A Comparison of Various Film Scanners and Digital Captures

How much image detail from 0.25" by 0.25" of film?

Comparison of drum scans, CCD film scans and direct digital captures. The idea of this study is to explore how much real detail can be extracted from a standard sized area of film -- arbitrarily chosen to be 0.25" by 0.25". Digital captures have been normalized to match the dimensions of a 35 mm frame, as explained below. My thanks to all who have contributed images, and in particular Jim Davis who helped get this project off the ground.

If you think you've got a worthy scan sample that you'd like to post, I'd like to see it. Feel free to email a snippet to rafeb@speakeasy.net.

The rules are simple: send a high-quality JPG of a raw scan snippet representing 0.25" by 0.25" of film. Eg., if it's a 4000 dpi scan, your snippet should be 1000 x 1000 pixels. No upsampling or downsampling, and no unsharp-masking. Please send a small overview image of the full frame as well (typically, 300x450 pixels or so.)

Viewing and Judging the images

The "constant" in this study is the area of film being scanned. Clearly, higher resolution scans will generate more pixels per unit area than lower-resolution scans. Please bear that in mind as you look at the snippets. The "fairest" way to deal with this issue is to download the images with your browser, open in your image editor, and either upsample or downsample to some reference size of your choosing.

Note also that fine details in highlights or shadows may be obscured by improper monitor setup.

What's it all mean?

Draw your own conclusions, and take this site "for what it's worth." You won't get anything like this from manufacturer's web sites or in their product literature. These are full-resolution, unprocessed scans of a very small area of film. Even the best of them are not very pretty. Film just doesn't look that good at the microscopic level.

This study isn't meant to be scientific. There are lots of objections that can be (and have been) raised concerning this project. Here's a partial list of factors I don't control for:

Photo technique, skill, subject
Lens quality
Film grain, speed, noise
Scan operator technique and skill
General condition of the scanner used
Effects of tonality on apparent sharpness
The condition and calibration of your monitor

The images here are mostly from skilled photo enthusiasts, and some professionals. I don't accept or post substandard or clearly incompetent submissions. I think of this as a sampling of what's achievable with each scanner represented. It doesn't mean that if you own that same brand of scanner, you will achieve the same results. It is not a "scanner comparison" in any scientific sense.

If film were perfect -- a simple reality check

A Perfect Scan
Another Perfect Scan

These are not film scans. They are 1000 x 1000 pixel images created via 6x downsampling of sharp medium format film scanned at 4000 dpi. What's the point? Only to show what one million pixels of real image data might look like. If information content were merely a function of the image dimensions or dpi, here's what our scans would look like.

Well, okay. There's one other point. These two images, like all the rest of the images on the site, are high-quality (low compression) JPEGs (JPG files). I offer these two images in response to the objection that JPEG compression effects preclude serious consideration of, or judgements based on the film scan samples.

Aztek Drum Scans -- As Jim Sent 'em
Photos and scans by J. Arthur Davis

jim2.jpg
jim3.jpg
jim4.jpg

Overview
35 mm, Gold 400

jim2: 580 x 540 @ 2000 dpi (0.29 x 0.27") [as given ]
jim3: 240 x 216 @ 2666 dpi (0.09 x 0.08") [as given ]
jim4: 720 x 640 @ 8000 dpi (0.09 x 0.08") [as given ]

Aztek Drum Scans -- "Standard" 0.25 x 0.25 snippets
Photos and scans by J. Arthur Davis

jtspor1a.jpg jtspor1b.jpg	Overview 35 mm, Gold 400	Drum scan snippets from jtspor~1.tif, each 667 x 667 pixels, representing 0.25" x 0.25" at native scan resolution of 2667 dpi.
buildinga.jpg buildingb.jpg buildingc.jpg	Overview 6x7 Kodak VPS	Drum scan snippets from collin~1.tif, each 667 x 667 pixels, representing 0.25" x 0.25" at native scan resolution of 2667 dpi. Note that some highlight detail is lost in each snippet, particularly buildingb.jpg
mouse1.jpg mouse2.jpg	Overview 4x5 chrome	Drum scan snippets from mousec~1.tif, each 1000 x 1000 pixels, representing 0.25" x 0.25" at native scan resolution of 4000 dpi. These can be fairly compared against sample1.jpg - sample5.jpg in in the group below.

Howtek 4500 Drum scan vs. LS-8000
Two Scans of the same image
Photo and scans by Lawrence Smith

Howtek 4500
Nikon 8000

Overview
35 mm, Kodak 100sw pushed two stops

4000 dpi scans courtesy of Lawrence Smith.
Howtek_4500: 1007 x 1007 pixels, representing 0.252" x 0.252" on the film @ 4000 dpi
Nikon_8000: 918 x 918 pixels, representing 0.23 x 0.23" on the film @ 4000 dpi.

Scanmate 5000 Drum vs LS-8000
Two Scans of the same image
Photo and scans by Dave King

Eye, LS-8000
Eye, Scanmate 5000

Overview
Mamiya 67, Fuji RDPIII, 150 mm.

Photo and scans by Dave King.
ScanMate scan air mounted. Nikon Scan air mounted, with dICE on.
Scanmate detail: 1182 x 1181 pixels, 0.233 x 0.232" on the film @ 5081 dpi.
Nikon detail: 978 x 978 pixels, 0.245 x 0.245" on the film @ 4000 dpi.

Heidelberg Tango Drum vs LS-8000
Two Scans of the same image
Photo and scans by Bill Hilton

Heidelberg Tango
LS-8000, NikonScan

Overview
645, Velvia

Photo and scans by Bill Hilton.
Tango scans at 4399 dpi. Nikon Scans at 4000 dpi.
Both images represent exactly 0.25" x 0.25" at the film.

Heidelberg Tango Drum vs LS-8000
Three Scans of the same image
Photo and scans by Paul Graham

Heidelberg Tango
LS-8000, Silverfast
LS-8000, Vuescan

Overview
6x7cm fuji 100 asa neg

Photo and scans by Paul Graham. All scans at 4000 dpi.
Download and view these in Photoshop at 200% or 300%. Very interesting!

Tango	215 x 161 pixels	0.054" x 0.040" on the film
Nikon/Silverfast	221 x 166 pixels	0.055" x 0.042" on the film
Nikon/Vuescan	219 x 164 pixels	0.055" x 0.041" on the film

Howtek 4000 Drum Scan
Photo and scans by John Vitollo

detail

Overview
6x7, Velvia 50

4000 dpi scans courtesy of John Vitollo.
800 x 800 pixels, representing 0.2" x 0.2" on the film.

Howtek 4500 Drum Scan
Photo and scan by Sunando Sen

detail

Overview
35 mm, Velvia 100

4000 dpi scan courtesy of Sunando Sen.
1002 x 1002 pixels, representing 0.251" x 0.251" on the film.

ICG Drum Scan
Photo and scan by Neil Snape

detail

Overview
Ektachrome 100 shot at ISO 80 pushed 2/3
Hasselblad with a 150MM and extensions

4380 dpi ICG drum scan courtesy of Neil Snape.
1095 x 1095 pixels, representing 0.250" x 0.250" on the film at 4380 dpi.

Nikon LS-9000
Photos and scans by Max Perl
Note: Max has applied USM to these scans, "usally 0.4 in radius, 1-10 in threshold and about 150-300 %"

detail #1	Overview #1	Gigabitfilm (BW), Nikon FE2. [Maybe] AIS 35/1.4 "but hard to remember."
detail #2	Overview #2	Gigabitfilm (BW). Nikkormat FTN,Nikkor F 50/2
detail #3	Overview #3	Velvia, Nikon FE2 with AIS 50/1.8

LS-8000 Scans -- "Standard" 0.25 x 0.25 snippets
Unless otherwise indicated, all photos and scans in this group by Raphael Bustin

sample1.jpg sample2.jpg sample3.jpg sample4.jpg sample5.jpg fern1000x1000	Overview1 Overview2 Overview3 Overview4 Overview5 Fern Overvew	35 mm, Gold 200 645, Portra 35 mm, Royal Gold 100 645, Portra 35 mm, Reala 645, Portra	Each snippet is 1000 x 1000 pixels, representing 0.25" x0.25" at native scan resolution of 4000 dpi
chrome #1 chrome #2 chrome #3 chrome #4 chrome #5	Overview Overview Overview Overview Overview	various 35 mm chromes	Each snippet is 1000 x 1000 pixels, representing 0.25" x0.25" at native scan resolution of 4000 dpi Note: some have argued that JPG compression compromises these samples. To dispel that notion, here's the scan snippet corresponding to chrome #2 as a TIF file.
fern667x667.jpg fishing.jpg jim.jpg duomo.jpg	Overvew Overvew Overvew Overvew	645, Portra 645, Portra 35 mm, Reala 35 mm, Gold 200	Scanned at 4000 dpi, downsampled to 2667 dpi. Each snippet 667 x 667 pixels, representing 0.25" x0.25" at the film surface. These are useful for comparison to Jim Davis' drum scans at 2667 dpi.
rp-raw4000.jpg rp-zap2400.jpg	Overvew	35 mm, Velvia 100F	Nikon LS-8000, photo and scan by Dave Littleboy rp-raw4000 is the 4000 dpi native scan rp-zap2400 is from Dave's "zap" sharpening process, which involves resampling down to 2400 dpi. Both snippets represent 0.25" x 0.25" of film.
Tech Pan #1 Tech Pan #2	Overvew	35 mm, Tech Pan	Nikon LS-8000, photo and scan by Dave Littleboy Mamiya 35/3.5, f/8, tripod, infinity focus. Ugly Tokyo street. Both snippets represent 0.25" x 0.25" of film at 4000 dpi.

Nikon LS-8000 vs. Leafscan 45
Photos & Nikon scans by Raphael Bustin
Leaf scans by Austin Franklin

Leaf, Image 1 Nikon, Image 1	Overvew	645, Portra 160	Leaf scan of 645 @ 2412 dpi Nikon scan of same image at 4000 dpi Both snippets represent 0.25" x 0.25" of film.
Leaf, Image 2 Nikon, Image 2	Overvew	645, Portra 160	Leaf scan of 645 @ 2412 dpi Nikon scan of same image at 4000 dpi Both snippets represent 0.25" x 0.25" of film.
Leaf, Image 3 Nikon, Image 3	Overvew	35 mm, Royal Gold 100	Leaf scan of 35 mm @ 5000 dpi Nikon scan of same image at 4000 dpi Both snippets represent 0.25" x 0.25" of film.

Epson 4870, Photos and scans by Michael Tienhaara

Epson 4870 #1
Epson 4870 #2

Overview

35 mm, Velvia

Epson 4870, 4800 dpi.
Both snippets: 1200 x 1200 pixels, 0.25" x 0.25" of film.
Photo and scan by Michael Tienhaara.

Epson 4990 vs. Nikon LS-8000
Photos and scans by R. Bustin

Epson 4990 Detail, no USM Epson 4990 Detail, with USM	Nikon LS-8000 Detail	Overview	Pentax 645, Fuji Reala Nikon scan upsampled from 4000 to 4800 dpi 1200 x 1200, 0.25" x 0.25" at native dpi of the Epson 4990
Epson 4990 Detail, heavy USM	Nikon LS-8000 Detail	Overview	Pentax 645, Fuji Reala Nikon scan upsampled from 4000 to 4800 dpi 1200 x 1200, 0.25" x 0.25" at native dpi of the Epson 4990

Epson 4990 vs. Microtek 2500
Photos and scans by R. Bustin

Epson Detail, no USM	Microtek Detail, no USM	Overview	4x5", Portra 160, Nikkor 90/f8 Microtek scan upsampled to 4800 dpi 1200 x 1200, 0.25" x 0.25" @ 4800 dpi (native res of Epson 4990)
Epson 4990 Detail, no USM Epson 4990 Detail, with USM	Microtek 2500 Detail	Overview	4x5", Portra 160, Nikkor 90/f8 Epson scan downsampled to 2500 dpi 625 x 625, 0.25" x 0.25" @ 2500 dpi (native res of Microtek 2500)

Epson 4990 vs. Leafscan 45 (MF Film)
Photo and scan by R. Bustin

Epson Detail, no USM
Epson Detail, with USM

Leaf Detail, no USM

Overview

645, Portra
Epson scan downsampled to 2400 dpi from 4800
600 x 600, 0.25" x 0.25" @ 2400 dpi (native res of Leafscan, on MF)

Epson V700 v. Epson 4990 v. Nikon LS-8000 (Same Negative)
Photo and V700 scan by Alan Bridgewater
LS-8000 and Epson 4990 scans by Raphael Bustin
All scans done at maximum optical resolution.

Epson 4990 Detail Epson V700 Detail LS-8000 Detail	Overview	Taking: Mamiya 645 Super, 80mm, Fuji Reala 4990 Scan: 4800 dpi, upsampled to 6400 dpi, cropped to 1500 x 1500 V700 Scan: 6400 dpi, 1500 x 1500. (0.234" x 0.234") using VueScan LS-8000 Scan: 4000 dpi, upsampled to 6400 dpi, cropped to 1500 x 1500
V700 detail, refocused V700 detail, refocused, with USM	Overview	Alan has rescanned the original with greater attention to focus. These were scanned with Epson Scan. Overall color is closer to my Nikon scan. Snippets are 1612 x 1612 pixels at 6400 dpi.

Other CCD Film Scanners

annika2.jpg	Overview	Velvia, 35 mm Minolta SE 5400	Photo and scan by Bret Douglas (aka Annika) scanned at 5400 dpi 1350 x 1350 pixels, representing 0.25 x 0.25" on the film
Windmill	Overview	Sensia (RA), 35 mm Minolta SE 5400	Photo and scan by Bart van der Wolf scanned at 5400 dpi 1350 x 1350 pixels, representing 0.25 x 0.25" on the film Canon 100mm macro lens at f/5.6, 1/250 sec.
Detail	Overview	Kodachrome64, Minolta SE 5400	Photo and scan by Meino de Graaf scanned at 5400 dpi 1350 x 1350 pixels, representing 0.25 x 0.25" on the film Leica M6, 24mm Elmarit
4300 dpi, NI proc 6000 dpi, no NI	Overview	Delta 100, 35 mm Imacon	Photo and scans by Jan Brittenson The 4300 dpi scan represents .23" x .23" of film The 6000 dpi scan represents .167 x .167" of film The 4300 dpi scan has been processed with NeatImage
Microtek 120tf #1 Microtek 120tf #2	Overview Overview	Ektachrome Pro, 6x6 Astia 100, 6x6 Microtek 120tf	Photos and scans by Karl Winkler Detail #1 is standard 0.25" x 0.25"snippet @ 4000 dpi Detail #2 is 696 x 477 representing 0.174" x 0.119" on the film @ 4000 dpi
Babies Bee	Overview Overview	Ektachrome, 35 mm Nikon LS-50	Photos and scans by Mike Engles Both details: 1000 x 100 pixels, 0.25" x 0.25" @ 4000 dpi
Garden Beach	Garden Overview Beach Overview	Fuji Superia ISO 400, 35 mm Canon FS-4000	Photos and scans by Bruce Graham Both details: 1000 x 1000 pixels, 0.25" x 0.25" @ 4000 dpi
Detail #1 Detail #2	Overview	E100G, 6x7 Epson 3200	Photos and scans by Michael Young Both details: 800 x 800 pixels, 0.25" x 0.25" @ 3200 dpi
Detail	Overview	Ilford Pan-F, 35mm Artixscan 4000tf	Photos and scan by Martin Wedelsb�ck Leica M2 with Summicron 40 at f2.8 Scanned with Silverfast Ai, Gepe-glass overlay 1000 x 1000 pixel, 0.25x0.25 inch @ 4000 dpi
Detail	Overview	Fujicolor Pro 160S, 35mm Nikon LS-4000	Photos and scan by Philip Homburg Nikon F4, probably with 180/2.8 Ais 1000 x 1000 pixel, 0.25x0.25 inch @ 4000 dpi
Detail-1 Image #1 Detail-2 Image #1	Overview, Image #1	Ektachrome 100 VS Nikon LS-9000	Photos and scan by Nuno Souto Summicron 50 at f2, Ziess rangefinder 1000 x 1000 pixel, 0.25x0.25 inch @ 4000 dpi
Detail-1 Image #2 Detail-2 Image #2	Overview, Image #2	Ektachrome 100 VS Nikon LS-9000	Photos and scan by Nuno Souto Summicron 50 at f4, Ziess rangefinder 1000 x 1000 pixel, 0.25x0.25 inch @ 4000 dpi

One Perfect Chrome Scanned on Several High End Film Scanners

Circon	Overview	Not the usual rules. Most of these scans were provided and arranged for by Neil Snape and his friends and associates. Most are downsampled, and sharpening is allowed. The detail is chosen specifically to demonstrate each scanner's handling of dynamic range. The original is a perfectly exposed Fuji RFP chrome. Please Note: The snippets in this section must be viewed on a properly calibrated monitor.
Circon, Profile City
Epson 4870
Fuji 5000
Fuji FinePix 2750 (ccd)
Howtek 4500 (drum)
ICG (drum)
Imacon P111 (ccd)
Lanovia
Nexscann
Scitex Supreme (ccd)
Tango (drum)
Nikon LS-8000 (ccd)
ScanMate 5000 (drum)
Howtek 4500 (drum)

Scanned Film vs. Scanned Optical Print
Photos, Film Scans, Prints by Raphael Bustin (except as noted)

Ciba Print LS-8000 film scan	Overview Ektachrome, 35 mm	Film Scan: 1070 x 1070 pixels, representing 0.268" x 0.268" of film at 4000 dpi Print Scan: Equivalent area from an 8x10" Cibachrome print scanned at 1600 dpi on an Epson 1640SU. Epson scan then downsampled to 1070 x 1070 pixels.
Ciba Print LS-8000 film scan	Overview Ektachrome, 35 mm	Film Scan: 1000 x 1000 pixels, representing 0.250" x 0.250" of film at 4000 dpi Print Scan: Equivalent area from an 8x10" Cibachrome print scanned at 1600 dpi on an Epson 1640SU. Epson scan then downsampled to 1250 x 1250 pixels.
BW Print LS-8000 film scan	Overview Tri-X, 35 mm, pushed 2 stops	Film Scan: 1000 x 1000 pixels, representing 0.250" x 0.250" of film at 4000 dpi Print Scan: Equivalent area from an 11x14" BW print scanned at 1600 dpi on an Epson 1640SU. Epson scan then downsampled to 1250 x 1250 pixels.
4x6" Lab Print LS-8000 film scan	Overview Reala, 35 mm	Film Scan: 1000 x 1000 pixels, representing 0.250" x 0.250" of film at 4000 dpi Print Scan: Equivalent area from a generic 4x6" film lab print scanned at 1600 dpi on an Epson 1640SU. Epson scan then downsampled to 1000 x 1000 pixels.

Digicam Captures

While not entirely germane to this study, it's tempting to compare film to digital capture, even though they are quite different in many regards. Toward this end, we need some rule for comparing these. For starters, I'm going to arbitrarily choose the 35 mm format as the standard for comparison. Furthermore, I'm going to simplify a bit. While the actual 35 mm film area is 24 x 36 millimeters, I'm going to call it 1.0 inch by 1.5 inch just to simplify the math. The errors from doing so are insignificant for the purposes of this study (specifically: about 5% error in each dimension,and 10.7% error in total area.)

This leads to a simple observation. The 0.25 inch by 0.25 inch "standard" film snippet used throughout this page is 1/6 the width, 1/4 the height and 1/24 the area of a 35 mm frame. Hence the following standard "snippet" for digicam captures: 1/4 the height and 1/6 the width of the digicam capture, at its best native resolution. In other words, the digicam snippet contains 1/24 the total pixel count, just as our standard film scan snippet represents 1/24 the image area of a 35 mm frame. For example, the popular Canon 10D, a 6 megapixel digital SLR, returns an image 2048 pixels high and 3072 pixels wide at its best resolution. Thus, a 10D "snippet" on this page is (2048 / 4) pixels high and (3072 / 6) pixels wide -- which works out to 512 x 512 pixels.

Canon 10D Captures
All images by Raphael Bustin

10D-1
10D-2
10D-3

Overview
Overview
Overview

Canon 10D. Think of the 10D as a filmscanner at 2048 dpi. Given that 0.25" x 0.25" is 1/24 the area of a 35 mm frame, the equivalent area of a 10D capture is 512 x 512 pixels. Each of these snippets began as a 512 x 512 pixel crop from a 10D capture, then upsampled to 667 x 667 to match the film scan snippets.

Canon 20D Captures
Images from Canon USA Website

20D #1, 584x584
20D #2, 584x584
20D #1, 1000x1000
20D #2, 1000x1000

Image 1 Overview
Image 2 Overview

Canon 20D. A full-res frame from a 20D is 3504 x 2336 pixels. Thus, the standard snippet is 584 x 584 pixels. The first two images are at 584 x 584. The second two are upsampled to 1000 x 1000.

Canon 1Ds Captures

1ds-1-676x676.jpg
1ds-2-676x676.jpg
1ds-1-1000x1000.jpg
1ds-2-1000x1000.jpg

Overview #1
Overview #2

Canon 1ds. RAW image size is 4056 x 2704. That works out to a snippet of 676 x 676 pixels. Second image upsized to 1000 x 1000 for ease of comparison.

Sony RX-100 Captures

_DSC1441_snippet.jpg
_DSC0635_snippet.jpg

_DSC1441 Overview
_DSC0635 Overview

Sony RX100. RAW image size is 5472 x 3648. That works out to a snippet of 912 x 912 pixels.

Canon 10D vs. Canon 35 mm Velvia
Photo and scans by Fernando Carello

Target Detail Canon 10D
Target Detail, Velvia Film Scan

Overview
Canon 10D vs. Canon Film SLR (same lens)

Photo and scan by Fernando Carello.
Film scan (1250 x 1250) @5000 dpi using Minolta 5400.
10D: 512 x 512, converted from RAW