[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Click for more| Home]

Film Scanning

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 131
Thread images: 37

Do you have a preferred method?

Do you have a recommended scanner?

Do you send it off? Do you let your film developers scan your photos?
>>
My film shots are snapshots so I just shoot them With my a7 and a macro lens, or wet print myself, which is my preferred method.
>>
>>2692450
I picked up an epson v550 on sale recently and that's been working pretty well for me. I feel like I can get sharper results with dslr scanning, but it's a pain in the ass to set up, and manually tweak in photoshop to remove the color cast.
>>
Flextight 949 at work, sometimes Frontier
>>
>inb4 the DSLR scanning cuck trying to convert everyone into that goofy practice
>>
File: Ae1Ortho2509.jpg (3MB, 3365x5017px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Ae1Ortho2509.jpg
3MB, 3365x5017px
>>2692569
>inb4 some drumscanning dinosaur posts full res 135 scans that are better than mine
oh wait, that never happens...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 550D
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number1132529712
Lens NameEF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2015:10:22 15:15:11
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length100.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3365
Image Height5017
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeManual
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModePartial
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeUnknown
Focus ModeOne-Shot
Drive ModeTimed
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Self-Timer Length10 sec
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceFlash
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed160
Color Matrix129
>>
File: P555Superia06.jpg (5MB, 3456x5184px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
P555Superia06.jpg
5MB, 3456x5184px
>>2692580
Still waiting guys...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 550D
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number1132529712
Lens NameEF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2015:10:27 10:28:34
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length100.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3456
Image Height5184
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeManual
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModePartial
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeUnknown
Focus ModeOne-Shot
Drive ModeSingle
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceCustom
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed160
Color Matrix129
>>
>>2692580
Well I have some but I don't have anything against 'dSLR' scanning, flextight not actually a drum scanner though.
>>
>>2692580
>drumscanning dinosaur
>doesn't shoot mirrorless
>>
>>2692580
>>2692597
And have some 120 as well.
Sorry, this isn't actually full res, the files are normally 9000x6000 ish.
I had the wrong box checked on hugin for this roll.
But I already had to use 70%jpeg to fit it on 4chan, so the smaller size is probably better.

But the real big deal about using a camera to scan is the quality of files. You can make ridiculous colour and contrast adjustments whilst still keeping relatively smooth tonal gradations, and without exciting digital noise.

And this is with one of the cheapest, worst DSLRs on the market, with a really strong AA filter and low DR and terrible noise and canon banding and only 18MP.

Oh yeah, and you scan a whole roll in like 5 minutes.

What I don't understand is why flatbedders and drumscanners et al can't get with the program.
Those are expensive machines, they can almost certainly afford a camera and lens.
If they're shooting MF film, they clearly care about their IQ.
Don't they want better scans?

>the war is over, you lost
>welcome your new rabal overlords
>>
>>2692580
>>2692597
>>2692614

>all this hassle
>for those literal snapshits

i guess and hope youre a process oriented guy, because the outcome is lol
>>
>>2692620
There's a whole thread over here >>2673911 bb.
It makes me so sad you don't like my photos ;_;
>>
>>2692450
currently using a Coolscan 8000 and looking to upgrade to an Imacon so I can scan my 4x5 shit.

DSLRs or flat beds look fine if you are only posting to web but don't bother if you are printing

>>2692580
you do realize that your camera costs less than a single drum scan

No scanner can make up for resolution that is not there, if you are shooting kodak gold 800, my coolscan will out resolve it. What you get with higher end scanners is a better Dmax and Dmin, or better colour and gradation.

None of it really matters when it is posted to web as a JPEG and browsers do whatever they want with the file.

What you scan with only really matters when it comes to what you print with and what you print on and how large you print.

If you ever get a chance to stand in front of a Jeff Wall, you will know why drum scanning is still around.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 10.0 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2013:08:29 09:00:25
Exposure Time0.3 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias1/3 EV
Subject DistanceInfinity
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length16.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width2000
Image Height1333
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>2692664
Monitors have better dMax - dMin and gamut than prints do.

Scanning with a digital camera is a lot better resolving than with a flat bed.

Flextights have a lot of distortion and image warping problems, you don't normally notice this with most things - it is because of the "virtual drum" design (worst design ever) - scan a bit of film twice in a row without touching anything and you'll see the warping across the image change between the two shots drastically. It does provide good IQ though otherwise.

4x5 is limited to 2000dpi on Flextight scanners.

Make sure you get some kind of warranty, they can go bad, and need boards replacing, which are extremely expensive - despite just being a surface mounted 486 cpu and SDRAM.
>>
>>2692705
>>2692664

Found the gif I made - one reason I wont buy one for myself, Imacons are not drum scanners by any means, the "virtual drum" is a marketing gimmick, and is actually a negative against the scanner.

http://imgur.com/vmzkOrR


Flextight's are just line scanners like flatbeds, they just happen to have a rather mediocre lens system in them (Magnagon 75mm f/8 enlarging lens iirc) that can resolve about 125-130 lp/mm decently off of film (not that hard for many enlarging lenses which would go even higher), as opposed to absolute shit in a flatbed scanner that can resolve a just barely/soft/blurry 25 lp/mm.

If you were technically minded enough you could build you own from off the shelf parts and line sensor and micro controller and processor, and cheap enlarging lens (or camera lens) inexpensively if you really wanted to.
>>
File: scannan.jpg (657KB, 1916x1037px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
scannan.jpg
657KB, 1916x1037px
>>2692450
Opticfilm 8100, so your pic related. Scan at 7200, takes a long time but I process the previous finished frame in the mean time in post. Lab scans are shit, yo. And double the price too.

Pic related, it's some shit coming up (blue streak courtesy of shoddy lab job, how about maintaining that minilab for a change fucking christ).
>>
>>2692450
>Do you have a preferred method?
http://luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/CameraScanning.pdf - basically.

I have a slightly different tripod mount that works with my existing gear.

>Do you have a recommended scanner?
If you're not going with the DSLR method, Reflecta RPS 10M.

You absolutely want one that can handle film strips. Scanners are slow enough without you interacting with it every few minutes.

And the Reflecta is the cheapest decent 35mm one.

They also have one for medium format film and dias, if you prefer that.
>>
>>2692450
my preferences only:
v600 + better scanning 120 holder
scan film at 2400dpi (positive, no sharpening or dust settings)
crop, invert and colour balance in photoshop

you can set a macro up to do most of the work for you but it helps to edit the levels by hand
>>
>>2692729
Yeah buddy, I bet the minilab put that banding in the sky for you too.>>2692664
>>>2692580
>you do realize that your camera costs less than a single drum scan
>>2692580
>>>2692569
>>inb4 some drumscanning dinosaur posts full res 135 scans that are better than mine
>oh wait, that never happens...
oh wow it still hasn't happened...
>>2692664
>if you are shooting kodak gold 800, my coolscan will out resolve it.
The plastic meniscus lenses in the disposables they load that shit into nearly out resolve it too.
Put up or shut up m8.
>>
File: streak.jpg (51KB, 283x209px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
streak.jpg
51KB, 283x209px
>>2692834
The banding only appears on the preview image, dog. If it's there in the actual file, it's time to start filling out the warranty form.

Here's the end of that particular streak. Ran clean across almost two rolls.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>2692842
I feel bad for you son.
You posting a full res scan soon or what?
>>
>>2692450

Also something DSLR scanning can do that flatbed and drum scanner can't do: Turn a thread into complete shit instantly.

Hidden, but feel free to post your sassy comebacks I'll never read.
>>
>>2692885
There you go OP, you have your answer.
3 great DSLR scans, one screenshot of someone scanning single frames at a time on their potatotek who claims that the banding goes away in the final product, and one google images photo of a gallery exhibition of optically printed large format cibachrome transparencies posted by someone who claims they want to buy an imacon.
>dslr scans btfo...
>>
>>2692885
>Hidden, but feel free to post your sassy comebacks I'll never read.
>incessantly refreshes thread

:^)
>>
>>2692580
What tripod/setup m8?
>>
File: _MG_3076.jpg (2MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
_MG_3076.jpg
2MB, 5184x3456px
>>2692597
Yo Im having real trouble trying to get all the cyan out of my negatives in Lightroom.

Scanning and reversing BW on the DSLR is ezpz, but im struggling to get the perfect colours for my Ektatr, Is there any presets or tips you can give me?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
>>
>>2693088
Not the same anon, but when I wanted to do this purely in Lightroom, I needed to tweak the tone curve until things looked right.

You can then make a preset for each type of film. But it is not really going to be spot-on for every shot and you'll need to adapt that damn curve way too often.

Maybe this wasn't the entirely optimal method, but either way, I then stumbled across and very much suggest the method described in the pdf in >>2692822, especially for larger volumes of negatives.
>>
File: _DSC2613.jpg (582KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
_DSC2613.jpg
582KB, 1200x800px
>>2693088

iirc this was my good flow.

crop into the image enough so it's just your shot (no borders)

set your white balance on something that's as close to neutral grey as you can find

adjust each RGB channels curves so you top and tail the histogram for each colour

invert your main curve to invert the negative

adjust the levels of each RGB channel again paying close attention to colour shifts in the highlights/shadows

if you upload a raw I'll see what I can get and screen shot my settings. The pic attached is one I just did using JUST the workflow above and no other changes to the image except brightened by 0.3 and saturation at -10. I would usually then go onto my normal (inverted) lightroom digital workflow.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
>>
File: scanningrig.jpg (146KB, 622x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
scanningrig.jpg
146KB, 622x800px
>>2692963
Gitzo Explorer tripod
Arca-Swiss p0 head
EvaCool "Hahn Super Dry" esky
Godox Ving V680(?) Li-Ion flash, w/ bundled wireless trigger. (The trigger's normally on the scanning camera of course, but I put it on the GR to take this shot.)
Piece of glass.
Electrical tape on top the width of a film strip.
A busted open film canister, so you can hold down the film and also wipe dust off it with the velvet strip.
On the underside of the glass are a few layers of diffusion material.
I have used cut up translucent plastic document wallets.
They are taped so they're bent, and sit an inch or so back from the glass.
You do this to keep them out of your depth of field, otherwise their own dust and scratches might get in your shots.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelGR
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:10:28 06:32:27
Exposure Time1/40 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating320
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Brightness1.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length18.30 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width622
Image Height800
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>2693143
I've added alfoil around it to shape the light and make sure the illumination is even. That's probably to most important thing to get right in this whole system.
I shot tethered, and shifted the flash heads angle, zoom, etc, as well as applying foil to mask off my diffusion panel, and tested it. Just open the last shot, jack up the contrast, and if a gradient appears, make an adjustment.
I shoot at f8 and keep my flash around 1/16th most of the time.
With the lithium flash, recycle is never a problem, even at 1/1, but there's no point roasting it unnecessarily. f8 minimises the visibility of sensor dust as well.
I adjust my focus and framing using live view, and by racking the camera up or down on the long arca-style tripod plate I use and shifting the glass around.
I line up the edge of the frame with the paper tab taped over the film channel. That makes it easy to just pull the film strip to the next frame, without having to line everything up in live view again.
The slight natural curvature of the film towards the emulsion side props the film off the glass a fraction, eliminating the newtons rings you get when shooting through a glass sandwich to flatten the negs.
Film not being flat enough is rarely a problem with Ilford or Rollei films.
Kodak and Fuji curl a little more, but holding them down either side with the paper flap and the film canister works fine.
I control exposure using the wireless trigger to adjust flash intensity.
With the flash at full power, you can blast through any density of negative. That's about it.
>>
>>2693152
To do 120, I back the camera away from the glass a little. I still use the taped guide, but I use the full width of it.
Because I shoot 6x9, and I want to get good detail and big files, I stitch 4 shots.
This is where you'll see the biggest payoff from making sure you've got even illumination from your diffusion panel.
By framing to just inside the taped guidelines, I find I've got a perfect amount of overlap between the 4 shots.
Making sure your glass surface is well dusted, your film is dry and your hands are clean is important, because you have to handle the film a lot more. Also, 120 can curl like a bitch.
To process B&W, I use the Canon DPP raw converter, turn off all sharpening, desaturate, and adjust the Contrast, Highlights and Shadows controls to give me the flattest neg.
Export as JPG, batch invert in GIMP. Edit as desired.
For colour, I'll invert the tone curve as best I can in the RAW converter, and adjust the WB to almost right, then set it back to a negative. I will have set the in camera WB to custom, using a blank shot of the film leader, but you almost always need an additional shift.
I apply that to the whole roll, as well as turning off all sharpening. I then tend to keep more contrast in the exported JPGs, because colour negs are lower in contrast to start with.
Then batch invert in GIMP, edit individually.
I don't use auto adjustments, or catch all presets for colour balance, because I don't want my photos to look like shit, but if you don't care, knock yourself out. If you've shot whole rolls in the same light, then you might be able to make a curve that you can apply to everything. and that looks right.
>>
File: DSLRScanning.jpg (455KB, 2138x795px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
DSLRScanning.jpg
455KB, 2138x795px
>>2693171
#instructable

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelGR
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:10:28 08:08:19
Exposure Time1/40 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating320
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Brightness1.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length18.30 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2138
Image Height795
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: IMG_0928.jpg (518KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_0928.jpg
518KB, 750x1000px
>>2693143

I'm currently working through a couple thousand old family photos, this is working pretty well-- $40 light table from amazon, lens hood, spacer made from balsa wood (popsickle sticks would work too), Remote trigger. Can do 200 photos in an hour with this setup-- No tape, no guides, the weight of the camera holds the film flat. Only downside is you can't batch-crop because they're not always in the same spot.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 5s
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows)
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2015:10:27 18:12:35
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating50
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness4.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.15 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>2693187
Are you the guy archiving his dad's old hoard of negatives, the cracked emulsion ones, or a diff. family photo archiver? In either case, how old are the negs?
>>
>>2693190

Not that guy. Negatives are from the late 80s to the early 00s, most of them are late 90s.
>>
>>2693187
Ah, i was wondering about the Huion light tables, since I have some problems with my diffuse light, but there were no specs.

Is the light coming from that good? I was suspecting they managed even light, but perhaps with fairly poor color reproduction (cheaper LED).
>>
>>2693187
Yeah dude, this is fucked, for a number of reasons.
Long exposures eating your battery, roasting your sensor (less of a problem on a modern mirrorless than on a rabal, but still) and increasing likelihood of unsharp shots.
As you said, having to reposition for every shot.
Fuck that noise, find a way to feed strips through.
Also, you can pretty much see the unevenness of the illumination you're getting, as well as the *potential* limited spectrum of light from the LEDs (although I'm pretty dubious about how big a deal that is), as well as the inner workings of the device being too close to your plane of focus, and thus being in your shots.
>>
File: slide_print_-001.jpg (853KB, 2000x1390px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
slide_print_-001.jpg
853KB, 2000x1390px
Just going through what I have at work, some Flextight 949 samples.

Precisa CT 100
>>
File: comparison.jpg (899KB, 1174x2927px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
comparison.jpg
899KB, 1174x2927px
>>2693329
Shanghai GP3, flatbed middle crop, flextight bottom crop
>>
>>2693195

I'm actually really happy with it, but it's the only one I've used. There's flicker that anything faster than 1/120 or so will catch, but I'm shooting at .6 seconds and it's working great.

>>2693211
You might be right, I haven't done much of this before and I pretty much pulled it out of my ass. That said, I'm doing .6 sec exposures which are definitely slow, but not battery-eating slow. It lasts longer than my motivation on any given evening. The camera is an NEX-5R which goes pretty cheap on KEH and has had the shit beat out of it anyway, so if it's damaging the sensor I'm not super concerned. Using an IR remote, camera shake hasn't been a problem at all.

I think a feeding system would be more fiddly than this method. Repositioning isn't bad at all, you settle into a move-shoot rhythm that only needs a couple seconds per shot.

Light evenness and color don't seem to be a problem, but I'm not that good at the post processing side of it yet so it may be that I just don't know any better.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelNEX-5R
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows)
PhotographerRobert Buchberger
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2015:10:24 19:35:13
Exposure Time0.4 sec
F-Numberf/9.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/9.0
Brightness3.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>2693351

babby is red as fuck
>>
File: 20151027_235924.jpg (379KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
20151027_235924.jpg
379KB, 720x1280px
I have an Epson V500 which I have hated since day one.

Pic related, my new scanner setup. Going to build a desktop rig with 2x4's to mount the bellow rail to and create a lightbox using my studio flashes. This setup will cost ~$3k so I wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless they already have the expensive parts.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSAMSUNG
Camera ModelSCH-I535
Camera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.6
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1280
Image Height720
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:10:28 00:03:21
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/2.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/2.6
Brightness2.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length3.70 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width720
Image Height1280
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Unique Image IDZDFI02
>>
File: imacon comparoe.jpg (1MB, 2387x2927px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
imacon comparoe.jpg
1MB, 2387x2927px
>>2693334
ayyy
(shield emblem on the quarter panel is out of focus in the original image, I just put it in to fill the gap)
>>
>>2693389
The Alfa Romeo logo is oof also. GP3 isn't the sharpest film around, but it sure does look nice, anyway you can see the grain pattern is better resolved on the Flextight. Not that you could come close to this enlargement size using a single shot from a digicam, you'd need to enlarge more and stitch.
>>
>>2693394
I should say its way better than a flatbed, and enough regardless anyway, I'm not that guy being an elitist about drum scanners.
>>
>>2693389
>flatbed
>just a flatbed fam

specify what flatbed you mongoloid.
>>
just searched for "flextight" on ebay

>$10.000

lmaoooooooooooooo
wtf
>>
>>2693401
I've got a photo of taking one apart before, they're literally powered by a 486 (and I mean the 949 not older ones, which is also the X5 model iirc) and SDRAM, line sensor like a flatbed, and generic enlarger lens, though it does autofocus and adjusts enlarger head height for different enlargement sizes to match film size to full width of line sensor.
>>
File: flextitecomparoe.jpg (228KB, 1375x600px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
flextitecomparoe.jpg
228KB, 1375x600px
>>2693397
>>2693394
Agree with everything you said.
FYI the Ferrari is a 9 shot stitch, from PanF+ in rodinal, which isn't a particularly fine grain combination at all.
But the DSLR crop is from an area around a third of the size, and I'd say the only reason the grain isn't as crisp is the AA filtered sensor on the Canon.
Scaled and sharpened, there's fuck all in it.
Using a new high MP camera to scan with, it would be no contest.
>>
>>2693400
>I used the shot from >>2693334 fam
>I'm just working with the info I was given 'fam'
smh
>>
File: dslrvshablesad.png (470KB, 1600x1511px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
dslrvshablesad.png
470KB, 1600x1511px
>>2693389
>>2693406
Also, the other significant comparison.
>>
>>2693406

I heard it was actually a bad combo, that that specific combo didn't play that well. Most films can be made sharper too with simple developer modification works in both solvent and non-solvent equally well (tried both Xtol and Rodinal)

>>2693411
And it's ultimately a pretty simple device.
>>
Your dslr scan bullshit is so annoying. Just let people digitalize their negatives the way they want to. You can get a plustek for around 100 bucks and have a decent and uncomplicated scanning rig. Quality is fine.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 7400
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2015:07:12 17:02:57
>>
File: sample.jpg (33KB, 500x257px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
sample.jpg
33KB, 500x257px
>>2692450
I'm actually working on a design for a new scanner that should be commercially available in a few months, via kickstarter.

Attached is a crop from 120 film (mamiya 6, 50mm), the crop is about 5mm on the longer size. A close up is in next post.

It's kind of like the DSLR-approach; providing similar but slightly better results. The main advantage of this scanner is that it's super easy to use, is fast (about 1 sec/35mm frame for the quality of the crop shown here) , loads similarly to the Pakon scanner, and can do up to 120 or 4x5, and also should have outstanding results.

Would anyone here be interested in one of these? Probably would cost around $1200 USD.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151076
>>
File: sample2.jpg (58KB, 500x360px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
sample2.jpg
58KB, 500x360px
>>2693445
close up

>inb4 mamiya 6 50mm lens is super sharp
>>
>>2693445
>>2693446
these crops mean nothing without a full image to compare it to. to be honest these look like shit.
>>
>>2693450
There will be some in a month or so, and I concur with your impressions. Any requests for what would make the scanner better? The design is still somewhat flexible.
>>
>>2693445
I don't think you have your priorities straight.

most people who continue to shoot film, and are willing to spend $1200 on a scanner, would consider image quality (tonality, colour reproduction, range, detail, and sharpness to name a few qualities) to be an essential part of the photographic experience. this is especially true of people who shoot medium or larger formats.

from the sounds of it, your scanner is aiming for so-so quality (DSLR scan grade) but high speed. poor quality is in direct conflict with one of the main priorities of the film enthusiast. speed would be great (current scanners are slow slow slow), but given how slow the film workflow is anyways, why sacrifice quality to save a little time after the photo has already been taken? sure, time would be valuable to a commercial film photographer, but then again those shooters also require the highest quality.

to be fair, you have not yet produced any specifications for your device, so we cannot really comment on it. however, looking at your image in >>2693445 and assuming that >>2693446 is a 1:1 crop, then it looks like you're aiming for 250 points/mm? this seems rather unnecessarily high, and beyond the resolution of nearly all emulsions. going back to the samples, I see crushed blacks and blown out whites. the grain is also soft and muddy, with visible banding in the enlarged sample.

I'm happy to spend on photography, and have over $8k in camera gear alone. however, the gear that I buy must meet my needs, and to be honest, the current product you're developing doesn't excite me.
>>
>>2693455
> so-so quality (DSLR scan grade)
No, it is the highest quality?

Even Hasselblad scanners can't compete with a DSLR scan.

[That unlike with 35mm film you require some machine to do a large format image DSLR scan conveniently in the like 12-64 shots that requires is besides the point.]
>>
>>2693563
>Even Hasselblad scanners can't compete with a DSLR scan.

enough.jpg
>>
>>2693564
Dslr definitely outresolve drumscans, get over it.
>>
>>2693455
>most people who continue to shoot film, and are willing to spend $1200 on a scanner

That rules out almost all of /p/.
>>
>>2693564
Seriously, get over it. That's why all the pros and serious labs use DSLRs to scan :^) it's just better.
>>
>>2693455
I shoot film because I like the grittiness of it compared to digital.

If I want quality, flexibility and the ability to do more with an image, I shoot digital.
>>
>>2693605
I enjoy black and white film for the same reasons. However, I can't tolerate the poor dynamic range, and muddy focus in the sample images I'm looking at.
>>
Any protips on removing the orange mask from negative film?

I normally shoot only slide, but recently decided to try some Ektar, and I can't for the life of me get the end result to look decent.

I mean, I can kind of remove the mask,but the end result I've managed so far makes the colors utterly wrong and super bland - nothing like the scenery I was shooting.
>>
>>2693835

Buy a scanner and stop using your dslr like a grubby peasant.
>>
>>2693835
see >>2693171
>Set custom wb in camera on blank frame
>In raw conversion, invert the tone curve so you can see most of the image as a positive
>find the WB adjustment tool that lets you pick a spot on a colour wheel, and pick the spot that makes the colours look most natural
>put your tone curve back to normal, export as jpg, invert properly in photoshop or gimp
>Use curves adjustments to get your colours right. Usually take away some blue, add some red to the highlights, give green a subtle s-curve, increase global contrast a lot.
>>
>>2693835
See the PDF in >>2692822
>>
>>2693837
I am a grubby peasant, problem?

>buy super expensive imacon deluxe scanner
>tfw no money for any film to scan


Have an ancient coolscan 4000, but that eats only 135 film, so the DSLR has to do for dealing with larger formats. Which made me think, I guess I should try feeding the DSLR scans to Vuescan and see if that would produce something slightly less terrible as a starting point?


>>2693844
>>2693845

ty guys, will look into these.
>>
>>2693837
When used correctly, a DSLR will destroy any but the very best most expensive scanners on the market.

Buy a DSLR, and stop using your scanner like a grubby peasant.
>>
>>2693869
Invert image, open up levels tool, alt+3 for Red, alt+4 for Green, alt+5 for blue.

Set black and white points for each R, G, B. Hit ok. Bring up levels again and set mid points or fine adjustment for balance. It takes a few seconds.

Use curves in a similar way if your shadow colour and highlight colour go in opposite directions and you want or need to correct that.
>>
>>2693930

I've got a better DSLR with better lenses than you do. ;)

Print film looks like shit unless you scan it.
>>
File: IMG_0292.jpg (4MB, 3371x5057px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_0292.jpg
4MB, 3371x5057px
>>2693932
Yep, this looks like total shit.
I wish I'd spent $10k on an imacon instead of making this peasant scan.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>2693944
Tbh it does actually look like shit though. I wouldn't scan it on an Imacon either.
>>
>>2693951
Great reasoning. Your unsupported opinion really does sway people.
>>
>>2693944

>those flat-as-fuck highlights that were obviously boosted in post

looks like shit, and it's because you aren't using nearly enough light. color film is dense, fam. got anything else to prove me wrong?
>>
>>2693835

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/499854

Some good stuff

Basically, the orange mask intensity is a function of the blue channel intensity
>>
>>2693944
Hey bruh I am on your side in regards to DSLR scanning.

I am >>2693367 and in the process of designing my rig. I do agree with other though, you need to post better examples and not really shit snaps. Your other thread has some good stuff though. I'm saying you're not going to convince anyone that DSLRs are superior with dark, low detail, and plain shitty snaps.
>>
File: IMG_4269.jpg (3MB, 5184x3411px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_4269.jpg
3MB, 5184x3411px
>>2693954
huh?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>2693957
The orange mask is a mask, its called the integral mask, it is thinnest where there is plenty of exposure/density, and thickest where there is no exposure. It's self masking according to exposure, it isn't a flat orange colour.
>>
I use a Nikon LS-2000 to scan my film. Despite being almost 20 years old it still does the job well.
>>
>>2693406
Just a follow up, found my old data, I got FP4+ limited to about 55 lp/mm both in Xtol Replenished and Rodinal 1+25, Pan F+ about 61 lp/mm.

I got them both up to a peak of about 95 lp/mm with simple developer modifications, it'd greatly improve results, sharpness mostly increases from potassium iodide addition.
>>
>>2693563
>hasselblad scanners
>can't compete with a DSLR scan

confirmed for b8
>>
>>2693970
I know right, stupid dSLR fags, when will they ever learn dSLRs can't compete with Sony mirrorless.
>>
File: IMG_4341.jpg (4MB, 5060x3378px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_4341.jpg
4MB, 5060x3378px
>>2693958
This is a gay as fuck technical thread, I think snapshits are entirely fit for purpose.
I won't be posting them anywhere else, so why not?
Also, for the purpose of essentially bragging about sharpness and proving your colour reproduction isn't entirely fucked, it's better to find a snapshit that's on fresh film, plenty of dof, no motion blur, and plenty of exposure, and doesn't have people in it.
So that reduces my pool of eligible shots substantially.
I like to shoot trash film, you can't get very good colour out of bad film a lot of the time.
Here is some fucked Portra 400; it looked pretty crap so I crushed the blacks, it's not going to convince anyone that it's the last word in scanning quality.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>2693961

Did I stutter, motherfucker?
>>
File: IMG_4341.jpg (718KB, 1200x2400px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_4341.jpg
718KB, 1200x2400px
>>2693975
And by fucked I mean several year expired.
And probably should have been shot at 200.
I found that whenever I put the contrast where I wanted it, it was too contrasty, and when I put the skin tone where I wanted it, the jumper was over saturated, or the rocks were too blue. etc.
It's a shot on a very cloudy dark day, of a contrasty shot with several competing colours, on daylight film.
Almost any way you edit it gives some idiot ammo to attack your method, so why post it?
Even though that's the very nature of shooting film, you can't just say that to people, they'll say their potatotek gives them perfect colour every time. It's better to make a staightforward example based on sharp shots on good film in easy light.

Here is SOOC Inverted, my actual exported raw inverted, and an alternative edit, with a little more blue and lower contrast.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 550D
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number1132529712
Lens NameEF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2015:10:29 11:51:46
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/9.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/9.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length100.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height2400
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeManual
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModePartial
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeUnknown
Focus ModeOne-Shot
Drive ModeTimed
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Self-Timer Length10 sec
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceCustom
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed160
Color Matrix129
>>
File: hand.jpg (929KB, 1200x777px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
hand.jpg
929KB, 1200x777px
>>2694010
>being this much of a pleb

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:10:29 13:22:15
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height777
>>
File: droolret.jpg (88KB, 533x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
droolret.jpg
88KB, 533x800px
>>2693988
I meant your comment didn't make any sense.
Flat as fuck highlight boosted in post?
Didn't use enough light?
I flattenned the highlights in post, you drooling retard.
There's still contrast in the specular highlights on the raindrops for fucks sake.
Think about it, that means that the darkest possible parts of the negative had enough light coming through them to register above 0,0,0 in the processed jpg, and yet none of the shadows are clipped either. But you know, probably not enough light...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
>>
>>2694017
great job anon, now her hand looks like a piece of cooked chicken meat that started to turn.
And that looks like some Sigma-quality noise in the shadows.
>>
File: old_provia.jpg (690KB, 1000x1292px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
old_provia.jpg
690KB, 1000x1292px
Some expired provia, probably overprocessed the colour a bit but oh well.

Flextight 949
>>
>>2694023
I like this
>>
File: checkit.jpg (186KB, 1162x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
checkit.jpg
186KB, 1162x800px
>>2694023
That looks like LF to me. What lense?
And it looks more like noise than grain to me. Shadows on slide don't turn to rainbow speckles like negs do.
This is 6x9 ancient Velvia (not Velvia 50), I've posted it before.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 550D
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Comment
ProjectionEquirectangular (2)
FOV15 x 8
Ev12.37
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>2694026
Its 6x7. 90mm Sekor C I think iirc.

Slide film definitely has grain. The scanner has a noise pattern that you can bring up if the film is really dense but thats not how it looks.

I also sharpened it a bit since the smaller ver or even large print will look nicer and more crisp when you do so, regardless of it already being high res or not.
>>
>>2694026
>>2694042
Might also be the large radius unsharp mask I put on the a and b channels too.
>>
File: 141101_r1_02.jpg (984KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
141101_r1_02.jpg
984KB, 2048x1365px
Scanned with PrimeFilm XE.
My workflow usually is Vuescan for RAW, ColorPerfect for inversion, final tweaks in PS.

This shot was Agfa CT Precisa I think.
>>
>>2694021

You're either shit at post or shit at scanning. Your choice, buddy.
>>
File: 400H_Maxine_-001.jpg (274KB, 1630x1000px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
400H_Maxine_-001.jpg
274KB, 1630x1000px
One of the things I always loved about colour neg was it's insane highlight dynamic range, even with the flash head next to the wall, hitting a reflective white tile, it still retains detail on the neg itself.

Behind the scenes shot from several years ago on 400H, Flextight 949 scan (just now).
>>
File: wew.jpg (375KB, 1190x783px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
wew.jpg
375KB, 1190x783px
yall cux tbh

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:10:29 02:00:30
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1190
Image Height783
>>
>>2694068

that looks pretty good, but, is this a side by side of film vs digi, or is a film before/after. because you killed them highlights, rights look shit
>>
>>2694071
Side by side of film, I wouldn't PP something to include something not normally in the shot.
>>
File: neu.jpg (128KB, 808x1000px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
neu.jpg
128KB, 808x1000px
>>2694068

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:10:29 02:24:10
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width808
Image Height1000
>>
>>2694071
same frame of film, to show the huge range of data in the negative
>>
>>2694081
wow ayya got hot
>>
>>2694085
Who tf is ayya?
>>
If you have set up a darkroom why not just print to paper directly?
>>
>>2694068
>>2694081
I used to blame my lack of ability to push my negative scans without colors and banding going crazy to the poor range of the negatives, before I realized it's just my shitty V500 that can't make a file that can handle a push of more than about a stop.
>>
File: 1311005585060.png (129KB, 312x313px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1311005585060.png
129KB, 312x313px
>>2694093
>>
File: IMG_1163.jpg (173KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_1163.jpg
173KB, 1200x1600px
>>2694429
I've posted this a dozen times too, but this is what I mean about the flexibility of DSLR files.
The negative itself is practically clear where her face is, if you hold it up to the light you need to shine another light through it from the side to be able to see the trace of the image.
>>
>>2694429
When I first shot this, I scanned it on a V500, I was still able to retain the highlights just fine, as it wasn't ridiculous density it couldn't handle
>>
>>2694469
>>2694429
i'm impressed. what is your dslr scanning approach?
>>
>>2694491
Read the thread.
I'm the main guy.
>>
>>2694507
it's honestly hard to tell when you're anonymous bro.
>>
>>2694476
And what happened to the shadows when you pushed them?
>>
>>2694524
I generally don't try to push my shadows into highlights. I like to expose correctly at box speed usually.

Anyway with negs, the shadows are the thinnest part, so flatbeds do capture them, problems can happen if you want to stretch almost nil contrast into high contrast obviously.

It's slides that shadow problems much more usually.
>>
Anyone recommend a decent tripod that can invert downwards to scan negatives with?
>>
>>2694561
Literally any tripod with a $5 tilt head.

I mean, it becomes rather top heavy, but it works.
>>
What's the best way to scan with a flatbed? I remember seeing someone posting about software that takes multiple scans a while back.

>>2694507
Can you please adopt a trip or something.
>>
>>2694651
>Can you please adopt a trip or something.
And then you'd "filter" me, to preserve the harmony of your experience here, cupcake?
This is four channel, mate.
The whole point is to post anonymously.
>>
>>2694513
For fucks sake.
I put the food on the spoon, and put the spoon in your mouth.
You want me to massage your throat so you swallow it as well, little babby?
>>2693182
>>
>>2694665
No, so that we can know who you are, because you're clearly useful, intelligent, and doing well with your process, and you could be very helpful to people looking to learn from you.

The whole point is to post. To do so anonymously automatically makes us assume that you're a fucking moron, because most anons are fucking morons.
>>
>>2694667
Man, you're a piece of shit, huh? No wonder you post as anon.
>>
>>2694651
> What's the best way to scan with a flatbed? I remember seeing someone posting about software that takes multiple scans a while back.
Dunno who that was.

But you probably mean some kind of workflow with silverfast or vuescan and colorperfect in multiple exposure mode, or maybe also with some hardware that does an infrared pass for iSRD.
>>
>>2694765
He's talking about the superresolution method. It's some fancy math done in MATLAB taken with multiple exposures moved over a few pixels each time.
>>
File: Scan-151030-0001.jpg (3MB, 4470x2949px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Scan-151030-0001.jpg
3MB, 4470x2949px
Going to dump some V600 35mm scans with Vuescan

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEpson
Camera ModelPerfectionV600
Camera SoftwareVueScan 9 x64 (9.3.12)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution745 dpi
Vertical Resolution745 dpi
Image Width4470
Image Height2949
>>
>>2694861
>This photo
Why?
>>
>>2694862
Was testing if the timer worked on my Nikon L35AF
>>
>>2694863
it ok, we've already established that flatbeds are shit, and your image reinforces that.
>>
http://www.missbambi.de/frontend/detail/1518/Ebru
Vote for her please :-)
>>
>>2694651
That was me, I downloaded PhotoAcute Studio and got it working with that improved resolving power noticeably.

I'd only use it if you're hard up for a higher res file for some purpose and have no other capture method and can't pay for a high end scan of that frame.

Or if you're just curious etc
Thread posts: 131
Thread images: 37


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.