Film scanners

[kaiyen]

Good point and quite true - C41 only. I don't think it works on slides either, correct?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

It works on slides. the _only_ media that ICE cannot handle is silver-based traditionall b&W film. Well, versions previous to ICE4 (the current one) couldn't do kodachrome, either. But e6 slide film is fine.

I said this in another thread, but I personally would not consider a scanner without ICE. Sure, it only works on my color stuff, but the time savings there is enough to even out the extra time that it takes to clean up my b&w stuff.

allan

 

[peter_n]

I have the Konica Minolta SD IV like a couple of others in this thread and the bundled Minolta software. Just about all of the pics in my gallery here were scanned with it. (I am nort an expert scanner.)

Right now its broken and has to go back to KM for warranty repair. Its too bad that its faulty but I like the scanner a lot and would buy another one. For $250 they are pretty good.

 

[JeffGreene]

You might consider the Microtek i900. It is a flatbed that also handles film without any glass intermediary. It handles 35mm, 120, 4X5 and 8X10. And best of all, it is available for less than $500.00. I'm getting one myself. The downside is that it really only handles 3200 dpi vs. 4000 like the Epson 4990. Both have digital Ice and additional software. I'm not a technical person, but I know what looks good, and I was barely able to discern the difference between the same image on both scanners at maximum resolution.

 

[Kevin]

Does anyone have experience with the Nikon 5000 scanner? I hear it has an adapter for scanning long strips of uncut and unmounted film.

As it now stands, I spend a considerable amount of time scanning my cut negative strips on an Epson 3200. This Nikon outfit sounds better, because I could have my color film processed and then fed uncut into this machine.

The only question remains: What is the quality like?

 

[Kevin]

By the way, my Epson 3200 flatbed scanner accumulates dust under the glass plate. This is a problem with other Epson models too. Beware.

 

[dmr]

I have the Konica Minolta SD IV like a couple of others in this thread and the bundled Minolta software. Just about all of the pics in my gallery here were scanned with it. (I am nort an expert scanner.)

Not to be the odd one out again here, but I really don't see anything wrong with the bundled Minolta software. I use it almost always in the "utility" mode, and it seems to do a good job, doing first an index scan, then a prescan, followed by corrections, and then a final scan at a high res. I don't intend this to replace the scanning at the lab, but for those I want a high quality high res scan of.

At the 3200 DPI I can do a scan that prints beautifully at 8+x10+ even on the printer I have, a hand-me-down HP 720c. I love being able to see the detail of the film grain in the print, as opposed to the artifact of digital resizing.

Right now its broken and has to go back to KM for warranty repair. Its too bad that its faulty but I like the scanner a lot and would buy another one. For $250 they are pretty good.

Out of curiosity, what is yours doing? Also I'm curious as to how long it takes for a repair, in case I have to send this one back.

Reason I'm asking, is that on about the third day I **THOUGHT** it was defective and I would have to send it in. 🙁 I was scanning and on the first index scan about 1/2 way thru, it started making a LOUD grinding noise. It about gave me heart failure! 🙁 It turned out, however, that the negative wasn't cut close enough and it was holding the flap of the negative carrier partly open. It would feed partly and stick. A quick inspection showed this, but it was very scary when it happened. {whew!} 🙂

 

[XAos]

I've got dust under my Epson 2480 as well. But I really can't afford to shell out $500 for a scanner, and even that won't get me to what all the 'experts' say I need for MF. I think these people must get into from the "Well, a $4k camera needs a $10k scanner, at least" line of reasoning. In addition, I'm running Linux, and Canon anything just flat out won't work with Linux, perhaps quite on purpose.
Oh well, it looks like a 3170 for me.

 

[peter_n]

Does anyone have experience with the Nikon 5000 scanner? I hear it has an adapter for scanning long strips of uncut and unmounted film.

As it now stands, I spend a considerable amount of time scanning my cut negative strips on an Epson 3200. This Nikon outfit sounds better, because I could have my color film processed and then fed uncut into this machine.

The only question remains: What is the quality like?

I think if you look on photo.net an awful lot of people like that scanner. Price that full roll adapter - I think its quite expensive. 🙁

I think the choice at the higher end of the market is between this scanner and the KM 5400.

 

[peter_n]

Not to be the odd one out again here, but I really don't see anything wrong with the bundled Minolta software. {snip}

Out of curiosity, what is yours doing? Also I'm curious as to how long it takes for a repair, in case I have to send this one back. {snip}

I really like the KM software too! It does everything I need. 🙂

Well right from the beginning (I bought it in December, 2004) it was very finicky about turning on properly. I worked around that by leaving the door 1/2 open when I switched it on, then when the green LED was blinking satisfactorily closed the door so the software could see the scanner when it was launched. Then a couple of weeks ago the film transport refused to go in the door. Haven't been able to fix that so it has to go back to KM in New Jersey. Its under warranty, I have no worries.

I haven't sent it back yet but hope to soon. 🙁 I would get another Minolta though, I like this one. 🙂

 

[dmr]

Well right from the beginning (I bought it in December, 2004) it was very finicky about turning on properly.

Occasionally, actually quite rarely, this one here will refuse to turn on. Press the button, nothing. Rinse, repeat, nothing. Fix for this is to unplug it, count to 10, plug back in, then it turns on.

I worked around that by leaving the door 1/2 open when I switched it on, then when the green LED was blinking satisfactorily closed the door so the software could see the scanner when it was launched.

I'm ALWAYS getting caught with that Nag-O-Matic "close the scanner door" message! LOL! 🙂

 

[peter_n]

I had serious problems turning mine on. Many incantations, dances and offerings to the scanning gods were undertaken. The only solution was to open the door 1/2 way for the 35mm neg carrier - that still works reliably.

The refusal of the neg carrier to go into the scanner is a problem I can't fix however. 🙁

 

[ray_g]

Kat, I have been happy with the KM Scan Dual IV. For a little over $200, it is well worth the price. The only problem will be if and when you move up to MF.

I use it in tandem with the (very inexpensive) HP7960 printer, which I use only for black and white. I am pleased with the results I get.

 

[dogbunny]

I'm looking for a scanner for pretty much the same reasons Kat stated above.
From the info everyone's been giving it looks like I'm in the market for a dedicated 35mm scanner.

I'll be shooting color and B & W. Do most dedicated 35mm scanners support both?

Also, slightly off topic... someone told me that processing color slides was the cheapest way to go, but if I'm not getting prints done is there a noticable price difference between color negative and color slide processing?

 

[djon]

If you have color neg processed at a US minilab you can often get processing with CD and mini "contact sheet," no prints, for $5.00. Those scans are decent for 8X10. Compare to the cost of slide processing.

The drawback to scanning slide film is that embedded dirt isn't removed by Ice, and I think that's more of a problem with E6 than with C41.

The only company that makes a decent film-only scanner currently is Nikon IMO. The older Minolta 5400 was good, though incredibly slow. The new version is trouble, although those that actually function may be better than the older model and probably as good as Nikon V...my own tests suggested that.

The difference between Ice and no Ice is that with Ice you hardly ever deal with spots, and without it you spend a lot of time on each frame, whether or not you think your film is clean.

 

[djon]

Incidentally, no matter what scanner you use, you'll probably be happier with Vuescan than the OEM application for your B&W film. Most apps exaggerate grain, Vuescan doesn't. It's very cheap.

 

[bmattock]

Not to be the odd one out again here, but I really don't see anything wrong with the bundled Minolta software. I use it almost always in the "utility" mode, and it seems to do a good job, doing first an index scan, then a prescan, followed by corrections, and then a final scan at a high res. I don't intend this to replace the scanning at the lab, but for those I want a high quality high res scan of.

I don't run Windows Operating Systems, hence, I don't run Windows software - and I don't have a Mac. Linux means you roll your own or you use what's out there (or you emulate Windows, which I have zero interest in doing).

As time goes by, I realize I don't hate Microsoft or Bill Gates. But I'm tired of being made to feel like a potential crook every time I upgrade a hard drive and have to reinstall an OS I paid for - and have to call Microsoft and ask permission real nice like. Phooey.

I've been off cigarettes and off Microsoft products for over a year now. I see no reason to go back.

Hence, I run Vuescan & The Gimp. Works a treat, too.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[jlw]

I'm looking for a scanner for pretty much the same reasons Kat stated above.
From the info everyone's been giving it looks like I'm in the market for a dedicated 35mm scanner.

I'll be shooting color and B & W. Do most dedicated 35mm scanners support both?

Also, slightly off topic... someone told me that processing color slides was the cheapest way to go, but if I'm not getting prints done is there a noticable price difference between color negative and color slide processing?

Process-only on color neg film is not only available almost everywhere, it's very cheap -- less expensive than processing on slide film. And it's been demonstrated that a color neg contains more tonal information than a slide because of its longer density range.

The downside of doing process-only on neg film is that it's difficult to evaluate color negs by eye. Having an index print or contact sheet made gives you something to edit and file, but it pushes up the cost.

If you've got a reasonably fast film scanner, one way you can get around this is to bring your negs home, batch-scan the whole roll at a moderate resolution, and then either run out a print for filing or use indexing software (iView or something similar) to manage your "proof" scans digitally. You'll still need to go back and do a customized scan to get the maximum quality out of your best images, but the batch scans should be good enough for editing and record-keeping.

The biggest downside to a color-neg-based scanning workflow, IMO, is that the film scratches easily. Even the lab's putting the negs in sleeves can put fine scratches on them. (And REALLY watch out for the lab that sleeves your uncut strip of process-only film, then rolls it up and stuffs it in a film can to return to you; that's almost guaranteed to scratch it.)

In-scanner defect repair (e.g. Digital ICE and the ilk) can reduce the visibility of the scratches -- but remember, these routines can only patch the flaws by averaging the surrounding tones; they can't magically reconstitute detail that was obliterated by the scratch or dirt.

So, shooting color neg and going straight to scans can work well -- but make sure your lab handles the film carefully, and learn to do the same yourself.

 

[bmattock]

I've got dust under my Epson 2480 as well. But I really can't afford to shell out $500 for a scanner, and even that won't get me to what all the 'experts' say I need for MF. I think these people must get into from the "Well, a $4k camera needs a $10k scanner, at least" line of reasoning. In addition, I'm running Linux, and Canon anything just flat out won't work with Linux, perhaps quite on purpose.
Oh well, it looks like a 3170 for me.

I'm quite happy with my Epson Perfection 2400 PHOTO with TPU adapter from Epson as well, it has dust under the glass, have never seen it on a scan of a 6x9 120 negative or transparency. I run Linux too, works great with Vuescan/The Gimp.

I figure if I can get acceptable images out of a 2400 bpi flat-bed scanner, then it only gets better from there. This works for me for now.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

I'll be shooting color and B & W. Do most dedicated 35mm scanners support both?

Yes. As noted (and correcting my erroneous earlier statement) Digital ICE dust/scratch correction does not work on B&W, but does on C41 & slides.

Otherwise, one scanner will do all 35mm film. Some have adapters for APS. Why, I have no idea.

Also, slightly off topic... someone told me that processing color slides was the cheapest way to go, but if I'm not getting prints done is there a noticable price difference between color negative and color slide processing?

If you get C41 negatives developed and cut and sleeved ONLY, it costs about $2 in a typical US one-hour lab. I find that it keep scratches, etc, off the negs for the most part - although the staff must also not be the usual lot of monkeys.

Most one-hour places don't DO one-hour E6 (slide) development in the USA. They send it out. Depending on where you are and where the nearest lab is - 2 days to 2 weeks. 2 weeks where I am located.

So yes, C41 *can* be much cheaper than E6, depending on what you want done.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[dmr]

I'll be shooting color and B & W. Do most dedicated 35mm scanners support both?

Most definitely. The KM we've been talking about has settings for positive and negative, both B&W and color.

Also, slightly off topic... someone told me that processing color slides was the cheapest way to go, but if I'm not getting prints done is there a noticable price difference between color negative and color slide processing?

Years ago I started doing slides because I couldn't afford the color prints and it was much easier/cheaper to do slides and print the ones that you wanted.

Now it's $5 and change for a DO/CD at Walgreens, but $8-ish for same-day Ektachrome at a local lab, no CD, and $8-ish plus postage both ways for Kodachrome at Dwayne's.

In other words, cheaper for color negative film, at least from where I stand.

LOL! It seems like I had to train both the local Wally World and Walgreens people to do a DO/CD. 🙂 They always ask "single or double prints?" and I say "none" and they sometimes still look at me like I am from Mars. Last week I asked for a DO/CD at Walgreens and this girl behind the counter, looked all of 14, said "we don't do that", and I gave my phone number and said to look up my last order. After a bit she finally said "oh, I guess we do do that." 🙂