I'd appreciate some comments on a typical frame, call it F01, from an 8mm film that has been scanned on a…
- Unknown Nikon machine (Sydney, 2010)
- Epson V700 flatbed (home, 2016)
- RetroScan Universal (Melbourne, 2016)
… and is just about to be scanned on a higher-end machine.
I have uploaded a tiff image of the three scans. They images are layered and aligned, but not corrected in any way: http://www.mediafire..._Comparison.tif
Epson as reference for exposure
I'm confident that the Epson scan can be used as the reference for exposure. It was set to scan with no corrections of any kind. The histogram sits nicely in the middle, telling me that F01 was well exposed when originally captured on film.
I'm not so sure about the colour, but comparing the Epson scan with the actual film on a lightbox, the colour looks quite close: a slight pink-cast overall, which throws the sky slightly purple and gives the end of the building a pinkish look.
Comments please, on:
Sydney Scan: has undergone a certain amount of correction by the scan company. The whites, though not clipped, have lost detail – detail that is clearly visible in the Epson and Retro scans.
Q1: For the Sydney scan, why has detail been lost in unclipped whites? What did the scanner do to achieve that?
Retroscan: I asked for the RetroScan to be set to optimum manual exposure. It came back with the histogram moved towards black, resulting in clipped shadow detail (slightly). Now, the exposure, when setting up the RetroScan, might have been upset because I asked for the perforations to be included (cropped out of the download). Maybe the operator exposed on the entire scan, including the perforations. And since they're bright white, that would have caused the exposure to move towards black. That leads me to…
Q2: On high end machines, if I ask for the perforations to be included in the scan, is that going to upset the exposure? Or is exposure set via a method independent of the film, something like a grey card?
Anyway, the RetroScan has given this particular frame what I call the "chocolate look" – the thickening of shadow areas which happens sometimes when photographing film with a digital camera. For a detailed description of the "chocolate look" see page 80 (under sRGB and D700) of:
Run your mouse over the options at top right to see the various scans.
The Sydney scanner has serious purple and yellow fringing, not seen in the other scans, but clearly seen in F02:
Q3: Any suggestions as to where the purple and yellow fringing came from? Does it indicate what type of scanner was used?