SURF
Member
The biggest problem (my personal problem) with stitching is that I often see that the image is stitched. After some years it's like wow and flutter to the eyes. And that is the reason that now I prefer DSLR one shot scans. It's too exausting to make a perfect stitch... I mean geometrically 0-1 pixel perfect. All programs will make a stitch, but they will stretch the image. Also there must be zero vignetting too. ZERO! It's possible, but hard. Good to know that it's possible though. PTGui helps too.
Grain trick makes visible grain resolution. Select surface, apply autoLevels, that's it. You can see the grain now.
Attachments
DrTebi
Slide Lover
Interesting, I will try that one.The biggest problem (my personal problem) with stitching is that I often see that the image is stitched. After some years it's like wow and flutter to the eyes. And that is the reason that now I prefer DSLR one shot scans. It's too exausting to make a perfect stitch... I mean geometrically 0-1 pixel perfect. All programs will make a stitch, but they will stretch the image. Also there must be zero vignetting too. ZERO! It's possible, but hard. Good to know that it's possible though. PTGui helps too.
Grain trick makes visible grain resolution. Select surface, apply autoLevels, that's it. You can see the grain now.
Give Image Composite Editor a try. Run it in all-auto mode. I have had very few mis-aligned stitches so far. Here are two examples:
http://drtebi.com/dump/dslr-scans/occupied-house-berlin-2x3-dslr-scan-foveon.jpg
http://drtebi.com/dump/dslr-scans/sf-victorian-2x2-dslr-scan-foveon.jpg
Vignetting can be a problem, that's why I like the crop sensor effect. You get less vignetting with it.
Nitrofunk
Newbie
Olympus OM-D EM5 II or Canon 5D Mark III for scanning?
Olympus OM-D EM5 II or Canon 5D Mark III for scanning?
Hi all!
Very glad I found this thread. I'm currently building a DSLR scanning setup (after having switched from a V700) for scanning 35mm as well as MF-negs. I use my Canon 5D Mark III with an old Durst enlarger stand (M305) and the Durst Neriocam camera-adapter. My light source is a Kaiser lighttable. For the lenses I use either the Leica Macro-Elmarit-R with 1:1 adapter or the Schneider Componon-S 80mm enlarger lens with a Pentacon-bellows. Both give me good results - better than my V700 scans, but worse than professional lab-scans (high-res-scans from a Noritsu HS-1800).
After having done some research, I wonder if it makes sense to switch to a different camera/lens combo which might be better suited for this task: I had the Olympus OM-D e-M5 Mark II with the Olympus M.Zuiko 60mm macro in mind which has this fantastic high-res-mode. On the other hand: It is only four-thirds instead of full frame. So my question is: Will this setup give me better results than my current setup (5dIII with enlarger lens)?
Thanks!
Peter
Olympus OM-D EM5 II or Canon 5D Mark III for scanning?
Hi all!
Very glad I found this thread. I'm currently building a DSLR scanning setup (after having switched from a V700) for scanning 35mm as well as MF-negs. I use my Canon 5D Mark III with an old Durst enlarger stand (M305) and the Durst Neriocam camera-adapter. My light source is a Kaiser lighttable. For the lenses I use either the Leica Macro-Elmarit-R with 1:1 adapter or the Schneider Componon-S 80mm enlarger lens with a Pentacon-bellows. Both give me good results - better than my V700 scans, but worse than professional lab-scans (high-res-scans from a Noritsu HS-1800).
After having done some research, I wonder if it makes sense to switch to a different camera/lens combo which might be better suited for this task: I had the Olympus OM-D e-M5 Mark II with the Olympus M.Zuiko 60mm macro in mind which has this fantastic high-res-mode. On the other hand: It is only four-thirds instead of full frame. So my question is: Will this setup give me better results than my current setup (5dIII with enlarger lens)?
Thanks!
Peter
DrTebi
Slide Lover
Funny, I just sold my Olympus OM Zuiko Auto-1:1 Macro 80mm F/4 Bellows Lens. Well, it's a much older one than the one you mention... it was good, but not better than the Nikon Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8 D AF Macro Lens. That Nikon is quite good... maybe it will give you better results than what you have, although I have the feeling you are asking for a bit too much... or maybe there is something else wrong in your setup. With what you have, especially the Leica lens, you should get some fantastic results. If there is anything that could improve the (apparent?) resolution, it would be more megapixels I guess.
I have meanwhile gone for another route... Got myself a Sigma SD-1 with the 70mm Sigma lens. Now the Sigma camera is a bit of a beast that needs taming to get right... I would not recommend it if you have no patience
The lens however, which I am pretty sure is also available for Canon, it absolutely fantastic. It's the first lens I have used that allows me to do stitches with absolutely no seam lines visible in blue sky etc. It's sharp corner to corner, and the light fall-off is super low (hence no seams).What exactly is it that you think is better in the Noritsu scans? I know those scanner can deliver some great results...
jzagaja
Well-known
What are the problems with SD1? Also planning this route.
XT2 plus good lens is rather too smooth/plastic look. Hardly over 100lpm
XT2 plus good lens is rather too smooth/plastic look. Hardly over 100lpm
DrTebi
Slide Lover
Well, for one, you don't get a live preview. This makes it hard to focus, frame, judge the right white balance etc. Further, the camera is quite slow, especially when compared to a modern DSLR like Canon, Nikon, Pentax.
Getting the focus right was my biggest worry, but I am happy to report that the 70mm Macro lens auto-focus is spot on. So that's great.
The speed... you will get used to it. But remember that you will also have to convert the RAW images with Sigma's software, which is another extra step, and that software ain't particularly fast either.
Nevertheless, I think the effort is worth it, if you have the time and patience for it.
I have two 35mm scans online for you to check out:
http://drtebi.com/dump/dslr-scans/paris-las-vegas-sigma-sd-1.jpg
http://drtebi.com/dump/dslr-scans/grand-bar-bordeaux-sigma-sd-1.jpg
The first one was shot with a Konica Hexar AF on Kodak Portra 160 if I remember correctly...
The second one with a Yashica Electro 35 GSN on Fujifilm Provia 100.
Some last thoughts: My goal was to get that Foveon sensor into the mix; since it mimics film, I thought it should be the perfect sensor for scanning film negatives/positives as well. Personally, I like what I am getting a lot. I did a lot of comparisons with a Nikon D800 and Pentax K-1, and I always liked the Foveon look better. Sometimes you need to fight with the reds a bit, they appear to be more accurate with other cameras.
What works best, is taking 4 or 6 images of medium format film and stitch them together... those results are just stunning, to me at least:
http://drtebi.com/dump/dslr-scans/occupied-house-berlin-2x3-dslr-scan-foveon.jpg
http://drtebi.com/dump/dslr-scans/SF-Victorian--Kowa66_Provia100F--Sigma-SD-1M_2x3-stitch.jpg
The first picture was taken with a Plaubel Makina 670 on Fujifilm Provia 100F.
The second picture was taken with a Kowa Six MM and the Kowa 80mm lens on Fuji Provia 100F.
Good luck, and please report your experiences here
jzagaja
Well-known
Very good results so this a future, one could automate it. My sigma DP2Q is as detailed as Fuji GW690III (6x9) various films, film is smoother looking. SD Quattro has color pattern so probably not usefull.
At the moment I'm exploring Creo IQ2 scanner - Kodak 10400 CCD with pixel shift (year 2001!) - very much like drum scanners but quicker to use. If you shot 35mm I would try Lasergraphic 16K - schould be cheap per frame.
At the moment I'm exploring Creo IQ2 scanner - Kodak 10400 CCD with pixel shift (year 2001!) - very much like drum scanners but quicker to use. If you shot 35mm I would try Lasergraphic 16K - schould be cheap per frame.
DrTebi
Slide Lover
Glad you like the results.
You mention the Sigma DP2Q, I don't think you can get close enough with that camera...??
The SD Quattro would certainly work. Although, personally, I like the "true" Foveon sensor better. I compared lots of full-resolution images, and the SD-1 really won me over. 'would also be a cheaper package altogether.
Well, let us know what you will end up with...
You mention the Sigma DP2Q, I don't think you can get close enough with that camera...??
The SD Quattro would certainly work. Although, personally, I like the "true" Foveon sensor better. I compared lots of full-resolution images, and the SD-1 really won me over. 'would also be a cheaper package altogether.
Well, let us know what you will end up with...
jzagaja
Well-known
Naturally DP2Q with close up lenses is too soft and mag too low.
Overall DP2Q is very very sharp:
Overall DP2Q is very very sharp: