Entry-Level Film Scanner for Digiphobe

S

Stu :)

Guest
Right time to cave in again... but this time I'm caving into Darkside.

Anybody got any suggestions, recommendations or tips for a "My-First-Film-Scanner"? (If Fisher-Price made one, I'd be sorted! ;) )

The first and last film scanner I used was a Imacon 949 (looks like tombstone, ironically). Also I am VERY reluctant of anything digital. The only digital camera that has me slightly interested is the Epson RD-1, but no chance of buying that.

Use: I don't need to scan 4x5 as I get that done by the professionals. 6x6 on 120 would be nice, again that's for the professionals. Primary use is black and white 35mm, so ICE is not really needed, plus I'm pretty quick and dealing with dust within photoshop. Must be able to scan 6-7 frame long strips of 35mm film.
Batch scanning would an added bonus.

Don't care if it's USB, SCSI or FireWire, looking at the back of PC has all of those slots/plugs.

So far the only three that have caught my eye are the-
Konica - Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV
Pacific Image PrimeFilm 1800-AFL
And Epson's new 4870 (as by the sounds of this scanner, I'll be able to do quick proof sheets for both 35mm and 120, and just maybe get away with some simple 120 scans... maybe).

Haven't even started looking at used yet, and have no idea where to start.

Many thanks in advance.

Stu :)
 
stu,
i may be the last person on this forum qualified to give advice. but that hasn't stopped me yet! lol!
i traded with gene for his old scanner. it's a canon 2710, very small and easy to use. it is for 35 & aps only.
i don't even know for sure what batch scanning is si i can't comment on most of your questions.

i will only say that for a first scanner this canon is being very nice to me.
joe
 
I just recently purchased a Canon Canoscan 8400f. I like it a lot. Goes for about 140 bucks in the US. It does 35mm, 120, color and black and white film, negative and positive.

You can the results in my gallery. All of the images are from that scanner. It is not a dedicated film scanner. My needs at this time are not for professional reproduction, as I am a novice.
 
Stu, check out the Epson 4180 flatbed as well. I've had great luck with mine and some friends of mine on another forum also like this one. It's inexpensive and easy to use (the Epson software is decent). Will also scan 120 and has a holder for both 35mm and 120. It can batch scan 12 negs at a time (2 strips of 6). Not quite the same resolution as a dedicated film scanner, but good nonetheless. It is a very decent scanner for B&W film.

Gene
 
I use the Epson 4870 - although it's not new, it's been discontinued for the 4990. (The 4990 appears to be a worthwhile upgrade over it, thoguh.)

I'm very pleased with the results from it, I use it for 35mm negs and trannies, and 120 negs and trannies.

One warning: if there's an easy way to get proof sheets out of it, I haven't discovered it yet.

/edit Should have said, the shots in my pgallery are all scanned with it, from a variety of media.
 
Hello Stu, Ready to dwelve into the unknow are we? Welcome to the club. I entered the fray six months ago.

First a prejudice, I've been scanning prints for years and therefore prefer a flat bed scanner. I had an old Agfa scanner, but it requires a scuzzy cable and when I upgraded to a new computer I wanted a USB 2 scanner.

I bought a refurbished Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV in November for $229. It's slow in in its 16x sampling mode, but if you clean the negs, the results with C-41 film are quite nice. I also bought Photoshop CS to go with this puppy. Even with an education discount, it double the price of the scanner.

On the SD IV, there is no Digital ICE, so keeping your negs clean is a must. The original software from KM does add a manually operated dust brush plug-in for Photoshop and it works, even though it is time consuming. I may spring for a home copy of VueScan software this summer, so I can save settings by film type.

Next up, a flat bed at work, a Epson 4870. Adequate, but slow. Does really more than what I need for 6x6 and 6x9. 6x9 files are huge even when scanning at 2400 dpi.

Personally, if I had the cash, I'd wait for the new Epson 4990. The 4990 has a wider lamp in its cover and will let you batch scan twenty-four 36mm negs.

Finally, upon a recommendation on this forum, I bought the Canoscan 8400F flat bed for home use to replace the Agfa. Lovely medium format scans and quick, but no digital ICE.

The Canoscan 8400F was only $100 after rebates. It is all I need for my medium format scans and has a much nicer negative holder than the one supplied with the Epson 4870. The software is a little basic, but tweeking the histogram greatly reduces noise levels of the shadows. I highly recommend this scanner.
 
Stu,

I'll be the odd man out here and recommend you do NOT go with a cheap flatbed.

If you are serious at all about your photography, you will be dissatisfied with the result.

Look for a used Nikon LS8000 or LS9000 and be happy. My LS8000 has performed professionally and perfectly since it first came out (I was in line first with my NPS card in hand). These scanners produce salable quality scans and are relatively fast. If you are restricting yourself to ONLY 35mm, then you have more options.

You will, however, regret 'cheaping out' every time you look at a scan from a flatbed.

Of course, most people look at a flatbed's output and say "not so bad". That is until they look at the same film scanned with an Imacon or Nikon or any other pro quality dedicated film scanner. And then they are usually slapping their foreheads and saying "Holy SH*T".

If you MUST go with an inexpensive flatbed, the Epson 4990 is the only real choice. If I were still doing large format, it would be my choice also. The Epson might be perfectly acceptable for pro output of 4x5 and larger stuff too. But I would NEVER expect it to produce good results from 35mm.

Tom
 
I would say look for a dedicated film scanner. Almost all the posts I have read indicate the scan quality is much higher from a film scanner than from a flatbed. I would look for a used Minolta 5400 (first generation) or a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV. I have the SD IV and love it but I'm not printing from scans, just using the files for the web. Mine has developed a fault 3 months into ownership but I still recommend it, just a great scanner for the price - $250 new here in the U.S.
 
I agree with Peter and Tom, get a dedicated film scanner for 35mm. I had an Epson that produced terrible results, I probably get more detail from a 35mm negative in my Minolta 5400 than I ever got from 120 negatives in the flatbed. If you must scan 120 but don't care much about the quality you could always get a cheap flatbed to complement the dedicated film scanner.
 
Go for the Minolta!
For my opinion on the P.I. 1800, search the forum for 'POS' and 'I hate my scanner'! ;)
As for flatbeds: my (limited) experience is, that even if they have the necessary resolution, the lack in the density area - meaning, you can scan middle-of-the-road well exposed and developed negs with them, but forget about even trying scanning any extra thin/dense7contrasty negs (like you often get when pushing films).

Roman
 
Solinar said:
Finally, upon a recommendation on this forum, I bought the Canoscan 8400F flat bed for home use to replace the Agfa. Lovely medium format scans and quick, but no digital ICE.
Click to expand...

True, there's no ICE but there is Canon own dust cleaning system called FARE. It's basically the same system based on infrared scanning.

This is a nice cheap scanner, ok for slides and b&w negatives. Results for color negatives are not as good and quality may vary greatly (I've got horrible grain when scanning photos with a large flat surfaces like skies for example). But for web and small print, I think this scanner can do the job.
 
I too have a "previously owned" Canoscan 2710 dedicated 35mm scanner, and have used it trouble-free for 3 years. An excellent scanner and you can probably find one on ebay for a bargain price. However it won't work with Windows XP and Canon has no upgrade for the software.
 
my computer is using windows xp and the 2710 at the same time.
i use a scsi card and that needed an upgrade found on the net.

works well.

joe
 
hjfischer said:
Joe: If you have a web reference for your scsi update, I'd sure appreciate it.
Click to expand...
What's needed is the latest ASPI driver from the Adaptec site. I don't have the reference but perhaps Joe does.

Gene
 
Thank you everyone for all your replies.

I've looked at and tried a Canon flatbed with film scanning abilities before and wasn't very impressed, nor was the store clerk who unpacked thinking he had a sale.
My only interest in the Epson 4870 was after reading a Mike Johnston article. I got to try doing a single 35mm and 6x6 scan, and 120 proof sheet this morning, not very impressed. So scratch the flatbed option all together.

So I am now looking at a dedicated 35mm film scanner and KM DS-IV looks like the custard to me. Although I can't do full 36 exposure scan in one hit, if the website is correct and lets me do basic a 6 frame scan in under 2 minutes, I'll be happy.

Regarding the Nikon scanners, most of them come with ICE. I don't need ICE, as silver-based monochrome film scans go nuts and end up looking like a badly made dual-tone lith prints. I have seen too many first years fall into that nasty trap. The only mono films I know that can be scanned using ICE are the C-41 B&W films (XP2, T400CN, etc as they use dye-clouds). Also there is a big price difference here too. How many newbie RF converts run out and buy M7 with a 35, 50 and 90mm lenses. Many of us here started RF life with a Canonet or Bessa-R.
I going to think of the KM DS-IV like it's a Bessa-R. If I do not like it, I didn't spend too much.

Also I'm not going to make proper prints for display from this scanner. It's going to be used as a lazy instant proof 'sheeter' and work print maker (coupled with either Epson 1160 or 1270 with mono ink tanks).

I have a display set up next week. I'll reply with my findings then.

Many thanks again,

Stu :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom