Any adapters for m43 for negative scanning?

WT21

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
7,363
Location
Boston
I was reading about the Nikon ES-2 negative scanner. Does anyone know a good one similar for m43? Especially Panasonic lenses (such as in my signature)?
 

John M Flores

Super Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
3,311
Location
NJ
Looks like the ES-2 uses a 62mm filter ring. Any reason this can't be adapted to use on M43?

1624532749516.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-p...laneous/es-2-film-digitizing-adapter-set.html
 

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
167
Optek or some shop like it has a very similar set of kit to the Nikon, you will have to check the filter ring size but basically it's a copy.
 

BDR-529

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
886
I was reading about the Nikon ES-2 negative scanner. Does anyone know a good one similar for m43? Especially Panasonic lenses (such as in my signature)?
You don't need a scanner. Just a sharp macro lens that can fill the whole image area with the negative/slide.

And of course you need a light table and some sort of mount to fix the camera above the set. I found an inexpensive light table that is also magnetic.

This is great if slides or negatives are curved because small fridge magnets will flatten them perfectly unlike those negative holders in your picture.
 
Last edited:

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
167
You don't need a scanner. Just a sharp macro lens that can fill the whole image area with the negative/slide.

And of course you need a light table and some sort of mount to fix the camera above the set. I found an inexpensive light table that is also magnetic.

This is great if slides or negatives are curved because small fridge magnets will flatten them perfectly unlike those negative holders in your picture.
The Nikon isn't really a scanner, just a slide holder that attaches to a lens. Same idea as yours really but the slide holder is fixed to lens and just needs a light source, no tripod or table needed. Not saying one's better than the other (flatness is an issue) bit it's at least quite simple.
 

BDR-529

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
886
The Nikon isn't really a scanner, just a slide holder that attaches to a lens. Same idea as yours really but the slide holder is fixed to lens and just needs a light source, no tripod or table needed. Not saying one's better than the other (flatness is an issue) bit it's at least quite simple.
This seems to be the case but then it's ridiculously expensive for what it is.

And it requires a specific macro lens anyway which WT21 apparently doesn't have

I had an el Cheapo slide adapter (with lens) for my old Canon and this worked without macro but IQ was just as bad as the lens.
 

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
167
This seems to be the case but then it's ridiculously expensive for what it is.

And it requires a specific macro lens anyway which WT21 apparently doesn't have

I had an el Cheapo slide adapter (with lens) for my old Canon and this worked without macro but IQ was just as bad as the lens.
Yes, either use a good macro with this approach or sometimes included cheapo ones.

I think the opteka I've used let you unscew the cheapo macro but can't be sure.
 

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
167
The ES-1 works perfectly with the 4:3'ds 30mm macro.

Which is a cracker of a lens for a reasonable price, IMO. Got mine for about $120 used. Having done a bit of slide copying on a DSLR this way, mirrorless would be a lot more pleasant.

(Another project that I'll get to Any Day Now.)
 

BDR-529

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
886
The ES-1 works perfectly with the 4:3'ds 30mm macro.

I have used Olympus 30mm f/3-5 Macro for "scanning" slides/negatives and this lens does deliver excellent value for money.
Because the subject is perfectly stationary it's possible to use ISO200 and F/5.6-8.0 when lens is sharp enough for the job and DOF does allow minor warping of negative material..

I did use a lot of ISO400 and ISO800 film material back in the analog era and discovered that 20MP sensor is just enough for scanning because film grain becomes visible even with ISO200 stock. Add more resolution and the grain just becomes more pronounced in 100% crop.

Since I own Topaz Denoise AI, I have also discovered that 20MP sensor is exactly the sweet spot because film grain is so small that AI denoise programs like Topaz Denoise still recognizes it as noise (even though they are designed for digital noise) and in most cases AI denoise + sharpening can do their job on film scans as well. Increse resolution and grain becomes so large that AI denoise decides it's an actual pattern in the subject than tries to sharpen it too!
 

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
167
Apologies if this is a stupid question, but can you not adjust the size of the noise grains in the topaz denoise module? That said I suspect your main conclusion, that scanning film with more than 20mpixels doesn't add much, is correct.
 

BDR-529

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
886
Apologies if this is a stupid question, but can you not adjust the size of the noise grains in the topaz denoise module? That said I suspect your main conclusion, that scanning film with more than 20mpixels doesn't add much, is correct.

If you scan a film with high enough resolution, you'll start seeing actual film grain as a collection of more or less equally shaped, coloured and sized lumps that are often clustered together. This does not follow any neat grid pattern like the digital noise does. It's a bit misleading to talk about noise "grain size" in digital photography tools because digital noise is coming from randomness in each individual pixel, not from a physical grain that has an actual size and shape.

Even the inexpensive Olympus 30mm f/3.5 macro can focus so close that 20MP image area will cover only 1/4th of the full 35mm negative/slide which equals 80MP full scan. This is great if you want to zoom in but ISO400 and ISO800 grain size becomes so many pixels wide that Topaz Denoise was previously not able to cope with it. It just looked like an actual pattern in the original subject and Topaz did sharpen the edges of each grain instead.

That being said, I did test one of those "80MP" scans with the latest 3.1.2 version where Topaz added a new "Severe Noise" module and this seems to be able to do the job. This explains where this module is needed because no matter how noisy an actual digital photo is, "Low Light" is always able to deliver better details and I couldn't find any use for the "Severe Noise".
 
Last edited:

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
167
If you scan a film with high enough resolution, you'll start seeing actual film grain as a collection of more or less equally shaped, coloured and sized lumps that are often clustered together. This does not follow any neat grid pattern like the digital noise does. It's a bit misleading to talk about noise "grain size" in digital photography tools because digital noise is coming from randomness in each individual pixel, not from a physical grain that has an actual size and shape.
Ah, thank you, now I see where it's a distinct issue from digital noise and where at some point (detail) a different algorithm is needed.

Which I knew in theory but was naively under the impression that adjusting parameters of noise reduction would work.

And my use of 'grain size' was, ahem, weak technically, was just too lazy to describe better.
 

BDR-529

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
886
Ah, thank you, now I see where it's a distinct issue from digital noise and where at some point (detail) a different algorithm is needed.

Which I knew in theory but was naively under the impression that adjusting parameters of noise reduction would work.

And my use of 'grain size' was, ahem, weak technically, was just too lazy to describe better.

I don't know how AI algorithms really work other than that they do recognize patterns and actual subject elements (like eyes, lips, eyelashes etc) instead of just mathematically averaging out adjacent pixels.

Old school noise reduction was based more or less on averaging out luma and croma within certain radius and when you set "grain size", this just increased the radius inside which pixels were compared to each other.

Of course this does eventually remove film grain as well if value is set high enough but the downside is that fine detail is lost in the process.

When you scan negatives/slides you also get both digital and analog noise (physical film grain) but luckily it's possible to get rid of almost all of digital noise by just setting camera to ISO100 or whatever is least noisy
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom