What scan resolution is worth using for 120 film from a Yashica Mat LM?
Asked 8/7/2015
4 views
2 answers
0
I’ve started shooting 120 film in a 1956 Yashica Mat LM and I’m new to film. I often see claims that 120 film can equal very high megapixel counts, but most labs’ “high resolution” scans seem to top out around 21 MP. Can 120 film actually deliver much more detail than that, and do any scanning methods capture it? Also, is it realistic to expect that level of detail from a Yashica Mat, or are lens quality and focus likely to be the limiting factors?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
5
Short answer: you have to use a microscope, a drum scanner or some specific scanners for film.
Flatbed scanners barely reach 1500 dpi (real, effective, measured on the details you get, not on the number of pixels you get), see http://www.filmscanner.info/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html and the other ones.
This is a measurement of actual details in some 120 film (provided you focused perfectly!): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
Summary of the article: if you consider that Adox with over effective 200 Mpx is a special film you don't use everyday (but there is no way to scan that many pixels), you can extract reasonable details at 4000-5300 dpi from generic 120 film, equivalent to 50-80 Mpx.
If you didn't focus perfectly, divide by two in both axes and here are the 20 Mpx scans, provided they are performed with a GOOD scanner, not a normal flatbed, even if marketed for photos at more than 2400 dpi. No home-hoffice (<500 dollars/Euro) flatbed scanner can do that. Do not trust specifications, check the technical reviews.
Above that price point, two scanners available to a home user reach an effective resolution of over 4000 dpi and can get most out of 120 film: filmscanner.info/ReflectaRPS10M.html and filmscanner.info/NikonSuperCoolscan9000ED.html
Keep in mind: I used the Nikon one and I could see the grains in the center, but not on the sides: using glass plates to keep the film flat is a must.
As a matter of fact, you may even use an high-end dSLR like D8x0, provided you have a reliable way to keep the film flat (meaning the specific glass plates), you autofocus well, keep the film perpendicular and keep lighting uniform. A D800 produces pictures of 120 film with about 24 Mpx. It would be optimal. Check here and adapt the distance between camera and film: http://petapixel.com/2012/05/18/how-to-scan-film-negatives-with-a-dslr/
Originally by user27445. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user27445
11y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes, 120 film can hold more detail than a 21 MP scan, but the real result depends on the film, lens, focus accuracy, and scanner.
A key point: many flatbed scanners do not deliver their advertised DPI in real detail. In practice, common flatbeds often resolve far less than their pixel dimensions suggest. For typical 120 film, useful detail is often captured around roughly 4000–5300 dpi, which can correspond to something like 50–80 MP from a 6x6 negative under good conditions.
To go beyond that, labs or users generally need higher-end methods such as a drum scanner, a dedicated film scanner, or camera scanning with a digital camera, macro lens, and good backlight. Camera scanning can outperform most consumer scanners, and stitching multiple shots can extract even more detail.
Is it worth it? Sometimes—but only if the negative actually contains that detail. With a vintage Yashica Mat, lens performance and especially precise focus may limit results before the film does. If focus is off, effective detail drops sharply.
So: 21 MP is not the ceiling for 120 film, but chasing extreme scan resolutions is only worthwhile if your negatives are sharp enough to justify it.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why aren’t low-resolution full-frame sensors much cheaper to make?
Does a higher megapixel count mean better photo quality, especially on camera phones?
Have APS-C and smaller camera sensors reached their practical limits?
Why can a more expensive camera have fewer megapixels?
Why don't medium format cameras prioritize low-resolution sensors for better high-ISO performance?