Film scanner recommendations, anyone?

[hwblanks]

I got to thinking about it and while I understand that the dedicated film scanners are better than flatbed, the final question I need to figure out for myself is how much am I really going to get into film? If it winds up that I'm shooting more film than digital, then a more expensive scanner would be the answer, but if film stays as a side interest to my digital shooting, then it probably wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to sink a bunch of money into something that I would only use every once in a while. Did I just answer my own question?

If I were to pick up an older Nikon scanner, then I would most likely buy a copy of VueScan to work with it, as opposed to trying to deal with the Nikon software.

Heather

[stevebrot]

Originally Posted by Gooshin

Heather, i would like to mention however that with the Nikon, the Nikon Scan software is... a hard pill to swallow, it has not been updated in 4 years or so...

i am used to it now, but it definely takes some time to get down a smooth process flow. I'm not sure about other softwares, but Nikon Scan shows a full scan of the image, and i think their compression algorithms are sub par, because i crashed my computer for the first time in years from simple overload after having 12 of those images open, and i'm packing 8 gigs of ram! So you have to close them after you scan them, LOL.

also there is rumor that they will soon stop making them all together.


3rd party software may add to the cost.

this Plustek seems to be a pretty good deal if you are not gung ho about "ultimate" quality.

Thanks for weighing in again with your experience. I have been looking at a used Nikon, but the $$$ is pretty hard to take. This is particularly true when you add a copy of Silverfast AI into the equation.

Steve

[k100d]

ehh... i don't find the nikon software so bad. it's free, you download it from their site, there's no harm in trying it to see if it fits your needs rather than ignoring it all together. i scan things one at a time with the adapter and the software works fine.

even people who like vuescan know that it's weird. but that's free to try too.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by Barry_S

I've been using the V500 and very happy with it. The software is very easy to use. I've been scanning at 2400. Seems to take 3-4 min per scan of 4 slides. Everything gets dumped into one folder. While it scans I put names on the slides.
What really slows you down is, thinking about where I was and what was gong on when I took the picture.

I have been using one of these since August as well and have pretty good results with it. I have scanned 35mm negatives, positives and MF negatives with it as well as some old prints (75 years).

I use the my old hp for paper documents and don't do anything but film on the V500 since it seems to biased that way anyway.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by k100d

ehh... i don't find the nikon software so bad. it's free, you download it from their site, there's no harm in trying it to see if it fits your needs rather than ignoring it all together. i scan things one at a time with the adapter and the software works fine.

even people who like vuescan know that it's weird. but that's free to try too.

VueScan was the only way I could get my HP scanner to work with Vista Ultimate when I first started using that platform because HP not producing drivers for there previous equipment. So when I upgraded scanners, I went with Epson.

[fs999]

You can also consider a slide duplicator for 125 €...

Like the Dörr Slide Duplicator. It is fast, realable and you will have a very good IQ with your K20D...

[falconeye]

Originally Posted by Gooshin

48 bit is overkill, considering very few people have the system, and the software to do anything with that much info.

I scan slides with high dynamic range with two passes at different exposures (Silverfast) into 48 Bit. The resolution and noise in the shadow areas does improve significantly.

[Lowell Goudge]

I have used a minolta DIMAGE II scanner for all my film, (about 13000 frames)

there are 2 points which disappointed me, first, and it seems random, is a line of distortion in the center of the frame which sometimes appears (it is usually slightly different exposure than the rest of the frame, and second, it is SLOW The random line might be stray light, or an internal reflection, and is most dominant when the exposure is wrong and being pushed a little in scanning.

I have to admit that 13000 frames was an ambitious project, and it took 2 years of part time feeding of the scanner to perform.

I must say, however, that the durability surprised me.

I believe newer Minolta USB II scanners are a little faster.

I scanned each frame into a folder numbered with the processing number on the end of the strip of film, and was later able to sort them by date, as I still had most of the processing envelopes.

Slides were easier because the processors all put the processing date on the slides.

[stevebrot]

Originally Posted by falconeye

I scan slides with high dynamic range with two passes at different exposures (Silverfast) into 48 Bit. The resolution and noise in the shadow areas does improve significantly.

What scanner are you using? Plustek?

Steve

(Considering the Plustek, but leaning towards simply giving in and getting a Nikon...)

[falconeye]

Originally Posted by stevebrot

What scanner are you using? Plustek?

Nikon Coolscan IV ED (which was the current model when I purchased it ...).

Given the lower used item prices, I would probably now go for a Coolscan 5000ED which supports the SF-210 slide feeder robot.

But then, even used, we are talking about 1000$ rather than 500$... And the SF-210 is another 500$.

So, for the time being, I feel happy with the Coolscan IV.

The 2900 dpi (or 11 MPixels) are real and certainly more than enough for my need (scratches are a perfect 1 pixel wide where actual detail on my film is less). I guess my manual focus abilities were less perfect than I thought at the time

One thing only: Scan time for 1 slide is said to be 56 seconds. And I remember that it was about this fast. However now, under Vista, scan time is 2 minutes. The good thing is that it works under Vista at all A full 2 pass scan with focus and exposure measurement is 5 minutes. A perfect back activity in the office. Swap the slide each time the music changes

[Athiril]

Originally Posted by Gooshin

my friend had an Epson V700 before me and him split a Nikon Coolscan 5000

the Nikon provided much finer detail than the Epson.

flatbed scanners, AFAIK, do not focus on the grain, and come within tiny fractions of whats actually the negative, giving less than perfect results.

Also check to see if those budget dedicated film scanners have ICE or other features. Nikons DEE and ROC are very intresting features in addition to ICE, although i am not sure how much of those are pure software options.

48 bit is overkill, considering very few people have the system, and the software to do anything with that much info.

1. resolution hardly matters

2. always scan at native resolution

3. ice (and other) helps, alot. (just remember does not work on B/W negs)

4. if you are serious about getting your film stuff into digital for professional use, and not just for a 800 pixel web picture, then invest in a dedicated scanner now, and budget the cost out later.

48-bit is not overkill, it is for editing, 16-bits per channel, to prevent histogram crunching and banding when doing things as simple as levels.

Flatbed scanners do focus on the grain, a flatbed scanner merely doesnt have a sharp a lens as a dedicated scanner, otherwise they would be superior, flatbed scanner lenses are typically diffraction limited, especially the ones that use pinhole lens arrays. <- a few methods I was interested in getting out more out of a flatbed scanner, the most promising without most likely ruining a scanner by taking it apart is modifying the optical system by placing a dioptre above the platen glass, holding the film at a certain distance above that and backlighting it yourself (metering the scanners own backlight and getting it to scan with the lid up - or getting a cheapie 2400 dpi scanner from a op shop/2nd shop for $10 and disabling the internal light), scanner is still same real resolution, but the scanner is scannign effectively enlarged film.

Originally Posted by Gooshin

if you read those reviews carefully, you should draw out 3 main points

1. actual resolution

2. effectiveness of dust/scratch removal hardware (if any)

3. processing speed

you will see that the Plustek has an effective resolution of ~3600 DPI, a lackluster dust removal design, and a 3-4 minute process time per frame, not to mention burdening you with insanely large files

conversly the Nikon 5000 has an effective resolution of ~3900 DPI vs its claimed 4000, a VERY good scratch removing algorythem (as experienced by me), and a process time of ~1 minute per frame.


this is where the cost comes in,

according to that site, the Epson V700's effective resolution is a mere ~2600 dpi and a Canon 8800F is a laughable ~1600 dpi

you get what you pay for, i for one, am very happy with the Nikon, even though it burned a sizable hole in my wallet.

2000 dpi is enough for MF.

3600 dpi is more than enough for any film except super high resolution films which then you are limited by lens diffraction at your chosen aperture (Adox CMS 20 would need a lens reaching the diffraction limit open at f/2.8 or wider to reach its full potential for example).

Plustek has a new scanner about to be released to, which probably improves upon resolution (like its previous models did) and perhaps has effect IR dust removal.

Anyone who shoots at f/16 should know that, the diffraction limit for f/16 is equivalent tojust under 2900 dpi, you wont get any more detail out of your film past this, and lenses dont reach the diffraction limit, a sharp lens will be a little under.

The diffraction limit for 3900 dpi of detail is f/11.9, which means you'll need to shoot at f/8 or wider and have a lens very sharp at those apertures to actualy achieve 3900 dpi out of your film other than finely focussed grain.



For MF users:

A decent flat bed is all you need for 99% of the time, even 1600 dpi of detail will get you sharp & clean 15 mp out of 6x7.

If you need more, and own a dSLR + macro lens you're in luck, you just need a macro focussing rail or copy stand, backlight the image evenly, and stitch overlapping shots for when you need serious resolution for whatever reason, it works very well.

(focussing rail lets you move side to side, makes stitching and staying at the same distance/plane much easier.. same with copy stand, just move the film).

[Athiril]

Originally Posted by stevebrot

What scanner are you using? Plustek?

Steve

(Considering the Plustek, but leaning towards simply giving in and getting a Nikon...)

Plustek are bringing out a new model, hold off on the 7500i.

Otherwise, look at a Minolta Dual Scan II, III or IV, (2820dpi to 3200dpi), they should be very cheap in the U.S. if you live there, I've used a Dual Scan II and it achieves its detail.

Dual Scan II should be cheaper than a flatbed too.

[stevebrot]

Originally Posted by falconeye

Nikon Coolscan IV ED (which was the current model when I purchased it ...).

Given the lower used item prices, I would probably now go for a Coolscan 5000ED which supports the SF-210 slide feeder robot.

But then, even used, we are talking about 1000$ rather than 500$... And the SF-210 is another 500$.

So, for the time being, I feel happy with the Coolscan IV.

The 2900 dpi (or 11 MPixels) are real and certainly more than enough for my need (scratches are a perfect 1 pixel wide where actual detail on my film is less). I guess my manual focus abilities were less perfect than I thought at the time

One thing only: Scan time for 1 slide is said to be 56 seconds. And I remember that it was about this fast. However now, under Vista, scan time is 2 minutes. The good thing is that it works under Vista at all A full 2 pass scan with focus and exposure measurement is 5 minutes. A perfect back activity in the office. Swap the slide each time the music changes

Thanks for your comments. Using multiple passes to compress dynamic range is a capability that I want. Do you need Silverfast to do this or is the Nikon software sufficient?

Steve

[Gooshin]

Originally Posted by Athiril

........

the 5000ED produces more detailed results than the V700

that is a fact

and i feel thats all that matters.


also, for arguments sake i will borrow my friends V700 and run both side by side, but as he described to me that the flatbed does NOT autofocus, and all he has is 3 preset paramets and thats it. Regardless i have little luck finding focus descrptions for any scanner, it seems to be a very hidden parameter.

[k100d]

Originally Posted by stevebrot

Thanks for your comments. Using multiple passes to compress dynamic range is a capability that I want. Do you need Silverfast to do this or is the Nikon software sufficient?

i heard this wasn't as useful as described, someone back me up on this?