Is There Such A Thing

dmccardle

dmccardle

Dmccardle
Local time
9:19 AM
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
33
Might start developing and scanning, but I will NOT be buying a $2000 film scanner. Is there a decent film scanner for less than $200?
 
If you're patient and lucky, hold out for a Minolta Scan Dual IV for around $250. Otherwise, there are a few Plustek film scanners in your price range. These are for 35mm.
 
Watch craigslist. Educate yourself on Epson & Canon model numbers and capabilities. Ignore claims like 4800-6400 DPI resolution. Marketing hype! Real resolution in consumer flatbeds is on the order of 2000 DPI. Plenty for most needs. People sell flatbeds after the thrill of scanning is gone. Cheap. Cheaper still without film holders or software. You can get current Epson software online for free. You can get filmholders online as well. Good luck!
 
I have a flatbed scanner (a Dell all in one Thing). Will that work if I pick up film holders. I was under the impression that there was something "special" about the scanner itself.
 
The Epson V500 can be had for under $200 it does a decent job for the price.
It's what Ive been using. Post processing the scans yields minimal results but that's incentive to get the exposure correct in camera.
 
dmccardle said:
Is there a decent film scanner for less than $200?
Click to expand...

I have a Plustek OpticFilm 7600i that I feel is very good. Cost me about 400 € with the luxury version of Silverfast included -- maybe without that or with another software it's not too much over your budget.

-- Thomas
 
The Epson V500 I mainly use for medium format is not far off the Nikon Coolscan V ED if you scan 35mm. A friend bought a V300 for about 100 euros and even that simple thing is more than decent for 35mm.
 
dmccardle said:
I have a flatbed scanner (a Dell all in one Thing). Will that work if I pick up film holders. I was under the impression that there was something "special" about the scanner itself.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant about doing your homework. Find out which models have a light source in the lid for scanning film. You also want a scanner that will produce 16 bit grayscale TIFF files from B&W negatives. Anything less is useless. My first film scanner was an HP unit that could not produce a 16 bit file from B&W negatives. When I bought it I was clueless and didn't understand the difference.
 
venchka said:
That's what I meant about doing your homework. Find out which models have a light source in the lid for scanning film. You also want a scanner that will produce 16 bit grayscale TIFF files from B&W negatives. Anything less is useless. My first film scanner was an HP unit that could not produce a 16 bit file from B&W negatives. When I bought it I was clueless and didn't understand the difference.
Click to expand...

Thanks Wayne
 
venchka said:
h models have a light source in the lid for scanning film. You also want a scanner that will produce 16 bit grayscale TIFF files from B&W negatives. Anything less is useless.
Click to expand...

That being said all printing is done in 8bit. Unless you don't layer and always work your original file there's no point in working in 16bit. But that's (8vs16bits) an entire debate itself.

I have a Plustek7500 with Silverfast in the classified. My early work on flickr is scanned by it, once you start seeing squares it's the Nikon 9000 ED. if you're interested we can talk.

The main disadvantage of the Plustek is that it's not easy to make contact sheets...
 
I can only speak for what I have done myself. In the case of my early HP scanner, 8 bit greayscale scans were USELESS. The only way I could scan B&W was to use the color transparency setting.

Since most/all scanners that scan film today have 16 bit grayscale, it's a moot point. Scan in 16 bit. Period. No argument. No debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom