Jamie123
Veteran
By "BS" filmholder I actually mean a betterscanning.com filmholder...not a bullsh** filmholder...I already got one of those 
In the last couple of weeks I've been shooting a lot of pictures and really want to get the best quality possible from my scans.
Does anyone have any experience with using these? If yes, is it worth buying a variable height holder instead of a fixed height holder?
If I get one I intend to also get a ANR insert. Is it worth it?
The original holder that came with the scanner has some major flaws IMO. Firstly, it's made for two 6x6 frame filmstripes which makes archiving a pain because most sleves are made for three-frame stripes. Secondly, it lacks something like the t-locks to keep the film straight. Curled film is a major issue for me unless I go to a pro lab.
In the last couple of weeks I've been shooting a lot of pictures and really want to get the best quality possible from my scans.
Does anyone have any experience with using these? If yes, is it worth buying a variable height holder instead of a fixed height holder?
If I get one I intend to also get a ANR insert. Is it worth it?
The original holder that came with the scanner has some major flaws IMO. Firstly, it's made for two 6x6 frame filmstripes which makes archiving a pain because most sleves are made for three-frame stripes. Secondly, it lacks something like the t-locks to keep the film straight. Curled film is a major issue for me unless I go to a pro lab.
Last edited:
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I assume you shoot 6x6. I have the Nikon LS8000 and got the glass holder for it because the standard glassless holders can't keep the 120 negs flat enough. I cruised the BS site but can't find how much these things cost so depends on prices I guess if it keeps the negs flatter than go for it.
Jamie123
Veteran
The holders go from 34.95$ - 74.95$ (depending on fixed vs. variable height and and singe vs. dual channel) and the ANR glassplate is 29.95$ a piece.
I also have some color problems with the Silverfast SE software and it's color neg profiles and I could really use some hardware to calibrate my monitor but I think at the moment getting flat negs is the priority.
I also have some color problems with the Silverfast SE software and it's color neg profiles and I could really use some hardware to calibrate my monitor but I think at the moment getting flat negs is the priority.
Jamie123
Veteran
I went ahead and placed an order.
I sent an e-mail to betterscanning.com to ask a few questions and Doug immediately replied to this and also all the follow-up e-mails I sent him. And all this on a sunday! Great guy!
As far as customer care goes I'm definitely impressed. Once I get the holder I'll be able to comment on the quality of the product. So far I've only heard good things so I don't think I'll be disappointed.
I sent an e-mail to betterscanning.com to ask a few questions and Doug immediately replied to this and also all the follow-up e-mails I sent him. And all this on a sunday! Great guy!
As far as customer care goes I'm definitely impressed. Once I get the holder I'll be able to comment on the quality of the product. So far I've only heard good things so I don't think I'll be disappointed.
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
Did you get the variable height one? What about the ANR glass? Which scanner are you using?
I am thinking this may be my next purchase also. Please let us know how you like the holder.
Wayne
I am thinking this may be my next purchase also. Please let us know how you like the holder.
Wayne
Jamie123
Veteran
I have an Epson 4990
I ordered a fixed height dual channel holder with one ANR glass plate.
I chose the fixed height instead of the variable height because I tested the original film holder by placing small pieces of cardboard in the corners of the scannerglass to scan at more than the standard 1mm height. I also did a test with the neg on the glass and I got the sharpest results at the standard height so I decided to go with the fixed height version. Doug Fisher gave me the advice on how to test this and also was agreed that due to the test results it probably would be best getting the fixed height holder. Apparently he doesn't have any aditional profit on the variable height holders.
I decided to take the dual channel version because I'm intending to modify the holder so it allows me to scan a fill 6x6 frame including the edge markings (on the website he describes how this can be done but states that he takes no responsability for it). I will modify one channel and leave the other one unmodified.
Apparently there are a lot of orders at the moment for the Epson V700 and V750 holders so my order may take a few days to be completed.
As soon as I get it I will let you guys know how I like it.
In the meantime...if anyone else has any experience with this feel free comment even if I already ordered it. I'm sure a lot of users would be very interested.
I ordered a fixed height dual channel holder with one ANR glass plate.
I chose the fixed height instead of the variable height because I tested the original film holder by placing small pieces of cardboard in the corners of the scannerglass to scan at more than the standard 1mm height. I also did a test with the neg on the glass and I got the sharpest results at the standard height so I decided to go with the fixed height version. Doug Fisher gave me the advice on how to test this and also was agreed that due to the test results it probably would be best getting the fixed height holder. Apparently he doesn't have any aditional profit on the variable height holders.
I decided to take the dual channel version because I'm intending to modify the holder so it allows me to scan a fill 6x6 frame including the edge markings (on the website he describes how this can be done but states that he takes no responsability for it). I will modify one channel and leave the other one unmodified.
Apparently there are a lot of orders at the moment for the Epson V700 and V750 holders so my order may take a few days to be completed.
As soon as I get it I will let you guys know how I like it.
In the meantime...if anyone else has any experience with this feel free comment even if I already ordered it. I'm sure a lot of users would be very interested.
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
Hi ,
I am most interested in this issue. I have a 4870 and I am very disappointed by the results. There is another possibility to consider though. The FMA holder. The idea of wetting the negative scares me, but to obtain decent scan I would accept the chore. To sum up I would greatly appreciate any posting sharing your experiences with any of these holders. I have to decide how to upgrade on the 4870.
Best regards and thanks
Pistach
I am most interested in this issue. I have a 4870 and I am very disappointed by the results. There is another possibility to consider though. The FMA holder. The idea of wetting the negative scares me, but to obtain decent scan I would accept the chore. To sum up I would greatly appreciate any posting sharing your experiences with any of these holders. I have to decide how to upgrade on the 4870.
Best regards and thanks
Pistach
Jamie123
Veteran
Pistach,
I will certainly share my experiences once I have the holder. It was shipped a few days ago and I expect to get it sometime next week.
As for the wet mounting option, I don't know if that's really worth it. As far as I know the wet mounting fluid can be very hard to get and also rather expensive.
My main concern with the holder original epson holder is that it only takes two 6x6 frames per column and it doesn't keep the film flat. I don't think I will be disappointed by the betterscanning filmholder since it solves both problems.
Now keep in mind that I'm talking about medium format film which is what the holder is made for. I guess there is the possibility of taping 35mm film to the ANR glass insert so I'll definitely try that some time but I need it primarily for medium format scans.
Are you having trouble with medium format or 35mm film?
I will certainly share my experiences once I have the holder. It was shipped a few days ago and I expect to get it sometime next week.
As for the wet mounting option, I don't know if that's really worth it. As far as I know the wet mounting fluid can be very hard to get and also rather expensive.
My main concern with the holder original epson holder is that it only takes two 6x6 frames per column and it doesn't keep the film flat. I don't think I will be disappointed by the betterscanning filmholder since it solves both problems.
Now keep in mind that I'm talking about medium format film which is what the holder is made for. I guess there is the possibility of taping 35mm film to the ANR glass insert so I'll definitely try that some time but I need it primarily for medium format scans.
Are you having trouble with medium format or 35mm film?
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
Jamie,
for 35 mm I use a Minolta Elite 5400 and I use the Epson for 6x9 (Fuji 690 III) and in perspective (I have not yet found the time to try) for my 4x5 ShenHao. I exclude any intervention by the scanner software and manage the scans in CS2.
The point is that I have the same feeling that the film is not kept flat because sharpness in under my expectation and spotty. The wet scan in the review cited looks slightly better.
Anyway I can't wait to learn about your experience, because I am mulling an upgrade to the 750 and better holders after looking at your review.
Thank you very much and best regards
Pistach
for 35 mm I use a Minolta Elite 5400 and I use the Epson for 6x9 (Fuji 690 III) and in perspective (I have not yet found the time to try) for my 4x5 ShenHao. I exclude any intervention by the scanner software and manage the scans in CS2.
The point is that I have the same feeling that the film is not kept flat because sharpness in under my expectation and spotty. The wet scan in the review cited looks slightly better.
Anyway I can't wait to learn about your experience, because I am mulling an upgrade to the 750 and better holders after looking at your review.
Thank you very much and best regards
Pistach
Jamie123
Veteran
Pistach,
I just received the film holder in the mail this morning. I have to say that I'm very inpressed by the build and overall quality of this thing. The original Epson holder is a joke compared to this one!
I don't have time to test it right now but as soon as I have the time I will do some comparisons and post my results.
I just received the film holder in the mail this morning. I have to say that I'm very inpressed by the build and overall quality of this thing. The original Epson holder is a joke compared to this one!
I don't have time to test it right now but as soon as I have the time I will do some comparisons and post my results.
R
rich815
Guest
I bought an earlier version (fixed height) of the BS holder when I used a 2450. It did a better job than the REALLY filmsy and crappy one provided with the 2450. The Epson-provided one that comes with the 4990 is much better than the one with the 2450 though. A month or so ago I did compare scans on my 4990 using the Epson 2450 provided holder, the BS one (earlier fixed version, though I cannot see a huge difference looking at the ones online now) and the Epson-provided 4990 one. I tried at different heights too using different thicknesses of Post-it note pad squares. In the end the Epson-provided 4990 one with no shims gave me the sharpest scans by a long shot. The BS one raised the neg a bit too much, even with no shims.
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't know what the holder of the 2450 looks like but compared to the BS holder the original 4990 holder looks and feels really cheap. I bought the fixed height dual channel holder which I think is built sturdier than the single channel one so that might make a difference.
I just did some testing with a really flat neg and there wasn't a real difference between any of the three test scans (1. original epson holder, 2. better holder with t-locks, 3. better holder with ANR insert). This is, of course, no surprise since the position of the neg is exactly the same in all three cases. The reason I did the test was just to see if the new holder really has the same height as the old one (which it did).
The main advantages of the BS holder clearly are the t-locks and the ANR insert (which I would definitely advise to get). Now I will never have a problem with curled/arched negs again which is a relief. I develop b&w negs myself and always get them pretty flat but when I use a cheap consumer lab for my c-41 film they always give me curled negatives.
My advice for anyone considering the fixed height holder would be this: If you've never had a problem with curled negs, don't buy it. If you've had the same problem as I than the BS holder will save you a lot of time and fingerprints on the negs and is definitely worth getting.
I thought about doing some test scans with curled negs and posting them but then again, there's not much to gain. If the negs are curled the scans will possibly have newton rings and be less sharp depending on how much the neg is curled. With a variable height holder a test would, of course, be more useful.
Anyways, for anyone considering this filmholder, here's a list of the benefits according to my own preferences:
- much sturdier build than the original Epson holder
- the T-locks keep the negatives flat
- the ANR also keeps the negatives flat and additionally helps preventing newton rings
- you can scan three-frame filmstrips (6x6) which is better for archiving purposes. I don't know how much it is for other formats like 6x7 o, 6x8 or 6x9 but the opening is 20.5 cm so you can find out yourself.
- last but not least, you can modify the holder so it allows you to scan a full frame with edge markings.
I just did some testing with a really flat neg and there wasn't a real difference between any of the three test scans (1. original epson holder, 2. better holder with t-locks, 3. better holder with ANR insert). This is, of course, no surprise since the position of the neg is exactly the same in all three cases. The reason I did the test was just to see if the new holder really has the same height as the old one (which it did).
The main advantages of the BS holder clearly are the t-locks and the ANR insert (which I would definitely advise to get). Now I will never have a problem with curled/arched negs again which is a relief. I develop b&w negs myself and always get them pretty flat but when I use a cheap consumer lab for my c-41 film they always give me curled negatives.
My advice for anyone considering the fixed height holder would be this: If you've never had a problem with curled negs, don't buy it. If you've had the same problem as I than the BS holder will save you a lot of time and fingerprints on the negs and is definitely worth getting.
I thought about doing some test scans with curled negs and posting them but then again, there's not much to gain. If the negs are curled the scans will possibly have newton rings and be less sharp depending on how much the neg is curled. With a variable height holder a test would, of course, be more useful.
Anyways, for anyone considering this filmholder, here's a list of the benefits according to my own preferences:
- much sturdier build than the original Epson holder
- the T-locks keep the negatives flat
- the ANR also keeps the negatives flat and additionally helps preventing newton rings
- you can scan three-frame filmstrips (6x6) which is better for archiving purposes. I don't know how much it is for other formats like 6x7 o, 6x8 or 6x9 but the opening is 20.5 cm so you can find out yourself.
- last but not least, you can modify the holder so it allows you to scan a full frame with edge markings.
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
Alas! The moral of the story is that the scanner is the crap and has the holders it deserves. Perhaps I better wait for Epson Superperfection 9xxxxxxxx in just a few years...
Regards
Pistach
Regards
Pistach
Jamie123
Veteran
Pistach said:
I'm not sure I follow. Where do you get that from?
What I was saying is that the holder helps keeping the negatives as flat as possible. If your negatives are already flat there's not much imporvement to expect from using the better holder but if they aren't flat the holder is priceless!
Now I haven't used the Epson 4870 but I expect it not to be very different from the 4990 I have. The results I get from medium format film with my scanner are very good even with the old holder. The new holder is just so much more convenient!
If you aren't happy with the results of a flatbed there's still the possibility to shell out a few thousand dollars for a dedicated film scanner or a used Imacon drum scanner. It's just a question of how much you want to pay.
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
Jamie,
you are right. But the comparable model, Imacon 646, is not even compatible with 6x9 and anyway costs more than 10 times an Epson 750. In addition, it is not clear at all , from the review I have read, that the edge over flatbed or film scanners is so evident. I remember a review touting an MF scanner by the now defunct Minolta, to be the best around. Let alone real drum (and wet) scanners, that costs 50 times as much. Beware, I am not taking what reviewers say too seriously because they are often biased (and that's is a very good reason for me to chat with members of this forum!).
Ultimately, I am afraid that rather than being concerned with the marginal life of film, we should care more the fact that there is no much interest in the industry to give us better film and better scanners. Why nobody fills the gap between an Epson and an Imacon scanner? What if , say, Canon, would be seriously interested in this market? The 4000 film scanner by Canon was a good start but it has had no follow-up!
I guess the only way for me is to get along with the under one grand stuff they propose us.
Thank you anyway for the precious info on the holders.
Pistach
you are right. But the comparable model, Imacon 646, is not even compatible with 6x9 and anyway costs more than 10 times an Epson 750. In addition, it is not clear at all , from the review I have read, that the edge over flatbed or film scanners is so evident. I remember a review touting an MF scanner by the now defunct Minolta, to be the best around. Let alone real drum (and wet) scanners, that costs 50 times as much. Beware, I am not taking what reviewers say too seriously because they are often biased (and that's is a very good reason for me to chat with members of this forum!).
Ultimately, I am afraid that rather than being concerned with the marginal life of film, we should care more the fact that there is no much interest in the industry to give us better film and better scanners. Why nobody fills the gap between an Epson and an Imacon scanner? What if , say, Canon, would be seriously interested in this market? The 4000 film scanner by Canon was a good start but it has had no follow-up!
I guess the only way for me is to get along with the under one grand stuff they propose us.
Thank you anyway for the precious info on the holders.
Pistach