[Lamar]

Marco,
I know this is an old thread but I have seen the same problem with Reala on my Nikon CoolScan V ED. Very pronounced grain for a 100 speed film. I have now compared it to Ektar 100 and the Ektar has MUCH finer and more acceptable grain. I will go as far as to say that in many cases the Fuji Superia Xtra 400 shots I scan have less apparent grain than the Reala scans. ????? I don't know why, I'm still relatively new to this. I use local stores that develop C41 with Fuji processors so maybe it’s related to that. After shooting about five rolls of Reala at ISO 100 to ISO 50 and getting what I consider grainy results for ISO 100 film at resolutions from 1600dpi to 4000dpi I am frustrated.
I have had a few scans of Ektar shot at ISO 100, with excessive grain, most notably in blue sky. I think you mention in one of your articles that the gain on blue channels on scanners may be higher to compensate for the loss of light due to the orange mask resulting in potentially more noise in that channel especially if the signal is low to begin with. I shot my second roll of Ektar at ISO 64 resulting in finer grain than the roll I ran at 100. At 4000 dpi grain was there but finer than any other negative film I have scanned; at 1800 dpi it was detectable but essentially negligible. Regardless it is frustrating when you're not getting the repeatable quality you think should and you cannot find the cause.

Hi all,

Guys, these scans were made on a high end Imacon Flextight 848 that had just been serviced. It is a scan of a negative, so not a scan of a wetprint. Scan results of other films look pretty good, and I am therefore also pretty sure that what I am seeing is NOT just noise. Yes, part of it may be, and will be, attributable to noise, but for the most part, I am pretty sure what we see is actually what THIS PARTICULAR negative looks like. What I actually want to know, or try to assess based on all of your useful comments, is if Reala 100 is known to be a slightly more "grainy" film compared to some others around in the 100 ISO range, like for example the new Ektar 100.

A few responses to all the input here:



I have no doubt that even this negative will look great when printed on 8x12 or 12x18. The reason I scanned it at such ridiculous high resolution, is that I did intend to get a closer look at the grain structure. I have successfully scanned other 100 ISO films at the same very high 6300 ppi resolution for my Ektar review, that I am now in the process of updating for new, better, scan results of the serviced 848.



Interesting, your suggestion of microscopic bubbles. Anyone else who can comment on this particularily in relation to this film type?



I am perfectly aware of this, as I am the author of that article! . Thanks for the compliment by the way, I am glad that all the work that went into these things is appreciated.

Yes, it's probably beyond what Fuji Reala 100 can deliver in terms of true image detail, but as I have clearly shown in my Ektar review, some films (like Fuji Velvia 100 and Kodak Ektar 100) DO hold up even with such ridiculous high scanning resolutions.

And again, I was trying to asses the grain structure. However, since these results, compared to the other 100 ISO films in my Ektar 100 review, were somewhat unexpected, I want to make sure I do not have another issue like a bad film processing issue. Or if Reala 100 is known to be a problematic film for scanning due to it's technical make up in terms of layers or so... I have regularly read here on APUG about older film types being "difficult" to scan, is Reala 100 maybe one of them?, and of updates to emulsions by manufacturers for "better scanning" characteristics.

Is there anyone else here that has ever attempted to scan a Reala 100 negative at resolutions beyond 4000 ppi at a scanner like Imacon, drum, or Nikon Coolscan and that can comment on his observations, like Landecker did with his Microtek?