dedicated 35mm film scanner

[northeast16th]

If you have a recommendation, please pass it along for a dedicated 35mm film scanner, both mounted slides and black and white negs. Thanks so much for any first hand experience.

Scott

 

[tammons]

Nikon 4000/5000 is about as good as it will get.
Very expensive though, but probably worth it if its a life long investment.

The older KM 5400 is the sharpest 35mm scanner I have ever used, but the film holder would not hold the film perfectly flat. If the film was perfectly flat no problem. Curled, less sharp.

There are a few other good ones too. 3600-4000 would be a minimum and 5400 dpi would be better.

I am testing out a PI Primefilm 7250pro3. Decent for the $.

ITs $420 with a rebate.
I bought it because it will batch scan an entire roll. I want to use it for preview before I do drum scans.

Drum scans at 4000 dpi takes 25 minutes each, ouch. 15 hours for a roll of 36.

At any rate I was plesently suprised at the quality with B+W microfilm. Almost as sharp as my drum scanner if you scan the emulsion side. It returns a nice 3600 dpi scan. Over that is useless.

That said I ran into a few problems.

First off 36 frames is a long stinkin piece of film so you need some place for it to land if you are going to scan an entire roll.

I did scan a couple of entire rolls, but the issue is film curl. It has to be down so you have to batch scan the non-emulsion side or use very flat film and you can scan the emulsion side.

A few days after I bought it I found streaks on one side when scanning color slide film and some color negs. Does not seem to show up on B+W negative scans.

I will probably exchange it for a new one since I have streaks.

If you want to see some full size comparison of it go here....
Most of these are emulsion side scans.

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/pi_7250_pro_3_test_scans

 

[fixbones]

I am using plustek 7600 with silverfast.
The scans are much better that what i get from my local one hour photolab and that is good enough for me. See my blog for sample pictures.

The only downside is that it can be a bit laborious as you have to advance the negs frame by frame manually......having said that, i managed to scan 30++ rolls of 36s from my recent trip without pulling out all my hair =p

 

[maddoc]

I am pretty much set on my Nikon Coolscan 4000ED now. It get's some use, roughly 20 rolls per month, and so far worked well. (The scanner could need some service, though. The scans have started being a little skewed.) The roll-adapter SA-30 helps a lot to keep dust away from my scans.

 

[JohnTF]

Coolscan 4000 and 5000, main difference is that the 4000 is firewire.

Standard film feeder can be rather easily modified for full roll scanning, ROC and Digital Ice are both OK with chromogenic and color films. Standard B&W requires Digital ICE to be turned off.

The 4000 generally sells for less, often quite reasonable.

Generally a plastic bin is used to hold the film as it passes through the standard holder.

I do not know if Nikon is still supporting the scanners, but am sure someone here knows. Regardless, there are several software solutions to the scanning requirements that all seem to work.


Regards, John

 

[viridari]

The danger inherent in investing in one of these older scanners is that the software won't keep up and you'll end up with a very valuable scanner that will only run on very old computers after a few years. It's surely a shame that the market couldn't sustain continued growth in this field to give us more current options.

 

[baycrest]

I'm using a Plustek 7200 which cost only $214.
I've using it with Vuescan.

Great scanner without the bells and whistles. Manual frame advance, No ICE.

 

[not_in_good_order]

I absolutely love my Nikon Coolscan 5000.

 

[Archlich]

The last time I saw a LS-5000 on Evil Bay, it went up to $1,400. It's sky-rocketing after Nikon ceased the production of the line.

I'd rather get something cheaper and save for more Summicrons.

 

[not_in_good_order]

The last time I saw a LS-5000 on Evil Bay, it went up to $1,400. It's sky-rocketing after Nikon ceased the production of the line.

I'd rather get something cheaper and save for more Summicrons.

I wouldn't want to throw away the resolution from those Summicrons by using an inferior scanner. With all the money many of us spend on film, cameras, and lenses, a scanner shouldn't be a place to cheap out.

 

[Chris101]

Here is the slickest thing I've seen for converting a bunch of slides, quickly:

http://www.avidia.dk/hardware.html

 

[JohnTF]

The danger inherent in investing in one of these older scanners is that the software won't keep up and you'll end up with a very valuable scanner that will only run on very old computers after a few years. It's surely a shame that the market couldn't sustain continued growth in this field to give us more current options.

Please sell me another Coolscan 4000, I will give you $100, of course, there are at least three choices for software that I know of, and I am not exactly a technophile, Nikon supported this with firmware and software upgrade, plus essentially the same machine had a very long production run.

The scanners I have used all seem to work well with a variety of hardware and software.

I notice new computers still with Firewire ports.


J

 

[tammons]

A practically new Nikon VED just sold over at photo.net for about $850.
There are a few around at decent prices.

 

[gliderbee]

I use a Konica/Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV. I guess that's considered a cheap scanner ?

I do think it gives me better results then my Epson V700.

Stefan.

 

[thegman]

I have a Canon FS4000, I'm very happy with the results, it may not be a Coolscan but it works perfectly with Vuescan, is not as slow as some people say, and is not that pricey on eBay. The dust reduction called "FARE" seems to work just great and Vuescan provides easy access to colour profiles for many types of film.

 

[JohnTF]

I use a Konica/Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV. I guess that's considered a cheap scanner ?

I do think it gives me better results then my Epson V700.

Stefan.

Local shop used to scan a lot of film through one of these, it finally developed some problems, and someone traded in a Coolscan 5000, so they switched over.

I cannot see any continued development as these scanners are very good, and the demand for film scanners cannot be going up.

Would think the market was saturated, and with the cost of computers dropping below the cost of these scanners in some cases, would be a no brainer to set up a dedicated station to set up a roll of film and go have a cup of coffee while it scans.

Seems to be several choices in software compatible with almost any combination of scanners and computers.

Regards, John

 

[taxi38]

I use a minolta dimage 5400 mk1 (it has the cold cathode light source like an imacon).....its the bees bollocks:angel:

 

[dmr]

I use a Konica/Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV. I guess that's considered a cheap scanner ?

I'm happy with it, but it's been an orphan product for years now.

If it quits, I'm not confident I can find service for it now.

 

[Tompas]

If you have a recommendation, please pass it along for a dedicated 35mm film scanner, both mounted slides and black and white negs.

Plustek OpticFilm 7600i with Silverfast's luxury version.

I get better results than I ever got with my top-of-the-line Apo-Rodagon enlarger lens.

But it's neither built nor suited for mass scanning.

 

[dmr]

I get better results than I ever got with my top-of-the-line Apo-Rodagon enlarger lens.

This is the REAL advantage of the "Digital Darkroom" for me! With my skill level, my patience, and available space, I can do a far better job printing with the SD IV and the HP 9180 than I would *EVER* get with an optical enlarger and all kinds of semi-nasty chemicals!