Scan Quality Vs Digital

[Barry]

Thanks In Advance.

Just a simple question ( Am I doing something wrong ). I have a Coolscan V
ED and am starting to scan in my old negatives from as long as 15-20 years
old. I am surprised at the graininess of the scans. I can post process
them and clean it up but is this normal? I'm sure they are all at various
film speeds from 100 to 400 but they all seem to be grainy. Is this normal,
a function of the age of the film, or am I doing something wrong. They are
very grainy. The pictures I take currently from my 20D or even my wifes
Canon Elph are nowhere as grainy. Are they processing a lot to smooth in
the camera? I am scanning at 4000 dpi Using High Quality JPEG and Digital
ICE. Even the outdoor pictures which were likely 100 Speed are quite
grainy.

Thanks

Barry

 

[David J. Littleboy]

Thanks In Advance.

Just a simple question ( Am I doing something wrong ). I have a Coolscan
V ED and am starting to scan in my old negatives from as long as 15-20
years old. I am surprised at the graininess of the scans. I can post
process them and clean it up but is this normal? I'm sure they are all at
various film speeds from 100 to 400 but they all seem to be grainy. Is
this normal, a function of the age of the film, or am I doing something
wrong. They are very grainy. The pictures I take currently from my 20D
or even my wifes Canon Elph are nowhere as grainy. Are they processing a
lot to smooth in the camera?

No. The 20D is simply way better than 35mm.

I am scanning at 4000 dpi Using High Quality JPEG and Digital ICE. Even
the outdoor pictures which were likely 100 Speed are quite grainy.

Negative films scan grainy. Here's a page of sample scans to give you an
idea of what to expect.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Don]

I wouldn't have characterized the scans as "very"
grainy.... but was surprised at how favorably my 4 mp digitals taken with a
CoolPix 990 compared. Probably says more bout my 35mm technique/equipment than
anything else...

Not really. It's apples and oranges. There are several issues here.

First of all, a film scan is second generation. One is taking a
picture of a picture, so to speak. In other words, one is not scanning
the real world image, but a piece of film i.e. this film's impression
of reality which impression has also deteriorated over time(!).

Secondly, the technologies are totally different. A digicam uses
something known as a "Bayer pattern". It's a fancy term to describe
how the image is generated. Each digicam "pixel" is actually composed
of 4 samples (2 green, 1 red and 1 blue) arranged in a regular square
pattern. There are variations on this theme (hexagonal pattern, pixel
in pixel, etc) but that's the basic principle.

These 4 samples are then mathematically combined to create a "pixel".
But since they don't occupy the same space (obviously) the result is
"blurry". Our eyes interpret such results as "smooth". Also, don't
forget that there is much more post-processing in a digicam (usually
involving interpolation!) than in a scanner!

By contrast, a scanner's CCD is much more accurate (albeit there are
inaccuracies there as well e.g. channel misalignment, to name one) but
since it's a "second generation" image the results look "grainy". In
reality, that's what's on the film.

Anyway, that's the digest version. ;o) Kennedy is much better equipped
to explained the details!

Don.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Barry:

They are
very grainy.

Define "very grainy".

Having said that, I had a similar experience when I scanned 2,000 - 3,000 35mm
slides and negs myself. I wouldn't have characterized the scans as "very"
grainy.... but was surprised at how favorably my 4 mp digitals taken with a
CoolPix 990 compared. Probably says more bout my 35mm technique/equipment than
anything else...

OTOH, at a recent high school class reunion, we passed out throwaway cameras and
scanned the results. The results were just plain *bad*...

 

[CSM1]

Thanks In Advance.

Just a simple question ( Am I doing something wrong ). I have a Coolscan
V ED and am starting to scan in my old negatives from as long as 15-20
years old. I am surprised at the graininess of the scans. I can post
process them and clean it up but is this normal? I'm sure they are all at
various film speeds from 100 to 400 but they all seem to be grainy. Is
this normal, a function of the age of the film, or am I doing something
wrong. They are very grainy. The pictures I take currently from my 20D
or even my wifes Canon Elph are nowhere as grainy. Are they processing a
lot to smooth in the camera? I am scanning at 4000 dpi Using High
Quality JPEG and Digital ICE. Even the outdoor pictures which were likely
100 Speed are quite grainy.

Thanks

Barry

Digital camera images do not have "grain" if any, it is electronic noise.

The amount of grain seen depends on how you are looking at the image.

A 4000 ppi scan seen on the computer screen is huge and very blown up. If
the image is resampled to fit the screen it will be a much better looking
image. It you have Printed the image scaled for 8 x 10 photo paper, it will
not be as grainy looking.

All film has grain or dye clumps that are easily seen with a 4000 ppi scan.
Some film has less and some film has more grain or dye clumps, it depends
mostly on the ISO speed of the film.

ISO 400 film has large clumps of dye or silver. The clumps are smaller for
slower film.

 

[Roger]

No. The 20D is simply way better than 35mm.

Using both digital and 35 I've not yet come to that conclusion.
However, scanners and the attendant software can create grain where
none exists. I use a Nikon LS5000-ED with both NikonScan and VueScan.
I can scan right down to the point of seeing the grain in ASA 400 and
even 200 film. I can not see it in ASA 100 and slower.

Some of my earlier scans with the LS5000 ED looked pretty grainy. By
the time I learned how to use the scanner, its settings and the
configuration of the scanning software the grain disappeared. This is
scanning at 4000 dpi.

Negative films scan grainy. Here's a page of sample scans to give you an
idea of what to expect.

Again, this has not been my experience. Slides and negatives produce
comparable results. OTOH I've never been satisfied with the results
of B&W negatives.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Thanks In Advance.

Just a simple question ( Am I doing something wrong ). I have a Coolscan V
ED and am starting to scan in my old negatives from as long as 15-20 years
old. I am surprised at the graininess of the scans. I can post process
them and clean it up but is this normal? I'm sure they are all at various
film speeds from 100 to 400 but they all seem to be grainy. Is this normal,
a function of the age of the film, or am I doing something wrong. They are
very grainy. The pictures I take currently from my 20D or even my wifes
Canon Elph are nowhere as grainy. Are they processing a lot to smooth in
the camera? I am scanning at 4000 dpi Using High Quality JPEG and Digital
ICE. Even the outdoor pictures which were likely 100 Speed are quite
grainy.

Canon D20
8.2 Mpix Bayer filter (ie. really only about 4Mpix full colour
equivalent interpolated up to 8Mp. Interpolated pixel pitch 6.4um.

Coolscan V
Full frame scan, 21.5Mpix true colour (no interpolation).
True pixel pitch 6.4um.

You might like to downsample your Coolscan V images with a decent
algorithm to about the real resolution of the Canon (ie. 4MPix) and then
interpolate back up to 8Mpix before making a judgement on which is
actually better and by how much.

I am sure the digicam will be better (what would you expect from 20
years of technical advance in the fastest development industry,
electronics?) but the margin won't be anything like as much as your
direct raw comparison suggests. ;-)

 

[Jon Mitchell]

Oh dear,

I now find myself with a library of scanned grain to add to my 20D pictures
!

Jon

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Oh dear,

I now find myself with a library of scanned grain to add to my 20D pictures
!

I doubt it. Just filter them with a gaussian blur and then downsample
them to about half the size of your 20D images and then upsample back to
the same size as your 20D images. The film will look pretty close to
your digital camera output - limited resolution but limited grain too.

If what you say were true, digital would have displaced film years ago
rather than just getting there now. ;-)

 

[Philip Homburg]

Using both digital and 35 I've not yet come to that conclusion.
However, scanners and the attendant software can create grain where
none exists. I use a Nikon LS5000-ED with both NikonScan and VueScan.
I can scan right down to the point of seeing the grain in ASA 400 and
even 200 film. I can not see it in ASA 100 and slower.

Which magic setting is the 'no grain' option on the LS-5000? I have an
LS-4000, but I have yet to get a scan of Gold 100 without any visible grain.

The following is just a random test of Velvia 100F:
http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/tmp1/Image3.jpg

I sort of doubt that there is a magic trick to get rid of all grain.

 

[David J. Littleboy]

Which magic setting is the 'no grain' option on the LS-5000? I have an
LS-4000, but I have yet to get a scan of Gold 100 without any visible
grain.

The following is just a random test of Velvia 100F:
http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/tmp1/Image3.jpg

I sort of doubt that there is a magic trick to get rid of all grain.

Something's wrong there. This is a 2000 x 3000 pixel crop (near the edge, no
less) from an 8763 x 10843 pixel Nikon 8000 scan of Provia 100F (Mamiya 7,
65/4.0).

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/48108651/original

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Don]

That's just totally wrong!

Scanners do *not* "create" grain. Grain *is* in the film. If anybody
"created" grain it's the film manufacturers for the simple reason that
grain is the *essence* of film! That's what film is: Clumps of grain!

And all that (good!) scanners do is show you what's in the film.
Appearance of grain simply means they do so faithfully. That's all!

Which magic setting is the 'no grain' option on the LS-5000?

That's a wrong question.

*Grain is good!* ;o)
It means the scanner has extracted *everything* from the film!!!

Scanners can *not* show you the reality the camera saw!
All that scanners *can* do is show you what's in the film!
And that's grain!

It's like taking a close-up and then asking the photo lab to "zoom
back" and show you a panorama view. They just can't do that. All they
can do is print what's on the film. The same goes for scanners.

I sort of doubt that there is a magic trick to get rid of all grain.

Now, that's a different question altogether and has nothing to do with
scanners. It's an *image editing* question.

This may look pedantic but it's actually extremely important to
understand the difference and what is really going on. Otherwise, one
gets stuck using wrong tools and trying to do the impossible.

The way one eliminates the appearance of grain is the way one
eliminate the appearance of any other unwanted artifact (scratches,
color cast, etc...). Usually it means elbow grease but there are
pre-cooked solution like "Grain surgery", "Neatimage", etc. I don't
use them so others are better suited to recommend their favorites.

The folks over in the Photoshop group may actually be a much better
place to ask how to reduce the appearance of grain because it's an
image editing question.

Don.

 

[CSM1]

Which magic setting is the 'no grain' option on the LS-5000? I have an
LS-4000, but I have yet to get a scan of Gold 100 without any visible
grain.

The following is just a random test of Velvia 100F:
http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/tmp1/Image3.jpg

I sort of doubt that there is a magic trick to get rid of all grain.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

No magic trick, just resize the image to display on the computer with a
decent size (1024 x 768).

http://www.carlmcmillan.com/Temp

You can do the same thing by viewing in Irfanview, which resizes the image
to fit the window.

If you were to print the full size image (5589 x 3638 pixels) at 300 DPI on
good photo paper, It would look good then also.

Do not expect to have "no grain" in film, all film has grain. 4000 ppi will
absolutely show some grain. If you want the grain to disappear, apply a
little blur filter.

 

[Philip Homburg]

Something's wrong there. This is a 2000 x 3000 pixel crop (near the edge, no
less) from an 8763 x 10843 pixel Nikon 8000 scan of Provia 100F (Mamiya 7,
65/4.0).

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/48108651/original

What is wrong? Your Provia scan has a similar grain structure as my
Velvia 100F. My scan has more blue channel noise become it was near sun set.

If you refer to the sharpness: tracking a plane at close to take off speed
with a 300mm is a bit tricky at low light levels.

The following is a sharpened crop from a 4000dpi Provia 100F scan:
http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/tmp/3-93-3-7-4000s.png
An overview of the entrie frame is http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/tmp/3-93-3-7.jpg

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

*Grain is good!* ;o)
It means the scanner has extracted *everything* from the film!!!

Alternatively it just means the scanner has exaggerated the grain that
it present on the film.

And we all know how that can happen, don't we boys and girls. ;-)

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

What is wrong?

Your scan has much more visible grain that David's, that's what's wrong.

OK, David captured his from the frame edge, where the optic will nor
reproduce the grain as clearly, so that may be some of the issue, and
your image looks a little too processed - those saturated reds and
greens look a little to close to 100% even for Velvia.

Your Provia scan has a similar grain structure as my
Velvia 100F. My scan has more blue channel noise become it was near sun set.

I interpret this to mean that you have corrected a yellow orange cast
produced at sunset, thus increasing the contrast in the blue channel and
bringing up the noise. So your image has been substantially post
processed - David's looks pretty raw. The over saturated colours,
(which are significantly clipped on all channels) suggest that you may
have been a little excessive with the post processing. Hence your image
is not a realistic representation of the grain that is present on
Velvia.

 

[Don]

Alternatively it just means the scanner has exaggerated the grain that
it present on the film.

I'll take that over exaggerated blue Kodachrome cast any day! ;o)

Don.

P.S. While I'm at it - an unrelated tangent - I took apart the Nikon
Scan cache the other day. Apparently, the size of the cached image
(that is to say the size of the preview) depends on the size of the
preview window!?

This surprised me because I think I read somewhere in the manual (but
can't find it anymore) that the preview was always done at a fixed
resolution. But apparently not...

So, increasing the preview window size in Nikon Scan *before* doing
the Preview scan will actually increase the size of raw data used to
recalculate the display (and presumably increase accuracy) as one
plays with knobs and clicks on Redraw.

Also, the cached preview file is always tagged with two profiles: a
specific one e.g. Kodachrome NKLS50_K.icm or Color Negative
NKLS50_N.icm, etc , and a second one which is always the same i.e.
NKLS50_R.icm. Presumably that's the scanner profile. Odd name, though?
Aaannyway... enough trivia...

 

[Jon Mitchell]

I doubt it. Just filter them with a gaussian blur and then downsample
them to about half the size of your 20D images and then upsample back to
the same size as your 20D images. The film will look pretty close to your
digital camera output - limited resolution but limited grain too.

If what you say were true, digital would have displaced film years ago
rather than just getting there now. ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when
replying)

I think you missed the point completely.

The 20D pictures while being very good lack the organic feel and warmth of
film.

Working in the film business I shoot thousands of feet of 35 & 16mm each
month.

Increasingly we have to shoot on HD as well.

While the digital realm is making marked improvements it still has a
considerable way to go to get close to matching the performance of film.

I am a devout grain groupee, sometimes a pixel pony, slowly being made into
a mule cross.

Jon

 

[Philip Homburg]

Do not expect to have "no grain" in film, all film has grain. 4000 ppi will
absolutely show some grain. If you want the grain to disappear, apply a
little blur filter.

Applying a blur filter is bad for small details. But with good ISO 100
film, grain should not be an issue. I'm not so sure about for example
Gold 100.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

P.S. While I'm at it - an unrelated tangent - I took apart the Nikon
Scan cache the other day. Apparently, the size of the cached image
(that is to say the size of the preview) depends on the size of the
preview window!?

So, increasing the preview window size in Nikon Scan *before* doing
the Preview scan will actually increase the size of raw data used to
recalculate the display (and presumably increase accuracy) as one
plays with knobs and clicks on Redraw.

I told you that a while back, when you were arguing that you couldn't
get accurate image statistics from the preview. I preview at a
resolution close to 800x500 pixels on a 1600x1200 pixel display, so the
statistics and histograms are very accurate.

Also, the cached preview file is always tagged with two profiles: a
specific one e.g. Kodachrome NKLS50_K.icm or Color Negative
NKLS50_N.icm, etc , and a second one which is always the same i.e.
NKLS50_R.icm. Presumably that's the scanner profile. Odd name, though?

Hmmm. This might explain some strange effects I was getting while
experimenting with which profiles applied to which configurations a
while back. When the NS requires a specific profile and can't find it,
it throws up an error message. Scanning Kodachrome with the *_K.icm
profile removed still enabled a preview to be obtained, but a full scan
threw up an error. I guess if the preview didn't find the specific
profile it was looking for it defaulted to the second choice, *_R.icm,
and hence produced a preview without registering an error.