Takkun
Ian M.
Hello everyone,
Now that I'm back in the film game, I'm going digital so to speak. I've really enjoyed the control and instant gratification of processing myself, but now I've got maybe 30 rolls backed up that I want digitized.
I know someone who shoots 4x5 commercially, and his workflow involves an Epson V700. He shoots LF for the camera movements and doesn't enlarge much at all, so it works for him. I wasn't too impressed with the scans of 35 when I tried it.
So I'm looking at a dedicated neg scanner, with an approximate $500 budget. I hear great things about PlusTek, but even better things about the Coolscan line. Sadly, the OpticFilm 120 and the greatly-inflated Coolscan X000 models are far, far beyond budget. The CS IV, old as it is, is more in my price range. I just am concerned that perhaps the newest models finally have the upper hand resolution wise.
FWIW, I almost exclusively shoot 35mm BW and just go with digital for color, so ICE isn't something I'm concerned with. Grain, however, is.
Now that I'm back in the film game, I'm going digital so to speak. I've really enjoyed the control and instant gratification of processing myself, but now I've got maybe 30 rolls backed up that I want digitized.
I know someone who shoots 4x5 commercially, and his workflow involves an Epson V700. He shoots LF for the camera movements and doesn't enlarge much at all, so it works for him. I wasn't too impressed with the scans of 35 when I tried it.
So I'm looking at a dedicated neg scanner, with an approximate $500 budget. I hear great things about PlusTek, but even better things about the Coolscan line. Sadly, the OpticFilm 120 and the greatly-inflated Coolscan X000 models are far, far beyond budget. The CS IV, old as it is, is more in my price range. I just am concerned that perhaps the newest models finally have the upper hand resolution wise.
FWIW, I almost exclusively shoot 35mm BW and just go with digital for color, so ICE isn't something I'm concerned with. Grain, however, is.
Gordon Coale
Well-known
I just picked up a PrimeFilm 7200 which is the same as the Reflecta ProScan 7200 reviewed here: http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaProScan7200.html. The usual US stores have the PrimeFilm 7200 for $229. I use VueScan Professional and have been very happy with it. I had been using an Epson V700. That will still be used to scan medium and large format but I love the PrimeFilm 7200 for 35mm.
literiter
Well-known
Buy the Epson V700 scanner. Use it to proof your negs up to 5x7 if you like.
( great all round scanner. )
When you find something you really like, have it professionally scanned.
( great all round scanner. )
When you find something you really like, have it professionally scanned.
lawrence
Veteran
I had a CSIV for over ten years. The maximum resolution is 2900dpi but that wasn't why I sold it, it was because the LED light source emphasises the grain of traditional b&w film (it's a collimated light source, like a condenser enlarger). The scanner I replaced it with is the Canon FS4000US, which uses a diffused light source which I much prefer.
GaryLH
Veteran
Canoscan 4000.. USB 1.1 or scsi interface. Yes old and slow.. But I was using this scanner before I found my 9000.. Does 35 and APS.. Should be about same as the Nikon iv. I like the canon sw UI better than the Nikon if u are going to stay OEM sw.
On the other hand, I have the Epson 750, for 4x5 negs. Given your budget constraint, the Epson flatbed maybe a good compromise, especially if u plan to shoot larger than 35mm.
The comment about having it professionally scanned for the good ones will save u a lot of money..
A lot depends on how big u print anyway in the long run..
Good luck
Gary
On the other hand, I have the Epson 750, for 4x5 negs. Given your budget constraint, the Epson flatbed maybe a good compromise, especially if u plan to shoot larger than 35mm.
The comment about having it professionally scanned for the good ones will save u a lot of money..
A lot depends on how big u print anyway in the long run..
Good luck
Gary
Takkun
Ian M.
Thanks for the faith in older scanner models.
To be honest, I am trying to avoid the flatbed route because I still haven't seen results I was completely loving, and since I don't do wet printing or larger formats, it's a compromise I'd rather not make for the money.
Most of what I print is around 8x10. Of course anything less than a drum scan is a compromise on some level, but I'd like to be able to do the bulk of my work myself, ruling out a flatbed and saving pro scans for anything larger. Thus a flatbed giving me decent results up to 5x7 is a little..underwhelming.
So now I'm trawling the internet looking for a nice Minolta or Nikon, and good god, prices seem insane for anything of useful resolution.
Anybody have any input on the Minolta Dual IV? I've been seeing it for far more reasonable prices than the 5400.
To be honest, I am trying to avoid the flatbed route because I still haven't seen results I was completely loving, and since I don't do wet printing or larger formats, it's a compromise I'd rather not make for the money.
Most of what I print is around 8x10. Of course anything less than a drum scan is a compromise on some level, but I'd like to be able to do the bulk of my work myself, ruling out a flatbed and saving pro scans for anything larger. Thus a flatbed giving me decent results up to 5x7 is a little..underwhelming.
So now I'm trawling the internet looking for a nice Minolta or Nikon, and good god, prices seem insane for anything of useful resolution.
Anybody have any input on the Minolta Dual IV? I've been seeing it for far more reasonable prices than the 5400.
Gerry M
Gerry
I have V700 & SD IV. To my eyes, for 35mm, the KM is considerable better than the Epson. Really no contest. If I didn't have a dedicated 35mm film scanner, I would only shoot MF. Again, that is my view.
Murchu
Well-known
The Plusteks are nice little machines, and supposedly capable of about 3300dpi according to online sources, giving you a scanned image equivalent to about 16 megapixels (4950 x 3300 pixels). Good luck with your choice 
edge100
Well-known
+1 for the Plusteks (8100 in my case). It resolves ~3600 true dpi on a 7200 dpi scan; so not the most efficient use of disk space, but the resolution is there.
It's major failing is dynamic range, so if you're shooting lots of slides, look elsewhere. But for colour or B&W negs, it's great. Oh, and it's manual feed only, with a 6 frame holder for cut negatives. A bit time consuming, but well worth the effort and far better than any flatbed for 35mm.
It's major failing is dynamic range, so if you're shooting lots of slides, look elsewhere. But for colour or B&W negs, it's great. Oh, and it's manual feed only, with a 6 frame holder for cut negatives. A bit time consuming, but well worth the effort and far better than any flatbed for 35mm.
Takkun
Ian M.
Well, an update: My budget has just more than doubled, since a relative opted to split with me on a scanner worth doing small-batch scans.
So now we're looking at something more akin to the Nikon or Minolta; something with motorized transport. Which would be nice.
Ideally I'd get a PlusTek 120, but that's far, far beyond me...
So now we're looking at something more akin to the Nikon or Minolta; something with motorized transport. Which would be nice.
Ideally I'd get a PlusTek 120, but that's far, far beyond me...
biomed
Veteran
I bought the FS4000US new shortly before Canon discontinued the model. It was a fabulous scanner. The SCSI interface was a bit cantankerous at times, but it did produce beautiful scans. Sadly it quit working and couldn't be repaired. It had a very nice film strip holder and came with an APS adapter (I had a Canon EOS IX). I replaced it with a Nikon CoolScan V that works very well.
Mike
lewis44
Well-known
When I was scanning a lot more than I am now, I used the LS-4000 or 5000. Easy to feed neg's into the machine and you can adapt the neg adapter to do rolls. Scanned @4000 dpi and the scans were great.
Now that I do far less scanning I have a Plustek 7600i and scan at 3600 dpi. Scans are not quite as good as the Nikon's, but pretty darn good, once you dial you workfolw in. I use Vuescan and do mostly B&W with it and am happy with the results. I posted a scan that was worked in photoshop for printing here. The link is:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119242&page=56
#1394
I'd go in this order: LS-5000, 4000, Minolta 5400 then the Plustek. Almost all of the Plustek's are the same. Difference is in the software
the 7600i is cheap and you can use infared with Vuecan if you do color or BW400CN for B&W and you can get the BW scans to look pretty good.
Now that I do far less scanning I have a Plustek 7600i and scan at 3600 dpi. Scans are not quite as good as the Nikon's, but pretty darn good, once you dial you workfolw in. I use Vuescan and do mostly B&W with it and am happy with the results. I posted a scan that was worked in photoshop for printing here. The link is:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119242&page=56
#1394
I'd go in this order: LS-5000, 4000, Minolta 5400 then the Plustek. Almost all of the Plustek's are the same. Difference is in the software
the 7600i is cheap and you can use infared with Vuecan if you do color or BW400CN for B&W and you can get the BW scans to look pretty good.
Takkun
Ian M.
Another update: A Minolta 5400 just arrived in the mail, and my building manager watched as I giddily tore open the package. So far, results look good, I'm just trying to figure out VueScan and cutting my teeth on a very old roll of color film I just had processed. I learned the hard way that, for whatever reason, Aperture doesn't like DNG output.
Anybody have any hints? So far, I've been able to figure out how to lock exposure using the film base. What other settings should be done while scanning, as opposed to post?
Anybody have any hints? So far, I've been able to figure out how to lock exposure using the film base. What other settings should be done while scanning, as opposed to post?
mob81
Well-known
Congratulation on the Minolta scanner, it's very capable scanner with little of experience you'll figure out its capabilities and limitations. I actually miss mine! I like it much better than the coolscan 4000 ED I have now (mainly to scan films developed by the lab which require ice to clean it. However, I learned the hard way that ice could create ugly artifacts). Anyway, here are photos I scanned with the Minolta 5400 scanner.
HERE
HERE