Advice on scanner

[pvenables]

Splendid Maddoc, that's very useful to know. Very many thanks.

Paul

 

[maddoc]

Thanks Paul !

One thing I forgot to mention, due to only 1GB RAM in my Sony note-book, I can't scan MF with higher resolution than 3200 dpi (6400 dpi for 35mm BW and 4800 dpi for 35mm color) The Epson software gives an error message if I try to increase the resolution, saying "not enough memory available".

 

[Blank288]

If budget is an issue: I've got an older Minolta Scan Dual II for free from a friend who didn't use it anymore. I think these scanners should be avaliable for minor money. With VueScan software (lots of tweaking possible) I get fine results. I used it for quite a few of my weblog pics.
More modern scanners however will probably have a higher resolution and operate quicker.
I use an Epson Perfection 3200 Photo for MF, which works fine too. It came with a 35mm frame, but I never tried it.

 

[gdi]

How did you get the idea that the flat beds won't come close to a film scanner ? For sure a dedicated film scanner has the advantage of a focussing system and usually better optics but the modern flat bed scanner (e.g. V700 / V750) are quite close to the film scanner. BTW, I have sold my Nikon V ED in favor of a Epson V700. The Nikon delivered sharper scans but mainly better resolved film grain. The colors were always of (using Nikon software and Vuescan) and scans were usually to contrasty. Handling curly film is a big hassle with the Nikon. Without the optional film holder FH-3, I couldn't scan many of my films.

I use the ANR inserts for 35mm film with the Epson and the original Epson holder for 120 film.

It doesn't sound like you were using your V to its fullest. I didn't see any of those problems with mine - curly film was a piece of cake with the feeder. Then there is the advantage in terms of effective resolution in favor of the Nikons.

But I think the Epsons are a good value, particularly if you need MF proofs.

 

[wozarangefinder]

Thanks All
I definately think the Coolscan V will be the way for me to go.
Paul, the best price I have seen it going for is £425 at Warehouse Express. I will give it a go with the Nikon software and if it does become an issue then I can always change the software at a later date.

You have all been very helpful - I

 

[wozarangefinder]

Thanks All
I definately think the Coolscan V will be the way for me to go.
Paul, the best price I have seen it going for is £425 at Warehouse Express. I will give it a go with the Nikon software and if it does become an issue then I can always change the software at a later date.

You have all been very helpful - I did wonder if anyone would reply to my question but I think this

 

[0bli0]

i'll also recommend the v700/v750. you can have a look at my flickr gallery for lots of examples. i have printed 35mm at A3+ and will have some shots at 20x30 at an upcoming exhibition. i use it with vuescan software, which is very reasonably priced.

 

[Krosya]

How did you get the idea that the flat beds won't come close to a film scanner ? For sure a dedicated film scanner has the advantage of a focussing system and usually better optics but the modern flat bed scanner (e.g. V700 / V750) are quite close to the film scanner. BTW, I have sold my Nikon V ED in favor of a Epson V700. The Nikon delivered sharper scans but mainly better resolved film grain. The colors were always of (using Nikon software and Vuescan) and scans were usually to contrasty. Handling curly film is a big hassle with the Nikon. Without the optional film holder FH-3, I couldn't scan many of my films.

I use the ANR inserts for 35mm film with the Epson and the original Epson holder for 120 film.

Same here - used to have a Nikon V ED - it's ok, but software was horrible and handling not the best either. Got Epson V700 and it's awsome. Film holders could be better, but still do a very good job. Very good for 35mm and great for medium format. I'd definately recommend it. Plus it has much bettr software - I never had a problem with it. Unlike Nikon.
here is a photo scanned from a 35mm neg on a V700:

I think it did a very good job for a flatbed.

 

[myoptic3]

Probably a good choice. It is amazing how much more expensive photography gear is where you are, as a new Nikon V ED can be bought here for around $525 USD. As far as my comment about a flatbed scanner not being as good as a dedicated flatbed scanner, well, I don't know why someone brought issue w/ this. It's pretty common knowledge. Just stating optical fact, not degenerating someone's choice of equipment. Ford vs Chevy anyone? I agree, an Epson flatbed scanner is as good as it probably gets for a flatbed scanner design, and they are certainly nicely priced. But if anyone takes the trouble to scan the same pic w/ an Epson and a Nikon (or other top film scanners for that matter) they will quickly see there is a difference in sharpness and resolving power. For porttraits that may not necessarily be an advantage, but for other pics I prefer tio go w/ the best optical results. True, the dedicated film scanner is not as versitle as a flatbed, and if I shot MF I would use the Epson, but for 35mm a quality dedicated film scanner will give the best results. I have had good results w/ Nikon customer service too after the sale, and that is important.

 

[myoptic3]

Nikon V ED scans

Nikon V ED scans

The first scan was done on an Epson flatbed. The second from a Nikon V ED and hasn't had any editing yet. Hopefully this will show up on the forum.

 

[myoptic3]

Here's a few more of the V ED scans. The crane picture is w/ Kodachrome slide film, and I honestly don't see how you could get much more detail from the slide w/o going to a drum scan. If you click on it's image it should enlarge somewhat, and the uploaded version is not at all like the file on my computer, but it is still pretty darn good.

 

[iamzip]

So what I'm hearing is that if you're on a really tight budget (as I am) and can't afford a dedicated film scanner, and Epson flatbed is probably your best bet; if you're scanning medium format then it's the only one. Of course, I suppose you could buy the Epson for MF and a dedicated film scanner for 35mm, but the resulting divorce would definitely put me over budget.

Thanks to everyone for their input, and thanks to Woz for letting me hitch-hike on this thread.

 

[maddoc]

I think it did a very good job for a flatbed.

I think the photographer did a very good job here ! I like this portrait.

 

[maddoc]

Just to clarify some things here, I am not bashing the V ED. For sure the Nikon has the better optics compared with the Epson and is capable of delivering better results. My point is, I had both scanners in parallel for 5 month but stoped using the V ED when I saw the results, which my Epson V700 delivered. The marginal better results I received using the Nikon V ED were in no relation to the time needed for scanning one complete film.

With the Epson, I can mount 4 strips a 6 frames, pre-scan, make some adjustments and then batch scan 24 frames in one go. With the FH-3 holder (without, it simple didn`t work with my V ED in most cases) I have to manually insert every single frame, pre-scan, make the adjustments and scan.

One more thing, using the ANR inserts to hold the film flat and testing the correct height of the film holder is a must with the V700. Curly film inserted into the original Epson film holder (35mm) delivers horrible results.

 

[thomasw_]

Just to back up what maddoc has said about the epson v700; a very fine flatbed scanner for 35mm that will do most anything you will need. The versatility of a flatbed scanner should not be overlooked either.

 

[bigdog]

Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 I

Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 I

Two years ago I researched all available options and selected (for $650) the now defunct Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 (version I) dedicated 35mm film scanner and purchased Silverfast to run in place of the bundled software.

Right now there are two used units available on Ebay.

I recall the Minolta was the way to go if you shoot more black and white since the light source on the Minolta is flourecent instead of the LED light source on the Nikon.

I am very happy with the scanner and Silverfast. I believe is you do a search on www.shutterbug.com you can find several articles on this scanner and it's replacement scanner

http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/scanners_printers/1203sb_thenew/index.html

 

[myoptic3]

I wondered about the Minolta scanner. Glad that yours sounds like a keeper. In a stupid fit of cost cutting I sold my Nikon scanner a while back and am now searching for a cheapo replacement. I will probably go w/ one of the Plustek Optics and hope it doesn't work out to be the Yugo of flm scanners. I can see if it compares to the Nikon scans for B&W. If it doesn't, hey, tha's what ebay is for!

 

[myoptic3]

I wondered about the Minolta scanner. Glad that yours sounds like a keeper. In a stupid fit of cost cutting I sold my Nikon scanner a while back and am now searching for a cheapo replacement. I will probably go w/ one of the Plustek Optics and hope it doesn't work out to be the Yugo of flm scanners. I can see if it compares to the Nikon scans for B&W. If it doesn't, hey, that's what ebay is for!

 

[Prosaic]

Loading the Coolscan is quite simple and works much better for me than fiddling stripes in stripe holders on a flatbed and keeping the glas surface free from dust.

 

[foto_fool]

Here's a 3600 dpi scan from the Epson V500 of A 6x9 frame on Tmax 100 developed in DDX (IIRC).
Fuji GW690III at f3.5 - parts of the image are slightly OOF - focus was on the little Buddha in the window.
NO PP in Photoshop other than down-sampling to 798 px high.

The detail and sharpness of the original scan are astounding -
far exceeding the resolution requirements of my 8x10 priniting limitation.