very visible grain using a film scanner

[thefathefa]

Hi,

I purchased some time ago a film scanner Conoscan FS 4000US to scan my
films. I have a lot of APS rolls that I wanted to get on my PC.

I have found out that all photos, APS or 24*36, are showing a very
visible grain that it is making the scanned pictures look a lot less
nice than the printed copies which are very soft and very nice to look
at.

I have tried to show an example of this by showing a file coming from
film scanner
http://picasaweb.google.com/thefathefa/TestDemoScanner/photo#5139084557457334210
and another one coming from a flat scan of the print copy
http://picasaweb.google.com/thefathefa/TestDemoScanner/photo#5139084578932170706

The difference on these examples is not as clear as I see it comparing
what I get on the screen and what I see on the printed copies:-(

I was about to sell the Canoscan FS 4000US and to get a Nikon Coolscan
V ED but at the end, the reading I did makes me doubt that I'll find a
film scanner that will my old photos look as nice as the digital ones
I'm producing today...
It seems that the grain is in the film and that the way the pictures
are printed by the lab is softening them in a way that is hard to
reproduce.

Note that I can not afford to manually rework each of the pictures,
there are a lot!

Any one has an opinion on this?

Thanks for those who read this down to here !

 

[Barry Watzman]

Scan at a lower resolution.

Later Nikon scanners have a grain reduction technology, but how well it
works is a matter of interpretation. Grain really is indeed present in
the film, it is not an artifact of the scanner or the scanning process.
Another option is to VERY SLIGHTLY intentionally de-focus the scanner,
just enough (doesn't take much) to make the grain go away.

Grain is a characteristic of the film and the bottom line is that you
didn't make the best choice when selecting the film itself. If you use
slower film, the problem largely disappears.

 

[Roy G]

Scan at a lower resolution.

Later Nikon scanners have a grain reduction technology, but how well it
works is a matter of interpretation. Grain really is indeed present in
the film, it is not an artifact of the scanner or the scanning process.
Another option is to VERY SLIGHTLY intentionally de-focus the scanner,
just enough (doesn't take much) to make the grain go away.

Grain is a characteristic of the film and the bottom line is that you
didn't make the best choice when selecting the film itself. If you use
slower film, the problem largely disappears.

Hi

The grain is very probably due to the street corner processor.

A lot of these places knew that most happy snappers were pretty poor about
getting correct exposure, and in order to correct this fault, they tended to
overdevelop the film slightly in order to ensure sufficient density to make
a print.

Joe Public could not tell a good photographic print from a crappy one, so
they could get away with this bad practice.

It is quite obvious when you compare the density of negs from these places
to negs produced by the good quality minority places, or to home processed
negs.

Because of the small size of APS the grain will be relatively larger than
the 35mm.

Sorry, but the only answer is to use the "Grain Reducer", if your scanner
has one, which will cause some softness and a drop in contrast, and you will
then get similar nice "Soft" results.

Roy G

 

[1Scan]

I'd suggest trying Neat Image.

You can download a trial version and the purchase price is modest if
you like it.

Jeff Underwood
1Scan.co.uk

 

[thefathefa]

Hi Barry,

Thanks for the answer. I am in the process of running a set of tests
to see if lower resolution is fixing the things (at least bit).

I just found out that the scanner has an option to change focus... It
has a check box "auto focus" which I used to leave checked. Autofocus
checked seems to correspond to a value 42...
I'll run a set of tests to see if by moving this value I can improve
partially fix the grain story.

I'll try to post back with the results of the investigation. I was
dreaming of an easy way to get my pictures scanned and it seems it
does not exist:-(

As a matter of fact, I did not choose the film quality at all. I just
used to buy what I could find without special attention... I'm a "joe
public" as Roy say

Thanks again for your recommendations,

François

 

[thefathefa]

I did try it ! I will post some "before" and "after" Neat Image in
case I would have missed some possible improvements.

It indeed did soften the images but the end quality is not what I was
looking for. I think I need to fix some parameters on the scanner
(focus and resolution as suggested by Barry, and then probably Neat
Image could finish the job.

Thanks,

François

 

[Obakesan]

I purchased some time ago a film scanner Conoscan FS 4000US to scan my
films. I have a lot of APS rolls that I wanted to get on my PC.

this will of course make things worse, as you have to scan at higher
resolutions to make the same print.

having said that, be aware that what you are seeing on screen is not 100% what
you'll see on a print. Even laser processes at 600 dpi result in blur to some
extent around the dots. For example

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6459557

when viewed at 100% (one pixel on screen is one pixel of the image) has grain
like this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pellicle/2080700664/

now, look at the different sizes, and you'll see that 'grain' seems worse on
scaled down versions. This really depends on the scaling algorithm being used.

I do not however find the grain 'intrusive' in prints ... the scan is done at
2700 dip, I've had prints made quite large (200dpi effective printing) and
when viewed from further than 2 feet away its holds up acceptably

have a peek around at topics such as "grain aliasing", for example
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm

if you've been weaned on DSLR's you'll find grain something surprising at
first. But its not so bad in reality

lastly, have a peek on my home pages about some of the issues in digital (such
as in camera artifacts and comparison with film scans)

http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/digital/


hope this helps

I have tried to show an example of this by showing a file coming from
film scanner
http://picasaweb.google.com/thefathefa/TestDemoScanner/photo#513908455745733421
0
and another one coming from a flat scan of the print copy
http://picasaweb.google.com/thefathefa/TestDemoScanner/photo#513908457893217070
6


I was about to sell the Canoscan FS 4000US and to get a Nikon Coolscan
V ED but at the end, the reading I did makes me doubt that I'll find a

personally I prefer the Nikon, but wouldn't swap if I had the FS4000 as I
suspect its more hassle than I'd gain.

film scanner that will my old photos look as nice as the digital ones
I'm producing today...

your film pictures will not look the same as your digital pictures. But you
need to move past how they seem on the screen, and recall that they'll be
printed.

remember you'll have a much larger image from th scan

from 35mm film even a 2700 dpi scan will 3794 x 2427 Pixels (9.21 MPixels)
you're 4000dpi scans will be more like 4448 x 2827 Pixels (12.57 MPixels)

so you're in a different league with printing.

Imagine that you had a single tiny doe on the film, to get that on a scan
you'll need to scan at much tighter (smaller dot pitch) than the dot on the
film to get that dot sharp on the digital capture. So while film may not hold
12MP of info, you won't be loosing what's there by undersampling it.

Thanks for those who read this down to here !

youre welcome



See Ya
(when bandwidth gets better ;-)

Chris Eastwood
Photographer, Programmer
Motorcyclist and dingbat

please remove undies for reply

 

[thefathefa]

Thanks Chris for the answer.

One thing I need to say here : I have the prints I need (all APS
photos were printed soon after the rolls were fully taken and so far
the quality is still there).
What I really am after is to have electronic copies to enjoy my APS
photos on the computer screens.

The quality of what I get on the computer so far is ridiculous
compared to the quality of the more recent pictures taken with a Ixus
V3 - already old by today's standards...

François

 

[Obakesan]

Hi

Thanks Chris for the answer.

your welcome

One thing I need to say here : I have the prints I need (all APS
photos were printed soon after the rolls were fully taken and so far
the quality is still there).
What I really am after is to have electronic copies to enjoy my APS
photos on the computer screens.

ok .. so you are probably talking 1600x1200 pixel scans

it was hard to infer what your desired end result was

so, scan at a multiple native resolution
Eg on my Nikon scanner that's 2700dpi, 1350
on my Epson that's 4800, 2400, 1200

My nikon gives me spot on images at 1350dpi from Neg, slides require some
attention. Same is true too for my epson.

The quality of what I get on the computer so far is ridiculous
compared to the quality of the more recent pictures taken with a Ixus
V3 - already old by today's standards...

unless you're doing something incredibly odd I just can't see how. Leaving
everything on 'auto everything' I was getting results like this back in 2002

http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/digital/theDetails.htm


it could just be that you're using some lousy software (such as Microsoft
photo viewer) to look at your images. Try irfanview

for example, here is the same (very big) image viewed smaller than its native
size.

http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/images/

the rendering of Microsofts (gruffy) photo viewer makes the grain stink in
this image.


See Ya
(when bandwidth gets better ;-)

Chris Eastwood
Photographer, Programmer
Motorcyclist and dingbat

please remove undies for reply

 

[Roger S.]

I downloaded the image. The grain looks reasonable for a 400 speed
negative, especially given that it's APS. If you find it
objectionable, create a mask and use a program like Noise Ninja on the
sky only. I believe that the light sky and light building fooled your
meter into underexposing somewhat. For scenes like this increase
exposure compensation in your camera to +1 with color neg (maybe +1/2
with slide) and you'll end up with less grainy images.

I'd keep the Canon around- I did a few tests against a LS-5000 and
didn't find the differences that impressive- the Nikon's faster, has
better color accuracy, better IR cleaning, better shadow detail on
slides, slightly better resolution, much worse flare and some IR
artifacts:
http://jingai.com/vuescan2/long exposure comparison.html

 

[thefathefa]

Hi Roger,

If 'im not mistaken this photo is from a 200 speed negative. I am now
using only digital cameras which just fine for me because I don't
print many pictures. We look at them on the screen saver of our media
center in the leaving room

I have been testing for hours with Vuescan instead of FilmGet and at
the end of the day my conclusions are that with Vuescan it seems that
the results are better... But after a full afternoon looking at the
same picture I have to say I have some doubts... I'll need to sleep on
that and then decide on the next step.
Vuescan best output I could get of the same photo is here below:
http://picasaweb.google.fr/thefathefa/TestDemoScanner/photo#5139454852357726178
Looks closer to my reference (the print copy):

I think that for APS photos, Vuescan gets a nicer result (based also
on a full scan of a complete roll).

I'll keep investigating a bit further and then will go for the
"action" : recovering the non-digital history of the family!

François

 

[Roger S.]

I have been testing for hours with Vuescan instead of FilmGet and at

the end of the day my conclusions are that with Vuescan it seems that
the results are better... But after a full afternoon looking at the
same picture I have to say I have some doubts... I'll need to sleep on
that and then decide on the next step.
Vuescan best output I could get of the same photo is here below:http://picasaweb.google.fr/thefathefa/TestDemoScanner/photo#513945485...
Looks closer to my reference (the print copy):

I think that for APS photos, Vuescan gets a nicer result (based also
on a full scan of a complete roll).

Hi François, I just opened your Vuescan scan. I think it looks pretty
good. Vuescan has less apparent grain than Filmget as it doesn't do
automatic sharpening. This is a good thing in my opinion- when
sharpening a picture like this I would exclude (mask out) the sky.
Color negative film has grain, and that grain forms the image.

I would scan at 4000dpi and then later downsize for your usage to
reduce "grain aliasing" that makes grain look worse than it is.
Vuescan PRO is worth the money over the regular version, by the way.
The free updates alone is quite helpful.

Roger

 

[thefa]

Hi François, I just opened your Vuescan scan. I think it looks pretty
good. Vuescan has less apparent grain than Filmget as it doesn't do
automatic sharpening. This is a good thing in my opinion- when
sharpening a picture like this I would exclude (mask out) the sky.
Color negative film has grain, and that grain forms the image.

I would scan at 4000dpi and then later downsize for your usage to
reduce "grain aliasing" that makes grain look worse than it is.
Vuescan PRO is worth the money over the regular version, by the way.
The free updates alone is quite helpful.

Roger

Hi,

I have since then been able to check that the film type is an
important parameter of that story: When scanning an Advantix 100 roll,
I get a very good result, something that I'm happy to look at.
When scanning Advantix 200 and worse 400, the results are very
different and grain is still visible.
When scanning Fuji Nexi D100 (all those films are APS), terrible
grain, back to Filmget results I was getting.
The difference seems to be the fact that Vuescan has the Kidak APS
films types inside and I could not find the Fuji ones.
I'll need to run some tests with different film types to see if I can
offset this grain again even with Fuji rolls...
Ed Hamrick was suggesting I use the Gold types but there are plenty
I'll need to test them one by one...

Roger, can you please explain why you recommend me to scan at 4000dpi
and then to resize? So far I was following the advise from Barry
earlier in this thread and was scanning at 2000...

Thanks,

François

 

[Roger S.]

I have since then been able to check that the film type is an

important parameter of that story: When scanning an Advantix 100 roll,
I get a very good result, something that I'm happy to look at.
When scanning Advantix 200 and worse 400, the results are very
different and grain is still visible.
When scanning Fuji Nexi D100 (all those films are APS), terrible
grain, back to Filmget results I was getting.
The difference seems to be the fact that Vuescan has the Kidak APS
films types inside and I could not find the Fuji ones.
I'll need to run some tests with different film types to see if I can
offset this grain again even with Fuji rolls...
Ed Hamrick was suggesting I use the Gold types but there are plenty
I'll need to test them one by one...

The Vuescan film presets don't do very much (basic contrast, color
balance) and I doubt they account for the grain differences you are
seeing. T he Fuji film may simply be grainier. I shoot 35mm so I
can't help you with those APS films.

Roger, can you please explain why you recommend me to scan at 4000dpi
and then to resize? So far I was following the advise from Barry
earlier in this thread and was scanning at 2000...

I recommend you take a negative you're familiar with, scan it at both
resolutions. Downsize for printing and sharpen to taste. Print both
and see which has the better grain and sharpness.
The conventional wisdom is that scanning at the scanner's native
optical resolution and downsizing will yield superior results to
scanning at a lower resolution (i.e. even if you want a 4x6 inch
print, scan for 13x19 inches or 4000 dpi). A google search should
yield why this is and plenty of info about sampling and grain
aliasing, but I suggest you run the tests yourself and decide if it's
worth it for you.