
ReplyReply

yes, dial in your film focus with them. Higher grade neg holders also are recommended by some.
Logged

Geoff
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2012, 04:37:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Damn, it drives me nuts that you can no longer shoot Kodachrome. There's just nothing like it, and now we can't even shoot Ektachrome Sad If there's one thing I will forever hate digital for it's killing off so many of our artistic options!




I feel much the same, and would love to return to a 500 Series as I've mentioned in the past.

That said, I wouldn't want to lose my D700 if only for the real advances in available gloom shooting as well as the rapid turnaround possible compared with film. I also wouldn't be willing to buy a dedicated MF scanner which I'm sure would actually be a delight: too expensive for fun status for me.

But MF had something special that might be more to do with the MF cameras than the material we put through them. I loved the simplicity of the Hassy, even though I read the little manual for hours before I dared do anything with the camera itself. It made photography very smooth and eliminated external worries that we simply hadn't heard about because they didn't exist pre-digital.

Rob C
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2012, 02:05:33 PM »
ReplyReply


I feel much the same, and would love to return to a 500 Series as I've mentioned in the past.....


......I loved the simplicity of the Hassy, even though I read the little manual for hours before I dared do anything with the camera itself. It made photography very smooth and eliminated external worries that we simply hadn't heard about because they didn't exist pre-digital.

Rob C

I adored my first CM 500 and EL Hasselblads at first. When I bought them raking up a large dept I was thrilled. Unfortunately things did not go well.
Light leaks, film tearing and a 250mm shutter that was one problem after another.... turned out to be the bodies though. It was a nightmare and almost put me out of business.

I moved on to the more modest and less elegant Mamiya RZ and it made life so much easier. If it had reflected exposure verification for film I would still use it today.

Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2012, 02:31:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Can someone point me to some high res examples of digital backs being used to "scan" medium format film.
From the tests I did with a P25+ the results were not even close to scanning with the V750 and silverfast software.

The problems I saw were tonality for black and white and unpleasant grain structure in the corners of the frames in particular with color.

I also found that I needed to wet mount for MFDB reproduction. I have a 4x5 format flash repro stand with a 4x5.

I would like to see some examples because I want to digitize my entire archive of 120, 4x5 and 8x10 film.

I have budgeted around $75,000 to do it.

Right now I am oriented towards v750 or a drum scanner and training a paraplegic friend to do the work part time
setting him up to offer the service to others too.
Logged
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2012, 02:38:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I use the 501cm and it's just a beautiful machine, rock solid, simple and very zen-like experience. Having shot exclusively digital for the last 7 years, dealing with all the settings, screens, cables, batteries, etc. it feels like a breath of fresh air to shoot with. It's just you and the subject, nothing else. I chose the V-series because it's pretty much the polar opposite of a modern digital camera, and combined with film it just gives me a completely different experience. I think you need that from time to time to keep things fresh and interesting, at least I do.
Logged
chrismuc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 87


« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2012, 07:38:45 AM »
ReplyReply

A year ago I did comparison shots with my Contax 645 on Fuji Provia and on a Leaf Aptus-II 7 33 MP (48x36mm, 7.2um pixel width). The film was scanned with roughly 40 MP on a Hasselbald Imacon scanner (54x41.5mm, 8.2um "pixel" width).
Enclosed the result: The 40 MP scan is less detailed and more grainy than the 33 MP digital file.
For me digital is light years ahead of (diapositive) film: It's is sharper, no visible grain at reasonable low ISO sensitivities with MF backs, more headroom in the highlights as well as in underexposed areas.
In the meantime I use a P65+ 60 MP back that resolves a file quality which is IMO totally impossible to get with 645 film.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad