I was assuming 35mm or maybe the smaller 120 film formats, but then film is film. My results with that technique were as good or better than I could get on an Epson V750 with Better Scanning templates. I was using Olympus OM macro lenses, which are good optics. There was more data, but not more information. When I 'camera scanned' 4x5 negatives, I couldn't see any improvement in image quality after reaching 2,667 ppi.

They seem quite happy with resolutions well below 4,000 ppi. There are enormous threads on the Large Format Photography Forum about scanning. He also notes that 2,000 ppi on a drum scanner is not the same as 2,000 ppi on a flatbed. Tim Parkin in the UK recommends 2,000 ppi for drum scanning large format negatives and positives. Getting all of the finest details and information contained in a piece of film requires getting 4000 dpi or more resolution from the film. Seems like a film scanner is as cheap, a lot easier, and probably produces better results more consistently. But there's another $1500 to drop if you don't already have one.īut there's another $1500 to drop if you don't already have one. One of the main things to look out for in cheap lighting panels, LED or not, is that whatever their stated specs are may not have anything to do with what they really are, which could lead you to all sorts of color issues that would be hard to trace without one of these wonderful meters. I guess I should stick the C700 on it and see exactly what it measures. When I need to make DSLR scans these days I have the camera mounted to a modified Beseler 4x5 enlarger and a Just/Normlicht lightbox underneath that I've had for at least twenty years and that works quite well. None of it is exactly cheap and the website is so clumsily designed it's hard to find things like pricing until you just stumble on to it. No data on uniformity though and it's hard to assess exactly how well their film holding and transport hardware works.

And while they never mention the Kelvin of their lights, they do publish a photo of the CRI screen from their Sekonic C700U color meter. Their lights are LED, either side diffused or direct diffused and have a CRI of either 95 or 99 depending on whether it's the 'pro' version or not. Go to the link provided in the original post. The big benefit of the purpose built options for me would be the increased efficiency in processing. Here's another well regarded option for a purpose built solution: Ī cheap florescent light box has been fine for me (I'm not a pixel peepping gear snob though). Which do you think would be better for digitizing film? Obviously theyu are designed for the purpose, but I'd want to know if they use LEDs or some type of fluorescent tube. Wondering if there are other specs to look in addition to CRI and Kelvin temp? I guess evenness of light might vary.ĮTA: Just found these, look great, and I prefer the smaller sizes. There are a bunch of others, much cheaper, but they don't specify CRI. I found a bunch at B&H, and only one has CRI rating (95) and color temp spec that I could find a Kaiser 8.7 x 6.3'. Any suggestions for a small, high quality light box for shooting film (35mm mainly, and some 120).

Light table for slides