Dedicated 35mm scanner vs. 645 flatbed scans

F

floyd.constable

Newbie
Local time
11:59 PM
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
10
Howdy guys

Wondering if any of you could share an informed opinion on this....

Specifically for B&W, would you expect higher quality output (detail, tones, printability etc) from:

A) a dedicated 35mm scanner such as the Plustek 8100 or the Pacific Imaging 7200u

or

B) a flatbed (in my case, the Epson 4490) scanning 645 negs?

Very curious indeed....
 
I've had some experience comparing Epson V750 with Nikon CS 9000 - the MF scans from the flatbed look better than 35mm scans from the Nikon, providing your technique is at its best. The flatbed has too little resolution to resolve, and hence to alias the grain, so the end result from silver film is quite pleasing. A big problem with flatbeds, is the film flatness issue. I was using the Doug Fisher's holders with single anr glass, but that was not enough, you should carefully choose the film stock and use the stiffest types.
 
Not quite the same, but I've been duping negs with a Nikon D300, http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/7183241686/ , and when I got a Hasselblad, compared copying the negs there to scanning with my Epson 3170 and the camera does a lot better job than the scanner.

D300 scan of 6x6:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/8901352764/sizes/o/in/photostream/
The scanner, as with every flatbed I've tried, seems to get almost the same amount of detail, but smears it in a really uncomfortable way, compared with the camera. Every resolution test of every flatbed I've seen indicates that under the very best of circumstances you're not going to get more than around 2200ppi from them, probably less. My 6x6 scans are the equivalent of about 1400ppi and definitely outdo the 3170. I do understand the 750 is a slightly better machine than the 3170.

Almost all of the stuff in B&W on my flick pages is camera-scanned 35mm Tri-X.
 
Funny question. What will you do with the information?

But anyway, although I have my concerns about the quality of Plustek etc, a scan from a dedicated filmscanner will usually be much better than one from a flatbed. With a mf negative it will take some more enlarging before you see the difference, but it's certainly there.

I never tried, but I think a 35mm scan from my 12 year old Imacon will in the end have more detail than a 6x6 scan from my Epson V750.
But in normal life you will have to take the same picture on both formats to notice it and why would you?

Frank
 
I used to have a Fuji GA 645 and I used to scan on a 4490 with glass inserts for flatness, here's a typical result

small3-X3.jpg


I dont think I ever managed anything as good from my minolta dimage 5400
 
I guess the OP's question is, if the end result is a digitalized image, and if not using expensive scanners like a drum scanner or a high-end dedicated scanner for MF (Nikon 9000/Plustek 120), will one get higher image quality from 645 negatives, scanned by a flatbed, than 135 negatives, scanned by a Plustek dedicated 135 film scanner?

I have a similar setup (V750 and Plustek 7600). I would say resolution-wise, V750+645 may only give you a slight edge over 135+Plustek due to film flatness issue and others. But its edge in tonality and overall 'look' of digitalized images is very easy to see.
 
Spyro said:
I used to have a Fuji GA 645 and I used to scan on a 4490 with glass inserts for flatness, here's a typical result

small3-X3.jpg


I dont think I ever managed anything as good from my minolta dimage 5400
Click to expand...

You only have to view both 100% on your monitor and you'll see the difference. The flatbedscan is not sharp, the grain looks like clouds while in the 5400 (i've had one for years) scan, the grain is razorsharp., maybe even a bit too sharp in case of the 5400.

On the size you're showing, any scan looks sharp.

Frank
 
I used to have Dimage Scan Dual III and CanoScan 9000F and while 35mm scans need virtually no PP, 6x7 flat neg and proper USM gives richer image.
 
Sharpness is not the only issue to think about. Images shot on medium format have a different "look" (bokeh, contrast, etc.) to them compared to the same image shot on 35 mm so there are always tradeoffs. Additionally, final image scans are quite often going to be different if two people scanned the same image. Scanning isn't a one-button push process if you want to get the most out of your film. A skilled person scanning on a V750 is often going to produce a better image than an unskilled/one-button pusher using a dedicated film scanner. Superior scanning is as much an art as a science.

Doug
 
xvvvz said:
Sharpness is not the only issue to think about. Images shot on medium format have a different "look" (bokeh, contrast, etc.) to them compared to the same image shot on 35 mm so there are always tradeoffs. Additionally, final image scans are quite often going to be different if two people scanned the same image. Scanning isn't a one-button push process if you want to get the most out of your film. A skilled person scanning on a V750 is often going to produce a better image than an unskilled/one-button pusher using a dedicated film scanner. Superior scanning is as much an art as a science.

Doug
Click to expand...

Absolutely true!
But that does not change the fact that the maximum quality you can get from a flatbed scanner is limited. Good enough and usable depending on the what you want with the scans, but limited.

Frank
 
Thanks for the replies ladies and gents.

Its defiantly not a clear cut question is it?...

Guess ill stick with my 4490 for a little while and see how I go....Provided its not damaged etc as its been in storage for the last 4 years or so...and try and get my scanning technique with 35mm top nothc, as thats the gear I still have

I have a bunch of 35mm (B&W and cross processed stuff) and 645 from a Mamiya 645 I used to own - scanned a few years back with the 4490.

The B&W (Ilford HP5 400) looks great at viewing sizes and at small print, and the Velvia looks even better. I assume its to do with the grain structure, but the HP5 at 100% is quite mushy, while the Velvia really stands up. Im generally pretty happy with the results.

But the 645 stuff just pops. I dont know if its the physiological association I have with the bigger negs, or the wonderful memories of shooting them, but they just seem to me to be richer and creamier and smoother and silkier if ya know what I mean....and I love it!

So Im in the process of ditching most of my digital gear (anyone want a SLR Magic 12mm 1.6? :) and dusting off the film gear....I just enjoy the process infinitely more.

Am just seeking that silkiness and tonality and rich detail that I mentioned above and am torn between the concept of travel convenience (My Nikon FE2 50mm 1.4 - General walk around + 135mm f2 portraits) and a dedicated film scanner OR a 2nd hand Bronica 645 kit with similar lenses to the Nikon and my current 4490 scanner.

Anyways, blah blah blah, bit presumptuous of me to assume you want to here my life story, but may be of some value to some one :)

Cheers,

FLoyd
 
I did a bit of comparison testing similar to your question.

My conclusion: Scanning 35mm on a Coolscan V is comparable to scanning 6x9 on an Epson V500. I was pleased with prints at 12x18 from both. (I like a print sharp enough you can bring it right up close and still look sharp.)

Hope this helps.
 
ColSebastianMoran said:
I did a bit of comparison testing similar to your question.

My conclusion: Scanning 35mm on a Coolscan V is comparable to scanning 6x9 on an Epson V500. I was pleased with prints at 12x18 from both. (I like a print sharp enough you can bring it right up close and still look sharp.)

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Thanks very much!
 
Merlijn53 said:
You only have to view both 100% on your monitor and you'll see the difference. The flatbedscan is not sharp, the grain looks like clouds while in the 5400 (i've had one for years) scan, the grain is razorsharp., maybe even a bit too sharp in case of the 5400.

On the size you're showing, any scan looks sharp.

Frank
Click to expand...
Frank, I dont disagree with what you're saying
I still think the 645 scan wins though, probably because the benefits of bigger film surface outweigh the problems from the inferior scan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom