jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I have the Canon FS4000US, and I use it mostly to scan silver-based films. It produces scans with high sharpness, and is capable of emitting enough light to punch through dense areas of a negative. (The "long exposure pass" option in VueScan can help with this.)
But yes, it is very slow -- partly because of the scanner mechanics and partly because of the USB 1.1 interface. When doing a full-resolution, 16-bit-grayscale scan, I usually plan on going away and doing something else for 10 minutes or so. If your workflow involves making one or two really good scans per evening, it might be just what you need (if you can bag one at a good price); if you're more volume-oriented, I suspect you'll find it frustrating.
One more bugaboo of scanning silver-based films that hasn't come up yet in this thread, but which is a very significant problem, is grain aliasing. I've railed about this before on other threads -- because it's the bane of existance of anyone who scans high-speed silver films, and yet scanner manufacturers and equipment reviewers/publicists almost never acknowledge it.
Grain aliasing is the effect of an interaction between the random pattern of grain edges, and the regular pattern of the scanner's imager. Its result is that a print from a scanned negative looks grainier than a similar print made in a "wet" darkroom.
It affects silver-based films more severely than chromogenic ones, because the grain edges in silver films are more well-defined; it afflicts one brand of scanner just about as much as another; there's very little you can do to suppress it that doesn't reduce fine details in the image; and scanner manufacturers don't seem to give a crap about doing anything about it, because 99.9% of their customers are scanning color negatives and slides.
The only trick I've found that seems to help at least a little is to scan the negative twice, then composite the two scans in Photoshop or another image editor. No scanner is mechanically precise enough to position the film carriage exactly the same for successive scans, so scanning twice slightly alters the relationship between the grain edges and the imager. When you composite the images, they're "averaged" enough to reduce the effects of grain aliasing without reducing detail sharpness (at least not much.)
Having to scan everything twice (I also set one scan to favor the highlights and the other to favor the shadows, to get a fuller tonal range) makes the slowness of the FS4000 even more galling -- but since my goal usually is just to get one good scan per session, it's something I can live with for now. Your mileage may vary!
But yes, it is very slow -- partly because of the scanner mechanics and partly because of the USB 1.1 interface. When doing a full-resolution, 16-bit-grayscale scan, I usually plan on going away and doing something else for 10 minutes or so. If your workflow involves making one or two really good scans per evening, it might be just what you need (if you can bag one at a good price); if you're more volume-oriented, I suspect you'll find it frustrating.
One more bugaboo of scanning silver-based films that hasn't come up yet in this thread, but which is a very significant problem, is grain aliasing. I've railed about this before on other threads -- because it's the bane of existance of anyone who scans high-speed silver films, and yet scanner manufacturers and equipment reviewers/publicists almost never acknowledge it.
Grain aliasing is the effect of an interaction between the random pattern of grain edges, and the regular pattern of the scanner's imager. Its result is that a print from a scanned negative looks grainier than a similar print made in a "wet" darkroom.
It affects silver-based films more severely than chromogenic ones, because the grain edges in silver films are more well-defined; it afflicts one brand of scanner just about as much as another; there's very little you can do to suppress it that doesn't reduce fine details in the image; and scanner manufacturers don't seem to give a crap about doing anything about it, because 99.9% of their customers are scanning color negatives and slides.
The only trick I've found that seems to help at least a little is to scan the negative twice, then composite the two scans in Photoshop or another image editor. No scanner is mechanically precise enough to position the film carriage exactly the same for successive scans, so scanning twice slightly alters the relationship between the grain edges and the imager. When you composite the images, they're "averaged" enough to reduce the effects of grain aliasing without reducing detail sharpness (at least not much.)
Having to scan everything twice (I also set one scan to favor the highlights and the other to favor the shadows, to get a fuller tonal range) makes the slowness of the FS4000 even more galling -- but since my goal usually is just to get one good scan per session, it's something I can live with for now. Your mileage may vary!
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
Is that model II?formal said:
Same here. I also use the dSLR for B&W, but overall 90% of my pictures are taken on B&W film.formal said:
Thanks.
Vincent
doubs43
Well-known
"I'm familiar with this problem, and to be honest I find it utterly ridiculous that film holders can't even keep the film reasonably flat."
While I can't speak to their other films, EFKE 25 is table-top flat when developed and dried. So flat, in fact, that if I don't keep my negative holder slightly tilted forward when loading it, the negatives will begin to slid out because there's no curl to provide tension at the edges.
Walker
While I can't speak to their other films, EFKE 25 is table-top flat when developed and dried. So flat, in fact, that if I don't keep my negative holder slightly tilted forward when loading it, the negatives will begin to slid out because there's no curl to provide tension at the edges.
Walker
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
I am NOT volume oriented. I only intend to scan my very best pictures that are worth printing.jlw said:
Yeah, I've heard about that: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF8.htmljlw said:
Interesting. I'll try that.jlw said:
Thanks a lot for your input. Much appreciated.
Vincent
phototone
Well-known
vincentbenoit said:
The Microtek Artixscan 120tf has been around a while. It is possible to find one used. No reason why a used one would be inferior to a new one. Before there was the Artixscan 120tf, there was the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 (I think that was the model), it is the same machine, except it is SCSI interface only, not firewire. Microtek made all of Polaroid's film scanners, and when Polaroid got out of the scanner business, Microtek started marketing them under the ArtixScan brand.
Microteck has free software updates for these scanners and with the latest Microteck scanner software (free download) these can work very nicely. You do not need Silverfast.
phototone
Well-known
Probably the most economical way to have both 35mm and 120 scanning ability is to split this ability between two scanners. The modestly priced, or entry level Nikon, and Minolta 35mm scanners are quite nice. For 120 size film, an Epson flatbed scanner designed for film and print scanning is very modest in cost and does a good job for 120 film formats. You could probably get both of these for under $600.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Thanks for the pointer to the Norman Koren article. It's interesting -- although I notice that when investigating grain aliasing (and concluding that his FS4000 didn't exhibit any) he wasn't scanning what I would consider a high-speed film. If he had tried it with Tri-X -- or my pre-digital favorite, T-Max 3200 -- he definitely would have seen the effects!
Also, I've tried several of the plug-ins he mentioned (and eventually settled on one he didn't, Noise Ninja, specifically because it seemed to do a better job of reducing grain in scans from silver-based films.) However, I don't feel that any of the plug-ins really recapture the "wet print" appearance -- they either don't really reduce the grainy look, or substitute a look that's too "overprocessed."
The great thing, though, is that many of them offer downloadable demo versions -- so you can try them out on your own scans from your own negs, and see if any of them do the job for you.
Good luck in your scanner search!
Also, I've tried several of the plug-ins he mentioned (and eventually settled on one he didn't, Noise Ninja, specifically because it seemed to do a better job of reducing grain in scans from silver-based films.) However, I don't feel that any of the plug-ins really recapture the "wet print" appearance -- they either don't really reduce the grainy look, or substitute a look that's too "overprocessed."
The great thing, though, is that many of them offer downloadable demo versions -- so you can try them out on your own scans from your own negs, and see if any of them do the job for you.
Good luck in your scanner search!
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
Yeah, but who uses Efke 25 anyway, apart from you and this guy: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/enough-already.shtmldoubs43 said:
Do you rate yours at iso 6 as well?
Just kidding.
Cheers
Vincent
GeneW
Veteran
I wonder if the market for dedicated scanners is diminishing? There doesn't seem to be much development happening with scanning technology, other than improvement of flatbed scanners.
I suspect if someone could engineer a really good dedicated scanner for traditional B&W film, they could garner a niche market. A Bessa Scanner anyone?
Gene
I suspect if someone could engineer a really good dedicated scanner for traditional B&W film, they could garner a niche market. A Bessa Scanner anyone?
Gene
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Gee, that would be a niche market OF a niche market! Pleasant thought, though.
(Meanwhile, something for which I have all the equipment, but haven't yet been crazy or bored enough to try: Put a DSLR onto a slide duplicator -- I have a Sickles Chromapro -- and use it to "dupe" your b&w negatives into digital files. The high-pass filter in the DSLR should eliminate any grain-aliasing problems... and if not, you can always defocus the lens a tad.)
(Meanwhile, something for which I have all the equipment, but haven't yet been crazy or bored enough to try: Put a DSLR onto a slide duplicator -- I have a Sickles Chromapro -- and use it to "dupe" your b&w negatives into digital files. The high-pass filter in the DSLR should eliminate any grain-aliasing problems... and if not, you can always defocus the lens a tad.)
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
Hehe... I've thought about that too, but haven't yet been crazy or bored enough to try either. 6 Mpix might be a bit limiting, for one thing.jlw said:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, I have tried it, and 6 megapixels IS limiting.
But surely if you want a real wet-print look, there's an easy way to achieve it.
Cheers,
Roger
But surely if you want a real wet-print look, there's an easy way to achieve it.
Cheers,
Roger
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Roger Hicks said:
I know what you're getting at, and yes, there is. But no easy way to put the results on a CD!
XAos
Well-known
I dont currently wet print, I'm curious but I suspect that even if I did, It would be as a new step on the end of my current cycle of light box, scan, view on the computer, scan at higher resolution, take to minilab to print, stare at the 4x6 for a couple weeks and THEN if I still like it blow it up.
6x7 is better for viewing on the light box (obviously, it's about the size of a lot of the old prints in grandma's shoe box) but 35mm about the only thing I can gather looking at the negative on a light box is that it was properly focused and exposed. I still have to scan nearly everything to tell much about it.
6x7 is better for viewing on the light box (obviously, it's about the size of a lot of the old prints in grandma's shoe box) but 35mm about the only thing I can gather looking at the negative on a light box is that it was properly focused and exposed. I still have to scan nearly everything to tell much about it.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
vincentbenoit said:
Hi Vincent,
where did you hear the bad reports of the 5400 Minoltas, concerning build quality and reliability ? What parts are concerned ?
It is the Minolta 5400II I am thinking about at the time, I like the reliable reproduction of colours it does., different from you colour would paly a role for me.
If this is a troublemaker I'd sort it out at once, I hate such stuff !!
I've seen nice results for B&W done with the Canon 4000 (Suuper slow indeed) and Nikon. Leaving aside the pure data the results seem to bee better than expected with the Nikons.
I general silver B&W is the most difficult thing to scan, the more dense the negs the more you see if you bought a good one or not.
I hesitated to buy a scanner for a long time, because the more I learned the more I understand that there is a looong learning curve, it 's a craft of it's own.
Regards and thanks for some input about the 5400 I and II !
Bertram
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I use the Minolta 5400 I and have used it to scan some traditional B&W. I will let the attached photo tell you what it can. I do like the scanner. I have heard that the I maybe preferable to the II for B&W due to the change in light source. That info is on the web and I have NO first hand experience using the II so take it for what it is worth.
Bob
Bob
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
Hi Bertram,Bertram2 said:
I've come across many reports of the cheap build of the Minolta scanners (especially the 5400 II). Didn't keep track of all of them, but I find this website (in German) very informative: http://www.filmscanner.info/MinoltaDimageScanElite5400II.html
The reviewer seems to be very objective in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of various scanners. Unfortunately for me, he tends to focus on colour negs and slides rather than B&W film.
I might just get a Canon 4000 if I can get a second-hand one for a low price. Failing that, either the Nikon LS-50ED or the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 I. The built-in light source diffuser of the latter looks like it could be useful in alleviating grain aliasing with certain film/developer combinations.Bertram2 said:
Cheers
Vincent
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
Thanks Bob for the picture. Looks good on screen, but I'd like to see a 13x19 print. What film/developer was that?Nikon Bob said:
I'm leaning towards the Scan Elite 5400 I at this stage. What about the build quality of the scanner? Did you have any problems with yours? Also, do you find the "Grain Dissolver" option to be useful with fast film?
Cheers
Vincent
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Nikon Bob said:
Looks great, Bob !! I also heard the story of beeing I better than II, tho it is slow with ICE as it is said. What time does it need to scan a s lide at full res with ICE and what at 2700 dpi?
Thanks !
Bertram
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Sometimes the problem isn't the scanner, it's the lousy software bundled with it. I have the Minolta Scan IV, and for a while my color scans and a few of my B&W scans were acceptable at best. Slide scanning was very good.
But then I tried SilverFast (which I've used with my ancient Epson 2400), and boy oh boy, what a difference. I started rescanning the "keeper" pictures that looked blotchy in the shadows, or just simply grainy (and they weren't). Those Germans really know about imaging.
But then I tried SilverFast (which I've used with my ancient Epson 2400), and boy oh boy, what a difference. I started rescanning the "keeper" pictures that looked blotchy in the shadows, or just simply grainy (and they weren't). Those Germans really know about imaging.