Do Megapixels Matter When Converting Negatives With A Digital Camera
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 04. 2021
- Do you get any more detail from a negative when shooting with a 50 megapixel camera compared to a 12 or 24 megapixel camera?
Negative Lab Pro :
www.negativelabpro.com
Dropbox link for photos :
www.dropbox.com/sh/1ic7nb9am7...
Real Sir Robin :
/ @therealsirrobin
Cameras used in this video.
Sony A1
Sony A7c
Sony A7s II
This video was shot on the Sony FX3 and the Sony 35mm f/1.4 G-Master lens.
negative lab pro - Věda a technologie
I owned a $400,000 Kodak Pro Photo CD film scanning system from 1993 to 2007 which used true RGB linear scanning arrays and Schneider apochromatic lenses . We could scan 35mm frames up to 4k x 6k resolution (24MP) at 16bit Lab colour but we did this rarely as scans of our studio calibration photos (taken on EVERY film stock) showed that only Kodachrome 25 ASA (ISO now) transparencies shot in ideal studio lit conditions with the very best lenses and apertures could provide enough film detail to justify this, 24MP resolution. We did over two million scans for archive producers and movie companies (all the stills for Star Wars etc.) and nobody ever wanted more that the 4k x 6k Pro resolution. It was the 16bit tonal range and the hundreds of custom negative and positive film terms developed by Kodak and us that made the scanning quality the best in the world! David Myers, Digital Masters Australasia.
Very impressive. So I think you are saying that anything over 24MP is unnecessary. I've compared my D600 (24MP) images to my D850 (45MP) images using a Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro 1:1 lens on each and I really can't see a difference but I don't have a trained eye.
Great comment. Did you work with medium format negatives and scans though? I think that perceived resolution and detail would be a lot higher than 35mm hence the purpose of Darryls video. Or do you think the 24mp limit still holds true for MF 645? Personally, in my experience 24 MP more than handles 35mm negative scans and adequately handles 645.
For 6x6 up to 6x9 I think it is worth it to go up to 47 megapixels. For large format I think you should be capturing those negatives with a digital medium format sensor of at least 50 MP as realistically the amount of resolution is absurd and 100 MP images are required to fully capture an 8x10 negative and match it's print dimension capability. But at that point it's not practical to DSLR scan a large format negative because it will be very hard to keep the negative flat and thus you are better off using a lab scanner. That way they can keep it perfectly flat. That or drum scanning.
Looks like this guy can see the difference czcams.com/video/1thY_Az14bA/video.html
Also, this shows insane details at 709Mpx. I guess film’s limit is pretty high (especially when you go beyond medium format)
czcams.com/video/sqN7n9bXgtU/video.html
Paused at 2:44. There are conflicting forces. Let's start with the 35mm negatives and their resolution. In the film days, resolution was expressed in a linear unit because that directly relates with human perception of detail resolution: LinePairs per millimeter LP/mm. A pair being a black and a white line. Two times the LP/mm means we see that as twice as sharp (ceteris paribus, assuming parts in both comparison tests can reproduce both). You might argue that a 36mm x 24mm negative needs at least 7,200 LP * 4,800 LP and this gets us to an area size of 34.56 million. Why that number? Because 100 LP/mm was attainable with good film and professional grade lenses. Nikon glass would get better in the center and a bit less towards the edges when stopped down 2 to 3 f-stops from fully opened. With Leica glass you might see some higher values in the center of the frame and a bit more fall-off from that towards edges/corners. So a 36MP digital camera would equate that resolution? Well, if the black and white lines in the subject precisely align with the photosites in the sensor.
But there is a problem with a digital camera. You see, film has RGB at all coordinates because the color is in three layers on top of each other with subtractive filtering between them. But a digital camera has not. The sensor is colorblind and in order to get color in the raw file, there is a filter grid over the sensor that has repeating filter patterns of 4 photosites that thus build an R.G.G.B quartet next to each other. The problem then is to convert this into RGB pixels and this is done in raw processing. This happens in camera for JPEG and MPEG shots, and in your raw processing software for your raw shots. Your camera comparisons in Lightroom tell more about Lightroom than about the camera. The 14 bits gradation resolution you had at the R.G.G.B photosite data in your raw file have been degraded to less than 9 in raw processing.
That raw processing is a mathematically precise and repeatable guessing of missing color for the R.G.G.B quartets in the raw file so as to change R to RGB, G to RGB and B to RGB. This creates artifacts like Moiré if we recognize it and "noise" if we do not recognize it. Application of basic computer vision type AI can help a bit, but without "deep knowledge" in the raw processing software about what is in the photo, raw processing is not helped a lot.
Lower resolution (than 36MP) cameras make raw processing easier with a so-called Anti-Aliasing filter (AA) or low-pass filter. These filters disperse the light for the R cell to its surrounding neighbors. Hence I call it the fuzzy filter. It helps raw processing and the idea already was applied in the 1970s to aid image processing out of data from scanning tunneling electron microscopes.
Or, the presence of a fuzzy filter must be part of the reasoning. We see that higher than 35MP resolution cameras generally have done away with the fuzzy filter - making lenses sharper and depth of field shallower.
The problem with digital reproduction of film is the grain in the film. With increasing resolution, this generates a raw file that has more detail of the grain and this is not likely understood by your raw processing software. So we have to find an optimum here between these conflicting forces.
But my negative is black and white - unless you shoot a Leica Monochrom that is even more expensive for not placing the R.G.G.B filter layer and it still may have the fuzzy filter by the way because Leica's old lens designs are not well adapted to sensors, you always have an R.G.G.B raw file that needs raw processing.
A scanner can run a multipass scan and build an RGB.RGB.RGB.RGB file that is better than raw and does not need raw processing. If it can create more than 8 bits per color channel TIFF, you basically outperform the raw file. So 16 bit TIFF is way more better than 14 bits raw when at the digital level there is a factor of only 4 between them.
Some people would say that 24MP is enough. Well it might be the optimum, bottom line, after these conflicting forces got sorted out.
The problem with digital is not only that we look at the results of raw processing (where we lost a lot of quality) but also look at digitally upscaled or even upsampled representations of our images, when we depict them larger than 100%. This gives an illusion of image quality. Even if we depict our images at smaller scales there is some digital processing going on, to the images. Like anti-aliasing for the display, depending on your software. Some defunct guy would call your digital photo on your computer "fake" and here he would have a point.
I have tested Topaz's Gigapixel AI app last year as a way to get control over what is sent to the printer. Its ability to upsample and in that make guesses about what detail to add in blowing up a raw file, was incredible. A year later and Adobe have improved their Enhance Super Resolution features by a bit.
The magic of a 12MP Nikon D700 is in these aspects: for human perception, two times as sharp as 12MP is 48MP and all wow conversations about in between values is extremely naive. It explains people's remarks that the gain from 12 to 24 is not as great as they had expected - it's only 40%.
The magic is also in its discrete analog to digital circuit (i.e. not bundled with, stacked on, the sensor) and it is in the relation between Nikon F-glass's qualities and the fuzzy filter.
To circumvent raw processing, we could mimic the multipass of scanners by shifting the original a tiny bit and shoot again, later match/stack the layers in Photoshop. But our raw images already have had raw processing at that moment and damage was done.
What about sensor shift - cameras have IBIS so that should be easy, right? Well, the wild assed guessing of RGB colors in raw processing gets stuck in the edges of the image where there are no neighboring cell values to make guess from. The difficult solution is to have two algorithms in raw processing of which one is specific to the edge problem. The other solution is to have a sensor with more columns and rows in the edges and record the data thereof but never allow these columns and rows in the displayed image - they only serve as aid in RGB guessing. Well, throw in a couple more, and these rows and columns can also be used in IBIS without moving the sensor. If there are enough rows and columns you might only move the sensor, say with 5 photosite units, when you detect 5 units shift at image level. Or, I don't expect the IBIS systems to be able to make single photosite unit steps that we would need for RGB shots of 14.14.14 bits natively.
Or, if you make a living in scanning negatives and want to speed up - the promise of the digital camera - then I would look at a Pentax K-something that can do this sensor shift actually. I would not use it anywhere else, by the way.
All this still leaves us with the film grain problem. With increasing resolution the raw file has more grain detail and the software may have difficulties abstracting that grain noise away.
When we stick with the regular Bayer-filter filtered sensor and its raw files, a comparative test is required indeed. And it will be valid until somebody develops a raw processing program for film scans.
That was an incredibly insightful comment, thanks!
This was one of the most well put comments about film scanning that I've ever witnessed. I've read through it thrice and my man has it been a journey. I'd love to learn more from you on this topic.
Thanks!
Two commenters, thank you for the compliments. The summary is that we think we know what we are looking at when we compare shots in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR, the raw processor of Lightroom Classic as well as Photoshop), but we see ACR inn the first place. IN another YT channel I discussed if Topaz Gigapixel AI could deal with film grain and the host of that channel says he tested it and the short answer is, no. That's a pity, but I still can blow up my digital images to very large sizes with it, just not film.
Note that my write-up applies to "digital photography" in general and that scanning or reproducing film images into digital merely is a use case in there.
Finally, I'm obsessed with the truth and removing veils of ignorance, not "sharpness" as a goal in itself, or "beautiful bokeh" and I'm old-school about the decisive moment. But add that face/eye detect AF help me shoot portraits with a different interaction than I would in the film days. And I can obsess about that. To paraphrase a photographer that is a lot more famous than I am, people obsessing about x, y, z probably have less in the artistic department to talk about or show off.
Let's go back to that. Take my write up as a way to put your mind at ease. Shoot, review, shoot, review, consciously, 10,000 times - to train your brain. Worry about all these details here a bit later.
@@jpdj2715 will you suggest a better way to digitize our film is by scanning ( using epson, nikon coolscan, frontier, noritus etc.. ) rather than a dslr (A scanner can run a multipass scan and build an RGB.RGB.RGB.RGB file that is better than raw and does not need raw processing)?
@@joshmcdzz6925 - that's what I wrote. The question to me is unanswered how well the scanner can do the RGB.RGB.RGB.RGB where a Bayer sensor would do R.G.B.G instead, that in raw processing must be converted into the RGB.RGB.RGB.RGB.
The scanner depends on software to drive it and pull the scan data out, next convert them into an image file. The R.G.B.G is at best 14 bits each and I would expect the RGB in RGB.RGB.RGB.RGB to be 16/16/16 for each coordinate - 48 native bits per coordinate with no guessing of missing colours.
But nobody is transparent in this digital photography market.
I have the CoolScan and the Epson flatbed, but bottom line will grab my Nikon Z 7ii with 105/2.8S macro, plus raw process these images. IIRC the Nikon D850 had a profile for reversing shots of negatives.
"Bayer" keeps my processing workflow standard, and my files and their filing too.
Lazy? Probably. Yes, it's a lot faster.
Thanks for this very clear explanation and illustration of the issue. And thank you for including the 12 and 24 megapixel cameras .. so many videos out there using 50 to 100 megapixel cameras as if we all have those in our camera bags :)
prefer the sharper grain on the higher res
Great video Darryl! Really did us all a service with the comparison, and nice production value 👍
Hi Hashem, hope you and the family are well over in OZ. Starting to get back in to my film photography now, been a busy few months shooting videos for clients, will be nice to slow down and shoot film again. How is the Leica M-A going? Not sure I could use a Leica with no light meter 😜😜
@@DarrylCarey hey thanks man, same to you. That's good to hear! I love it. Had gotten used to no meter from years using the M4 :) I'll DM you over on instagram soon
Good video, decent length, info packed & well fleshed out thanks!
Thanks Izzet 😀
Such a good comparison! Was so looking forward to this.
Thanks Anupam
Really enjoyed this. I was looking at getting a high resolution camera for scanning negatives recently. You’ve just saved me a lot of money!
Glad the video helped, check out my other video on using a Mirrorless camera to convert your negatives.
Absolutely fantastic video!! Thanks so much for sharing your findings!
Thank you Darryl. Very informative video indeed. Love your work!
Thanks Paul
Very helpful. I was going to stitch two D810 images of a 645 negative together. This tells me that I’m better off just taking one image of the negative and crop as much as I need.
Really useful information, thank your for the experiment you conducted. I will tune in to your future videos!
Thanks Alan and welcome to the channel.
Well done. Thanks!
Really useful comparison ! Helps a lot ! Thanks
Great video, nice to see the different megapixels!!!
Thanks for watching Brian
Thanks a lot! Very helpful, as I am looking for a digital camera as only an addition to my analogue ones. I understood that 20 to 24 will be more than enough for my 35 to 6x6 negatives.
Hi Robert, the 24mp will be fine for 6x6. I test it with some of my Hasselblad negatives and the results are the same.
Thanks for the comparison!! Really good info to know.
Thanks 😀
Love your videos Darryl! I remember asking Ming Thein a few years ago the resolution equivalent to film, and he answered that he estimated it between 10 and 12 megapixels. That is consistent with your findings that 12Mp give very nice results for 35mm negatives.
I was a little surprised by how well 12mp did with 35mm negatives.
Very interesting !!! Thanks for the test.
Extremely helpful info for my project - I have piles of old 35MM B&W negatives that might be decent digital images someday. Thanks!
Excellent comparison. Very informative.
Fantastic video - I had wondered about this for a while before finding your channel - have subscribed
Great video! Thanks for doing all this work and sharing! )))
Great stuff, very informative.
Thanks Scott, hope things are going well for you and the family.
Very cool video. thanks for taking the time to look into these things. I've recently moved into film (away from digital) - but I'm curious to know how folks catalog, organise, folder keyword etc their scanned negatives into LR or Cap1. I wonder if you've made a video about that yet? I'm going to check out your playlists etc. Thanks. :)
You only scan the negatives you use, you keep your negatives in folders on the shelf.
Really needed video! Thank you👏
This is just the video I needed to see ❤ thank you very much
Glad I could help!
Man I’m sooo glad I just found this video, I shoot with an X-Pro3 (26MP) as well as an M6 and a Hassy 501cm and just ordered the 80mm fuji macro to “scan” my film negatives, thank you for this Awesome experiment.
Thanks Darryl. I am about to start converting, but have to wade through the choices of converters.
Let me know how you go 😁
Thanks for a great comparison!
My 18 megapixel aps-c sensor does a great job for me, lots of resolution for my photos!
Have a good week!
Hi Sina, hope you are well. You converting 35mm or medium format?
@@DarrylCarey Doing good thanks!
I do both!
For 120 6x6 I take two pictures and stitch them together using lightroom classic in order to get more pixles our of a frame.
6x4.5 is just about 3x2 aspect ratio so I get a nice 18 megapixle file!
@@SinaFarhat Yea that's such a great point. Even people who want 40MP or 50MP scans for 6x6 or 6x9 scans can still use lower resolution sensors and stitch the image. 18 or 24MP is more than enough for home scanning.
Very helpful and informative video! Thanks!
Thanks for watching, my I ask where you found this video?
Nicely done, thank you. 👍
That's a comparison on point.
Thank you 😁
Dynamic range is a big factor, too. Digital cameras are getting better, but I'd be curious to see a dynamic range comparison with top end flatbed and drum scanners specifically for dynamic range
Very useful info Darryl, thanks! I would add that Nikon shooters can purchase the Nikon ES-1 or ES-2 to copy 35mm slides or film strips. If they already own a 60mm macro, it is a simple, straightforward path to digitize film. D850 owners really have it made as the camera includes a special mode to invert color or monochrome films.
Hi JK, I remember when the ES-2 camera out, never got around to using one. Will see if I can get my hands on one for a review.
Thanks for that experiment. Very interesting for me.
Thanks for watching Andreas, more film photography videos coming soon
Very informative, thank you!
This is actually a very good and informative video. I appreciate your efforts here. Though, I am a bit surprised the 645 MF image didn't show better results past 24MP. This would mean that 645 doesn't perform any better than the 35mm if "camera scanning" is a part of the workflow. My mind goes immediately to the LP/mm resolving capacity of the Sony lens (as well as differences in lens resolving capacity of the original film cameras) being a limiting factor. I have always assumed that 35mm film would hit the wall around 20MP, 645 around 50MP, and 6x7 around 80MP, when scanned with a dedicated film scanner like a Nikon 9000ED--even higher with drum scans. But we all know what happens when making assumptions! 😂
As an aside on lens resolving capacity, I know that Mamiya/Phase One had "excellent lenses" back in the day when a Leaf 22MP back was all the rage. But though the years, as the MP capacity of their backs went past 40, then to 80, then to 100, and now 150MP, the glass up front has simply struggled to keep up. This has forced them to constantly upgrade their lenses to ever more expensive versions. I think they have just released their 4th generation 80mm prime Schneider at this point--$6,000 USD for anyone interested. The same thing has to be happening to Sony/Nikon/Canon as they are increasing the megapixels on their models. Lenses with higher resolution are usually larger, heavier (more metal less plastic), and tighter per copy QC at the factory. All this makes them more and more expensive.
Back to the subject at hand. It may be that a 90mm lens that was good for 12 & 24MP cameras in 2017 has hit its own wall somewhere along the way to 50MP in 2021. Just a thought.
Hmm, nice experiment - I have the same setup and have run many of my own.
I think you will find that higher megapixels will excel once you print (if that is your target output). A 6x7 negative, for example, can achieve 1:1 optical resolution at 300dpi all the way up to 30”x45” which is equivalent to the 1:1 output of a 63 megapixel camera sensor. A 24 megapixel sensor is only capable of rendering a 16x24 print at the same (optimal) resolution, so capturing a 6x7 negative with a 24 megapixel sensor will limit your output options. There are some great resources for this online. I keep a chart at my desk.
Enjoyed the video! You have a new subscriber .
I agree with groovejunky2549. Targeting the printing output dimensions is the key here. Higher resolution / megapixel = larger printing size possibilities.
Darryl, thanks for the video. My scanning workflow is like yours and saves me a lot of time while producing what I think are great results; I'm using the a7R3 through the 2.8/90mm Macro G and processing with NLP for both 135 and 120 film. I haven't found confirmation, but presume the A1 does not have an anti aliasing filter like the other high MP Sony cameras; do you think this is a factor in your results? Also, did you try the medium 21MP and small 12MP file size options on the A1? Thanks
Not sure about the different options on the Sony A1, need to look into that. I thought it was a good idea to test 3 different cameras, so people with 12mp or 24mp will have a good idea of the results they will get from their camera. Was looking at a A7R3 but went with the A7c because of the weight and size.
For 35mm, I’ve been really happy to use 24 megapixels. I have an older Nikon D600 that I use exclusively for my 35mm scans so I don’t waste shutter count on my newer cameras and it works great for that purpose. I’m glad to learn that 24 works well for medium format. I have quite a few medium format negatives to convert. Great video. Looking forward to your video on the Kaiser system
The Nikon D600 was an awesome camera, not the best AF but still a great camera. I must get around to reviewing the Kaiser system
I did the same thing. I own a D850 but bought a D600 just for film negative "scanning". I'm extremely pleased with the results for both my 35mm and 120 (6x7) negatives. BTW, I've just started taking two images of each 6x7 negative to increase the resolution. I haven't compared the single image to double image yet but I'm hoping I see a marked improvement to make it worth the extra step of creating a "pano" image of the 6x7 in Lightroom.
To me a far more interesting comparison is: How does a wet darkroom PRINT of say, 16x20, from a medium format negative compare with a 16x20 PRINT produced from a scanned medium format negative?
The wet darkroom print wins hands down as long as the enlarger optics and operator skills are up to par.
This is an amazing video! Would be interesting to test how big of a difference there’s between a (24Mp in my case) full frame and an (24Mp) apsc cameras. Great work nonetheless, as always!
I used a G9 in my video on converting negatives and that did a really good job with detail, so an APSC sensor would be fine
Really happy that someone finally addressed this and actually did a test-great vid I agree!
I found it to be better with an apsc sensor and a full frame lens, only because you can minimize lens flaws. Also handy because you can manually use lightroom's lens correction that has been used in the film camera because there is no need for DSLR's lens correction. Image quality clearly depends on the camera, for example d750 was slightly better than d5200 but d7500 was about the same as d750 all tested with Nikon's 60mm, 85mm PC, 105mm, 70-180mm and 200mm macro lenses. Lens makes a very minimal difference, only 200mm masterpiece made a little more visible difference in 6x6, but focusing and aligning with film surface was so hard and time consuming that it wasn't worth the effort.
@@karajohn1234 - This sounds encouraging. I'm finalizing my setup today and would like to dedicate my old D5500 as my copy camera with a Tamron 90mm Ti (full frame) Macro lens. I'll be comparing the scans to my D850 scans and hope I can't tell a difference because I'd love to scan with just the D5500.
It will make no difference, apsc will extract all the same level of detail and since scans are at base ISO and shot raw the files have the same of flexibility in post for color adjustment. What actually matters is the macro lens you use for the scans. Some macro lenses are much better and sharper/resolve more detail than others.
good findings. thanks for the info!
Thanks for watching
@@DarrylCarey sure. Keep doing your thing.
Great video . Thanks
fantastic video, great info.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! I needed this!
I’ve always had this question, ever since the lab I use rejected 2 photos I wanted to blow up to 36” x 36” and another at 60” x 60”, respectively. So I’ve been testing a small inexpensive digital camera with a resolution of 48mp. When the high mpx sensor is used, you can blow up the picture to larger sizes with even greater sharpness and clarity. I think 24mp and even 12mp for up to an 8” x 10” print is fine. If you want larger prints like poster size and so forth, the increased resolution of 48mp, 50mp and so forth really pays off. It’s really all about what size of print you want to end up with.
Exactly this is my observation as the manager of a pro lab. I noticed that this pixel (with a digital appearance) works very well when the file is enlarged and then printed in large format. It's not marginal to scan at 50 MP for large prints, it creates the ideal photo grain blur (after pixel extrapolation) for 44 or 60 inch prints.
I personally saw an image from a 6mp Nikon D70 blown up to 30x40” by a lab in Louisiana. It’s was flawless. Sometimes it’s also about the skill of who is doing the enlarging. I’m sure they weren’t using the same software everyone else was. But damn it was amazing. And 6mp!!!!
Thank you, really insightful
wow great video. I just bought a Canon 5D mkii for scanning and was worried that it only has 21MP. Now i feel alot better, thank you!
Thanks for this very interesting and informative review
Thanks for watching Ronald, was surprised how well the 24MP camera did.
Thank you for this video! The thing I love about my Nikon D850 is the option to choose between 47, 24, and 11mp, but the downside is 24 and 11mp are limited to 12-bit colour, while the full 47mp has 14-bit.
The D850 is still Nikons best camera. I shot with one for about a year with a D5, the D50 was always the camera I would grab first even for sports. The different raw settings is a great feature with the D850, lets hope Nikon can make a Mirrorless version of the D850 😉
12-bit is fine if you don’t do really intensive creative color grading. You shouldn’t run into any problems when converting negs.
(Edit: spelling)
Great video!
Great to see this practical experiment. I expect as one moves up in film size (6x7 or even 4x5 film) the high megapixel camera would become more useful.
Very useful thanks! And subscribed.
Welcome to the channel Andrew 😀
Really interesting to see these comparisons, thank you. I do disagree on the grain comparison though - I felt the one on the left (50MP) was more pleasing and the grain to me looks smoother and more "shaped" than the garin on the right photo which looked more pixellated to me (although I'm looking at it from a compressed video). Guess it all boils down to testing for yourself and seeing what your own preference is.
I agree with you. Images taken with 50 MP camera are sharper and you can see more detail of the grain of the film.
I'm using my 24 MP Nikon D610 for scanning of the film but I would prefer camera with more MP and no anti-aliasing filter like Nikon D810, Nikon D850 or similar.
@@MrCROBosanceros - I'm just getting started scanning with my D850 but would like to buy a D600 or D610 (24MP) as a dedicated copy camera. I have a D5500 (24MP) that I will try but it's a cropped sensor so I don't expect it to be as good as Darryl's 24MP scans.
Thank you. I really enjoyed 😊
Thanks to the YT algorithm I found the video I have been looking for a long time, thanks a lot!
I just started scanning with DSLR and tried this experiment scanning 120 negatives with my Nikon D300s vs my Nikon D810 😮 blown away by the level of detail i get with the D810! such a difference and I never would have thought!! thank you! the D300s is super soft less detail and contrast. it matters
Great video! I am curious is you've tried taking multiple images of 120 film and then stitch them together for more resolution? I'm theorizing this would help the 12 mp camera do better on medium format film.
Hey Minsan, thats a great idea. Will do some testing and if it works will do a video on it
@@DarrylCarey cool! Looking forward to it :)
How did you find the results? I am turning between 12 or 24 mox. ..Thank you!
Not quite 'future generation' just yet after only 2 years, but this is already a really helpful archive video. :)
Thanks Darryl. 👍
That was a great video ! Thanks a lot, I was wondering if I could stop doing multi-stitching with my 5D mkII and just take one image per 645 negative. Your test shows me that I can !
A very informative video Darryl, thank you for sharing it. Would it be a fair assumption that, when it comes to resolution, a full frame 24Mp sensor is equal to a 645 (or 6x6) medium format negative and a 50Mp is superior? Thanks.
I tested the 24mp on my 6x6 negatives from my Hasselblad the result was the same. if you have larger negatives like 6x7 or 6x9 I would go for a higher megapixel sensor
@@DarrylCarey thanks.
I’ve been digitizing with a Fuji X-T1 (16mp) for a few months now and it seems to be plenty for 35 and 645. Atleast for me. Nice video cool to see a comparison.
Great analysis. I bet a low speed film like Tmax 100 or Adox CMS 20 II in 6x7 or 6x9 would show some interesting results with your 24 vs. 50 megapixel scans.
You can extract more detail from medium format if it is there :) shoot something with closed aperture and fine details. And it depends what film is used and how it is developed. Fine grain modern negatives can give 50mp detail even on 645 easily. And about the grain - it depends how you sharpen the image. Sharpening is different for 12, 24 and 50mp sensors because the size of the detail is different. That is all from my experience.
I was even able to get 24 usable megapixels of detail from 35mm Ektar 100 shots.
BTW what is the film scanning device you were using, can we get a link where it is selling?
Hi Simeon, the system I'm using is the Kasier FilmCopy Vario
Thank you. I am shooting my film archive, 50 years of my film photography. A lot to get thru. I am using an Olympus om1 III with the Olympus 60mm macro lens. Not ideal because of the mismatch of aspect ratios, which reduces the effective megapixels. After watching this I will stick to standard raw files for my 35mm, but use the handheld hi-res mode (not actually handheld, obviously) for my medium format negatives.
One thing I also wonder about is the increase in dynamic range when you go to the hi-res modes on the camera.
I have also noticed the issue of obnoxious film grain, dust and scratches particularly when comparing digital camera scans to actual scanner scans (epson v850). The epson scans often appear sharper, but the dust and scratches stand out like neon signs. You have no choice but to retouch them if you want to enjoy/display the image. With the film image, you can see them, but they are more muted and minor negative damage can just be ignored. Saves a lot of time.
I gave up using my Epson scanner mostly because of the dust issue and I found the scanning software was adding sharpness to my negatives… Which was driving me crazy
Really , really interesting results ! Bravo ! Perhaps the 50 mp would be useful for slide film where the detail is comparatively extremely high when shot properly. For higher ISO BW, I definitely think lower MP ( 12-16) will 'support' the film look better.
I have boxes of my grandfather's negatives to scan and I've been wondering if my 26MP camera is enough, now I know! Thank you!
Hi, please let me know how you get on with converting the negatives 😁
Great info thank you
Great comparison and makes sense sorry to throw a spanner in works what about using a crop sensor 24mp camera do you think this would get the same result with the more tightly packed pixels on the crop body thanks for the video great detail and well executed.
More is less! This video confirmed my thoughts about high resolution cameras and scanners used for film scanning. Years ago I began scanning my 120 black and white negs with a Nikon 8000 dedicated film scanner - and I hated the results !!! The grain structure was overly sharp and drew way too much attention. Then during the pandemic I rescanned them all again with a Canon 5d Mark 4 (30 megapixals) and loved the results - slightly softer and way more natural, and they print beautifully :)
The Nikon Coolscan scanners are amazing scanners but starting to their age now …. Still going for crazy prices on EBay. I could wrong but I think the Nikon Coolscan scanners used a CCD sensor, which does not have the dynamic of a CMOS
Another great informative video Darryl. I’m glad to know that my X-pro 1 will do the trick. You have saved us lots of time.
Thanks for sharing!
Caula
Hi Caula, great to know this video has helped. please let me know how you get on when your converting the negatives.
@@DarrylCarey will do. Thanks for replying.
-C
A high resolution 35mm negative, properly exposed and developed, contains around 12~16 MP of data. A 24 MP digital camera is more than adequate to extract all the information recorded on the negative. The situation is different if one is digitizing MF negs. Here a different technique is required.
This is what I thought before but it is simply not true. 24MP resolves much more detail than a 12 and 16 MP sensors. I also tested 36 MP and it resolved even more detail than the 24MP sensor.
@@ShutterKnack I have been experimenting with digital camera ' scanning ' for a few years. In most cases, I find that even a 20mp MFT sensor produces optimum results. The only time I one needs higher pixel count is when digitising MF negatives or high resolution 35mm copy film, like ADOX CMSII. Here only a Flextight or high res drum scanner can resolve the details this film is capable of recording. More mega pixel makes for bigger files, but if the original neg does not carry enough information, inflated files are the result. It is good to experiment with though.
Everything matters bud
@@crystalous I beg to disagree. Not megapixels for sure.
I enjoyed it. Thank you. Did almost the same experiment before seeing this video. Compared my Canon 6D vs 5DSr cameras for copying 35mm negatives while using the same 100mm/2.8 macro. Other than double the hard drive space I didn't see discernable differences.
It’s. Nice to see this video is still helping people after all this time 😁
Thanks Darryl, I sold my 50mp 5ds and now only have a 20mp R6. Looks like I’ll be just fine to scan the negatives with the 20mp R6
Great experiment, thanks. Any comment on the ability of lenses to resolve at these differing megapixels?
I did a side by side grain-peeping comparison of the files you uploaded and found that the "A7c 6.jpg" 24MP scan seems to have had some sort of camera shake/focus issue? (The area to the top left of the man's face) It's even less sharp than the 12MP A7S II. Do you think this might've coincidentally contributed to the aesthetically pleasing/soft quality of the grains as you mentioned at 10:30?
I think your conclusion is pretty spot on. 35mm film has a nominal resolution of around 18MP given its size and typical grain density. That number varies MASSIVELY depending on the film stock, but it's roughly a figure people seem to agree on these days. So any camera with around that many MP will preserve the maximum amount of detail, and even then 12MP is clearly enough unless you REALLY want to also preserve the grain pattern. Very interesting results and now that companies are making better camera scanning solutions it's great to see research like this helping inform people.
Thanks for watching, may I ask where you found my video?
@@DarrylCarey CZcams home page recommended it. Been watching a lot of film related photography content lately. Former photographer turned video editor because of COVID
Very interesting comparison and a nicely done video, I didn't expect the limit to be 24mp for the medium format. I was wondering what will happen with sheet films using the same cameras. If you shoot any please make a video.
I’m looking at doing a followup video with a 24mp sensor and some different lenses … to see if this makes a difference
Thanks that was helpful 🔥
Thanks for watching😀
Cool video, looking forward to see how my 16MP Oly will fare with 120, 110, 35mm and old diapositives when my Kaiser parts arrive.
What kit are you using to hold the camera and neg to do these Photo-scans? Thx
Very interesting and well done comparison. I just wondered if the grain can be reduced with a noise reducing program, like Neat Image.
Thank you. I was very looking for this video that how much detail can get from a 35mm film using higherpixel cameras. . Appreciate.
Please, kindly compare scanned and photographed film images side-by-side! Are there diffrences in resolution, color depth, visual appearence, noise etc.?
Which side of the film negative was facing the lens/copy camera. Emulsion side or shiny film side. The quick shot as you put the 35mm film into the holder looked emulsion side up. Thanks for sharing your experiment. Greetings from Tasmania Australia 😁🇦🇺🦘
Interesting comparison! However, P3200 has a very “sharp” grain structure, similar to the slower Tmax films, but coarser. Do you think it’s possible that the higher megapixel camera shows a better resolved grain, that (in your eyes) looks less pleasant? My own experience with digitizing negatives shows me that a 24mp camera just about resolves the grain of a fine grain b/w film (TMX developed in highly diluted hc110). If I want to maximise results with a 6x7 negative, I have to resort to stitching.
Btw, my setup looks like it’s similar to yours. I use my old enlarger to vertically mount a bellows system with a macro lens that’s optimized for 1:1 reproduction. I shoot with a 24mp aps-c camera for increased depth of field, at f8. Your negative carrier looks way better than mine though. Looking forward to your next video!
I think 24mp is all you need for 35mm and 645 negatives. Personally did not like the look for the grain with the 50mp files
@@DarrylCarey Your personal preference is all fine. I'm still curious to Tim's question though: do you think that the 50MP might've actually reproduced the sharp, coarse grain structure of P3200 more faithfully? If so, would you argue that, artistic preference aside, a faithful archivist of film negatives can preserve more of the physical grain structure of the film with a 50MP?
you answered my questions, thank you.
Thanks John, its good to know the video helped
Old home film scanners would sometimes experience grain aliasing with certain films. Different scanners would alias with different films due to the variability in their native resolution. I remember my first scanner, a 2,700 dpi 35mm model, seemed to hate ISO 800 films for this reason. The grain ended up being far worse than if I had a friend scan the same frames on a 4,000 dpi model. That could be the issue with your 50mp scan of P3200.
I wonder what would happen if you tried scanning that frame again, but with the lens stopped down to f/16 or f/22 so that diffraction alters the equation? You might be able to soften it enough to prevent aliasing without making the details themselves too soft vs. the 24mp.
It's generally good practice to double the resolution of what you're looking for. That gives you 4 pixels for every one that winds up in the final image. It markedly reduces the noise that is introduced by the scanner.
Yes, Darryl I hate you for it but I think I probably have some good shots of you from Snake Alley and I might incorporate them in a future video. 😜
It's still weird to see you using Sony cameras. I bet you already have the new 14/1.8 mm on order.
BTW... The new studio set up looks great!
CRAP ! I forgot you had some photos of me 😂😱😵 Switch to Sony about 6 weeks ago, can not believe how good the AF is on the cameras. Will only get the 14mm when we catch up in Taiwan next, so we can do YT videos together 🤣🤣🤣 You still in Mex? Hope your keeping safe
@@DarrylCarey Hell yeah, I hope we'll be able to do that asap!
I'll be back home tomorrow. México was amazing and I'll probably be back at some point in the future. 🙏
The grains on 50MP are much more detailed and defined but may appear "noisy" but that's what it really looks like when zoomed in. The 24MP just cannot capture enough details of grains so they come out as "smooth."
Might want to consider the resolving power of the lens used on the 50mp since glass also has limitations with regards to how much detail is transmitted if the glass was designed in a time period where the peak mp of cameras was around 24 you will likely start seeing glass imperfections the higher you go on resolving power with the sensor.
I reckon anything more then 16 megapixels will only bring up more film grain and noise (35mm Film) this also depends on the film obviously the quality and speed of film will give different results, I found Fuji Reala really good with low grain. I do a lot of scanning and 12-16megapixels is heaps. also when using a digital camera to scan negs, u have to factor in the lenses centre vs edge sharpens, cause unlike a CCD Scanner which scans and moves across the film, a digital camera relies on the lenses resolution to capture in one take, & as we know lenses vary in sharpens from centre to the edges, so What I do is use a canon 30 megapixel full frame sensor and macro lens on approx f11 and i crop into the centre of the image so I'm not using the outer edges of the lens which are not going to be as sharp, generally I crop in till I get about a 15 megapixel image, which is perfect for 35mm, but importantly my final image will be sharp from edge to edge as I am only using the centre of the lens (the best part of the lens)
Follow up.. put the baseboard, backstand, Kaiser light, lomo holders with my SL2 and a Sigma 100 2.8 macro. delightful... Tethers right into the software.. super easy
Thats a nice setup
In the mid to late 90's I would have my negatives scanned to the Kodak Photo CD's (Not the consumer grade Picture CD). The standard photo CD images scanned at around 6 Mega Pixels per image and the Master Photo CD's were around 25 Megapixels per image. I just started experimenting with my Canon R7 taking a few photos of negatives on my portable light table I bought way back in the 90s at Ritz Camera. I don't have a fancy set up yet. Just hand holding my camera and not quite filling the whole frame with the negative and my early results were good but not great. I hope to get a better set up in the future. But I was wondering about the mefapixels and how it affects the grain of 35mm film and 120 medium format. So I'm excited to see your results in this video
I have a couple of film scanners which have just released, should have a review on my channel soon
WOW, thank you so much!!!!!
You're welcome 😉
Okay, a bit (2 years) late, but here's my guess (from my own experience and some math): 24 MP is fine for 135 film, >40 MP for medium format, >60 MP for large format (4x5). Technically, 24 MP is enough for nearly every use of the scanned image, even with 4x5, but sometimes one want's to retain all the information in the negative (including grain structure), and then MP count matters ;-). Now I continue to watch … Edit: I disagree about the grain becoming harsh, but this might be my camera - an Olympus MFT with 80 MP pixel-shift hi-res mode, and it gives less "crisp" resolution on pixel-level, so that the grain actually looks quite natural. So, going significantly higher than 50 MP might "give back" the smoothness of the grain and more data to work with. As you're using Sony cameras, I made the experience that the images it gives (normal photography use) look very detailed and extremely sharp on the pixel level, and this might be the problem here (interference between the grain structure and the pixels on the sensor, and the Bayer filter/demosaicing process).
I have this Kaiser Film Copy and Kaiser copy stand. Love it.
I am using Canon EOS 6D Mark II and EF 100 Macro and its good enough.
Have you made the Kaiser Film copy review yet?
Would different sizes of medium format make any difference considering the 645 is the smallest medium format still available, so would 6x6, 6x7 or even 6x9 make a difference from the point of the size of digital sensors used/needed to convert the image and get the best image considering the larger the negative the more information is recorded in the first place. In other words is my D850 the best or is it to big a sensor to (home) convert the 6x9 photos taken with my Zeiss ikon nettar to get the best quality from them.
For 6x7/6x9/6x12 the D850 is perfect, its always good to have a higher megapixel camera as you can capture more detail in larger negatives.
@@DarrylCarey cheers mate 👍
The short answer is, it depends on the grain size of the film and whether or not your lens is actually capable of the resolution necessary to make a difference. Additionally, it depends on the inidividual sensors; some lower-resolution sensors are better than some high-resolution sensors.