An alternative digitisation method to scanning,

 with the possibility of higher quality results

5. Camera copying conclusions

We now arrive at the basic questions, is digital camera film copying worth carrying out? And how does it compare to scanning? Based on our experiences of it we have to say that it most definitely is, but this view is subject to some qualification in that it depends to some extent on what equipment you use and what you are comparing it against, and the use to which you intend to put the image files. So we'll break it down into a series of comparisons and end with an overall conclusion.

Digicam v DSLR

In some respects it's lens optical quality rather than image processing that can make the biggest difference between digicams and DSLR's as regards the image quality that's produced. If the lens used, perhaps in conjunction with CU lenses to get the necessary magnification, has poor optical quality as regards resolution or distortion, then the images produced aren't going to turn out as good as they otherwise might, and this applies as much to the standard lenses sold and used with many DSLR's as it does to digicams.

Using a decent digicam with reasonable resolution and lens optical quality in combination with cheap CU lenses for magnification, will produce images that are just as good as those obtained using a DSLR with it's standard lens and CU lenses so long as the lowest ISO speeds are used. The one advantage the use of a DSLR has is that of being able to use different lenses and accessories to achieve the required magnification which offers the possibility to attain higher image quality through the use of better optics. And here using a decent macro lens pays dividends.

The differences between the different camera types isn't just about image quality however, although that can be a major factor in some cases, but perhaps the ease and speed of use. If you only have a digicam that has auto-exposure, with no AEB bracketing or remote release option, then copying film images isn't going to be as quick and as easy to undertake as with a camera that has. 

Image Quality - Resolution

This is an important factor for which their is no one single answer, for much hangs on the intended use of the image files. If you only want small image files for viewing as individual images or as a slide show on either computer or TV screen then high resolution files are not needed. If however you might want to print them at some stage then the largest resolution it's possible to obtain is, within reason, the best. 

Viewed at a size to fill the screen on a fairly large high resolution LCD TV from a reasonable distance there was no discernable viewing difference between the 2mp files from the Epson digicam through to the 10mp ones from the Canon DSLR, the scanners producing sizes that fell between. All looked very similar as far as detail went, with perhaps the larger resolution files looking just ever so slightly sharper. This is however only apparent on making comparison and viewed in isolation the smaller files look fine.

However it was a totally different matter when the same files were viewed at sizes up to 100% on a computer screen at close quarters. Here the extra resolution stood out clearly and would thus matter significantly when prints were needed.

Image Quality - sharpness, tonal definition, and cleanliness's

The worst performance overall was obtained with the Epson 1640su flatbed scanner using it's TMA and is symptomatic of it's output which is clean, there is usually little hint of dust, dirt, or scratches, with only the worst defects occasionally showing up, but soft looking and ultimately quite disappointing.  It can capture a wide tonal range, almost as much as the Acer 2720s, but squanders it with output that's a bit like looking at a set of dreamy soft focus wedding shots even with sharpening via un-sharp mask invoked.

Our 3mp Epson 3000z digicams output is superior to this despite the smaller file size and lower resolution after cropping, being sharper and well defined as well as being quite clean taken at the maximum aperture. There was no need to stop the aperture down to improve the image quality. However the lower capture resolution did tell when images were viewed at larger magnifications, as did the loss of highlight and shadow detail in slides, although there was no problem with negative images in this respect.

Canon's 400D with 18-55mm/CU lens combination produces files that are of higher resolution and thus larger after cropping, and which are also quite clean, with more tonal retention in slides indicating a wider DR range than that of the digicam, although some loss of either highlight or shadow details still occurred to a certain extent. Canon's image processing came to the fore here in that colour negative images when reversed produced the best results in respect of colour rendition and accuracy in comparison to either of the scanners or the Epson 3000z. There was a certain consistency between the output from different film makes and types that didn't occur with the others where large variations often happened. Closing the aperture down to F11 was required to produce files that were reasonably sharp and detailed across the frame, though even at the maximum aperture of F5.6 they were still superior to that of the Epson 1640su scanner.

The 400D and 60mm macro lens combination builds on this performance by having the ability to record every bit as much detail as the Acer, and on occasion more, which really surprised us, but can do so whilst producing a clean image that is usually free of defects and sharp across the frame. It also produces marginally higher resolution. The one failing is the struggle it has to match the Acer for outright DR range tonal capture. 

Our Acer 2720s images are quite sharp and well defined, but far from clean on average, and quite dirty at times. It has the ability to record the finest details and extract the maximum from a slide film image but this includes every single piece of debris that exists on the film no matter how well it is cleaned before scanning, and is regrettably it's biggest downside. With clean images on fine grain film it's brilliant. Encounter one with faults that can't be removed with careful cleaning, or with large grain, and it shows it all.

Although both the scanners produce a better tonal range from a slide, using HDR changes things completely. The HDR images produced using either the Epson digicam or Canon DSLR can equal and occasionally better the tonal range output from the scanners.

Speed of use

In some respects this is where some of the biggest differences between scanning and camera copying lay. We have mentioned in the introduction to camera copying that scanning can be a slow and tiresome process. Just how slow it is we will describe now.

To scan 35mm film with our Epson 1640su flatbed and it's TMA requires a lot of time and patience. There is no batch scanning mode as such, although the twain software will automatically locate individual film images on slide or negative. Each one has to be adjusted for tonal output separately before scanning and importing into the image editor you are using for individually saving the files to your hard drive. Scanning of just 4 images at a time thus takes around 15-20 mins, so just 12-16 an hour. And this is without allowing for any time taken to make any subsequent image adjustments in the image editor before saving the files. So scanning images a roll of 36 exp film takes around 2½ - 3 hours minimum. Often it's taken us at least a whole afternoon, but mostly the greater part of a day.

Using the Acer with VueScan software is by comparison much quicker. By setting batch scanning with fixed focus, the scanner not re-acquiring focus with each separate frame, it is possible to scan up to 36 frames in an hour. These are automatically saved into a folder as they are scanned. They then have to be opened up in an image editor to be checked and adjusted as required. Most need alterations of some kind to get the best possible result- and cleaning. Whilst thus far quicker than using the Epson 1640su it's still quite slow overall, and we can sometimes, but not often, get 2 or 3 film rolls, slide or negative, scanned and adjusted in a day if we keep going - because it gets very boring, especially the cleaning.

With a digital camera it's possible to take single shot copies of 36 slides in around 10-15 mins. Transferring them via a card reader to a folder on your computer takes another 5-10 mins, (depending on the file size). Negatives take a bit longer to copy, a roll of 36 shots when cut in strips of 4 take around 15-20mins. You must then allow the time needed to open them in an image editor and make any necessary adjustments. For negatives this of course means reversing them and removing the colour mask cast.

How long this can take depends on what you do and how familiar you are with editing. We can deal with 36 shots in around 20-30mins, which isn't really any longer than the time taken to open, check, and adjust to taste 36 scanned negative image files, because although they are automatically reversed when the scanning takes place it doesn't mean the file is ready to use as it stands. Few we have found have acceptable image colours and tonal range and it can take just as long, sometimes longer, to adjust them for correct tonal hues and tonal range as 36 digital camera copy negative files. 

Producing HDR files from slides isn't much slower than single slide shot copying, and is probably quicker in the long run thanks to the Photomatix batch processing. Taking three shots per image using AEB with the Canon 400D means 36 slides (108 shots) takes around 20-25mins on average when taking your time, i.e. not rushing. Transferring to computer takes about 10 mins. Batch processing with Photomatix takes 15-20mins. However, as the software can batch process large amounts, and folders and sub-folders in sequential order, you can copy several sets at once, or as many slides as you want, arrange them in folders to suit, and then go away and do something else while it gets on with the job. When processed it will store the HDR images created in a separate folder within the original folder. Now that's what we call batch processing! You still need to open the images and make final adjustments, but as we have indicated this is the same for any image file, whatever the source of it's generation, camera or scanner. Camera copy files of course rarely if ever need attention in respect of cleaning which is a huge advantage both in terms of time and image quality.

Final Conclusions

It's difficult to describe adequately just how different, and easier and quicker, copying slides and negatives with a digital camera is in comparison to scanning when using the DIY macro stand we made. When we decided to investigate the possibility we weren't quite sure what the final outcome would be. There is no doubt in our minds that using any type of digital camera that can achieve the magnification needed to undertake slide and negative copying is far better than using a flatbed scanner both as regards speed of use and image quality so long as lens optical image distortion is low. But it is also clear that using a DSLR with decent resolution and DR capture range, and options such as AEB and remote release use, in combination with a good quality macro lens, gives the ability to produce image files at least the equal to those from the best film scanners, but with greater ease and more quickly when larger quantities are involved, even if HDR is used.

Perhaps best of all however is that it has ended up hardly costing us anything at all in terms of extra expenditure as we had nearly all the equipment needed, and what we didn't was made by ourselves in typical DIY fashion, cheaply and easily using simple materials, whilst the extra software was found as freeware. Whilst it might be the case that making a film copy macro stand to the standards required might not be within everybody's capabilities it should be for the vast majority, especially if you are prepared to spend the time, effort and care needed to construct it. 

Not everyone will be in the same fortunate position as us as regards camera equipment and accessories. But even if you have to purchase some or all of the extra bits needed over and above the camera you own to undertake camera copying of your slides and negatives in the manner we have described using the macro stand, it might still be better and more productive than buying a scanner to do the job. If you have a DSLR for example then purchasing a macro lens might cost as much or more than a scanner, although not as much as for most dedicated types, but it can be used for so much more than just film copying, and is thus a much more flexible, productive, and economically viable proposition.

That digital camera film copying can be undertaken more quickly and easily than scanning whilst producing high image quality means we have now finally reached the stage where consideration can be given to the complete digitisation of our film images, a task we intend to begin shortly, since it will probably take rather less time to complete than the many years we previously calculated it would via scanning, and so no longer looks so daunting or off-putting a task.