Anyone using a Pacific Image XA?

[JohnWolf]

I ordered one of these, thinking I would compare it to my Plustek 8200. Vuescan won't recognize it, and after researching a bit, it seems the scanner only works when connected directly to a USB port on the computer. I use a Surface Pro with a dock and USB hub.

Has anyone dealt with this? Found a workaround? Unlikely, I think, but wanted to check before sending it back. Thank you.

John

 

[oldwino]

I have one. It needs to be used via usb, but mine works hooked up to my hub (Mac mini). I also use Vuescan, and the quality of the scans, once you get everything set up, is darn near equal to camera scanning, in some cases better. I only scan in DNG and use other software to convert. Right now I am trying out FilmLab, and it seems to work great for both color (c-41) and b&w. It’s nice as it is a stand alone program. I don’t use Lightroom.

 

[JohnWolf]

I have one. It needs to be used via usb, but mine works hooked up to my hub (Mac mini). I also use Vuescan, and the quality of the scans, once you get everything set up, is darn near equal to camera scanning, in some cases better. I only scan in DNG and use other software to convert. Right now I am trying out FilmLab, and it seems to work great for both color (c-41) and b&w. It’s nice as it is a stand alone program. I don’t use Lightroom.

Thank you. Great to hear it works with your hub. I'll keep trying.

John

 

[valdas]

I had one some years ago, but under Reflecta name. They are the same. Worked fine, but I bought it together with Silverfast, so no experience with Vuescan or another software.

 

[JohnWolf]

Thank you all. I installed the latest Vuescan and it picked up the scanner on both the dock and hub. So the company's documentation is wrong.

I look forward to texting it against the 8200, but can already see that the scans are much better.

John

 

[Tom R]

I use a PacificFilm SA, mostly to scan rolls to jpegs, in other words to create contact sheets. I examine those jpegs and select candidates. I then use a Plustek 8200i to scan the selects to TIFF files (at 3600 resolution, largely because I've been told that 7,200 adds nothing). I have, on occasion, scanned individual frames on the PacificFilm XA to TIFFs, using 5000, multiple exposures. I have found those images excellent ... most likely superior to the same negatives scanned on the Plustek.

I would gladly pay for a better scanner, one capable of actually scanning 36 exposures at one go, as well as producing high quality TIFF files when needed, but I don't see anything like that on the current market. (Hell, I see people paying upwards to $5,000 for one Leitz lens ... perhaps a Noritsu L-600 makes sense after all... ?) Perhaps respondents to this thread have some suggestions

 

[Godfrey]

Well, the film scanner you're looking for was likely the Nikon LS 5000 ED with roll attachment. Last I looked, these were very expensive. I have the less expensive LS-50 ED model, which is basically the same hardware without the ability to take the roll attachment.

But most of the time nowadays, I eschew film scanners entirely and use a copy camera approach. I have both Leica M10-M and M10-R, so I can get both ultimate B&W or ultimate color capture using the same copy stand, base light, and negative carrier jig, and I scan to DNGs exclusively and use my own techniques for inversion and gamma curve control. I can scan an uncut 36 shot roll in about, oh, 10 seconds per frame, or six minutes. For lens etc I use a Leica Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm or Macro-Elmar-R 100mm and a Leica Focusing Bellows-R ... all bought for literal dimes on the $100 bill when the R system was discontinued. For magnifications greater than 1:1 (needed for Minox or half frame negs), I switch to a Summicron-R 50mm f/2 ... old lens but superb imaging qualities at 2.5-3:1 magnifications ... and cost me $60.

Lots of ways to get to the target...

G

 

[JohnWolf]

I use a PacificFilm SA, mostly to scan rolls to jpegs, in other words to create contact sheets. I examine those jpegs and select candidates. I then use a Plustek 8200i to scan the selects to TIFF files (at 3600 resolution, largely because I've been told that 7,200 adds nothing). I have, on occasion, scanned individual frames on the PacificFilm XA to TIFFs, using 5000, multiple exposures. I have found those images excellent ... most likely superior to the same negatives scanned on the Plustek.

I would gladly pay for a better scanner, one capable of actually scanning 36 exposures at one go, as well as producing high quality TIFF files when needed, but I don't see anything like that on the current market. (Hell, I see people paying upwards to $5,000 for one Leitz lens ... perhaps a Noritsu L-600 makes sense after all... ?) Perhaps respondents to this thread have some suggestions

Tom, the XA will scan 36 exposures. It’s the same device as the Reflecta 10m, reviewed here.

I doubt I’ll use that feature because my practice is to snap a digital contact sheet on a light table and then scan very selectively.

John

 

[Freakscene]

Well, the film scanner you're looking for was likely the Nikon LS 5000 ED with roll attachment. Last I looked, these were very expensive. I have the less expensive LS-50 ED model, which is basically the same hardware without the ability to take the roll attachment.

But most of the time nowadays, I eschew film scanners entirely and use a copy camera approach. I have both Leica M10-M and M10-R, so I can get both ultimate B&W or ultimate color capture using the same copy stand, base light, and negative carrier jig, and I scan to DNGs exclusively and use my own techniques for inversion and gamma curve control. I can scan an uncut 36 shot roll in about, oh, 10 seconds per frame, or six minutes. For lens etc I use a Leica Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm or Macro-Elmar-R 100mm and a Leica Focusing Bellows-R ... all bought for literal dimes on the $100 bill when the R system was discontinued. For magnifications greater than 1:1 (needed for Minox or half frame negs), I switch to a Summicron-R 50mm f/2 ... old lens but superb imaging qualities at 2.5-3:1 magnifications ... and cost me $60.

Lots of ways to get to the target...

G

I use a similar approach and scan with a Leica M digital, BEOON, mostly an APO-Rodagon or Focotar-2, and an LED light box. It works better for me than anything apart from an Imacon, Leaf or drum scan, none of which I have or can easily access, and it packs into a small box I can put on a bookshelf.

 

[Tom R]

Well, the film scanner you're looking for was likely the Nikon LS 5000 ED with roll attachment. Last I looked, these were very expensive. I have the less expensive LS-50 ED model, which is basically the same hardware without the ability to take the roll attachment.

But most of the time nowadays, I eschew film scanners entirely and use a copy camera approach. I have both Leica M10-M and M10-R, so I can get both ultimate B&W or ultimate color capture using the same copy stand, base light, and negative carrier jig, and I scan to DNGs exclusively and use my own techniques for inversion and gamma curve control. I can scan an uncut 36 shot roll in about, oh, 10 seconds per frame, or six minutes. For lens etc I use a Leica Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm or Macro-Elmar-R 100mm and a Leica Focusing Bellows-R ... all bought for literal dimes on the $100 bill when the R system was discontinued. For magnifications greater than 1:1 (needed for Minox or half frame negs), I switch to a Summicron-R 50mm f/2 ... old lens but superb imaging qualities at 2.5-3:1 magnifications ... and cost me $60.

Lots of ways to get to the target...

G

Thanks for the recommendation. I don't have anything similar to a Leica M10 nor the Macro-Elmar-R, etc., but it's an interesting option for many on this forum who likely do own these gadgets.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

The clean simple interface of that FilmLab software is very attractive.
Too bad like others it seems a subscription is required.

Chris

 

[Freakscene]

The clean simple interface of that FilmLab software is very attractive.
Too bad like others it seems a subscription is required.

Chris

You can buy Film Lab as a one off purchase. It costs about the same as 25 months of the monthly subscription.

 

[JohnWolf]

I‘m probably an anomaly these days, but I much prefer a film scanner to camera scanning. A single, small, permanent device right there on the desktop and connected to the computer feels like a great workflow to me.

I hope at some point the film revival prompts a vendor or two to reintroduce scanners like the old Nikons.

John

 

[Godfrey]

There's nothing wrong with that workflow, @JohnWolf. But remember that if you do a lot of film scanning, there's also nothing to prevent you from setting up a permanent small copystand, film carrier, etc, in place of a scanner and doing the scanning via a copy camera approach as if it were a film scanner. And doing the scanning is more than 10x faster. The extra seconds it takes in setting up the camera onto it is less than the time it takes to make one scan with a film scanner...!

I moved to the copy camera approach rather than using my Nikon film scanner (still have it, still works very nicely with VueScan) because the quality of the scans was simply a lot better, given the quality of my current camera gear. And, given that I already had the camera and lenses required (even before I had the Leica gear), the cost of a good copystand, film carrier, and flat panel light box was actually about 1/2 that of the Nikon LS-50 film scanner and VueScan. (About $400)

The amount of automation there is in doing the negative inversion and color adjustment, for either workflow, post capture depends entirely upon what image processing software you're using and how well you know it.

Either way works well enough, depending on how you use it and what your goals are. 😀

G

 

[Godfrey]

Thanks for the recommendation. I don't have anything similar to a Leica M10 nor the Macro-Elmar-R, etc., but it's an interesting option for many on this forum who likely do own these gadgets.

I started doing film scanning with a digital camera back when all I had was a Sony F707 and an accessory close up lens in 2002. Over the years since, I went to a setup with first my Pentax DSLR kit, then my FourThirds kit, etc, with successively better and better results. The Leica gear I use now is what I switched to when I pretty much replaced all the earlier gear with Leica stuff, starting about 2012 (when I picked up the R system lenses and such, used them on a Sony A7 body) and ending with the most recent acquisition of the M10-M and M10-R in 2022 and 2023.

No way I could afford to buy all that stuff in one jump! LOL!
But I learned a lot along the way.

You could do a lot with a cheap, used Micro-FourThirds body and an Olympus ZD 35mm f/3.5 Macro lens, or even an adapted macro or enlarging lens. I used that setup for a long time and got great results with it ...

G

 

[ChrisPlatt]

You can buy Film Lab as a one off purchase. It costs about the same as 25 months of the monthly subscription.

Yes, I see, $200.
As an occasional user less expensive legacy software will suffice.

Chris

 

[JohnWolf]

There's nothing wrong with that workflow, @JohnWolf. But remember that if you do a lot of film scanning, there's also nothing to prevent you from setting up a permanent small copystand, film carrier, etc, in place of a scanner and doing the scanning via a copy camera approach as if it were a film scanner. And doing the scanning is more than 10x faster. The extra seconds it takes in setting up the camera onto it is less than the time it takes to make one scan with a film scanner...!

I moved to the copy camera approach rather than using my Nikon film scanner (still have it, still works very nicely with VueScan) because the quality of the scans was simply a lot better, given the quality of my current camera gear. And, given that I already had the camera and lenses required (even before I had the Leica gear), the cost of a good copystand, film carrier, and flat panel light box was actually about 1/2 that of the Nikon LS-50 film scanner and VueScan. (About $400)

The amount of automation there is in doing the negative inversion and color adjustment, for either workflow, post capture depends entirely upon what image processing software you're using and how well you know it.

Either way works well enough, depending on how you use it and what your goals are. 😀

G

You may be right. I have an M10 I could use. Although tethering would be a requirement.

But to take CMOS color captures of my BW negatives and then convert them to BW feels even farther removed from the workflow I enjoy.

I really like the simplicity and consistency of film scanners and Vuescan. Of course, to each his or her own.

John

 

[Freakscene]

You may be right. I have an M10 I could use. Although tethering would be a requirement.

But to take CMOS color captures of my BW negatives and then convert them to BW feels even farther removed from the workflow I enjoy.

I really like the simplicity and consistency of film scanners and Vuescan. Of course, to each his or her own.

John

Agree, and a scanner is less expensive than a Monochrom. I do it that way because I have the camera, rather than buying the camera to scan . . .

 

[Godfrey]

You may be right. I have an M10 I could use. Although tethering would be a requirement.

But to take CMOS color captures of my BW negatives and then convert them to BW feels even farther removed from the workflow I enjoy.

I really like the simplicity and consistency of film scanners and Vuescan. Of course, to each his or her own.

John

Agree, and a scanner is less expensive than a Monochrom. I do it that way because I have the camera, rather than buying the camera to scan . . .

I dunno, @JohnWolf. I was 'scanning' B&W negatives with a color camera years before a Monochrom existed. It's so-soo-sooo easy to just click the B&W button in most modern image processing software and forget that the underlying raw data is technically RGB. An RGB file of a monochrome negative is trivially different from a monochrome file of the same negative. The fact that the raw file produced is more malleable and has a greater range of editability than most scanner output is what's important to me.

It is a little funny to hear someone say "I really like the simplicity and consistency of film scanners and Vuescan." The biggest gripe I used to hear about Vuescan was how complex it was to use... LOL! 🤣

I didn't buy the M10-M or M10-R purely for scanning negatives. I bought them because they are superb and versatile cameras, and I happen to have a good range of lenses for the M-mount bodies already. Scanning film negatives is only a small part of what I use them for. 🙂

G