Lightbox for film scanning

[cablerelease]

I'm having trouble finding anyone recommending any other lightbox besides the Kaiser Slimlite Plano:

(https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1325594-REG/kaiser_202453_slimlite_plano_5000k_battery.html (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1325594-REG/kaiser_202453_slimlite_plano_5000k_battery.html))

This one is out of stock everywhere I can find it. Does anyone have experience with anything else that they would recommend? This one is in stock and looks like a decent candidate but I haven't found many reviews or many people talking about it for film scanning. They don't specify color temperature or CRI ratings, etc.:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1183015-REG/porta_trace_gagne_69_lp_blk_led_light_panel_6.html

[Jim Noel]

See if your doctor,clinic,or hospital has gone completely digital for x-rays and is ready to discard their x-ray viewer. I have one, and procured one for the college where I taught for 20 years.

[Dugan]

FYI,
My attempts to use fluorescent bulb light boxes have been unsuccessful.

[Leszek Vogt]

Looks to me that a larger Kaiser is available (at the bottom of the page), but it costs more.

Les

[cablerelease]

Looks to me that a larger Kaiser is available (at the bottom of the page), but it costs more.

Les

Yeah, I saw they have the larger one but I'm trying to avoid it both for cost and size reasons. I won't be shooting anything larger than 4x5 so it's overkill.

[sanking]

Yeah, I saw they have the larger one but I'm trying to avoid it both for cost and size reasons. I won't be shooting anything larger than 4x5 so it's overkill.

B&H also sells a smaller 4X5 Logan light panel.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1416812-REG/logan_electric_750218_a7a_slim_edge_light.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIr4zn_5OW6QIVCj0MCh2zfAkvEAQYASABEgIpp_D_BwE

Sandy

[cablerelease]

B&H also sells a smaller 4X5 Logan light panel.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1416812-REG/logan_electric_750218_a7a_slim_edge_light.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIr4zn_5OW6QIVCj0MCh2zfAkvEAQYASABEgIpp_D_BwE

Sandy

I anticipate getting a panaroma back for my 4x5 so I don't think that little one will be best long term.

Does anyone have any opinions on the Porta-Trace/Gagne light boxes? Such as the one I posted in my first comment?

[Drew Wiley]

If you're doing anything with color you'll need a relatively expensive lightbox. There are past threads where Bob S. as well as myself explain why, but the main reason is that these devices are rarely what they claim in terms of color accuracy or evenness. There's quite a bit involved to making an accurate one.

[Peter De Smidt]

Make your own. I use a Pixel P50 as the light source, white, solid PVC for the box, and white acrylic for the top.

[Drew Wiley]

I made mine too - a big so-so version just for sorting out negatives and chromes, but also a smaller very precise one for color repro work and critical evaluation.

[cablerelease]

I made mine too - a big so-so version just for sorting out negatives and chromes, but also a smaller very precise one for color repro work and critical evaluation.

I will almost exclusively be scanning 4x5 color negs and some transparencies. I'm not opposed to building my own but I kind of assumed buying one would be the same price or cheaper. But, because so many are out of stock for the next month or so I may need to build my own.

Peter, good call on using a cinema light for a light source. Those are meant to be highly color accurate. I may go that route.

Which color temperature is best to set on the light source for scanning color negs? Daylight 5500k?

[Peter De Smidt]

5-6k should be fine.

[Greg]

About 20 years ago I accepted the job of digitizing a collection of several thousand turn of the century glass plates. Acquired a graphiclite D5000 Standard Viewer. The lightbox wasn't an inexpensive purchase back then, but its balanced and even light offset its cost. Mine even has quarter, half, three quarter life, and replace bulbs indicator lights. After all these years, the bulbs are still like new. Actual lit up light area measures about 10" x 11". Illumination is essentially 99.9% even.The unit is a bit large when compared to present day LED light boxes. Even have a graphiclite viewing station in my darkroom. Found it at a state surplus store for about $20.00.

My model also known as a GTI Graphic Technology GLX 10/GLX-10LG D5000 Standard Viewer. Look for one now on eBay. Mine set me back quite a few hundred dollars back when.

[cablerelease]

Welp. It turns out I found the Kaiser that everyone likes, on eBay, shipping from a seller in the UK, for the same price that it would have cost from B&H in the states.

For anyone else looking:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/KAISER-2453-SLIMLITE-PLANO-LED-LIGHT-BOX-NEGATIVE-SLIDE-VIEWING-22-x-16cm/192589990190?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649

[Sasquatchian]

Even more important that color temperature is Color Rendering Index or CRI. A lot of cheap LED panels have the approximately correct daylight-ish color temperature but are woefully inadequate in their CRI and it's almost always the R9 value that is way too low, resulting in an overall look of correct color but with reds being quite weak. And if the maker of the panel won't give a breakdown of the CRI that becomes a red flag - pun sort of intended - for their performance. And others only average a portion of the CRI readout to disguise their performance. Of course the easiest way it to use your trusty Sekonic C-700U to measure these yourself, and if you don't have one already, consider one as it's a great tool that will help troubleshoot and keep you from guessing.

[Drew Wiley]

I use expensive German color matching tubes that are CRI 98, 5000K. LED panels won't give you that level of accuracy, and are generally marketed using a substantial BS coefficient, which any good color temp meter will soon detect. A proper light box will also need a customized paint to compensate for the yellowish flavor of the diffuser system, which only exists in the most expensive units per size category. I had the advantage of access to a serious industrial spectrophotometer when batching my own liner paint. Getting truly even diffusion at the same time is also tricky. A couple brands have already been mentioned, Kaiser and Graphiclite, but Just Normlicht was also a good brand. But beware of low cost casual options by anyone; you get what you pay for.

[Drew Wiley]

Old MacBeth Prooflites are indeed cheap, but if you have to replace the bulbs, or if the diffuser has yellowed, or a ballast has gotten squirrely, then you won't have a bargain at all. XRite now owns the old MacBeth product line. The electronic ballasts found on nearly all top-end boxes that don't have primitive hold-down starters is that if something goes wrong with a high-frequency ballast in some kind of power surge, it can domino out of commission solid state equipment in the vicinity. One more reason for especially solid wiring in your work area. After a brief review of what B&H still has, things haven't changed much over the years. You can still expect to pay at least $300 for a small Just Normlicht light box. But I think B&H still sells Normlicht as well as MacBeth fluorescent tubes by themselves if you want to attempt a DIY project. I use moderately expensive LED rim panels above my copystand and they are fine for web quality color, but not for anything really serious. But XRite has especially appropriate versions of these too for repro standards. I have never asked the price, because I can't even afford the defibrillator first.

[Alan Klein]

I'm having trouble finding anyone recommending any other lightbox besides the Kaiser Slimlite Plano:

(https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1325594-REG/kaiser_202453_slimlite_plano_5000k_battery.html (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1325594-REG/kaiser_202453_slimlite_plano_5000k_battery.html))

This one is out of stock everywhere I can find it. Does anyone have experience with anything else that they would recommend? This one is in stock and looks like a decent candidate but I haven't found many reviews or many people talking about it for film scanning. They don't specify color temperature or CRI ratings, etc.:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1183015-REG/porta_trace_gagne_69_lp_blk_led_light_panel_6.html

I have the Kaiser Slimlite Plano. I checked the Kelvin with my NEC Monitor Spectraview II puck both on rechargeable battery and on AC power connected modes. The battery had a slightly higher Kelvin although I assume the AC powered is more consistent over time. But I didn't check that situation. Good luck with your selection.

[cablerelease]

I have the Kaiser Slimlite Plano. I checked the Kelvin with my NEC Monitor Spectraview II puck both on rechargeable battery and on AC power connected modes. The battery had a slightly higher Kelvin although I assume the AC powered is more consistent over time. But I didn't check that situation. Good luck with your selection.

Wonderful, thanks for this. This is quite good in my opinion. That, plus the fact that it's rated 95 CRI makes me see why this is a great lightbox. For those who didn't see my earlier post I'm thankful I found a seller in the UK on eBay selling this exact Kaiser model (new and for the same price as B&H). It should be here in less than a week! Can't wait to get scanning.

[cablerelease]

In an effort to make this post informative for others... In my research I came across this company that looks to be selling some very nice equipment for scanning including some beautiful 95 and 99 CRI lightboxes:

https://www.negative.supply/

Perhaps this forum is already aware of them, but figured I would post it on this thread for those looking for lightbox options.

[Peter De Smidt]

The 4x5 looks like a good value, but the 8x10 is incredibly expensive. My 8x10 light source cost less than $300, and it gave me two extra terrific light panels. All I needed for construction was a decent table saw and a drill.

[sperdynamite]

I use Negative Supply equipment and it is fantastic. The light panel is not available yet but what I do have from them is built like a tank and does it's job perfectly.

[Tom Kershaw]

The 4x5 looks like a good value, but the 8x10 is incredibly expensive. My 8x10 light source cost less than $300, and it gave me two extra terrific light panels. All I needed for construction was a decent table saw and a drill.

Peter,

Do you have any plans written up for how you constructed the light source?

Tom

[mdarnton]

I bought a small LED movie light for 4x5 and smaller. Then got a 1/4" thick piece of white (milky) plexiglass to cover it. The plexi diffuses the individual bulbs sufficiently to give a totally even source, very bright, and it worked really great. I thought about, but not gotten around to, buying a larger movie light for larger film, then bought a scanner, instead. Along the way I got a large artists' light table, this one: https://www.amazon.com/Huion-L4S-Light-Box-Illumination/dp/B00J0UUHPO

The illumination level is sufficient, but the lights are all around the edge. It's not visible to the eye, but the camera easily sees the brighter edge. I think I remember the center being OK for 5x7, being sufficiently far from the edges, but if I were doing it again, I'd buy a large panel movie light and a sheet of plexi, $60-120 or so, because I can also use the light as a light, now that Zoom conferencing is a common thing in our house.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'll take some pictures soon, but these next two weeks are the busiest of my year. Thus, it'll take a bit. It's just a carefully constructed box made out of 1x4" white, solid pvc, with an open bottom (for the Pixel P50), and inside ledge for diffusion, and a glass top. The whole light source slides between two wooden guides. I use the scanner to take 3 photos of 8x10 negatives, stitching the photos together in Lightroom to get a resulting raw file.

[Drew Wiley]

Horrors. And I thought my mid-quality $600 LED panel was just marginally acceptable. I'm planning on using it only for copystand web applications, not anything demanding serious color repro. But maybe you guys are talking about black and white applications instead.

[sperdynamite]

Horrors. And I thought my mid-quality $600 LED panel was just marginally acceptable. I'm planning on using it only for copystand web applications, not anything demanding serious color repro. But maybe you guys are talking about black and white applications instead.

I don't think anyone here is doing 'serious color repro'. Only people working for museums are archives really need that level of output. Using the Kaiser I am getting excellent scans. Are better scans possible? Sure. But I'm not buying a Heidelberg Tango just to make it happen. The theoretical ideal and practical can coexist here.

[Peter De Smidt]

These high CRI TCLI video lights likely have much better response than light sources in consumer scanners. Furthermore, there are huge strides being made with LED development. Cheap new units can be better that older professional units of not that long ago.

[sperdynamite]

One question I have is that back in 'the day', were people obsessing over the color differences from output methods such as Dye Transfer vs RA4? I'm sure there were differences. Same with Cibachrome and whatever other color processes were out there that I'm not aware of. I'm 36 so it's always been RA4 and ciba went away in college before I ever had the chance to try it. My takeaway has been that there are just inherent differences in every process, and you use each one within the limits of your needs and practicality. Much like with bit rates and color spaces, you take what you can get. If my Panasonic S1R shot in lab color and made true 16 bit files then it would be all the better, but it doesn't. So while "Plato's Scanner" may be out there somewhere, and maybe it's just a Tango...I have to use what's in front of me. For me, just from a purely visual and aesthetic space, I am quite happy with the output I'm getting.

[mdarnton]

Yes, exactly! It's probably not the pure technician's point of view, but when I see a picture in any form it doesn't really look like the real thing in so many different ways that getting nitpicky about color values being slightly off just seems like so much [can't find family-friendly word to go here]. I'm sure some people could argue all day about it just for the joy of enlightening us to their own brilliance . . . I can't get into that, but I'm sure someone is going to do it soon.

[Drew Wiley]

Sperdynamite : Yes, people "back in the day" would spend huge sums of money for one particular type of print versus another. And yes, the "best" print medium is the one you personally enjoy and understand how to do best. But "back in the day" there were also significant differences in the longevity of prints and the amount of effort and materials involved, which inherently factored into price parameters. Chromogenic prints (or RA4) were dirt cheap to make, dye transfers very laborious and expensive, with emerging Cibachrome somewhere in between if well made... Responding to mdarnton, Being precise might be "nitpicky", but that's the attitude necessary to do color printing well, even with RA4 materials. If you just want to have some fun, do it, whatever. The question is not about duplicating visual reality, which is impossible anyway; and the ability to recognize the specific limitations of any particular medium is in fact the first truth one should accept about color photography if one is to do anything eloquent with it. But let's face it, it's a lot easier to join the orchestra if you know how to play a Stradivarius rather than a gut bucket.

[Drew Wiley]

Back to the original query. It's encouraging to see Solux, a particularly respected source, now offering an overhead LED lighting strip with a published spectrogram nearly matching black body results, with several key color temps to choose from, and with a CRI of 97, which they claim is provides a unique level of quality. These start around $400. They have many related things which might be of service in this particular conversation. It's companies like these that can provide real answers without wading through the BS and deceptive marketing inherent to ordinary sources.

[sanking]

For what it is worth I have been quite pleased with the Kaiser 10X15" LED light panel. I am digitizing LF film with the panel placed about three inches from the film (on glass) and lighting is very uniform. I am mainly interested in B&W film but I have digitized quite a number of 4X5/5X7 color negative and transparencies, and with my digital camera set to AWB the colors look quite acceptable. Unfortunately nearly all of my color slides and negatives, made from about 1980 through 2005, have experienced significant shifts in color and fading and thus require post digitizing processing in PS. In my case don't believe there would be much to be gained by investing in a more expensive light source, and fortunately since I work for myself I get to make these decisions.

I settled on a work flow with a Sony a7r IV that involves three-pass stitching of 4X5 and 5X7, with pixel shifting. After merging in PS the final size of my 5X7 files are about 50X70 inches at 360 ppi, and image quality is similar to what I get with a Howtek drum scanner, though processing a color negative is much easier with the Howtek.



Sandy

[Tom Kershaw]

Sandy,

Is the Sony A7R IV the first camera you've tried camera based digitising with? I've made some attempts with a Fuji X-T2 and have found the process works better than I had expected, especially with large format film. Although the level of quality of reproduction I'm aiming for is for simple web type usage, not fine prints, with the limitations of a single 24mp exposure in mind.

Tom

[Alan Klein]

Do you use the Sony A7Riv for digital picture taking too?

[sanking]

Sandy,

Is the Sony A7R IV the first camera you've tried camera based digitising with? I've made some attempts with a Fuji X-T2 and have found the process works better than I had expected, especially with large format film. Although the level of quality of reproduction I'm aiming for is for simple web type usage, not fine prints, with the limitations of a single 24mp exposure in mind.

Tom

Hi Tom,

I previously digitized with a Sony a7r (36 mp) most of my archive of 35mm color slides. In that case I was able to capture with just one shot almost all of the detail, and tonal range, on the film with 36 mp and a sensor with pretty wide dynamic range.

With the 4X5 and 5X7 film I am trying to digitize at about the same quality as with my Howetek drum scanner. With the Sony a7r iv and high quality macro lens one shot is not capable of capturing all of the detail in 4X5 or 5X7 film so I use pixel shifting in combination with 3-pass stitching. The Sony a7r iv has a 16-shot pixel shift mode that shifts the sensor in half-pixel increments to capture 16 separate images that can be combined to create a 240.8 mp (19,008 px x 12,672 px) RAW files using Sony’s Imaging Edge Desktop software. Each of the three pixel shift shots have to be processed in Image Edge software, then combined in PS with Photomerge. Final image size is about 900 mp for 5X7 files after flattening and changing color space from RGB to Gray Scale.

With a 24 mp camera you should be able to get enough image quality to make very nice prints up to 11X14 or 16X20 in size. As you fine tune the process you will learn how to optimize this type of digitizing, which requires a good stable camera stand aligned with the media to be digitized, and some type of method to prevent flare from ambient light.

Sandy

[Kirk Gittings]

Hi Tom,

I previously digitized with a Sony a7r (36 mp) most of my archive of 35mm color slides. In that case I was able to capture with just one shot almost all of the detail, and tonal range, on the film with 36 mp and a sensor with pretty wide dynamic range.

With the 4X5 and 5X7 film I am trying to digitize at about the same quality as with my Howetek drum scanner. With the Sony a7r iv and high quality macro lens one shot is not capable of capturing all of the detail in 4X5 or 5X7 film so I use pixel shifting in combination with 3-pass stitching. The Sony a7r iv has a 16-shot pixel shift mode that shifts the sensor in half-pixel increments to capture 16 separate images that can be combined to create a 240.8 mp (19,008 px x 12,672 px) RAW files using Sony’s Imaging Edge Desktop software. Each of the three pixel shift shots have to be processed in Image Edge software, then combined in PS with Photomerge. Final image size is about 900 mp for 5X7 files after flattening and changing color space from RGB to Gray Scale.

With a 24 mp camera you should be able to get enough image quality to make very nice prints up to 11X14 or 16X20 in size. As you fine tune the process you will learn how to optimize this type of digitizing, which requires a good stable camera stand aligned with the media to be digitized, and some type of method to prevent flare from ambient light.

Sandy

Sandy,
My Imacon died and I am looking at this approach. What lens are you using?

[sanking]

Do you use the Sony A7Riv for digital picture taking too?

Hi Alan,

I plan to use the a7r iv eventually for normal picture but so far have not. But I bet it will give excellent results in the 5X7 large format film setting.:o

Sandy

[sanking]

Sandy,
My Imacon died and I am looking at this approach. What lens are you using?

Hi Kirk,

I have been using a Sigma 70 mm f/2.8 DG Macro Art for digitizing 4X5 and 5X7 film. No complaints about sharpness, which is superb, but manual focus is "by wire" and for this application I would really prefer mechanical focusing.
Have also used a 75mm Apo Rodagon D lenses, manual focus of course, with bellows. Bellows is an older Noveflex for Nikon F, with Nikon F to Sony E body adaptor, and Nikon F to 42mm adaptor for the lens.

With the great dynamic range and high resolution of the Sony a7r iv, especially with pixel shifting, it is hard to go wrong with this approach.

Sandy

[Kirk Gittings]

Hi Kirk,

I have been using a Sigma 70 mm f/2.8 DG Macro Art for digitizing 4X5 and 5X7 film. No complaints about sharpness, which is superb, but manual focus is "by wire" and for this application I would really prefer mechanical focusing.
Have also used a 75mm Apo Rodagon D lenses, manual focus of course, with bellows. Bellows is an older Noveflex for Nikon F, with Nikon F to Sony E body adaptor, and Nikon F to 42mm adaptor for the lens.

With the great dynamic range and high resolution of the Sony a7r iv, especially with pixel shifting, it is hard to go wrong with this approach.

Sandy

Thanks. I have an A7rII. I think I will rent a III and try it out.

[Peter De Smidt]

As long as a fixed magnification is fine, I prefer extension tubes to bellows. I particularly like the Nikon version, each of which had a threaded foot. I mount the extension tube on a an Arca compatible rail, sliding the rail to achieve focus. In my use it was more rigid and less kludgy than using a PB-4.

[Kirk Gittings]

As long as a fixed magnification is fine, I prefer extension tubes to bellows. I particularly like the Nikon version, each of which had a threaded foot. I mount the extension tube on a an Arca compatible rail, sliding the rail to achieve focus. In my use it was more rigid and less kludgy than using a PB-4.

Thanks

[Peter De Smidt]

If you're doing 4x5 in one shot, a 50-80mm enlarging lens would be in its wheel-house.
Here's a PN-1 extension tube combined with and M2

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7f0ymhzfnuqd84z/IMG_20200509_194109.jpg?raw=1

[Kirk Gittings]

If you're doing 4x5 in one shot, a 50-80mm enlarging lens would be in its wheel-house.
Here's a PN-1 extension tube combined with and M2

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7f0ymhzfnuqd84z/IMG_20200509_194109.jpg?raw=1

I’m planning on stitching. I need a larger file that a single capture can give me. I put too much effort into a file to not be able to print large.

[Peter De Smidt]

Even with pixel-shift?

[Kirk Gittings]

Even with pixel-shift?

That I can’t answer till I try it. Have you tried it? My bread and butter has become large prints.

[Peter De Smidt]

No, but I trust Sandy's results. I expect that doing what he does, i.e. doing a 3 frame stitch with pixel shift, would be the best way to go. That's about 1/3-1/4th magnification. I'm not sure what the best lens would be in that range.

[sanking]

Peter,

Just want to say that I appreciate your very early experimentation with this method of digitizing film. As I recall there was a lot of skepticism from PMT advocates back then, but thanks for hanging in there. And no disrespect to drum scanner owners, as I am one of them. But as good as they are, drum scanners are a product of 1990s technology, and with their hundreds of moving parts prone to failure. On the other hand digital sensor technology is constantly increasing in resolution and sensitivity, at lower cost and with few or no moving parts, so highly dependable and reliable.


Sandy

[sanking]

That I can’t answer till I try it. Have you tried it? My bread and butter has become large prints.

Kirk,

BTW, if possible rent or borrow a Sony a7r iv for your tests. The a7r iii is a very good camera but the pixel shifting mode of the a7r iv is more powerful, and results in much higher effective resolution, than that of the a7r iii.

The increase in actual resolution with pixel shifting is something that I would not have imagined, or believed, until I tested it myself with a high resolution USAF target, and found that the theoretical limit with the a7r iv and 16 shot pixel shifting was in the 175-200 lpm range, almost 2x what would be possible with the sensor in regular shooting mode.

Sandy

[Peter De Smidt]

Thanks, Sandy. That's very kind of you to say.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Sandy: Reading your account makes me wonder to what extent stitching with a Sony is a hands-off process? If the camera can make the images and software stitch hands-off... then we have a process that approaches a scanner's "convenience". Tired of waiting on a scanner, I'm back to camera scanning - though with a Nikon D750 because I just don't enjoy digital shooting per se. Sold off the Sony.... and frankly that was easier at this with its 12X zoom manual focus. But seeking out a used Imacon or Howtek.... which are the other options (eventually) ain't on my list for now. I've not done stitching so far despite Mark's (luminous Landscape) encouraging articles years back, but I'm convinced it is the future as the scanning tech fades from development. I'm using Negative Solutions and Negative Lab Pro which force Lightroom (though I prefer Capture One), and digitizing is better than it used to be - especially with 35mm, and certainly quicker on a one-scan than my aging and much serviced and retrofitted Nikon LS8000. As a beginner with 4X5 these days, I guess scanning's the latest mod to my hybrid process.

[sanking]

Sandy: Reading your account makes me wonder to what extent stitching with a Sony is a hands-off process? If the camera can make the images and software stitch hands-off... then we have a process that approaches a scanner's "convenience". Tired of waiting on a scanner, I'm back to camera scanning - though with a Nikon D750 because I just don't enjoy digital shooting per se. Sold off the Sony.... and frankly that was easier at this with its 12X zoom manual focus. But seeking out a used Imacon or Howtek.... which are the other options (eventually) ain't on my list for now. I've not done stitching so far despite Mark's (luminous Landscape) encouraging articles years back, but I'm convinced it is the future as the scanning tech fades from development. I'm using Negative Solutions and Negative Lab Pro which force Lightroom (though I prefer Capture One), and digitizing is better than it used to be - especially with 35mm, and certainly quicker on a one-scan than my aging and much serviced and retrofitted Nikon LS8000. As a beginner with 4X5 these days, I guess scanning's the latest mod to my hybrid process.

Not hands off at all as there are lots of steps involved both in digitizing the film and then processing in software. But in spite of the many steps I still find it much more time effective to digitize a sheet of 5X7 film with lightbox and camera than to make scan with a high end flatbed or drum scanner. So it makes sense to use a camera if you already have one as high quality digitizing is definitely feasible. High end flatbed, drum scanners and dedicated film scanners such as the Nikon LS8000 make excellent scans, but the technology is old and takes a lot of work to keep it going. Kind of like the aging human body I guess, still works but needs a lot of care to keep going!

Sandy

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

FWIW, I've used a Logan A-5A from some years back and it seems to work fine. I mis-documented here the other day. I keep confusing Negative Supply, Negative Lab Pro and Negative Solutions! Too many negs! I'm actually using holders from Negative Supply for 35 and 4X5 and will soon have the 120. The 35mm scrolling holder is amazing and the 120 will follow in the same mold. The 4X5 is just a basic flat piece of translucent acryllic.... WAY better than nano glass for this purpose. I have not tried wetting the surface first for 4X5 because the negs lie "flat enough" but I'm sure that would add. Mostly, I'm scanning as quickly as I can with the camera to then move the image into post where Negative Lab Pro manages the conversion which has forced me back to LR. Eventually, I may try stitching. Won't be convinced it's worth the buzz until I see it in a side-by-side 16 X 20 on the wall. Kind of on the fence whether to scale up Piezo printing I've done on an Epson SC600... which limits size... or whether to toy with enlargers. Latter is a remote possibility given constraints, but may not be completely out of the question. Nearest college lab is a good 30 minutes or more.... and it does seem to me that ink printing is pretty doggone fine - ESPECIALLY for color. But B&W.... hmmm.... still to be determined?

[Kirk Gittings]

For what it is worth I have been quite pleased with the Kaiser 10X15" LED light panel. I am digitizing LF film with the panel placed about three inches from the film (on glass) and lighting is very uniform. I am mainly interested in B&W film but I have digitized quite a number of 4X5/5X7 color negative and transparencies, and with my digital camera set to AWB the colors look quite acceptable. Unfortunately nearly all of my color slides and negatives, made from about 1980 through 2005, have experienced significant shifts in color and fading and thus require post digitizing processing in PS. In my case don't believe there would be much to be gained by investing in a more expensive light source, and fortunately since I work for myself I get to make these decisions.

I settled on a work flow with a Sony a7r IV that involves three-pass stitching of 4X5 and 5X7, with pixel shifting. After merging in PS the final size of my 5X7 files are about 50X70 inches at 360 ppi, and image quality is similar to what I get with a Howtek drum scanner, though processing a color negative is much easier with the Howtek.



Sandy

I bought the same Kaiser and found my sample to be very uneven-shifting nearly 1/2 stop from top to bottom and not evenly. I'm shipping it back tomorrow. I think I should give another sample a try before I give up.

[sanking]

I bought the same Kaiser and found my sample to be very uneven-shifting nearly 1/2 stop from top to bottom and not evenly. I'm shipping it back tomorrow. I think I should give another sample a try before I give up.

In general the Kaiser light box gets very good reviews so sounds like something may be wrong with the one you have, could be a few dead leds strips.

One question, though, were you digitizing with the film media directly on the led panel? If so, you should try to place the film on a sheet of AN Glass located about two inches above the led panel. I constructed a small box for this purpose and place the glass over the top of the box.

Sandy

[Robert Tilden]

A naive question... If you're shooting/copying/scanning with a digital camera then is having a 100% color-accurate source really necessary? Or am I misunderstanding how a lightbox will be used for scanning? Or is the proposal to use a film camera...

[domaz]

I bought the same Kaiser and found my sample to be very uneven-shifting nearly 1/2 stop from top to bottom and not evenly. I'm shipping it back tomorrow. I think I should give another sample a try before I give up.

I'm interested in this. My Kaiser I recently bought seems to have visible unevenness at the very top and bottom edges, I can see where the LED lights actually are in other words at the top and bottom. I haven't looked it or measured anything enough to know if the area towards the middle has unevenness... I will do that now.

[Alan Klein]

I bought the same Kaiser and found my sample to be very uneven-shifting nearly 1/2 stop from top to bottom and not evenly. I'm shipping it back tomorrow. I think I should give another sample a try before I give up.

I have a small 5000 Kelvin Kaiser that I checked out with my "puck" from my Spectraview II calibration kit for my NEC monitor. It's the small one so it might be different than their larger units. I tested it on batteries and with the 120vac powering it.

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree with Sandy's advice. I've looked into this a fair amount. I've never found an illumination system that was ready to go right out of the box. Whether I'm making the unit myself using LEDs, or using some kind of panel, I make a container for it, using various reflectors and diffusors to get the the light even over the area of the negative. I've found that it's very helpful to have a light source measured at where the negative sits, to be at least two inches larger than the negative. So the light source for a 4x5" piece of film should be at least 6x7". What I mean is that the white Plexiglass that the negative sits on is that back. It's helpful if the actual light emitter used in the system is even bigger. The distance from the light emitter to the negative plane diffusor is very important. As Sandy says, about 2" is often good, but by all means experiment.

Regarding light quality, having good output at the R,G,B colors that match your camera is what is important. You could use a red, blue, and green narrow band LED if it matched properly. But in practice, getting a high CRI, TCLI... source is often easier, cheaper, and it works well enough.

[Michael R]

I agree with Sandy's advice. I've looked into this a fair amount. I've never found an illumination system that was ready to go right out of the box. Whether I'm making the unit myself using LEDs, or using some kind of panel, I make a container for it, using various reflectors and diffusors to get the the light even over the area of the negative. I've found that it's very helpful to have a light source measured at where the negative sits, to be at least two inches larger than the negative. So the light source for a 4x5" piece of film should be at least 6x7". What I mean is that the white Plexiglass that the negative sits on is that back. It's helpful if the actual light emitter used in the system is even bigger. The distance from the light emitter to the negative plane diffusor is very important. As Sandy says, about 2" is often good, but by all means experiment.

Regarding light quality, having good output at the R,G,B colors that match your camera is what is important. You could use a red, blue, and green narrow band LED if it matched properly. But in practice, getting a high CRI, TCLI... source is often easier, cheaper, and it works well enough.

I’ll just add a +1 to Sandy’s and Peter’s comments, based on research I did a few years ago for an unrealized sensitometry “project”. You’ll pretty much always need to jury rig at least a little (diffusion, spacing, oversizing etc.). Disregarding colour temp/spectral distribution stuff, making a LED light panel with a high degree of uniformity right out of the box is not trivial. There are some you can buy off the shelf, but they are very expensive.

[Drew Wiley]

I never take anything manufactured for granted. The only near-perfectly illuminated and true 5000K at the surface light box I've ever seen is the one I modified myself, or essentially rebuilt entirely. Only the outside housing and sockets of the original remained. This relies upon true 98CRI color matching tubes.
Equivalent LED strips have to be ganged together and well diffused to work in this manner. There is a patented kind in which the blue elements are overlaid with violet filters to truncate any cyan bias in these. You can't just buy a bulb. Expect to spend hundreds of dollars for the correct LED strips alone, plus a dedicated power converter. I'm speaking of course about high-end color evaluation or top quality copy lighting. For just casual applications like web work, there are cheaper options. But there too, you get what you pay for. If the price seems to good to be true, something will indeed be way off.
Very few light boxes rated this or that even bother to take into account secondary variables which affect the final output. Once you pull out an actual color temp meter, it's like walking into a cave filled with cobwebs and bat droppings. Truth in labeling diminishes in direct proportion to the degree something is considered an amateur bargain product versus a professional item.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

If I may ask, what specific features in the Sony A7R4 describe the pixel shifting image making? I don't really see this in the Sony A7R4 specs so perhaps there is something in terms of features that enable this, or maybe not... and it's just technique? Yes, the "tool or technique" question. And if the latter, is there a youtube or article on this somewhere someone kind could point me to?

The reason I'm curious is that I've been there done that with the A7 series, and it was good while it lasted - until the usual Sony sliding sensor event (twice in my case), I'd prefer to stay "done" with the Sony folks. Fact is I'm gentle with cameras, so I dumped Sony and all my Zeiss lenses and would prefer to stick with after acquired Nikon gear. Shooting mostly film, my current DSLR is a Nikon D750 which is fine at 24mb for most of my needs and sits on my Kaiser copy stand most of the time (except in special needs - like family events). Eventually I'd expect to get back to 42mb files and mirrorless - preferably in a Nikon Z. As it stands, I can't tell whether it's up to the job... or maybe even my D750 would serve as a starting point.

Thanks in advance!

[sanking]

If I may ask, what specific features in the Sony A7R4 describe the pixel shifting image making? I don't really see this in the Sony A7R4 specs so perhaps there is something in terms of features that enable this, or maybe not... and it's just technique? Yes, the "tool or technique" question. And if the latter, is there a youtube or article on this somewhere someone kind could point me to?



Here is a video that describes the mechanism.
The pixel shift mode is enabled in the menu.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwwzM81k5VE

Sandy

[Peter De Smidt]

The D750 should serve as a good starting point! I could do better than an Epson with a D200.

[Kinografx]

Hi-

I commandeered my wife’s old ipad (i think it may be the very first ipad ever made) as a light source for dslr scanning 4x5 negs. I use an app called isoftbox- maybe the only app that this ipad can still run- that allows amazing control of hue and saturation and brightness. The neg sits several inches above the ipad in an empty picture frame (as a holder) and it works fabulous.