Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Which is better.....Dslr or film scanner

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    369

    Lightbulb Which is better.....Dslr or film scanner

    was toying with the idea, is it better to convert film format to digital with a Dslr(by using so call slide copier technics) or a film scanner?

    has anyone tried to compare before?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    I think jasphotography did a test before, you can do a search for it.

    Regards
    CK

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    369

    Default

    errrr. sorry, how to search for it?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by photografixed
    was toying with the idea, is it better to convert film format to digital with a Dslr(by using so call slide copier technics) or a film scanner?

    has anyone tried to compare before?
    If you shoot at ISO 800 with film and scan into computer I think the grain is more visible compared to ISO 800 on a DSLR?
    The equipment can only bring you so far - the rest of the photographic journey is done by you.

  5. #5

    Default

    Unless your light source is well controlled when using a DSLR, I feel the results will not be optimal, if you compared to the output from a dedicated film scanner.

    And nowadays a simple scanner is very cheap, I saw someone advertising a HP Photosmart S20 (USB) in CS B&S for $100 or so. And that will give you very good results ... I have one, probably about 4 years old, and won't sell it because I still shoot slides on occasion, plus I have no need for a more sophisticated scanner.

    Why don't you try it ... bring your slide and camera gear to a shop, ask to test their slide duplicator, then test it on a proper slide scanner. Then you can compare.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    GEYLAND LOR 15 LO
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nickmak
    If you shoot at ISO 800 with film and scan into computer I think the grain is more visible compared to ISO 800 on a DSLR?

    If you are talking about ISO800, nothing beats a film slr even with any high-end dslr. If you don't believe me, shoot at ISO800 with your dslr and print out on a 8X12 and compared it to film, see the results for yourself.

  7. #7

    Default

    From what I gather, even a low-end DSLR like 10D can match 4000 dpi film scan quality at ISO 100 while a high-end DSLR like 1Ds can match if not beat medium format in quality. I don't think there would be a fight at ISO 800.
    Check out the DSLR vs Film Scan comparisons here:
    http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm#links
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...shootout.shtml
    Last edited by tomcat; 5th October 2004 at 10:41 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    Tomcat, the comparison in Luminous Landscape is with both cameras shooting the same scene. Here, the discussion is on whether to scan a slide or shoot it using a duplicator, to get it into a digital format.

  9. #9

    Default

    I know the discussion has kind of drifted to comparing DSLR and film quality and is not what the original post was about.

    Anyway, my take on this is that using a slide duplicator adaptor on a DSLR is just like taking a photograph of a slide. Unless done in a properly controlled environment, the result would not be that great. However, it all depends on the expectations of the end-user. So that might be just fine by him. I have a slide duplicator adapter myself and had done that with some slides that I wanted to duplicate and the results were really only so-so. In the end, I just sent them to the lab to be duplicated professionally.

    The quality of digital scanning on the other hand would depend mainly on the sophistication of the scanner used. It could range from a cheap flat-bed scanner to a professional drum scanner. My experience however is that quite acceptable results could be obtained even with a cheap flat bed scanner if the image quality of the original slide is good, with some post-processing of course.

    For example, this is a scan of a slide I made some time back using my old and obsolete CanoScan 1250F flat-bed scanner:

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    369

    Default

    hi,

    thanks to all who responded. negative/slide still have an edge over digital as long as it's not converted to digital than to print(two time quality losses).

    at a point of time i was interested in canon fs4000 but unfortunately it was discontinued.


  11. #11

    Default

    I use DSLR against an xray light box for my B&W negs. Very much faster, and the result is "creamier". Somehow my Minolta DualScan III magnifies the grain of the B&W negs. It's also a lot slower than the DSLR.

    For colour negs, the Minolta wins in terms of accurate colour rendition. So I'm still using the dedicated film scanner for archiving my old film negs (honeymoon etc) once I actually get around to doing it, that is. Of course, the film scanner can give you a higher resolution file as well, if that's important to you.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Tampines Central
    Posts
    142

    Default

    Well, it depends on what type of equipment you are talking about, must compare apples to apples

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •