Medium format film scanning

For the photographer who wants to scan medium and large format film, a dedicated film scanner is an expensive purchase. Scanner manufacturers realised that photographers also use other format cameras than 35mm. The trouble was that they didn't grasp how photographers were cutting up film and hence only one frame at a time could be scanned (Epson 3200), on later models this became three strips of two frames (Epson 4870 & 4990). I always cut my medium format film in strips of four or three frames, so scanning a quantity of film was tiresome, especially if your scanning for proofs etc. The holders were far from ideal, and opened up a new market for third party manufacturers such as Doug Fisher to produce photographer friendly holders.

Epson have at last produced a film holder that is usable for the professional and keen hobbyist photographer. Each film window measures 5.7cm x 20cm and can hold the following;

4 frames of 6x4.5, 3 frames of 6x6, 2 and three quarters of a frame of 6x7 2 frames of 6x9.

I would have liked a slightly larger window so it could accommodate three full frames of 6x7 film. The design team at Epson Japan should note that many professional photographers use the Mamiya RZ & RB 6x7 cameras and a window opening of 5.7cm x 22cm would be far more useful. As with the 35mm holder loading strips of film is easy enough, but closing the frame proved to be awkward, I had to push down very hard to make the edges click into place.

Scans

For my reference shot I am using a 6x7 Ektachrome transparency, I have also had this image scanned on a Flexitight scanner - just so we can compare a £399 scanner to one costing considerably more.

© Michael Jones photographer 2003
Flexitight detail at 3200dpi	Epson V700 detail at 3200dpi
Epson 3200 detail at 3200dpi	Epson 4870 detail at 3200dpi

The full scan at 3200 dpi took 2 minutes 46 seconds and produced a file size of 180mb. This is a very good time for such a large scan. Looking at a small section from the full scan and comparing it with the same area from previous Epson scanner models we can see that there is an improvement over the 3200 scanner, but not a great difference when compared to the 4870 scanner, although the V700 does display better shadow detail. Just to put things into perspective, if I were to print this scan out on an Epson 7800 printer then I would be producing a 36 x 30 inch print at 240dpi, needless to say you wouldn't be looking this close to the overall image. The biggest problem with scan sharpness you are likely to encounter is film flatness. On this subject the holder seems to have a good grip on the film edges with little or no film sag. I have also repeated the scan, this time with the emulsion facing downwards, just to see if I can extract more detail.

V700 recommended orientation	V700 reverse orientation

Although there is a very slight improvement in placing the film emulsion side down, the difference is not really worth the trouble and I suspect that reloading the film may just have the same effect.

PLEASE SEE PAGE 13 FOR UPDATED SCANS

6x6 at 2400dpi

Two details from the above scan at 2400dpi

You don't need to scan at the full resolution when using medium format film, unless you want to do a tight crop on a detail. Enlarging a small section can highlight other problems which may degrade the quality of a scan. Problems such as a medium format camera lens not achieving the same resolving power as a lens designed for 35mm. The above scan at 2400dpi generated a 86mb file and would produce a high quality 23 inch square print. The scan took 1min 15sec., I also scanned the same using Digital ICE and this took 4min 34sec. As an experiment I scanned the full frame at 6400dpi and this produced a 615mb file, this took 10min 13sec. Even on a high spec. system working with this file size would be very slow. Just for interest the print size at 240dpi would be 61 inches square

Section from 6400dpi scan of 6x6 transparency (615mb)

Scan made at 3200dpi and interpolated in Photoshop up to 6400dpi (Bicubic)

Section of 6400dpi scan with USM applied in Photoshop

Interpolated version with same amount of USM applied

Looking closely at the detail above (image at 100%), the uncorrected scan is very soft, it almost looks like an interpolated enlargement. I also scanned the image in at 3200dpi and resized it to 6400dpi in Photoshop, the two scans look identical. This leads me to think that the 6400dpi is not performing as expected. When USM is applied in Photoshop the highlights on the eye becomes pixelated, this also indicates that this scanner is not performing at its best with 6400dpi. As a last experiment I applied the same amount of USM to the interpolated version (3200 to 6400) and the quality is markedly better than the original 6400dpi scan - see edges on highlight area. Post your thoughts on the forum.

5x4 scans to follow