Got my 1st roll developed!!!!!!!

Minolta Dual Scan IV! (At least that's what I want to buy soon...)
BTW, my 'el cheapo' Mediax 1800 also makes those lines, particularly when scanning dense B&W negs...

Roman
 
What about Pacific Image Prime-Film 3600, 3600 dpi, 35mm, Film Scanner ? It's only a few bucks more
 
here's a review that says the Minolta is the better scanner

http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=171

one thing to keep in mind with scanners.. the scanning resolution (DPI) isn't necessarily the most important factor.. also check the dMax number.. typically between 3.5 and 4.0.. the higher the number, the better.. that means there will be more contrast between black and white, while maintaining details.. and that's what most of us value in our photos, right?
 
Last edited:
Well, my 'el cheapo' Mediax 1800 is just one of many rebrands of the Pacific Image 1800 (sold also as Reflecta, Hama, etc.), and it really sucks - that's why I would not trust the 3600, which is the follow-up model...
On the other hand, I have quite good experiences with a friend's Dual Scan III, that's why I want to get the current DS IV (which seems to heve been improved manly with regard to handling - e.g. better negative carrier).

Roman
 
I have an Epson Perfection 1670 (it's flatbed) with an accesory for Films. It isn't as good as a Dual Scan or somethin like that but for prints the size of a letter page is enough (at 300 dpi).
I develope my own films and I don't positivate them, so for me it's ok.
The problem is sharpness, and wether you are going to post a picture at the web or get it print at a photolab.
I have had to learn making many mistakes I fugure that every scanner and it software has it's own secrets. As always one must experiment.
 
If you are looking at film scanners check out the Minolta 5400. It is doing a good job for me. There are also the Nikon line of film scanners to consider.

Bob
 
I own a Minolta 5400 and can agree that it's a fine scanner.

I recently purchased an Epson 4180 flatbed primarily for MF scanning and I'm truly amazed at how well it scans 35mm. It's not very expensive, and doubles as a very good flatbed scanner. You might want to check it out -- and you'd also be all set for when you purchase an Iskra! :D

Gene
 
OK, I took the plunge and ordered a Minolta Dual Scan IV from B&H for $265 and shipping. The 5400 is, I am certain, much better, but not for me at twice the price of the Dual Scan IV since I'm just a photo hobbiest (my real passion is viewing projected slides). It should be here by the end of the week.

A new learning curve is coming up, which is a good winter time project for me.

btw, Lilred, I'm sorry. I didn't intentionally intend to take your thread so far off topic.
 
d30gaijin, :) that's OK....I've learned some from what's been said.
 
Nat, the lines on your scan is probably introduced by neon tube of the scanner. I think you get that problem only if you use a flatbed scanner. I can't give anymore info but Oscar may be able to tell you more since he was the one pointing it out about a year ago when I just joined RFF.

Lets see if I can find that thread.

BTW, eventhough SD IV is a very good scanner, I would recommend Nikon Coolscan V or LS-50 for it's ICE. Getting rid of dust spots is very frustrating!

---Edit---

Found it! Here you go.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=704
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kris said:
BTW, eventhough SD IV is a very good scanner, I would recommend Nikon Coolscan V or LS-50 for it's ICE. Getting rid of dust spots is very frustrating!
Click to expand...

The Nikon Coolscan V, At over twice the price of the SD IV simply for its software for dust spots, doesn't sound like that great of a deal to me. Or am I missing something? Of course, since I don't know a lot about scanners I probably am missing something. Hopefully I can find a less expensive alternative to dealing with dust spots.
 
Coolscan V here Down Under is only 50% or so more expensive than SDIV.

On top of ICE, it has 4000ppi resolution, LED based illumination which makes it better for scanning dense E-6 or C-41 films. SD IV is already struggling scanning Provia 100F. If you try scanning Velvia 50 or even Velvia 100F, you will definitely loose shadow details.
 
Kris said:
Coolscan V here Down Under is only 50% or so more expensive than SDIV.

On top of ICE, it has 4000ppi resolution, LED based illumination which makes it better for scanning dense E-6 or C-41 films. SD IV is already struggling scanning Provia 100F. If you try scanning Velvia 50 or even Velvia 100F, you will definitely loose shadow details.
Click to expand...

Kris,

Thank you for the additional info on the Coolscan V. I was hoping there was more to it than just the ICE software. Unfortunately, here in the US, the price differential is about 100% for the Coolscan V vs. the SD IV. And 4k ppi is nice but as I understand, that's really only important in making prints (correct me if I'm wrong because, as I said, I'm not up on scanner technology).

I have no intention of making any decent size prints from my scans. I don't have a printer and have no intention of buying one, other than maybe the little Epson stand alone 4x6 printer. If I want a large print I'll take my slide or negative to my local pro lab for a first generation print. They do seem able to handle that quite well.

My needs are simply for web based use. I like shooting film and would like to post some reasonable scans on this forum, or to send to friends/family. In that respect, I'm hoping the SD IV will meet my needs.

Best regards,

Don
 
Last edited:
I am currently looking at Nikon Coolscan....Looks like something I'd go with, because of it's resolution power. It's either that or a nice camera for my hubby. I REALLY want us to go out shooting together. (I do go shooting guns with him ) :)
 
LilRedSpy said:
I do go shooting guns with him :)
Click to expand...

LilRed,

Well, if you and your husband ever get to Boise Idhao give a shout. My wife and I live on and manage the 60 acre local shooting range. I 'm a long range competitive rifle shooter... 800, 900, & 1000 yards. I shoot pistol too for fun but prefer the 1911 Colt.

Don
 
For traditional silver-based B&W films, scanners with cold-cathode light sources (like the DSIV) are usually considered better than those with LEDs (like the Coolscan); the Coolscans, while great for color negs and slides, are said to give really grainy B&W scans with lots of artifacts (no personal experience, though), and ICE can't be used on silver-based B&W negs, anyway - so a large part of the decision depends on what kinds of film you prefer!

Roman
 
I'll back Roman on that....I have the Coolscan IVED (picked it up cheap when the Coolscan V came out). It's GREAT for colour, the ICE works fantastic, and the quality of the scans is superb. Only so-so for B&W, my HP5 especially it exagerates the grain on.
All depends I guess, it's all compromises, at this level you're still talking very much "consumer" film scanners - no matter how scary the price seems to us!

tim
 
d30gaijin said:
LilRed,

Well, if you and your husband ever get to Boise Idhao give a shout. My wife and I live on and manage the 60 acre local shooting range. I 'm a long range competitive rifle shooter... 800, 900, & 1000 yards. I shoot pistol too for fun but prefer the 1911 Colt.

Don
Click to expand...

hey, I'd probably take you up on that offer, Don! but I doubt I'd be bringing my Kimber along
 
"I 'm a long range competitive rifle shooter... 800, 900, & 1000 yards. I shoot pistol too for fun but prefer the 1911 Colt."

Don, it's too bad I didn't know that last Summer. My son did a Summer Internship with HP in Boise. He's a Gulf War I Infantry Vet (82nd AB Div.) and would have enjoyed the shooting. Maybe you could have gotten him interested in photography too.

Walker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom