Al83
Member
Hi...hope I'm not going back over well trodden ground here but I'm looking for recommendations for a decent 35mm scanner. I have been looking at reviews for the Epson Perfection V370 and the Canon Canoscan 5600F. I will not be scanning a lot...only the few photos I want to print. Most of my stuff will be viewed on my ipad or on something like Flickr so I'm assuming that it's not really worth spending a lot here. What do you think? Thank you!
liamC
Established
I recently got the plustek 8100.
much better resolution than canon 9000f flat bed now I use just for 120.
much better resolution than canon 9000f flat bed now I use just for 120.
kennylovrin
Well-known
I have an Epson V500 flatbed and I find it to be utter crap for 35mm. It just won't give you more than ~1200dpi actual resolution and if you want to print not sure I'd personally be satisfied with that. I use it for 120 film now which is "fine", but I am still sitting there thinking "I have these huge negs, and I can't even get close to getting that information into a scan".
I also have a fairly cheap 35mm neg scanner from Reflecta, I think it i called ProScan 7200 and I think they are sold in some countries with a different name, Pacific-something..
That one is really good and delivers ~3200dpi optical resolution which according to some reviews are better than the Plustek scanners. Quality wise I am very happy with it, but it's build is very plastic and hollow and it is a bit noisy, it has like a lower pitched rattle, whereas the flatbets have a higher pitch whine.
The thing is, however you twist and turn it, if you get a flatbed that delivers 1200dpi, you are basically extracting 2mp worth of data from your negatives resolution wise.
EDIT:
Worth mentioning though is that in some aspects flatbetds are easier to work with becase you can "batch" scan several frames in one go, something many dedicated film scanners don't handle (you have to feed each frame one by one manually).
But it's also worth noting that a flatbed ususally is 2-3x bigger than a film scanner, if you look at space it takes on the desk.
Now I'm talking about the scanners I know about which are sold new in stores currently and aren't very expensive.
EDIT 2
:
Although, I know loads of people are totally happy with the V500, so just because I am not doesn't mean you won't be. I'm only saying what I did above because you mention you want to scan what you want to print. A friend of mine borrowed my V500 to "archive" old film shots, and he seemed satisfied with the result, but I don't think he did it for printing, but rather for "digitizing". It's not much of a problem if you intend to view it on a screen, it's more of a psychological problem - knowing I was shooting with nice equipment and basically getting a thumbnail worth of data out of it.
I also have a fairly cheap 35mm neg scanner from Reflecta, I think it i called ProScan 7200 and I think they are sold in some countries with a different name, Pacific-something..
That one is really good and delivers ~3200dpi optical resolution which according to some reviews are better than the Plustek scanners. Quality wise I am very happy with it, but it's build is very plastic and hollow and it is a bit noisy, it has like a lower pitched rattle, whereas the flatbets have a higher pitch whine.
The thing is, however you twist and turn it, if you get a flatbed that delivers 1200dpi, you are basically extracting 2mp worth of data from your negatives resolution wise.
EDIT:
Worth mentioning though is that in some aspects flatbetds are easier to work with becase you can "batch" scan several frames in one go, something many dedicated film scanners don't handle (you have to feed each frame one by one manually).
But it's also worth noting that a flatbed ususally is 2-3x bigger than a film scanner, if you look at space it takes on the desk.
Now I'm talking about the scanners I know about which are sold new in stores currently and aren't very expensive.
EDIT 2
:Although, I know loads of people are totally happy with the V500, so just because I am not doesn't mean you won't be. I'm only saying what I did above because you mention you want to scan what you want to print. A friend of mine borrowed my V500 to "archive" old film shots, and he seemed satisfied with the result, but I don't think he did it for printing, but rather for "digitizing". It's not much of a problem if you intend to view it on a screen, it's more of a psychological problem - knowing I was shooting with nice equipment and basically getting a thumbnail worth of data out of it.
scorpius73
Well-known
I second the Reflecta 7200. Check my Flickr page for a comparison of a scan from my Epson 4490 and the Reflecta 7200. You can see the difference for sure.
kennylovrin
Well-known
I think one thing worth adding regarding the Reflecta 7200 is that on paper, the resolution is lower than that of several Plustek scanners, but in reality the optical resolution is better. So the net effect is that by using the Reflecta scanner you get smaller files while retaining the same or better actual resolution. Even though you can run the plusteks on 6400dpi and what not, you'll end up with nothing more than a bunch of data that is worth basically nothing.
Same problem with the V500 I have - scanning higher than 1200-1600dpi gives me nothing, I could just as well scan at 1200 and upscale in photoshop for the same end result.
By the way, PacificImage is the name also used for the Reflecta in some places (like the US I think..).
Same problem with the V500 I have - scanning higher than 1200-1600dpi gives me nothing, I could just as well scan at 1200 and upscale in photoshop for the same end result.
By the way, PacificImage is the name also used for the Reflecta in some places (like the US I think..).
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I started with Epson V330 and updated it to V500 to scan MF as well.
Those are good not only for iPad viewing, but for Flickr on good graphic card. Gives printable scans as well.
The only thing I'm little bit concern is color film. May be I'm doing something wrong, but scans comes with digital noise.
Not a problem for b/w, which is 90% of film I do.
Check my Flickr, all scanned with V500 or V330.
Those are good not only for iPad viewing, but for Flickr on good graphic card. Gives printable scans as well.
The only thing I'm little bit concern is color film. May be I'm doing something wrong, but scans comes with digital noise.
Not a problem for b/w, which is 90% of film I do.
Check my Flickr, all scanned with V500 or V330.
Art Vandalay
Imported from Detroit
I just ordered a Plustek 8100. I used to have an Epson V700 but sold it hoping for the Plustek OpticFilm 120. Until the bugs get worked out of that and it becomes readily available, I'll only scan my 35mm. Scanner should be here tomorrow.
Murchu
Well-known
Plustek 8100/ 8200. These are the old 7400 & 7600's respectively, same units, just the new model numbers are to reflect the update to Silverfast 8. The 8100/ 7400's come without dust removal, so are ideal for b&w only scanners, whereas the 8200/ 7600's come with built in dust removal, making them ideal for both colour and b&w.
Other than that, the flavours of Silverfast that come with them vary, with whether you opt for the Se or Ai version of the software. Se I believe will restrict you to 8 bit scans, with Ai allowing 16 bits scans which are the way to go for ultimate quality. Also if you intend to use Silverfast there may be other pertinent differences. Personally I deplore its user interface and use Vuescan instead, which although it has an equally poor interface, I know I will only have to learn once for any scanner I wish to use it with. You will however need to install the silverfast software to install the scanner drivers onto your machine. After that you won't actually have to use silverfast at all if you don't wish to.
Other than that, the flavours of Silverfast that come with them vary, with whether you opt for the Se or Ai version of the software. Se I believe will restrict you to 8 bit scans, with Ai allowing 16 bits scans which are the way to go for ultimate quality. Also if you intend to use Silverfast there may be other pertinent differences. Personally I deplore its user interface and use Vuescan instead, which although it has an equally poor interface, I know I will only have to learn once for any scanner I wish to use it with. You will however need to install the silverfast software to install the scanner drivers onto your machine. After that you won't actually have to use silverfast at all if you don't wish to.
Art Vandalay
Imported from Detroit
Thanks for the info! I actually have Vuescan, which I used with my V700. I tried to use Silverfast...it never actually started up on my Mac.
Takkun
Ian M.
From my voracious research last week when I was in the same boat, I can say you want a dedicated film scanner. I've used the V500 and its great for proofing, but if you're printing (I am doing both, and a lot of both, so I wanted something that did double-duty), flatbed isn't the best bet.
I settled on a Minolta for the batch scanning, but the Pacific Image model was my second choice.
I settled on a Minolta for the batch scanning, but the Pacific Image model was my second choice.