[whojammyflip]

may be possible to be able to take several shots of the same negative using a digital body, and then average the results to get a higher resolution, imagine if you could shift the negative relative to the body half a pixel along....you could double the resolution

[Jonathan Mac]

may be possible to be able to take several shots of the same negative using a digital body, and then average the results to get a higher resolution, imagine if you could shift the negative relative to the body half a pixel along....you could double the resolution

In theory you could use a macro lens to take several shots, each of only part of the negative, and then stitch them later on the computer. I believe that there are people who do this and it could yield really high resolution results limited only by the film and gear used to take the shot in the first place. In practice, unless you needed it to print really big, this would be overkill.

[John Trammell]

I agree about overkill. It would be a lot of trouble, too. Better to use a good scanner, and if a really big print is needed, enlarge it with Genuine Fractals or similar program.

JT

[IgorZ]

I have been looking into scanners as of late. To be honest, I got a flatbed Canon with a claimed resolution of 9600 dpi or something crazy like that, and was using that scanner until Stevebrot dashed my hopes of finding a cheap scanner with high resolution by saying that there is a difference between claimed and actual resolution. So I have been reading about scanners since then. The problem is that good scanners are pretty expensive, and since not (if any, well, aside from Plustek) are being made, prices are high. I recently got my grandfather's photo archive, which the family asked me to digitize... I agreed before realizing that my scanner is no good. It is possible to find a good film scanner for 135 film for relatively cheap, but scanners that can handle 120 film seem to be significantly more expensive. Which makes sense. So I began to wonder if I can somehow use the 135 scanner to scan 120 film? Like by taking several scans and stitching them together... My initial thought is that it's impossible, because film holders have notches that the scanner uses to pull in the holder, but I wonder if I use a film holder without notches and just stick it in there and move it around to take multiple partial scans, would that work? Wouldn't be fast or convenient, but I don't have the $3k for a Nikon Coolscan 9000...

[johnsey]

I have been looking into scanners as of late. To be honest, I got a flatbed Canon with a claimed resolution of 9600 dpi or something crazy like that, and was using that scanner until Stevebrot dashed my hopes of finding a cheap scanner with high resolution by saying that there is a difference between claimed and actual resolution. So I have been reading about scanners since then. The problem is that good scanners are pretty expensive, and since not (if any, well, aside from Plustek) are being made, prices are high. I recently got my grandfather's photo archive, which the family asked me to digitize... I agreed before realizing that my scanner is no good. It is possible to find a good film scanner for 135 film for relatively cheap, but scanners that can handle 120 film seem to be significantly more expensive. Which makes sense. So I began to wonder if I can somehow use the 135 scanner to scan 120 film? Like by taking several scans and stitching them together... My initial thought is that it's impossible, because film holders have notches that the scanner uses to pull in the holder, but I wonder if I use a film holder without notches and just stick it in there and move it around to take multiple partial scans, would that work? Wouldn't be fast or convenient, but I don't have the $3k for a Nikon Coolscan 9000...

The Epson V700 is sub $1000 bucks and probably your best bet at scanning using a flatbed, it will handle 35mm up to 4x5 and will give good results considering the price. Many college photo programs use them.

[John Trammell]

I don't have personal knowledge of the V700, but the advice sounds good.

[IgorZ]

Thanks for the advice. Will look into the DSLR scanning... I don't have a macro lens or bellows for that matter, but I guess those are cheaper than a Nikon Coolscan 9000

[Alex645]

Thanks for the advice. Will look into the DSLR scanning... I don't have a macro lens or bellows for that matter, but I guess those are cheaper than a Nikon Coolscan 9000

Using a film scanner is going to be the best IQ way of scanning in my experience, but also the most expensive. As an alternative to the Nikon CoolScan 9000, Iʻve been using a Minolta Dimage MultiScan Pro for nearly 10 years for all my 35mm and 120 B&W, negs, and transparencies. I think it is very, very similar to the Nikon but 1/3-1/2 the price used:

https://www.amazon.com/Minolta-Dimage-Scan-Multi-Scanner/dp/B00005QBXX/ref=s...scan+multi+pro

[LesDMess]

So I began to wonder if I can somehow use the 135 scanner to scan 120 film? Like by taking several scans and stitching them together... My initial thought is that it's impossible, because film holders have notches that the scanner uses to pull in the holder, but I wonder if I use a film holder without notches and just stick it in there and move it around to take multiple partial scans, would that work?

Your initial thought is correct as you pointed out. There are flatbeds that do not have the physical limitation of allowing larger than 35mm film to pass through but they limit the physical width of the lightsource above the film. In that case, you can move the film over after each pass but those flatbeds are generally "cheaper" and most likely will not provide better results that you may be looking for.

[John Trammell]

Lots of people (including myself) already do this on MF negatives and slides. If you are doing 1:1 macro using an APSC camera and a sharp lens, you can resolve single emulsion grains this way. Six shots will get you a whole frame this way and can be done in less time than a single scan using a dedicated film scanner. Some have even done it at 3:1 with 28 shots for ultimate sharpness:

Why You Should Digitize Your Film Using a Camera Instead of a Scanner
How to Use Your DSLR to Scan Negatives | Fstoppers
Digitizing slides and negatives on the cheap By Dierk Topp – STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
Yes, your DSLR really is the best film scanner ? Jamie Maldonado Photography

I appreciate this info, especially the URLs. Will give it a try. - JT

[John Trammell]

Lots of people (including myself) already do this on MF negatives and slides. If you are doing 1:1 macro using an APSC camera and a sharp lens, you can resolve single emulsion grains this way. Six shots will get you a whole frame this way and can be done in less time than a single scan using a dedicated film scanner. Some have even done it at 3:1 with 28 shots for ultimate sharpness:

Why You Should Digitize Your Film Using a Camera Instead of a Scanner
How to Use Your DSLR to Scan Negatives | Fstoppers
Digitizing slides and negatives on the cheap By Dierk Topp – STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
Yes, your DSLR really is the best film scanner ? Jamie Maldonado Photography

How are the 6 images combined into one file?

[IgorZ]

I typically do it in Photoshop. The latest version of Lightroom might be an even better option as it allows you to combine multiple RAW files into a single RAW.

Thanks for the advice. What's the rest of your set up? Do you use Bellows, macro lens and a flash?

---------- Post added 01-14-17 at 09:06 PM ----------

The Epson V700 is sub $1000 bucks and probably your best bet at scanning using a flatbed, it will handle 35mm up to 4x5 and will give good results considering the price. Many college photo programs use them.

Thanks! I haven't looked into that one...

---------- Post added 01-14-17 at 09:09 PM ----------

Using a film scanner is going to be the best IQ way of scanning in my experience, but also the most expensive. As an alternative to the Nikon CoolScan 9000, Iʻve been using a Minolta Dimage MultiScan Pro for nearly 10 years for all my 35mm and 120 B&W, negs, and transparencies. I think it is very, very similar to the Nikon but 1/3-1/2 the price used:

Amazon.com: Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro Film Scanner: Electronics

I just missed a multi pro on local classifieds for about $400 us... One thing I was thinking about though, many of these scanners are over 10 years old now. Do they last that long? I see some being sold 'as is' on eBay.

[Alex645]

Igor, I can only share my experience and am not sure of the longevity of other film scanners. My first Minolta film scanner was used for about 3 years but the driver was Mac Classic 9.x and used a SCSI port. My current Minolta scanner has lasted a decade. It was purchased new. Part of itʻs longevity, I believe, is due to quality, but also because it hasnʻt been either overused or underused. It is used for a couple hours about once a month. Iʻve had issues with electrical mechanical devices when they sit dormant for too long.

Anything listed "as is" worries me that there are either parts missing (film holders or cables) or that it doesnʻt work and is being sold for parts.

[LesDMess]

I just missed a multi pro on local classifieds for about $400 us... One thing I was thinking about though, many of these scanners are over 10 years old now. Do they last that long? I see some being sold 'as is' on eBay.

I can tell you that my Coolscans scans as well as they did since I first got them new - Coolscan 5000 in 2004 and Coolscan 9000 in 2008. Over 30K frames with the 5000 and over 8K with the 9000. I have never seen any published MTBFs and have not opened either of mine yet nor do I have schematics but my experience with the technologies used would indicate that the weakest link would most likely be the built-in power supplies which I figure I can easily fix. There may be some mechanical wear items involved with moving the film - or transport, but maybe 3D printing will be able to make replacements for these? I will be very unhappy should I loose the ability to scan with the Coolscans!

[John Trammell]

Well, once again I thank the posters for their replies. I happen to have a small "daylight" light table on which to place the 645 negatives. With a 24MP camera and a macro lens, I can probably get good results with just one frame. No time to try it now. Later, for sure. - JT