[Ivan J. Eberle]

I have a Minolta DMSE 5400. It's rather amazing with better than 90 lp/mm resolution. Files from this scanner look terrific printed natively 16x24 at 300 dpi and can readily be interpolated larger. I am confident that the best portfolio work that I've done in 35mm is at or above 90 lp/mm shooting (as when shooting my Pentax primes).

Don't have a V750, but V750 users almost universally mention that they won't print bigger than 16x20 from it-- when scanning 4x5!. So if you think you can get a 645 scan with a flatbed like the Epson V750 that will beat the best that the MDSE can do, you're probably going to be sorely disappointed.

I've been holding off on a Nikon CoolScan 9000 because I don't think it even it will significantly improve on the resolution with just 645 scans v. the DMSE 5400 from 135. Film area doesn't mean a whole lot, it's linear resolution that matters. Scanner resolution can also be restricted if your lenses can't achieve better. The Coolscan captures nearly 67 ppi... which is likely already beyond the upper limits of some number of P645 lenses.

An Imacon doesn't have ICE, incidentally. For that kind of cost, and the time spend dustbusting your scans, l'd rather get a good used drumscanner and wet-mount for the better defect handling and lower noise. (Good drum scanners are now selling for about what a Coolscan 9000 costs.)

If I shot more 6x7 or 6x9, the Coolscan might make more sense. But to have three scanners just to do what one drum scanner does better--for less money--really doesn't make any sense at all.

---

Last edited by Ivan J. Eberle; 05-17-2010 at 06:55 PM.

[Macroguy]

What would you consider a good drum scanner? Would you look for one on ebay or do you know of any reliable re-seller?

[Smolk]

Even if the costs of a drum scanner have come down - maintenance of such an originally expensive beast must be beyond basic budgets, quite apart from the perhaps general problem that support is falling away for this sort of thing

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Spending upwards of $2000 on a Coolscan already seems rather extravagant for anyone on a basic budget--epecially for 645. Most compelling reason to scan your own 645s is for bigger prints. Otherwise, might as well get them scanned off the same Noritsu where you get your film processed. (Which scans rezzed down to web size look fantastic, BTW!)

There exist 35mm scanners that do a better job on 35mm than the Coolscan 9000. The Coolscan 9000 when used with 645 doesn't doesn't offer sufficient advantage over 135 format scanned on a better scanner to recommend it (at least it isn't sufficiently compelling to me, someone who's already a satisfied owner of a Minolta DMSE 5400 and also shoots 4x5). The CS 9000 admittedly is just about the perfect scanner for 6x7 and 6x9, but that makes it a niche scanner. Outside of that niche, better options exist, e.g. drum scanners.

Too, the choice of 645 format for scanning if not from an already-existing archive--or some clearly identified reason why the format is ideal for a particular niche use-- is a bit of a rabbit hole nowadays. The results from scanned 645 film are quite good but aren't going to blow away what can be done with a sub-$2K Sony FF dSLR (also exquisite) until/unless you drum scan at high resolution. Even then the differences are going to be subtle. So unless you need to also print conventionally in the darkroom, or require the dynamic range advantage of B&W or color negative film, the added expense and inconvenient workflow of processing and scanning film doesn't really have a lot to recommend it.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

The drum scanners I'm giving a hard look are the Howteks and Azteks.

[tuco]

...So unless you need to also print conventionally in the darkroom, or require the dynamic range advantage of B&W or color negative film, the added expense and inconvenient workflow of processing and scanning film doesn't really have a lot to recommend it.

That's the rub. When you do something for the love of it, no measure of practicality can be applied. Life is not always made up of "cold business" decisions.

[lbenac]

That's the rub. When you do something for the love of it, no measure of practicality can be applied. Life is not always made up of "cold business" decisions.

I will second that one as another willing victim...
In my specific case $1,200 for LS-8000 seems a better choice that $650 for a V700.
With the LS-9000 around the $3K mark nowadays, that excludes it from the equation in my books.
Of course if the LS-8000 fail after a little bit of use I will be crying over spilled milk...

That said, I think that the comment regarding 645 format is a fair one. I will just make three remarks:
1) the 645 handles so nicely
2) the 645 does not totally break my back on a hike (still get a good sweat...)
3) you made that one "require the dynamic range advantage of B&W" of course we do...............

Of no importance is the cost of a full system, 645 cheaper than 67.


Cheers,

Luc

[stevebrot]

The drum scanners I'm giving a hard look are the Howteks and Azteks.

After your purchase, I would be interested in reading your opinions of an Aztek/Howtek as compared to what you have been getting from your 5400. An Aztek Premier with a larger negative should be pretty stunning.

I am curious about your statements regarding the utility of scanning 6x4.5 cm negatives on the Nikon 9000. The 9000 has a confirmed real-world resolution of 3900 dpi*. By my calculation, this would allow a 63.7 megapixel image from a 645 negative. This is much higher than any FF (24x36 mm) sensor on the current market including those from Sony. Similarly, scanning the same negative should allow a 16.7 megapixel image at 2000 dpi on a V700 (properly dialed in). A 6x7cm negative at 2000 dpi yields 26 megapixels.

So, it would seem that for a 6x7cm or 4x5" negative, the V700 is a very real option compared to a FF dSLR. If you are shooting 6x4.5cm, the Nikon would be the better choice and should be up to the task.

Am I missing something or am I just harboring hopeful thoughts having just purchased a V700?



Steve


BTW...I finally recognized your name from largeformatphotography.info. Glad to see you here as well.


* Reference: Nikon Super Coolscan LS-9000 ED Review

[Smolk]

I have looked at a ICG scanner, which seemed extraordinary; at least at Collaborative Large Format Scanner Comparison but also according to other tests. They do have second hand ones; at one point I checked and found one for £3500.
So I bought an Epson 4490. For the time being.

There's very good advice at the forum I linked to.

[Smolk]

Film area doesn't mean a whole lot, it's linear resolution that matters.

I had not thought about it in this way, but it is true if you're going the way of scanning.

Yet, there is something about the camera's handling, the quality of the 645 lenses, the 4:3 format, the fact that it is just about light enough (if I leave some lenses home) — all that apart from the fact that it now has an upgrade path.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Yes, Steve, may be missing something.

First of all, these are area measurements so doubling of megapixels doesn't equate to a doubling in resolution. More significantly, DSLR captures are original images with no intergenerational loss. Scans involve some intergenerational loss due to optics, some much greater than others (the glass in the V750 being particularly noteworthy).

To minimize this generational loss, scans must be comparatively over-sampled to obtain the same level of resolution.

It's why a 12 or 15 MP image from a DSLR with decent glass can have equivalent or even better resolution than even my Pentax LX/100mm SMC-A Macro f/2.8 on Velvia scanned with a DMSE 5400 at 38MP. 12MP images from my D300 are so mind blowingly good that I'm shooting almost no 135 these days. I do still have quite a backlog from 30+ years of archives that need scanned yet. (I’ve had the scanner for 6 years! This might tell you something about why I’m not as keen on the workflow as I might otherwise be!)

[tuco]

...12MP images from my D300 are so mind blowingly good that I'm shooting almost no 135 these days.

I'm not calling your baby ugly but my buddy has a D300 and we go out shooting all the time together ( me shooting either a Pentax 67 or Hasselblad). My mind has not been blown out yet by it.

[stevebrot]

Yes, Steve, may be missing something...

Steve is quite aware of generational loss. It works backwards. I am much less intelligent than my daughter and becoming more so every day.

I used published resolution figures derived from actual scan test data, not the theoretical resolution of the scanner. I think that means that generation loss is accounted for. So it seems pretty straightforward. Effective resolution (dpi) * linear dimension (inches) = pixels ("dots" translated).

OTOH...I am with you 100% regarding APS-C images vs. film scans. The digital sensor/processor on my K10D is pretty incredible at 10 megapixel and scans from 35mm usually seem to come up short if I pixel peep. Prints (I only do up to 8x10) turn out about the same.


Steve

[lbenac]

I'm not calling your baby ugly but my buddy has a D300 and we go out shooting all the time together ( me shooting either a Pentax 67 or Hasselblad). My mind has not been blown out yet by it.

That is because he has not thrown it at you hard enough in cheer envy looking at your 6*7 shots
Sorry could not resist the pun, no hard feeling for D300 or DSLR owners, at each one its own and all other good stuff...

Cheers,

Luc

[lbenac]

OTOH...I am with you 100% regarding APS-C images vs. film scans. The digital sensor/processor on my K10D is pretty incredible at 10 megapixel and scans from 35mm usually seem to come up short if I pixel peep. Prints (I only do up to 8x10) turn out about the same.Steve

I think that we are getting to the point as Tuco pointed out where quality or convenience is not the reference to measure against, but the less rational argument of feel and enjoyment of a process.
This has the advantage to leave both side feeling vindicated and right about their belief and personal choices. Of course if you want to pour oil on the fire there is also the snobish notion that images developed with your own little grubby hands with all their grain and imperfections are more "original" than the "immaculate" result of a digital sensor in other word they have more "character" But this is just a way to make us feel justificated for the time and effort of shooting film in 135, 645 or even 67 format.

Cheers,

Luc