Film fags, how much would you pay to get an 8000 dpi, wet mounted

>>2917426
Oh, and I have four years of experience working with drum scanners, so I know how to scan your film/maintain the equipment for optimal results.

>>2917426
If someone in the USA would do them with a one week turnaround for under $20 per 4x5 sheet I would be interested.

>>2917426

talk directly to alex burke. he might be interested.

>>2917448
Dunno if I could go that low outside of large bulk orders, but my plan is predicated on being significantly lower than the $70-130 for 4x5.
>>2917450
I'll probably end up emailing him in the next few days if he doesn't reply in this thread.

>>2917426
funny you should ask I just did a bunch of research on getting a drum scanner.

avarage here for 4x5 is about $100-150 + hourly rate in Canada. it really seems appealing however as you probably know most of the equipment is bloody well old and only somewhat serviceable. Aztec i think is it in North America and they can only repair machines with used parts when they have them.

at the end of the day I decided that the risk of running a 15-20 year old drum scanner and maintaining a scuzzy port PC was just not worth it.

Currently I do my 35 and 120 on a Coolscan 8000 and am looking into wet printing colour 4X5. the cost and reliability of wet printing seems more palatable than drum scanning and I am yet to see good results out of a flat bed.

>>2917426
No point in a 8000dpi scan, as the most a drumscanner can resolve is 5300dpi. Above that you are just making grain more visible.

>>2917426
M8, my advice to you is to take a bunch of pictures of the scanner at the place you currently work, build a website about your drum-scanner, your years of experience using it, and how great your prices are, and then investing in an A7r2, an apo macro lense and a 2x macro stitching rig.
>export as 16bit TIFF
>enjoy your drumscans, faggots
It's only lying if you get caught.

>>2917477
5300 dpi is almost 30 MP per square inch, it's still overkill for anything but the finest technical film. And what the hell would you do with a 500 MP picture anyway

>>2917498
One would still be able to see the difference at 100% .......

>>2917514
Print it?

>>2917426
Not interested unless you can into robots and will do DSLR/MILC scans for ~$0.1-0.15 per camera shot (obviously with the option to stitch).

Right now is the time to get into digital archival robots if you don't want to be stuck in a dying niche.

>>2917518

Yep. The A7r2 stitched scan would look better.

>>2917542
No it would absolutely not. You have never seen a good drumscan then.

>>2917542
>what are deep shadows

>>2917520
Why wouldn't you just do a contact print for a fraction of the price?

>>2917548
Sorry for the wrong choice of words, I meant any darkroom print, so enlarged for whatever size you need it.

>>2917551
Implying cibachrome printing is still alive.

You cannot print E6 film in the darkroom unlesd you have cibachrome chemistry and paper, which are no longer made.

>>2917426
Never in my life would I ever pay for a drumscan unless I was commissioned to make a mural sized print for a museum from some buttfuck huge sheet film format.
That said if I had to, I'd like to pay under 40$ per sheet
I don't really understand drum scanning, when most prints are sizes that would just make more sense to do darkroom prints

>>2917552
Well that's nice, you can print those specific slides in bigger sizes then. That's gotta be a tiny costumer base though.

>>2917553
>Never in my life would I ever pay for a drumscan

thats because ur a poor fuck. and its alright, but dont say its useless method just because you cant afford it.

>why are there high end cars? all one needs is a honda!

>>2917555
Its also much easier to scan and print digital than it is in a darkroom. You need specific equipment, chem and paper.

>>2917556
Well I don't know a high end car is full of comfortable details, it drives faster, smoother, looks pleasing to ny eyes. You'll notice all of these things when you drive your car around town. I won't actually be using a high dpi scan like that. I won't look at the pixels with joy for longer than a minute. The specific corner case of film that can't be printed in a dark room but needs to be printed in a big format has been described already. I don't see how this compares to a luxury car.

>>2917559
We're talking about a service here, both will not be done by you, but someone who has the equipment.

>>2917520
That's a 6x7.5' print at 300 dpi, or 12x15' at 150. Even if the lens and film are up to snuff, I'm having a hard time imagining something that needs to be printed this huge but still stand up to close-up scrutiny.

>>2917547
A modern digital camera should be able to cover the density range of all types of film. I've yet to see a practical LF scanning rig made out of one though.

The only reason I have (and would in the future) pay for a drum scan is when I have someone interested in buying a large print the required top notch scan quality. In that case I'd be willing to pay 10% tops of the final print cost. FWIW I 15% of the final print cost is what I typically spend on printing. So for a $300 print from 120 film I'd pay ~$45 for printing and $30 for a drum scan.

>>2917552
In theory, couldn't you build some kind of rig to make an internegative on C41 and then print normally from that? That's how they used to duplicate movie reels for distribution, except they were making another reel of positive film instead of printing to paper at the end.

>>2917546
I think it would be way too close if not equal.

You already get the grain in detail and the image is noticeably different between wet and dry mounting. What more can you really get?

>>2917617
If you knew how a drumscanner works, you would not be posting this nonsense

>>2917619
I'm not talking about the drum scanner.

But sure, CCD Arrays have enough DR and resolution now to record what "was on film" (nobody cares about the individual molecules, which neither technology record either way).

>>2917611
Yes, but imagine the cost.

>>2917623
The camera introduces noise onto the image, the drum scanner does not. Also your silly camera can only resolve 90-100 lpm while a drumscanner can resolve infinite.

>>2917623

>ccd arrays

>>2917642
>The camera introduces noise onto the image, the drum scanner does not.

Uh, what? Does a drum scanner have a magical sensor and ADC not subject to the laws of physics?

>>2917648
Do you know how a drum scanner works? If not please refrain from talking about the subject. You will only add disinformation and confusion

>>2917654
Protip: a phototube is a type of optical sensor, and it does not magically output a digital signal without an ADC.

>>2917556

>Implying Civic Type R isn't a high end car.

>>2917642
> The camera introduces noise onto the image
So does your drum scanner, but both to a degree that just doesn't matter if you scan under sane conditions.

> Also your silly camera can only resolve 90-100 lpm while a drumscanner can resolve infinite.
No, it can't resolve *anywhere near* the limits of physics, which aren't infinite to begin with.

Nor does your physically ~100lp/mm (or perhaps worse?) film that was shot through a lens that resolved worse than the new macro lens you're scanning with now.

You're basically getting more or less everything out of film when MILC/DSLR scanning now.

>>2917654
>>2917642

You can stack as many images from digital camera in 'average' mode as you wish. Fixed pattern noise could be a problem with specific cameras.

It is the same thing which drumscan does - multisampling.

>>2917659
>You're basically getting more or less everything out of film when MILC/DSLR scanning now.

... if the light source is good.

>>2917661
A "scan" of a 4x5 sheet with resolution enough for something like Velvia AND with multisampling is going to take a hell of a lot of shots, CPU power and time.

...Though drum scans aren't quick either.


>>2917662
I've never tried it, but apparently, an iPad showing a pure white image is an amazingly uniform light source when slightly out of focus. Intensity is not a problem since exposure time can be varied.

Why are drum scans so expensive in the first place? I never understood that. Do you pay for the resources needed to power the scanner or..?

>>2917461
>avarage here for 4x5 is about $100-150 + hourly rate in Canada.
That's really the appeal of it as a business. It's really, really easy to underprice the competition, because most places either don't like doing drum scans or they don't want to do them because it's a time-sink side service to their main services.
>it really seems appealing however as you probably know most of the equipment is bloody well old and only somewhat serviceable. Aztec i think is it in North America and they can only repair machines with used parts when they have them.
Yup...that's the biggest liability in this. I'm trying to get a feel for what the demand is (this isn't the only place I'm asking people), but I'm also trying to figure out what the safest way forward is equipment-wise: like should I drop really stupid money and get a newer and theoretically more reliable machine, get multiple older machines, or what?

>at the end of the day I decided that the risk of running a 15-20 year old drum scanner and maintaining a scuzzy port PC was just not worth it.

Definitely for the vast majority of individual users.

>>2917477
>No point in a 8000 dpi scan
Not really from a file quality perspective, but there definitely is from a sales perspective.

>>2917548
>Why don't you just print?
It's often a personal choice thing, but one of the biggest reasons is to have an archival quality digital file of your film. Digital gives you a lot of options that just having film doesn't give you.

>>2917555
>That's gotta be a tiny costumer base though.
It doesn't have to be a large one.

*continued

>>2917666
Drum scanners are very expensive and very slow in operation since they're essentially scanning one pixel at a time.

>>2917617
>I think it would be way too close if not equal.
Not by a long shot, and it's not even really a matter of resolution as like others have brought up in this thread, you can stitch together as many shots as you want--hell, you could go super crazy and use a microscope mounted camera and shoot it at a few 1000x magnification and stitch all of those together. The biggest differences come because of wet mounting (which is possible with flat scanning, I've just not seen a good way to do it) which, thanks to things like refraction and eliminating an air/plastic interface, makes significant differences in the appearance of tonalities. Also wet mounting hides film scratches.

>>2917666
>Why so spendy?
A combination of three factors:
>specialized, temperamental equipment
This translates to expensive to get in the first place and expensive to maintain (regular maintenance isn't bad, but fuck me, when something invariably breaks, you're going to be paying out the nose)
>low demand
Not that many people are interested in getting them done.
>very time intensive
Full pipeline for a single image can be upwards of around 4 hours (multiple images from the same customer can significantly reduce this time by altering the file packaging process, especially if blu-rays are the chosen medium).

>>2917671
>eliminating an air/plastic interface
For 35mm film, I mounted it in a rigid film path without any glass/plastic underneath the scanned area at all. I don't know how this can work with larger formats without the film sagging and dropping out of focus, though.

>not feeding op with over inflated price so he takes a mortgage to buy the thing
>no one wants his service
>bankrupt
>we at /p/ laughs.

>>2917714
I wonder why no one has made an attempt at a commercial LF scanning rig based on a digicam yet. Sure, you have to solve the problem with mounting, automate camera motion and exposure adjustment, but in the end it can be an order of magnitude cheaper and faster than an old drum scanner.

>>2917714
Nice try, but this isn't the only place I'm talking to people about pricing.
Also, I feel sorry for anyone who has to mortgage their home to get a measly 30k. If I pull the trigger on this, it'll be out of savings, and I have enough to get the equipment and pay expenses for six months. I'm a shit photographer, but pretty damn good at business.
>>2917720
Order of magnitude?
Nah, you'll still be talking almost the exact same price as used drum scanner and that's not counting the cost of the camera and lens nor the computer that you'd need to hook it up to.

Software wise, it's actually a relatively simple deal. You can essentially tweak a combination of scanner and printer/3D printer controls--breaking some companies protocols for teathering the body is a simple task for both Nikon and Canon thanks to projects like MagicLantern and Nikonhack (I think that's their name). Configuration is relatively simple as well because it's not that big of a deal to stick in a configurator that lets you select body+lens combination which can reference field of view, focal distance limitations, and optimal sharpness from data scraped from someone like dxomark. It'd be time consuming to get all of this working, but no task is overly difficult.

The biggest problem and one of the bigger sources of cost would be the stepper motors. Accurate, precise, strong, and dependable stepper motors are expensive as hell, and you'd need at least two (ideally four, possibly six depending on design). Additionally, there's a need for a good bit of precisely machined parts that drives the costs up further.

To all the faggots claiming digital stitching will beat a drumscanner, read this.

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

File: image12-400x800.jpg (88KB, 400x800px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 400x800px

>>2917426
>HAY GUYZ CHECK THIS NEW D800E, ITS LITERALLY DIGITAL MEDIUM FORMAT DONE RIGHT
>see pic related

LMFAOOOO

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	LinoHell
Camera Model	TANGO
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2148
Image Height	4555
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:11:12 10:08:51
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	442
Image Height	883

>>2917740
>beat
It depends on needs. The vast majority of photographer's needs are satisfied by much less costly methods. Once you have solutions that meet your needs, the fact that one of them exceeds your needs by orders of magnitude does not automatically make that a winning choice for you.

It's kind of like it's foolish to buy a 55 gallon drum of peanut butter for the same cost as a 2 lbs. jar if the jar is all you'll need. By buying the drum, you're at the very least tying up a LOT of storage space and the vast majority of the peanut butter will go to waste. More of something brings costs that don't always outweigh the additional value provided just by getting more.

>>2917730
>Accurate, precise, strong, and dependable stepper motors are expensive as hell

You don't need much precision, though. With content-aware stitching (ie Microsoft ICE), as long as you can maintain anywhere between 10-50 percent overlap between images, it will work. The only precision required will be the distance between the lens and the surface of the film to ensure consistent focus, but unlike a drum or flatbed scanner, lens DoF should give a millimeter or two of leeway here.

>>2917740
>single shot of D800E = 35 MP
>6x7 drum scan of ultra high resolution tech film = 115 MP

So
>2x2 stitch of the same film with a D800E (1:1 macro lens) = 2x2x35 = 140 MP

This just proves it, though?

Also note that B&W test charts are the absolute best-case scenario for film as far as resolution goes (since film resolution depends on contrast, but digital does not unless NR is applied)

>>2917745
>You don't need much precision, though. With content-aware stitching (ie Microsoft ICE), as long as you can maintain anywhere between 10-50 percent overlap between images, it will work.
You really do...at least in the implementation I'm thinking of which is predicated on going ahead and stitching the images for the end user, and doing it via pure positioning. I'm sure some people might buy a rig where they had to do the stitching, but I don't think most would, and doing content aware stitching would be very difficult.

>>2917742
This is the best case scenario though, see the last point in >>2917745.
If you look at resolution specifications for film, you'll see that it's measured at a specific contrast ratio, typically 1000:1 (this is roughly what a test chart gives you). But if there's also a figure for a lower contrast ratio like 10:1, you'll see that it's much lower, half of the above or less. Digital, on the other hand, retains the same resolution at any contrast ratio above the noise level (around the noise level, it becomes dependent on software NR, which is very situational)

>>2917747
Stitching via pure positioning requires sub-10 micrometer precision from your stepper motors. This is totally unrealistic for a homebrew rig.

But content-aware stitching nowadays is literally as simple as dumping your images into a program and then hoping you don't run out of RAM. If it even works for the handheld spray-and-pray Brenizer method, I don't see why it won't work here.

>>2917752
>This is totally unrealistic for a homebrew rig.
I'm not talking about a homebrew rig.

>>2917753
Oh, I get it, that was my poor choice of words. What I meant in >>2917720 wasn't a rig that a company can sell (the entire worldwide market will be like what, ten units?), but rather a DIY rig that you use to scan film commercially.

>>2917758
Ah, I getcha now.

Believe it or not, you can get that kind of precision pretty easily. It just takes knowing a good machinist and being able to calculate gear ratios. But yeah, for what you're talking about, using something like ICE would probably be the best bet.

>>2917671
>The biggest differences come because of wet mounting (which is possible with flat scanning, I've just not seen a good way to do it) which, thanks to things like refraction and eliminating an air/plastic interface, makes significant differences in the appearance of tonalities.

No it doesn't.

>Also wet mounting hides film scratches.

I'll give you that one.

>>2917791
You're going to seriously sit there and claim that including a liquid media in the light path will not necessarily create changes via different refraction rates?

>>2917740
>this shit
>this shit never ends

Film fags have been overestimating the resolution of their film and equipment since the 1950's. It might have been understandable back then, but it's fucking embarrassing in the digital age. Believing that B&W line pair extinction resolution of a medium under a microscope is what matters in real world photographs is the absolute height of photographic autism and retardation.

In the real world...

* 12 MP and higher sensors (APS-C or larger) produce better overall image structure and quality than pretty much any 35mm film except Velvia or the finest B&W emulsions (think Pan F and Adox 20).

* 16 MP and higher sensors exhibit higher IQ than Velvia 50 and Pan F.

* When you get to 22/24 MP you start to challenge most films in the next format (645). Adox 20 is about the only film that can still hang, and that's if you shoot it at EI 6 and process it to tame the extreme contrast.

* D810 and A7R2 RAWs have overall better IQ than the vast majority of 6x7 shots that have ever or will ever be made.

* Canon 5Ds/5Dsr hangs with early MF digital backs, and those compare favorably with 4x5. (4x5 is still potentially better, but not by anything like the mythical "MP equivalent" numbers produced by autists with line charts.)

That's reality in a world where...

* Fine detail is predominately made up of small shifts in contrast and color.

* Sharpness (high MTF) has a huge positive impact on viewer perception.

* Grain has a huge NEGATIVE impact on viewer perception, and obscures fine detail in all but the largest film formats.

>>2917802
Please, go shit up the film general if you feel the need to stoke the fires of this damn argument.

>>2917775
I dunno, I occasionally dabble in some mechanical engineering at work and the idea of reliably positioning a big-ass camera with a macro lens to less than 1/100 of a millimeter makes me shiver. Even if the steppers work perfectly, the lens will still likely throw everything off because there's always a tiny bit of play in the mount and focusing helicoid... And why do all that when ICE is free and will give the exact same result with motors ripped from a toy car?

>>2917745
>Also note that B&W test charts are the absolute best-case scenario for film as far as resolution goes (since film resolution depends on contrast, but digital does not unless NR is applied)

It's worse than that.

* As you point out, film resolution is strongly correlated with detail contrast. And most fine detail in the real world is defined by very low changes in contrast.

* Color film resolution is also correlated with detail color. Color film...Velvia in particular...can be very weak with certain colors because the dyes block up.

* Grain has a very large impact on viewer perception of sharpness and fine detail. Even 35mm Velvia 50 can have perceptible grain at 8x10 print size.

Note that a line chart test emphasizes contrast and bypasses both color and grain. The fact that the detail being detected is a line means that it overcomes grain which might easily obscure texture in a model's face, for example.

>>2917805
These days I regularly work with systems that hit those precision levels moving components that weigh over 400 lbs. It's not cheap to achieve, but it is definitely possible.
The best bet though wouldn't be to move the camera at all and just move the film.

>iffy tolerances in focusing system
Older, mechanical cameras where you can lock the focus in place would generally solve this for you.

>why do all of this?
Because it's a fun problem to think through, but more properly it's about scalability. Since we're talking about doing this in some money making capacity, we have to consider ways to make it more efficient. Requiring someone to sit at a computer and manually load files into ICE is less efficient than having a system that can just give you the stitched image from the start.

>>2917792
>You're going to seriously sit there and claim that including a liquid media in the light path will not necessarily create changes via different refraction rates?

I'm going to seriously sit here and claim that you are full of shit if you think those changes add up to "...significant differences in the appearance of tonalities."

Note that "significant" means the majority of viewers clearly prefer A over B...or can even tell A from B...in an unlabeled, double blind test.

As a rule, photographers have a terrible habit of:

A) Vastly over estimating the differences between two things (films, sensors, lenses, techniques, etc).

B) Believing small differences will make them superior to all the other "pleb" photographers in the world.

>>2917803
>Please, go shit up the film general if you feel the need to stoke the fires of this damn argument.

Film general isn't masturbating over the thought of offering a $70 per 4x5 drum scanner service at a time when anyone with a digital camera and a macro lens can produce equivalent scans of their film for 15m of time and $0.

>>2917812
Automating loading images into ICE/Hugin isn't harder than automating plain stitching. Half of /g/ could probably do it. You just need a lot of memory and CPU power, but that's way easier to get than custom precision mechanics.

>>2917816
It took me a fair a lot of time to set up a DSLR-scanning rig suitable for quality mass scanning of 35mm, without any stitching. So while I don't doubt that it can be technically done with LF, "15m and $0 for everyone" is a gross underestimation.

Also, why don't you go undercut all drum scanning labs in price? You can charge $40 for frame and no one is going to notice that you're using a digital camera instead of a drum scanner.

>>2917825
Because he doesn't know what he is talking about.

>>2917730
>spend all of money for marginal gains
i don't think you know how to business

>>2917742
>d800e
>not bentax k-1 with pixel shift
get on with the times grandpa.

>>2917825
>It took me a fair a lot of time to set up a DSLR-scanning rig suitable for quality mass scanning of 35mm, without any stitching.

It's easy if you're not trying to be cheap about it. Good light table, good marco, copy stand. Too many people fuck around with shit lying around their house (thinking of the Digital Rev TV video with Kai using an iMac light source). Not sure what route you took but with the right equipment it's not hard to setup.

>Also, why don't you go undercut all drum scanning labs in price? You can charge $40 for frame and no one is going to notice that you're using a digital camera instead of a drum scanner.

Because absent an automated rig I have better stuff to do with my time.

Building a robotic rig though.... It has the potential to be worth it. Though if I did such a thing, I would never lie and claim it's a drum scan. Someone would notice some inconsequential difference and be all butt hurt. I would just upload two scans and say "you can pay >$100 for this one, or $40 for the better one."

>>2917820
i think op has that film mentality.
older is better.

>>2917851
That setup's only good enough for posting to /p/, sadly. The glass/air/film sandwich that you get spoils quality, especially if you're trying to flatten roll film with another sheet of glass. And matting is imperfect and leads to slightly blotchy backlight, unnoticeable with a naked eye, but not suitable for archival quality scanning.

>>2917816
>Film general isn't masturbating over the thought of offering a $70 per 4x5 drum scanner service at a time when anyone with a digital camera and a macro lens can produce equivalent scans of their film for 15m of time and $0.
I'm not "masturbating" over anything. The fact of the matter is that there is a market for such. Whether or not you believe that this is a worthwhile use of someone's money doesn't really matter because you're not in that market segment.
>>2917820
>Automating loading images into ICE/Hugin isn't harder than automating plain stitching. Half of /g/ could probably do it. You just need a lot of memory and CPU power, but that's way easier to get than custom precision mechanics.
Is ICE scriptable? I kinda agree with your last point, but I have another deal going with a couple of friends who are machinists so I tend to think more of physical solutions than software ones...but all that's just a thought experiment.
>>2917825
>Also, why don't you go undercut all drum scanning labs in price? You can charge $40 for frame and no one is going to notice that you're using a digital camera instead of a drum scanner.
Because people won't come to him.
>>2917843
Missed that
>fun to think about
part?
>>2917853
Nope, I couldn't possibly give a damn less either way. I don't shoot film. However, the people I intend to provide services do care.

Anyway, still in the planning stages and I'm finding that I have to find some way to partially automate it or have multiple setups to hit the income goals I want.

>>2917917
>Is ICE scriptable?

It accepts command line parameters, so you can use it in a shell script. It also has a "structured" import mode specifically for automated rigs that uses file numbering to determine row/column instead of trying to analyze all images at once, which saves a shit ton of processing time.
And anyway, even if you cannot into computers at all and run it manually, it won't take long - a bit more handiwork than with a drum scanner, but you won't have to wait an hour for a single sheet to be scanned.

>>2917862
>That setup's only good enough for posting to /p/, sadly.

Dude, there are people who have compared DSLR scanning and drum scanning and posted the results online and the DSLR scans held up. So drop the "only good for web" bs. People are doing it. But no one has done a robotic setup which is what you would want for a commercial service.

>The glass/air/film sandwich that you get spoils quality, especially if you're trying to flatten roll film with another sheet of glass.

Use any number of film holders for old scanners that do not involve any glass.

>And matting is imperfect and leads to slightly blotchy backlight,

A fucking iPad is consistent corner to corner if you blur out the pixels. I wouldn't recommend that because pixels, but good light tables are good enough.

>>2917917
>the vast majority of scanning services are out of business
>imacon and even drum scanners can be had cheap on the used market
>"there's a market"

There's not a market at anything remotely close to the old prices. By the 2nd post someone told you what they would be willing to pay: $20 per 4x5 sheet.

If you can keep a drum scanner running and make a profit that's worth your time at that price, more power to you.

>>2917958
Hrm..probably not flexible enough, especially since you can use python to script hugin.

>>2917960
>Dude, there are people who have compared DSLR scanning and drum scanning and posted the results online and the DSLR scans held up.

...That was probably me, dude.
Did you miss that I *am* using a DSLR rig, but a more complex setup than a piece of film on a light table? Also, an iPad is vastly superior to backlit matte glass if you know how to use it.

>>2917968
I didn't really look into ICE that way. It can save and load process settings from a project file, but I don't know how this can play out in a fully automated setup. (There isn't much to set up, anyway - just the number of rows/columns and a flat panorama type so it doesn't try to correct geometry).

Never did a drum scan. you guys have a comparison?

I would just get a digital camera.

Use a good macro lens, a heavy tripod, and a wireless release
Shoot 7 shot bracket for each of 4 quadrants to a 36 or 42mp sensor.
Obviously use the sweetest aperture of a good lens
Run a script to compile the images into a 32bit hdr panorama with zero noise and supercritical detail after tiff converting in a neutral raw converter which has the option to disable default tone curves
Even scan an accurately metered film shoot of a color checker passport for color and exposure perfection
Adjust in Lightroom to taste

Maybe a drum scan would be better in some microscopic ways, but I hardly believe there's a more exacting method than this, all things considered from detail to tonality and color rendition

>>2919043
That implies I want to buy a digishit camera. At that price point I could just get a drumscanner.

>>2919060
A7Rs are beautiful tools. Maybe if you did that, you would see how amazing they are, and decide to try exploring the new realms of photography.

>>2919148
>A7Rs are beautiful tools.

just like their users.

>>2919151
told

>>2919148
Implying I didn't have a D800E before I switched to film. Go away Sony shill

>>2919361
>Lying on the internet
Was the digicam too many numbers for you to learn? Or was the raw processing over your head? It's good that you've moved down to a medium on your level now.

>>2919443
>digicucks pretending they have the superior format

top kook!

>>2919443

WTF LOOOOOOOOOL DIGIPLEBS IN CHARGE OF NOT BEING GOOFY FUCKS.

>>2919443
Are you retarded? Everything about film is harder than digital you dipshit.

File: 1471863961594.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>2919456
>>2919458
>>2919460
didn't your mothers ever teach you not to reply to trolls?

>>2919463

BUT DIGIKEKS ARE RETARDED LIKE THAT. BETTER BE SURE.

>>2917982
How do you use the iPad? Ground glass between it and the film or something? I've tried it with my 6x6s and the pixels were way too obvious, even when I used my phone, which has much smaller pixels than the iPad.