[Racer X 69]

Moire? I am almost afraid to ask...are you scanning directly on the glass?

The scanner uses a mask to hold the negative strips, or another mask to position a slide, directly under a window in the lidt that has a light in it which illuminates the film. The the scanner scans the image just like it would a print.

Scanning for what purpose would be my first question to you.

To create digital copies of my slides and negatives. At least the ones that are worth the trouble of digitizing.

But I might have a couple of cents worth of input.

Spend away!

Yeah, I was wondering that myself. It sounds more like Newton Rings.

Newton Rings?

Here is a copy of a slide I scanned:


And one of the negatives:


And a closeup of the negative and the "moire":


And a print:


Even the slide has some of the weird anomaly in it. But the print, other than the flecks of dust that I missed, and the loss of color and sharpness from over 20 years of being taped to the front of my toolbox turned out sort of OK.

[Colbyt]

Racer, "for what" meant what size images. Your:

And a closeup of the negative and the "moire":

is only showing at pixel peeping levels. Nothing there that would ruin a 4x6 or 5x7 print. A setting of 225 dpi or so will create either of those sizes pretty quickly and with good results from positive reflective scan.

I wasn't impressed with my first negative scans either. I suppose since you are really enlarging the image you need a lot more dpi to accomplish it.

[tuco]

Newton Rings?

Those are not newton rings in your examples. Newton Rings sometimes appear when the negative is not very flat and touching the glass in a glass carrier.

[LesDMess]

You'll be hard-pressed to match today's digital cameras with small format film, IMHO. It takes medium format and up. I can scan 35mm film optically at 4000dpi ( which the commodity flatbeds can't do) and they still fall short of my digital camera. But my medium format film is pretty close.

No doubt we each have a limitation.


In the test results below, I used a 4 wide by 4 high arrangement of ISO12233 res charts then cropped and provided 100% of the center portions using very low compression. All results are therefore multiplied by 4.

• The first image bottom left is the full target of 4 X 4 ISO12233 res charts
• Second image up is the crop from my 14.6MP K20D + manual focus Pentax M 50mm F4 macro lens + Pentax auto bellows from the full frame shot of 35mm Kodak Techpan shot at ISO 25 and processed in Technidol.
• Third image up is the crop from my 14.6MP K20D + manual focus Pentax M 50mm F4 macro lens shot of the 4 X 4 chart arrangement. It is pretty much the same as DPREVIEW K20D resolution results of about 2400LPH. Testing of all my Pentax lenses maxes out the K20D's sensor.
• Fourth image up is the Coolscan 9000 scan of the center portion of the shot made on 35mm Kodak Techpan shot at ISO 25 and processed in Technidol using the Pentax LX + the same Pentax M 50mm F4 macro lens. As you can see, it clearly resolves much more than the 14.6MP K20D sensor. However there are two different resolutions - Vertical of 4000LPH and Horizontal of 3200LPH. For comparison, a 24.6MP Sony A900 is rated at 3700LPH.
• The image on the right is a 4.5 optical magnification of the center portion of the full frame shot of 35mm Kodak Techpan shot at ISO 25 and processed in Technidol using my K20D and Pentax autobellows. This is 12.5 X 4 = 5000LPH. By comparison, the 36.3MP Nikon D800 tops the reschart at 3800LPH. The unfiltered D800E surpasses the 4000LPH chart used so we can't say where it reaches.

Link to larger file -> K20D-Techpan-ISO12233 Reschart

BTW, what digital reference and scanner are you comparing?

[LesDMess]

For the OP,based on your budget limitation, I believe the Epson V500 - or V600 suggested, is the most cost effective. As far as value, it will of course depend on your criteria for results so here is a comparison of results from the Coolscans and Epsons.
Details comparisons between the Cooslcan 5000 and the Epson V500 and V700 below - with and without ICE and the Epson at various resolution settings. This was done using the same frame of Fuji Velvia (original ISO50). No sharpening. Very low compression used to maintain detail but big files.

Click for full file -> Coolscan 5000
Click for full file -> Epson V500
Click for full file -> Epson V700

Of course these were taken in the most ideal conditions - tripod, best aperture, best lens, target has sufficient detail to show the difference. Less then ideal conditions will result in less difference.

Here is a snapshot using Fuji 100 although the differences are still noticeable, they are not as much as in the examples above. Again, huge file.

Click for full file -> Fuji 100 - various scanners

For me, the biggest advantages of the Coolscans is their considerable speed. Not only per actual single frame scan, but fully automatic scans - no pre or post adjustment of any kind. Automatic color results using Nikonscan has no equal. I've scanned over 13,000 frames with my Coolscan 5000, over 4,000 frames with my Coolscan 9000 and thousands more using the Epsons, Canons, mini labs and a few Imacon 949 8000dpi scans but haven't tried a real drum scanner.

[Racer X 69]

Those are not newton rings in your examples. Newton Rings sometimes appear when the negative is not very flat and touching the glass in a glass carrier.

Thanks for the explanation.

The more I study the results, and try different settings, the more I am inclined to believe that the pattern I am getting is a result of the scanner transport mechanism. The thing makes (actually it has always) a gnawing noise as the scanner moves across the bed. This is the first time I have ever used the thing to scan slides and film, so it would be impossible to say if it is the age of it, or if it always would have produced such crappy results.

When I first got the thing (about 13 or 14 years ago) I scanned lots of color and black and white prints, with very nice results. The only limitations then were the wimpy operating systems and computers with relatively low RAM. There were many times when I scanned 8x10 color prints at the maximum resolution that the scanner would work at, and pretty much killed the computer. As time went on and I built more powerful machines I was able to revisit the scanning of large prints at higher resolutions and finally get the job done.

I had one image that was over 600mb in file size after scanning, and it took the machine forever to transfer the file to a CD. Even with today's dual processor 64 bit machines it is still troublesome to open the file and try to work with it. But the results were very nice.

So here I am with a computer that can handle the large file size of a high resolution image, and eager to find a scanner that will produce acceptable results. I may need to revisit the cost analysis, and step up to something a bit more costly. The Plustek scanners look promising, but only one person has responded here with their experience. And a review of the Plustek website doesn't really give me a clue what the difference is between the 3 models they currently have available.

There is also a stand alone scanner that uses a 14mp CMOS image sensor to scan the slides and film, but no one has commented on it here.

I may even give the bellows copier set up a go. That way, I'm not tied to a computer, and as the image sensors of cameras grow in resolution, so do my abilities for producing better quality copies.

[tuco]

No doubt we each have a limitation.

BTW, what digital reference and scanner are you comparing?

Tech Pan? Where do you get that. It's been discontinued for a long time. I have some Tech Pan shots in 120 Roll from long ago. I scan with a Coolscan 9000ED which has a resolution around 67 lp/mm, I hear. And I have a XP1 and D600 for digital cameras.

---

Last edited by tuco; 03-07-2013 at 10:08 PM.

[stevebrot]

The more I study the results, and try different settings, the more I am inclined to believe that the pattern I am getting is a result of the scanner transport mechanism. The thing makes (actually it has always) a gnawing noise as the scanner moves across the bed. This is the first time I have ever used the thing to scan slides and film, so it would be impossible to say if it is the age of it, or if it always would have produced such crappy results.

I don't know if you have a problem with transport or not, but the pattern looks a heck of a lot like dot interference, almost as if you had scanned a photo in a magazine. It might be due to a hardware issue or it might be artifact. By any chance are you scanning with sharpening or noise reduction turned on? My experience has been that I get better results with that stuff turned off.


Steve

[stevebrot]

The scanner uses a mask to hold the negative strips, or another mask to position a slide, directly under a window in the lidt that has a light in it which illuminates the film. The the scanner scans the image just like it would a print.

I hope you are referring to the plastic carriers that come with the scanner. There should be two: one combo carrier for 35mm slides and negative strips (slides slip into square holders and negatives into a long opening with a plastic frame that clicks down over them to hold things flat) and another for medium format (120 film) negatives (similar to the 35mm negative strip).


Steve

[stevebrot]

For what it is worth, here are my starting settings using the "Professional Mode" in EPSON Scan for C41 high quality TIFF.

• 48 bit color
• 2400 dpi (very, very little to gain by going higher, even with the V700)
• Auto expose/contrast on
• Unsharp mask off
• Grain reduction off
• Color restoration off
• Backlight correction off
• Digital ICE on (Quality mode)
• Save as TIFF

Do a preview scan and adjust margins. Do a second preview on the adjusted margins. If you adjust the histogram, curves, colors, etc., take care. Playing with those controls has the ability to create artifact or actually remove information from your scan. My preference is no never use the scan-time unsharp mask, grain reduction, color restoration, or backlight correction. These can all be addressed in PP. If you screw things up, click the auto button again and redo the preview.


Steve

[tuco]

For what it is worth, here are my starting settings using the "Professional Mode" in EPSON Scan for C41 high quality TIFF.

• 48 bit color
• 2400 dpi (very, very little to gain by going higher, even with the V700)
• Auto expose/contrast on
• Unsharp mask off
• Grain reduction off
• Color restoration off
• Backlight correction off
• Digital ICE on (Quality mode)
• Save as TIFF

Steve

I'd add output in the file in the ProPhoto RGB color space if you can. If you have a color managed work flow (which includes the scanning software), you won't have to deal with the gamma issue and it gives you more editing latitude. When you import the scan into, say, Lightroom, that is the color space it works in.

[stevebrot]

I'd add output in the file in the ProPhoto RGB color space if you can.

Not an option on my computer (not installed), though I do have Adobe RGB as an option.


Steve

[LesDMess]

Tech Pan? Where do you get that. It's been discontinued for a long time. I have some Tech Pan shots in 120 Roll from long ago. I scan with a Coolscan 9000ED which has a resolution around 67 lp/mm, I hear. And I have a XP1 and D600 for digital cameras.

Interestingly enough Techpan seems available but what is much harder to find is Technidol. And I just found a couple more boxes I forgot I had . . .

A few more examples of just how good the Coolscan straight up scans are. Except for crop, orientation and copyright, all color adjustments off, auto focus, auto expose, no sharpening, no levels, etc.

Fuji100, full res file -> http://www.fototime.com/7F01FA5F0232D8B/orig.jpg

Fuji Reala full res file -> http://www.fototime.com/28B4032CA3AA071/orig.jpg


Fuji Sensia 400 compared to Sony A900 ISO400. I took the Sensia pic years before the A900 was even announced. Note that the Sony pixel size is larger then the scan.

Full res file -> http://www.fototime.com/B6BF7BF83DA25A7/orig.jpg

[Racer X 69]

I hope you are referring to the plastic carriers that come with the scanner. There should be two: one combo carrier for 35mm slides and negative strips (slides slip into square holders and negatives into a long opening with a plastic frame that clicks down over them to hold things flat) and another for medium format (120 film) negatives (similar to the 35mm negative strip).


Steve

Actually they are like sheets, with an opening for the slide in one, and the other has a place to slip the negative into.

Here is a web page with the user manual: Visioneer OneTouch 8920 Installation Manual (Page 5 of 71)

[brofkand]

Hopping in late on this thread, but I highly recommend the Plustek 7400 (or it's later brother, the 8100).

The scanner has an optical resolution of roughly 3500 DPI, which is very high for it's price range. Flatbeds struggle to reach much higher than 1000 DPI.

With a good lens and a good, sharp film like Acros, the files at 3500 DPI are very detailed and almost grain-less. It does a great job.

It comes with Silverfast, but I like VueScan much better.