Another scanner thread...

K

Kyle

Guest
OK, I don't know a whole lot about film scanners, and I know these questions pop up all the time, but please bear with me. A film scanner is on my Christmas list, but I'm still trying to figure out which one is the best for me. I don't shoot enough MF to justify purchasing a multi-format scanner, so I'm looking into a 35mm only. I don't own a printer (yet) so right now I'm only getting it for scanning negatives for web use. However, I would like to get a printer soon and make prints from my scans. I shoot 95% black and white, so that is my primary focus.

OK, now for my questions. At the top of my list of scanners is a Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV. This is mainly due to its low cost, which frees up room for other stuff on my list. :D Will this produce scans capable of making a quality 8x10 print? Or would I be better served with something like DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II or a Nikon Coolscan V ED?

Also, what is the learning curve on film scanners? Is it difficult to get great scans? I'm not expecting to produce brilliant scans right away, but if its going to be more trouble than its worth I might just forget the idea all together. Also, is there anything else I would need to purchase (software, etc)?

Thank you so much in advance for any help. I know these are basic questions that I should be able to find with a little bit of searching, but I'm a student and I'm heading into finals week so I don't have a lot of time to spend on the 'net. :)
 
The Scan Dual IV is definitely enough to give you quality 8x10's and even 11x14's from a good negative.

The learning curve will depend on your background. Like anything, including traditional darkroom work, you need to serve an 'apprenticeship' with the techniques. There are good sources of information on the Net and members here can help with questions as you go. You will need to learn the basics of a good photo editor. It's not hard, but it takes commitment.

Good luck with it. Sounds like a fine Christmas present!

Gene
 
I got VueScan to go with my Plustek OpticFilm 7200 film scanner and it helped immensely.
 
1 - DS IV is great, esp. if you're only doing B&W. If you're thinking of doing any color I strongly recommend something with digital ICE.

2 - get Vuescan. Repeat: get Vuescan.

very short version of my previous posts.

good luck!
allan
 
kyle said:
OK, I don't know a whole lot about film scanners,
Click to expand...

I know a little bit about one of them. :) And I'm still excited about it so I'm always a sucker for a thread like this. :)

OK, now for my questions. At the top of my list of scanners is a Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV. This is mainly due to its low cost, which frees up room for other stuff on my list. :D Will this produce scans capable of making a quality 8x10 print?
Click to expand...

Yes, it will. Let me qualify that. It will produce a very good scan that even with some cropping will give you a very nice 8x10 at 300 dpi.

If you are used to getting a so-so print from a Walgreens or Wally World scan, you will be overjoyed at the quality of print you can get from a high res scan out of the Dual IV.

Also, what is the learning curve on film scanners?
Click to expand...

It took me several days of playing around to get a good workflow. The software with the Dual IV is actually very easy to use. It took me several sessions to get the hang of workflow, like first prescan, then adjust focus, autocrop, levels, and also what res and such I wanted to standardize on.

Also, plan on using up a LOT of disk space. Every couple sessions I end up having to transfer scans to CD ROM to free up disk space.

I'm in the habit of saving the original scan and the edited ones. That 16 bit full-res scan is about 80 megs. Really.

Is it difficult to get great scans?
Click to expand...

Not really. Just some attention to detail. Be sure the negative or slide is clean, take some time to tweak the auto-focus and maybe the levels a bit. You'll need to be handy with computers, but not really a technogeek. You'll also need to be able to use Photoshop or whatever to edit, size, and clean up as needed.

I'm not expecting to produce brilliant scans right away,
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you might just end up producing some very good scans on your first session. Really. :)

Also, is there anything else I would need to purchase (software, etc)?
Click to expand...

Some of the people here really love a certain replacement scanner software. I haven't found the supplied software to lack anything that I need yet, but maybe I'm not that advanced with it yet.
 
Thanks so much for all the help, guys! I really do appreciate it. I'll be getting the Dual Scan IV for sure.

I want to look into printers, but I have a an Advanced Logic final I should be studying for. :bang:
 
kaiyen said:
2 - get Vuescan. Repeat: get Vuescan.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing this. Can you and the other Vuescan fans answer me a few questions please?

1. What, exactly, will the Vuescan software do that the supplied software plus Photoshop (or The Gimp) will not do. I did look over the web site and I didn't really see anything that jumped out and said "get me", so specifically, what will it do that I can't do now?

2. Will it scan the negatives any faster? That's the big bottleneck in the workflow, the actual final scan of the negative or slide.

3. Will it deliver a better quality scan? Meaning, higher or better resolution, greater dynamic range?

4. Does it have any "electronic dust brush" type features that really actually work without degrading the image?

5. Is it significantly easier to use than the supplied Minolta software, which I really don't consider difficult at all?

Those are really the things I might be interested in. Thanks. :)
 
dmr said:
I keep hearing this. Can you and the other Vuescan fans answer me a few questions please?
Click to expand...

I can try...

1. What, exactly, will the Vuescan software do that the supplied software plus Photoshop (or The Gimp) will not do. I did look over the web site and I didn't really see anything that jumped out and said "get me", so specifically, what will it do that I can't do now?
Click to expand...

Well, my comparisons are with NikonScan and EpsonScan. Both of them make it hard to impossible to get a fully manual scan, that doesn't cut off at least some of the levels. One of the key things for me with Vuescan is that I can have it scan without ANY changes or adjustments whatsoever. In fact, I can even scan to RAW format and have Vuescan make as many different outputs as I want, each one configured slightly differently, with different contrast curves, etc. Or I can just have it do a completely unadjusted one. It just gives me more of a baseline which makes editing in PS that much more powerful.

I also very much like that I can set the film base and have Vuescan substract that for me, as well as lock in exposure for all the frames on a whole roll.

It also supports multi-pass scanning. NikonScan supports this for the x000 series, but not the IV, which I have. I don't know if it supports it for the V.

2. Will it scan the negatives any faster? That's the big bottleneck in the workflow, the actual final scan of the negative or slide.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's not any faster.

3. Will it deliver a better quality scan? Meaning, higher or better resolution, greater dynamic range?
Click to expand...

It will, in the sense that it will let you get every last bit out of your white and black points. I found that NikonScan always clipped a little bit. I have even less control in EpsonScan.

4. Does it have any "electronic dust brush" type features that really actually work without degrading the image?
Click to expand...

Nope. Though I personally don't think any such thing exists from any vendor. That's why I'm insane about dust with my black and white negs, and cherish the ICE for c41 and e6 stuff. I don't think Vuescan has any implementation of a software-only dust tool, though, either good or bad.

5. Is it significantly easier to use than the supplied Minolta software, which I really don't consider difficult at all?
Click to expand...

I would say that Vuescan is actually kind of hard to use right off the bat. You can use it with all "basic" settings and it's pretty quick to figure out. It's when you start getting advanced - white point, RGB settings, batch scanning, film base, etc - that it gets harder. But there is a lot of information out there on how to get the most out of it.

allan
 
Allan is right. Vuescan is great, but really only stands out, in my opinion, when you go all manual and learn to tweak it for all it's worth. In that sense, it isn't really easy to use as there is a fairly big learning curve. I have, however, come to the conclusion that if I can't get a good scan with Vuescan, it's probably hopeless.

Although, I should mention that I fired up my flatbed the other day to scan some older 120 film I had laying around. I was disappointed that some of the features that I've come to need in Vuescan weren't available for my older Canon 8000F. Canon's software for the flatbed can handle what I need to do, but would normally do in Vuescan. I use it to drive my Canon FS4000US, which has the worst supplied software imaginable.
 
Good answers re Vuescan. When I first starting scanning B&W negs about 5 yrs ago, I could never quite get what I expected from them. I kept hearing about Vuescan but thought maybe it was just some kind of cult hype. But I went to the site and downloaded a trial version, to compare with my vendor software. One strip scanned, and I immediately purchased Vuescan. Instant convert. Since then I've come to love it even more. It gets upgraded constantly (maybe a little *too* constantly at times) and Hamrick is totally behind this product. So, I guess I've joined the cult ...

Take a test ride and compare with your current software. You may decide it really *is* just hype, or you may discover a new tool that works well for you:

http://www.hamrick.com/

Gene
 
I have SD IV and Epson 2400 with Transparency Adapter (4x5 and 120 6x9). I run Linux and I use Vuescan and The Gimp as a Photoshop kinda clone.

First, I use Vuescan because I run Linux. Not much choice there. XSane is also possible, but only for supported scanners in Linux, which the SD IV ain't.

Second, Vuescan is not intuitive or dead easy to use, but you'd be surprised at how often, after tweaking like a mad thing, I find myself returning to dead stock generic C41 mode.

Third, you can improve your speed of processing by previewing all and then scanning only those you like - or scanning at less than the highest scan rate, depending on what you intend to do with the resulting image. Developing good workflow habits is essential, but you can get it down to a very rapid flow.

Fourth, I meant to mention this in another thread - I entered a photo contest recently, and the judging was Monday night. I won 2nd Place, a $250 gift certificate, with a 12 x 16 enlargement of a B&W (Kodak Tri-X) negative that I processed myself, then scanned and Gimp'd and then uploaded to www.mpix.com for printing. Razor sharp, bud. Not even any grain at that enlargement. I don't know WHY people keep insisting that you can't print LARGE with 35mm without losing significant quality - it's not true. If you need 20x30, then yes, you probably need MF or LF. I mean, I can swear that my photo is sharp, clean, etc - but I took second place in the danged contest - so I think I'm justified in saying you can scan and print big with the SD IV.

Fifth - If you need/want Digital ICE for scratch removal, then you want the next step up in dedicated film scanners, because the SD IV does not offer it. I believe the SD 5400 and 5400 II do, but I'm not sure. I find that I do not need ICE on B&W I've processed myself. On C41 that I have done elsewhere, sometimes it would be nice to get rid of scratches, dust, etc. But I've never used it, I have no idea how badly it slows things down or how much critical sharpness is lost.

I hope you find this helpful.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
bmattock said:
Second, Vuescan is not intuitive or dead easy to use, but you'd be surprised at how often, after tweaking like a mad thing, I find myself returning to dead stock generic C41 mode.
Click to expand...

yup, for color, I use this pretty much exclusively now. I haven't found one of the profiles that works all that great with color film.

[quote I don't know WHY people keep insisting that you can't print LARGE with 35mm without losing significant quality - it's not true. If you need 20x30, then yes, you probably need MF or LF. [/quote]

I've gone to 36x48 with a 35mm scan on my Nikon IV ("only" 2900 dpi), uprezed and printed via Qimage, on an Epson 9600. I oversharpened it, but the actual output is _almost_ there. It's a bit too big for that resolution scan.

MF on an Epson 3200 flatbed is AWESOME. People have offered to buy the mounted print they have on display here at work as a "demo" of the printer.

allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom