The world needs a really good affordable film scanner

S

squirrel$$$bandit

Veteran
Local time
7:16 PM
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
6,249
I'm beginning to get a little nervous that the future of color film prints is going to be inkjets of scanned negatives, and there won't be a decent enough scanner out there to do this well. (This is a reaction, in part, to the Flatiron NYC closing thread.) I had MPix make an 11x14 print recently of a color neg I scanned on my V500, and it looks pretty good. But if you get up close, forget it--it just isn't sharp enough for a lot of people.

Will there be any more high-quality consumer scanners, or has that ship sailed? The vaporware V900 makes me think that the latter may be true. I feel as though, if this technology were something manufacturers cared a whit about, there would have been greater advances in quality by now.
 
The "world" is uninterested in film or film scanners. Which makes Canon and Nikon and Epson uninterested in them. Just an economic reality, I'm afraid.
 
It seems to be true that my relatively inexpensive Nikon Coolscan V ED is no longer made. I think it does fine (after Nikon repaired my SA-21 film strip adapter) but it would hurt to have to buy the more expensive Coolscan 5000.

I wish Nikon would continue to improve the software, which still seems to be "tender" and prone to crashing.
 
A even bigger problem is that film scanners have hit the technical limits of cheap improvements to the electronics. Any further improvement with significant impact on the scan results would have to be in the expensive field of lenses and precision mechanics - which reduces the chances of significantly new scanners in the wide gap between the bottom line OEM stuff and professional gear.
 
Bike Tourist said:
It seems to be true that my relatively inexpensive Nikon Coolscan V ED is no longer made. I think it does fine (after Nikon repaired my SA-21 film strip adapter) but it would hurt to have to buy the more expensive Coolscan 5000.

I wish Nikon would continue to improve the software, which still seems to be "tender" and prone to crashing.
Click to expand...

Ever considered Vuescan? Can be a bit fiddly to set everything up the way you like it (of-putting for some), but rest assured it will wring the absolute last your scanner has to give out of it.
 
sevo said:
A even bigger problem is that film scanners have hit the technical limits of cheap improvements to the electronics. Any further improvement with significant impact on the scan results would have to be in the expensive field of lenses and precision mechanics - which reduces the chances of significantly new scanners in the wide gap between the bottom line OEM stuff and professional gear.
Click to expand...

That's the same thing I've been thinking: what the Epson would need, for instance, to be excellent, would be a superb lens and precision autofocus, and those two things would send the price into the stratosphere.

I should try Vuescan again, and see if I get sharper pictures with it.
 
A Coolscan 5000 costs about $1,000. Suck it up and buy one. It's probably the best scanner value going, and it still costs less than most new DSLR's. It makes no sense to buy the best lenses you can afford then trust the Noritsu or Fuji at your local lab.
 
If you can't swing a Nikon 5000/9000 then a used Minolta DualScan IV sells for about $300 and they work well with VueScan and B&W film. Of course they are no longer supported and not as well made as the Nikon, but you can get good results from an otherwise disposable scanner. It will be way better than any consumer flatbed, even the latest, greatest Epson.

IMHO the Epsons are useless until you scan 4x5. I hate 120 scanned with them as much as trying to do 35mm.
 
I find it hard to believe how fussy people are. I've scanned film with earlier Epson scanners and been quite happy with the results. Also, fwiw, my results from earlier cheaper scanners are a lot better than some people's results with later ones [I presume that's partly luck and partly better scanning and then sharpening technique in Photoshop].

I've also compared scans from decent flatbeds with the Coolscan and not seen enough of a difference to justify it for me.
 
I think there is still room for improvement in some of the other aspects of the design of scanners - from little things such as keeping dust out, to more important items such as design of negative carriers. Put those with software enhancements and I suspect there's room for enhancements rather than any more great leaps forward.

It will be interesting to see what the lifespan of the current scanners is - my v700 has been worked hard for a couple of years scanning all my old negs and now meets all my requirements for the reduced volume of new films I want to scan so I won't be buying a new scanner until it expires. I suspect others may be in the same position so the market has matured rapidly and this will be reflected in the R&D budgets of the major vendors.
 
Im staying away from Epson now that I have had a V500 for a year. I will hopefully be able to afford a Coolscan V sometime soon.
 
I've got my Coolscan 5000 - will start using it again soon - but in the meantime, if "our little world" needs one then someone's gotta step up and create one.

"Necessity is the mother of invention"

Dave
 
dcsang said:
I've got my Coolscan 5000 - will start using it again soon - but in the meantime, if "our little world" needs one then someone's gotta step up and create one.
Click to expand...

One project I keep thinking about is setting up a rig that will allow me to "scan" negs with a DSLR and light tablet. I bet with some effort I could get very good results this way, especially in black and white.

I also need to demo Vuescan again, now that I know what I'm doing. I just can't seem to get sharp scans with the Epson. Maybe I've got something set up wrong.
 
It's interesting...I get great scans out of the box with my Epson 4990 and the stock Epson software. I know it's not supposed to resolve anything above 1200 dpi but I see improved results all the way up to 3600 dpi on my scans. I have even stopped using my Minolta Elite 5400 because I like the scans from the 4990 so much. Perhaps I like scan artifacts, or maybe I'm just not discriminating enough. I don't know.

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