35mm scanner

[percepts]

What is considered the bees knees of dedicated 35mm scanners these days?
I have a scanner which does 120 and 4x5 pretty well but it falls short with 35mm film. I'm looking for something specifically for B+W film which masks grain if possible. i.e. gives nice smooth looking scans rather than super sharp and grainy.

 

[percepts]

And preferably has an accessory so that I scan a whole roll of film in one go like the nikon. Infact is the nikon still the best option for this?

 

[majid]

The best 35mm scanner out there is the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED. It uses a LED illumination source, however, which does show grain. For what you describe, the discontinued Minolta Elite 5400 with its "grain dissolver" feature would fit your bill, but you would have to find a used scanner, with all the risks that entails (a scanner is a mechanical device, and one sensitive to dust at that).

 

[Papa Smurf]

What is considered the bees knees of dedicated 35mm scanners these days?....

Recently, I did extensive research on this and other sites concerning just this question. The aforementioned Nikon and Minolta scanners are by far the most recommended/praised for their user friendliness and high quality scans. I have forgotten the brand and model numbers, but there was one or two models that I really lusted for that would self-feed a negative strip without close supervision. Not automatic scanning, but close. I settled upon the Minolta Scan Dual III (it fit within my budget). I like it a lot and I find what others called short-comings to be minor.

One thing to consider, are you going to scan negatives or slides exclusively or a mix of both. There are dedicated bulk slide scanning models that facilitate the scanning of large numbers of slides.

Somewhere, I read that something over 4000 DPI is the max usable without introducing bogus information. This is sort of verified by a tech at the local camera shop that said that his Nikon 5000?? would pick up grain and flaws in the film itself at max resolutions.:bang:

Happy Scanning!🙄

 

[amateriat]

Somewhere, I read that something over 4000 DPI is the max usable without introducing bogus information. This is sort of verified by a tech at the local camera shop that said that his Nikon 5000?? would pick up grain and flaws in the film itself at max resolutions.:bang:

Someone online did what I considered to be a rather extensive test with both desktop film scanners and drum scanners, and concluded that, regarding the finest-grain 35mm film, properly exposed (in a camera mounted on a rigid tripod), the point of diminishing returns, resolution-wise, was about 6000dpi (ppi). This, of course, assumes optimum photographic conditions, which is certainly not how most people work with 35mm, a medium which is more about spontaneity than tripod-mounted exactitude (though it can do that if desired...that's what I love about it).

Most 35mm exposures can be done justice to with a 4000dpi film scanner. This didn't stop me from running out and buying a Minolta 5400 not long after it came on the market. After four years and a goodly number of film scans, I regard it as a great investment. As far as buying used, I helped a client buy a used 5400 II (second version, with Nikon-style LEDs vs. the original 5400's fluorescent tube (which I prefer overall) via That Auction Site. No problems at all, but it helps to ask questions before laying your money down.

If you insist on buying new, Nikon's 5000 is the only game in town, IMO.


- Barrett

 

[percepts]

Somewhere, I read that something over 4000 DPI is the max usable without introducing bogus information. This is sort of verified by a tech at the local camera shop that said that his Nikon 5000?? would pick up grain and flaws in the film itself at max resolutions

Fact is that most areas of any image is at way lower than 1000:1 contrast ratio. High film resolution figures are calculated at 1000:1 and that means that alternate lines in line pairs are at 1000:1 contrast ratio for them to be resolved. If you look at fuji film data sheets, you will see that they give a high and low contrast ratio for resolution. For example, fuji velvia 50 gives 160 lines at 1000:1 but only 80 lines at 1.6:1. That lower value of 80 lines will be more typical of your average image. (most of your image will not be alternating black and white lines at 1000:1 contrast ratio).
80 lines per millimeter is only 2032 per inch. So a scanner capable of 4000 lines/dots per inch is more than capable of extracting all the detail that is actually available in the negative..
My only query is: do fuji mean 160 lines or 160 line pairs. If its line pairs, then the lower figure of 80 lines would be 80 line pairs meaning 160 lines and that would mean 4064 lines per inch. Again, a 4000 dpi scanner will get that from your negative. So it would only be images with very fine detail at very high local contrast ratios that would push the limits of the scanner.

That all assumes you get the detail in the negative. If you are hand holding the camera, then there is no way you will get those high on film resolution figures. So unless you are using a tripod and photographing a very unsusal subject with extremely high local contrast then using a scanner above 4000 dpi is worthless.

At least that is how I understand it.