Now that I once again have a film body and really enjoy using it, I'm beginning to think more seriously about getting a film scanner of my own. Besides being an addition to my film setup now, I've got quite a few older negatives (and a few slides) left over from my pre-digital days that I'd like to scan as well. I've been doing a good bit of reading about the different film scanners out there, but I really haven't settled on a particular model. These questions keep coming to mind:
--Flatbed or dedicated scanner? Everything seems to be pointing towards the dedicated scanners, but they're so pricey. The Nikon Coolscans are definitely out of consideration because I really can't afford to plop down $1,000+ for one. My budget: $300-400 at the absolute most. Another vote in favor of the dedicated scanners is that I don't have a whole lot of room on my desk for a flatbed scanner; I've also got a multifunction printer/scanner/copier, so I really don't need another flatbed scanner.
--Resolution-what do I really need? I'd like the ability to be able to make 8x12 or maybe even 11x14 prints for the really special pics. For the older snapshot type of negatives, I don't need so much resolution.
--Does having ICE capabilities make that much of a difference?
Currently, I'm running a PC with Vista, so the software would need to be compatible with that.
At any rate, I don't have the funds to buy one just yet, but I'd like to get an idea of how much I should reasonably expect to save up for one.
I've been shooting lately for my film class and I've been scanning my negative with a canon flat bed scanner. I did not buy the scanner to scan negative, I just happened to have a scanner that is able to scan negative. The scanner is the Canon 4200fs. I bought the scanner about 5 years ago.
I would love to have a dedicated scanner for my negative but my canon flat bed does a good enough job for me. I scan all of my prints at 3200dpi gray scale. I turn off any digital enhancement on the software, I don't have much luck with it.
Most of my scanned photos are for online viewing. I don't plan to print any of my scanned negative. I printed out one of my scanned negative prints and it looks pretty good. The prints where 12x8 printed at Costco.
I am not saying my scanner is the best out there. I know there are better units out there, like the epson v500. I've used the Nikon coolscan as well at school and it does a lot better job. The nikon gives you better detail and better color tone.
Really I think it comes down to how serious you are in scanning your negatives. I would try a good flatbed scanner first. When you buy it, check the store to see what type of return policy they have. If they do not have a restocking fee, buy it and try it out. Nothing wrong with doing that, if you are not satisfied with it, return it. That way at least you get a sense of how good of a quality a flat bed scanner can be.
Saelee's photos- powered by SmugMug
Here are some example of the negatives that I've scanned into digital.
If you want the original size file of any of the image on there let me know I can show you. This way you can get a sense of how good or bad a $100 scanner can be.
All shots where taken with the Pentax ZX-L and Pentax k1000 with Kodak tri-x or ilford hp5 400 film.
Yes, it is. I needed a good, new scanner that handles 35mm and medium format without costing a fortune. That sort of left dedicated negative scanners out of consideration.
Somehow the story sounds very familiar...
Some two years ago I bought the CanoScan 8600.
You can get pretty decent results with it, but eventually I did get fed up with it.
In terms of resolution it is capable of making very big files, but in reality the performance is limited by its optical resolution. Choosing one of the bigger file sizes does not improve image quality at all.
I ended up buying a Nikon CoolScan V. Nowadays I use the CanoScan for scanning larger-size originals only.
In addition to image quality, the way the Nikon deals with dust and scratches is way superior to the CanoScan. This saves a lot of time.
After all, it comes down to what you require from the scanner.
Yes, it is. I needed a good, new scanner that handles 35mm and medium format without costing a fortune. That sort of left dedicated negative scanners out of consideration.
I have seen some of your scans and the quality looks pretty good. What size (pixels X pixels) do you normally scan to? Do you ever have problems with artifact such as weird patterning? Do you do both negatives and slides? How about the software that ships with the scanner?
I have seen some of your scans and the quality looks pretty good. What size (pixels X pixels) do you normally scan to? Do you ever have problems with artifact such as weird patterning? Do you do both negatives and slides? How about the software that ships with the scanner?
Steve
I normally scan 35mm at 3200dpi and medium format at 2400dpi. The scanner has a higher optical scanning ability, I believe, but I keep it at those resolutions just to keep file sizes manageable.
That means a 6x4.5 MF image comes in at around 20MP, a 6x6 at around 26MP, and a 35mm image is around 14MP. They could all go higher, but since I'm mainly just putting them on the web there's no real point in it.
I've never had a problem with artifacts, but that could just be a matter of my own lack of powers of observation. Somebody else might look at them and spot something.
I do use it for both negatives and slides, and the software that ships with the scanner works quite well, although more slowly than interfacing with a third-party application such as VueScan.
Epson V500 or V700 seem pretty popular with people I know who shoot a lot of film, but don't want to stretch the budget to a dedicated film scanner. 35mm and 120 film holders come with it.
Has anybody had any experience with the Plustek dedicated film scanners? I was poking around on Adorama and ran into them. There are several models, ranging anywhere in price from $199.95 to $458.95. At least on the lower end of the price range, that's not much more than a decent flatbed scanner. One thing that I have to consider is the physical footprint that this scanner will take up and the dedicated film scanner definitely has the advantage in that area.
This might not be as expensive as I originally thought it would be.
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.
Has anybody had any experience with the Plustek dedicated film scanners? I was poking around on Adorama and ran into them. There are several models, ranging anywhere in price from $199.95 to $458.95. At least on the lower end of the price range, that's not much more than a decent flatbed scanner. One thing that I have to consider is the physical footprint that this scanner will take up and the dedicated film scanner definitely has the advantage in that area.
This might not be as expensive as I originally thought it would be.
Heather
I've been cautiously eyeballing those Plusteks as well, Heather. I've yet to see any real indepth reviews of them. Of particular interest to me outside of the obvious questions of quality and reliabilty is whether or not it auto-feeds the carriage or if you have to manually slide it and align it for each frame.
I have the Canoscan 4400F and it does an pretty good job but keeping the platen and backlight free of dust is a royal pain, and it is slooow. A 36exp roll takes up to 3 hours to scan at high res when you factor in everything. And it has a significant footprint on the desk at 13x18".
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.
