[timw4mail]

Since high-resolution scans can command quite a premium from a photo lab, I would like to look into getting my own film scanner.

Feature-wise I would like:

• 35mm film scanning
• Print scanning is a nice to have, but not required
• 20+ Megapixel scan per frame
• Would also be nice to have Tiff or Raw output

So I was thinking maybe one of these:

• Wolverine Data SNAP20 Digital Image Converter SNAP20 B&H Photo
• Pacific Image Prime Film XE Film Scanner PRIMEFILM XE B&H Photo
• Pacific Image Prime Film XA Slide & Negative PRIMEFILM XA

Suggestions?

---

Last edited by timw4mail; 08-11-2017 at 05:40 AM. Reason: Added a third option

[dsmithhfx]

I just acquired a refurb v600 directly from epson for about half the retail price of a new one. It's a flatbed with transparency lid for 35mm and MF b+w and colour negatives, and 35mm slides. It is not the vastly more expensive "pro" versions (v700 and up), but thus far it is yielding better scans* out of the box than any of the local labs I've tried for superia 400 (jury's still out on tri-x, I need to experiment a bit more).

Scanning a 24-exposure rolls in three batches (two 4x strips per) takes about an hour, but only about 5-minutes of actual labor to set up each scan and then leave it and go do something else. The bundled software is really easy to use, once I realized that second-guessing the default settings was not getting me anywhere (I had been using hamrick software previously in a far more laborious work flow). 48-bit 3200ppi tiffs from 35mm run 80-90MB, but after I batch convert them to 24-bit, they are ~20-25MB.

*no/very little cropping, better resolution, less grain, and better shadow and highlight detail

[rob1234]

I'd keep an eye on eBay - I picked up a Canon FS4000 for about £65 I think, and it's been great. RRP was close to $1000 on launch, and I'd still have to move up significantly in price range to get marginally better results.

Couple of old reviews:
Canon CanoScan FS4000US film scanner
Digital Film Scanners - Canon FS-4000 Scanner Review, Information, and Specifications
Canon Canoscan FS4000 scanner review - FS4000us - Bob Atkins Photography

[Swift1]

Since high-resolution scans can command quite a premium from a photo lab, I would like to look into getting my own film scanner.

Feature-wise I would like:

• 35mm film scanning
• Print scanning is a nice to have, but not required
• 20+ Megapixel scan per frame
• Would also be nice to have Tiff or Raw output

Suggestions?

If you really need 20+ megapixel detail, you need a scanner capable of around 4000 dpi optical resolution scanning.
Most scanners will output any file size you want, but all scanners are limited by the mechanical and optical system. For example, my Epson V750-M will easily output 6400dpi scans (around 55 megapixels), but in reality it is only capable of resolving around 2400-3000 dpi of detail.
I doubt the Wolverine scanner you liinked will provide 4000 dpi of actual detail.
If you actually need 20+ megapixel scans, the Primefilm will likely work, or look at one of the Plustek dedicated 35mm scanners.
Or like Rob suggested, look into older dedicated 35mm scanners from Canon, Nikon, or Minolta, but the OEM software is an issue with those scanners, so you would probably need to also buy Vuescan.

I have used a Minolta Scan Dual IV (3200 dpi), but I very much prefer my Epson V750-M.
IMO, the Epson software is way easier to learn, and actually much better software.
I have made (and sold) 12"x18" prints from 35mm scans done with the V750, and I think they look great.

[D1N0]

Reflecta makes dedicated film scanners. In the US they are sold under the brand name Pacific Image. You can get much higher resolution than with a flat bed scanner. Works best with Silverfast software.

[Medex]

Plus to D1N0. Reflecta RPS 10M is dedicated 35 mm film scaner that output about 24 Mpix. Best results with optional Silverfast software.

Reflecta RPS 10M extensive test report: image quality, resolution and scanning speed

[dsmithhfx]

If you really need 20+ megapixel detail, you need a scanner capable of around 4000 dpi optical resolution scanning.
Most scanners will output any file size you want, but all scanners are limited by the mechanical and optical system. For example, my Epson V750-M will easily output 6400dpi scans (around 55 megapixels), but in reality it is only capable of resolving around 2400-3000 dpi of detail.
I doubt the Wolverine scanner you liinked will provide 4000 dpi of actual detail.
If you actually need 20+ megapixel scans, the Primefilm will likely work, or look at one of the Plustek dedicated 35mm scanners.
Or like Rob suggested, look into older dedicated 35mm scanners from Canon, Nikon, or Minolta, but the OEM software is an issue with those scanners, so you would probably need to also buy Vuescan.

I have used a Minolta Scan Dual IV (3200 dpi), but I very much prefer my Epson V750-M.
IMO, the Epson software is way easier to learn, and actually much better software.
I have made (and sold) 12"x18" prints from 35mm scans done with the V750, and I think they look great.

Colton, I had read the optical resolution of the flatbed scanners maxes out @ 2400 ppi, but in my tests, 3200ppi yields signicantly better scans, provided I use the default unsharp mask of the bundled epson software (the "dIgital ICE" infrared dust & scratches removal works a treat too).

What up with that?

[Swift1]

Colton, I had read the optical resolution of the flatbed scanners maxes out @ 2400 ppi, but in my tests, 3200ppi yields signicantly better scans, provided I use the default unsharp mask of the bundled epson software (the "dIgital ICE" infrared dust & scratches removal works a treat too).

What up with that?

Ya, I'm not sure. I have played around with scanning at 3200dpi on both my V750 and V500, then downsize to 2400dpi, then compare those with scans done at 2400. With both scanners the downsized 3200dpi scans looks better than the 2400dpi scans.
I've also done direct comparisons between a Minolta Scan Dual IV 3200dpi scan and the same negative scanned at 3200dpi on my Epson V750. With slides, the Minolta was clearly better, but with color negative, I think the Epson was better.
I've done some DSLR scanning using my K-01, and that is able to resolve a lot more detail, which shows that the Epson definitely isn't getting all the detail from the negative.
I've researched many different scanning options, and for my uses, the V750 is the best for me. Being able to load 24 frames, and the Epson software make it quick, simple, and gives me results good enough for 12x18 prints.

[Theov39]

If it is maximum quality you are after, you need a dedicated film scanner (as opposed to a flat-bed scanner), although the current batch of Epson flat-bed scanners are pretty close and much faster and easier to use. They are also more versatile as you can use them to scan virtually anything besides just film.

I have a Nikon Coolscan IV scanner (from the early 2000s) which does a great job albeit somewhat slow. However, Nikon no longer makes scanners and second hand ones are going for crazy collector-like prices. At those prices I would not recommend them.

I second Medex's suggestion for the Reflecta RPS 10M, particularly as the above review states it "is the only film scanner to draw in and batch scan entire film rolls of up to 36 image". Even the Nikon scanners only did up to 6 frames unless you had the very expensive optional batch scanner attachment.

Another point the review makes, and which my own experience confirms, is that image quality is very dependent on the scanning software you use. They recommend Silverfast, which appears to be the new gold standard for scanning.

[LesDMess]

Good to know that the Reflecta RPS 10M could be a viable replacement to the Coolscan 5000 as far as autofocus and higher res results. The Coolscan 5000 is at least 3 to 5 times faster to scan each frame specially when dust removal is enabled. I wonder how effective that is?

BTW, the optional adapter to scan the whole roll of film with the Coolscan 5000 is not necessary but will keep the film from falling to the ground.

[Theov39]

The Nikon Coolscan 5000 is a very nice scanner but used models (about 10 years old) are averaging $2000+ and the optional adapter around $500. The prices for these scanners is amazing given that we are talking about 10 yr old electronic devices! A brand new Reflecta RPS 10M is only around $1000 and would be a much better bet.

[timw4mail]

The Nikon Coolscan 5000 is a very nice scanner but used models (about 10 years old) are averaging $2000+ and the optional adapter around $500. The prices for these scanners is amazing given that we are talking about 10 yr old electronic devices! A brand new Reflecta RPS 10M is only around $1000 and would be a much better bet.

That's quite a bit more than I want to spend.

Is this equivalent to the RPS 10M?
Pacific Image Prime Film XA Slide & Negative PRIMEFILM XA

[Theov39]

That's quite a bit more than I want to spend.

Is this equivalent to the RPS 10M?
Pacific Image Prime Film XA Slide & Negative PRIMEFILM XA

That looks like the same scanner but you have to compare the specs side by side to really tell. I think I got the price of the Reflecta wrong and looking at a more advanced model! Pacific Image is the brand name in the US for Reflecta (in Europe).

I see you can download the manual on the BH website so have a look at that to see if it meets your needs and it is not to complicated to use. There is a learning curve in using dedicated film scanners so take that into account.

BH includes the SilverFast SE software so that is a bonus. It is worth experimenting with the different scanning software packages available and see which one you are most comfortable with. VEUSCAN is another good software option. They all have their pros and cons.

[LesDMess]

I have a Nikon Coolscan IV scanner (from the early 2000s) which does a great job albeit somewhat slow. However, Nikon no longer makes scanners and second hand ones are going for crazy collector-like prices. At those prices I would not recommend them.

Another point the review makes, and which my own experience confirms, is that image quality is very dependent on the scanning software you use. They recommend Silverfast, which appears to be the new gold standard for scanning.

How many frames of film - and what types of films have you scanned?
How effective is the dust and scratch removal across various films?
Given your experience with the older Coolscan, how would you compare the workflow and results between these two?

This Reflecta seems to have broken through some barriers - auto focus, auto feed and price. I wonder why the continued slow scanning speed?

[Theov39]

How many frames of film - and what types of films have you scanned?
How effective is the dust and scratch removal across various films?
Given your experience with the older Coolscan, how would you compare the workflow and results between these two?

This Reflecta seems to have broken through some barriers - auto focus, auto feed and price. I wonder why the continued slow scanning speed?

Using the Coolscan IV I have scanned color negatives (C41), normal slides and Kodachrome. I generally found color negatives the easiest to do.

With the Coolscan IV you can do one slide at a time or up to 6 negative frames. The higher models allow you to attach a negative role feeder attachment but i have never used that as it doesn't fit the IV.

I haven't used the Reflect so I cannot compare it directly, but it seems to get good reviews.

The Nikon ICE software is great for cleaning up scratches and marks on all forms of film but Kodachrome seems more challenging to get the exposure right. If you don't use ICE the process is a lot faster but frankly, i just scan film for my own needs so speed is not a big issue for me. Yes, it's surprising that scanning has not gotten a lot faster despite the advances in all other areas. Basically the faster you want the process to be the more you will pay for the scanner.