Sam N
Well-known
Many people already have macro lenses for other uses (plus you can use a prime lens + extension tubes if you wish). I also have a Scan Dual III and a 10mp DSLR easily matches its results. The 40D is also MUCH faster (scan time about 5 seconds per frame including positioning it and MLU + delay) and appears not to show as much dust. I do use the Scan Dual's trays to keep the film flat, but one could just make a doohickey out of cardboard or plastic to do the same thing (being sure to avoid anything that would scratch the negs).
Edit: Forgot to mention the best part of using the DSLR, no crappy scanning software to fiddle with. VueScan has issues with my Scan Dual and the Scan Dual software doesn't let me batch scan directly to jpg.
You can even "scan" full medium format frames or stitch several 1:1 shots of a large negative for an extremely-high-res photo (though that would be much more complicated).
Last edited:
slm
Formerly nextreme
Why didn't drum scan technology ever trickle down to consumer or enthusiast level like all other high end technology?
My understanding is it's the best (or was) but it was never affordable, afaik.
(I have zero experience with that technology)
My understanding is it's the best (or was) but it was never affordable, afaik.
(I have zero experience with that technology)
charjohncarter
Veteran
I know you guys think I'm nuts, but here is what I use for a digitalization and two negatives that I digitalized. It is simple and I control everything.
and a B&W:
and a B&W:
Last edited:
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Those look great!
I'm selling an analog tape machine next week...that'll get me $600...I may actually put it toward a Coolscan 5000. I'm not sure I have the patience just now for a DSLR setup...at least not for color...
I'm selling an analog tape machine next week...that'll get me $600...I may actually put it toward a Coolscan 5000. I'm not sure I have the patience just now for a DSLR setup...at least not for color...
charjohncarter
Veteran
Well, I built that mess, and it took, as all my inventions, way more time than I wanted. Still, in the end I have complete control over digitalization. I've tried a few scanners and I can't say I'm impressed.
charjohncarter
Veteran
BTW, mabelsound, I use a P&S digital at first with the negatives on a light box. Here is one that is a very small (100% or more) part of the negative.
kevin m
Veteran
Well I admire your ingenuity, I'll say that. I'd have to see a back-to-back comparison of the same negative using both methods to be convinced, though! 
Ben Blacket
Established
The world needs film shooters to support labs that still offer colour darkroom prints.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Kevin, I've done back to back files sent to labs no difference. So enjoy your scanner, I just like my method better. Plus, I do a roll of 24 35mm in 1.5 minutes, and very little post.
tedwin
Established
I know you guys think I'm nuts, but here is what I use for a digitalization and two negatives that I digitalized. It is simple and I control everything.
and a B&W:
That middle picture has a tremendous colour cast. Apologies if its intentional.
kevin m
Veteran
Sent to labs? There's no comparison between a Noritsu/Fuji Frontier scan from a lab and a high quality desktop scanner in my experience. I remain skeptical that your setup can compete with a good Nikon/Minolta scan.
tedwin
Established
My set up competes easily with the scans from my local Fuji lab, often betters what I got from a coolscan V, and always betters what I got from a V700.
fbf
Well-known
Many people don't know how to use vuescan or whatever the software you use for scanning which affects the scanning quality dramatically.
anyway, whatever makes you happy. I like my coolscan V and 8800F but i do find myself needing a 8000/9000ed, even a imacon 343 in the near future.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Just out of curiosity I have re-scanned one frame with the Epson V700 to compare it with a scan from my former Epson Coolscan V ED. The original photo was taken with a Biogon 25/2.8 on Fuji S800. The scan with the Coolscan was done using 3200 DPI (using the Nikon Software) and the re-scanned image was scanned using Epson's software and 4800 DPI.
Below are two crops out of the corresponding photos. Both were sharpened with USM, and downsampled to 300 dpi (Adobe PS Elements).
Coolscan V ED:
Epson V700:
I didn't remove any dust, and used the auto-exposure function in both cases.
Below are two crops out of the corresponding photos. Both were sharpened with USM, and downsampled to 300 dpi (Adobe PS Elements).
Coolscan V ED:
Epson V700:
I didn't remove any dust, and used the auto-exposure function in both cases.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
maddoc, I have never gotten anything remotely that detailed out of the V500. If you mean that those are 100% crops.
blw
Well-known
**** this ****!
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
maddoc
... likes film again.
These are 100 % crops. I use the ANR glass inserts from better scanning and have spent some time to set the height of the Epson film holder for "optimal" results.
The Epson driver (software) seems to have on problem, though. Sometimes after switching the computer and scanner ON, starting the software and doing a pre-scan, the software seems to switch to the wrong lens (the lens with lower resolution that it focussed to the glass plate). The preview then shows very soft ("muddy" ?) thumbnails and the sound of the scanner during the pre-scan is different. Restart of the software solves the problem.
The results I get with the Epson V700 are more than sufficient for me.
The Epson driver (software) seems to have on problem, though. Sometimes after switching the computer and scanner ON, starting the software and doing a pre-scan, the software seems to switch to the wrong lens (the lens with lower resolution that it focussed to the glass plate). The preview then shows very soft ("muddy" ?) thumbnails and the sound of the scanner during the pre-scan is different. Restart of the software solves the problem.
The results I get with the Epson V700 are more than sufficient for me.