UMAX Powerlook 3000 revamped (or, Kate's battle againt dust escalates)

[Kate-the-Great]

Yeah, these are no V700's- but for how little they go for when they turn up, I think it's worth it. I'm on my second UMAX (first one got burgled in 2013; I laughed when I imagined the thief trying to pawn an ancient SCSI scanner!) and have spent only 75 bucks between the two of them. Worth many times that for the great scans they still deliver from Medium Format! And with VueScan and hacked Adaptec SCSI HBA drivers this 17-year-old machine even works wonderfully on Windows 8.1 😎

Dust is, of course, a constant battle with scanning (readers are clutching their mice/tablets in frustration at the sight of that word) So I came up with the idea of adding a fan and air filtration to my newly-arrived-from-Ebay UMAX to flush in filtered air and keep the scanner at positive pressure during operation and hopefully keep some of those nasties out.

I had a 12v 140mm computer fan around which seemed right for the job but needs DC power (mains-powered fans are, in my experience, unnecessarily loud 'cause of their primitive blade design) so I did what any rational person who just decided to hack up their film scanner would do, and built a simple linear 110VAC -> 12VDC supply!

Before I added the pigtail for the fan. 15$ of parts at RadioShack- simple and effective!

Getting it put together... it works! 😀 The fan's power supply is connected to the mains-in on the scanner, so nothing extra to plug in and when the scanner is off, so is the auxiliary power.

Covered up. I'm using a piece of home HVAC filter for now. Anything thicker cut airflow down to unacceptable levels.

The lid. Okay, not super pretty but I don't care! 😛 I had originally hoped to route the power for the fan inside the lid, but there just wasn't enough room in the right place. The bit of cable snaking out isn't too egregious I think?


Some samples from my first Powerlook 3000. All shot on Fuji GW690, Portra 160, Wet-mount scanned with Vuescan to DNG, Lightroom processed. I'll post some from the new scanner soon!

 

[Ranchu]

That's crazy, Kate. You've clearly triumphed at long last!

🙂

 

[brbo]

Yeah, these are no V700's- but for how little they go for when they turn up, I think it's worth it.

Wait... I always thought that those scanners were better than V700? I just never found one in EU for a reasonable price. So, in reality they are even worse than V700?

 

[Kate-the-Great]

Wait... I always thought that those scanners were better than V700? I just never found one in EU for a reasonable price. So, in reality they are even worse than V700?

It's complicated. Comparing scans of my MF film done on my friend's V700 vs my Powerlook 3000, the quality is pretty similar. It's kind of hard to compare- the UMAX in 1998/99 was a top-end scanner at 8000$USD and the Epson in 2006- a consumer/enthusiast-level at 700$. I wouldn't exactly say the Epson is "better" than the UMAX; at the same price I'd choose the Epson but given how little I've spent on the Powerlook it's hard for me to say the Epson is worth ~5x the price of the UMAX given my experiences with both.

The Epson has a lot going for it in that it connects with USB and scans much faster as a result (and doesn't require an ancient OS or DIY drivers). It also has twice the CCD resolution- though that of course doesn't translate into actual optical resolution and I'm convinced that figure is pretty similar between the two- maybe I'll get ahold of a USAF1951 slide and confirm sometime. As far as DR, the Epson is rated at 4.0D vs 3.6D for the Epson, but even that number has been demonstrated to be subjective so it's hard to tell. Epson also has ICE which is a big deal for a lot of photogs. Old-timey UMAX needs manual spotting and ridiculous dust-control like the hackjob I've done.

I don't know what to say in the end; the Powerlook 3000 is absolutely the spiritual predecessor to the V700 in that it's a flatbed that can do a dang good job of scanning film. If you had a choice between an Epson and a UMAX for the same price I'd say go Epson all the way. USB and ICE alone are worth it and 8 years is a long time in tech development.

If you can find a Powerlook 3000 for a lower price than the Epson (which really should be the case- these wankers listing the UMAX at 500$ on EBay are delusional IMHO) and you are scanning 120 I'd say go for it 100%. The 33MP 645 and 66MP 6x9 scans I've gotten from the UMAX are beautiful and worthy of gallery-quality prints. But with last-century's scanners, you give up a bit of speed and convenience that you may miss.



Don't know if this was helpful at all. TL;DR- Same price: Epson because USB and ICE. Cheap UMAX: Heck Yeah and you won't be disappointed.

 

[Kate-the-Great]

Oh- and the UMAX cannot scan a full 4x5" frame at full resolution (anything larger than ~3.25" drops to 1200DPI) whereas the Epson can do up to 8x10 at full-res.

But the UMAX does has Auto-Focus which is absent in the Epson. So there's that.

 

[sevo]

Wait... I always thought that those scanners were better than V700?

They are technically better made in that their physical and effective resolution are much closer to each other - and by now they are cheaper. But as far as the end results are concerned, there is not really that much difference between a nominally 6400dpi scanner that delivers around 3200dpi (the V700) and a nominally 3048dpi scanner that delivers around 2800 (the Saphir Hires). In Europe look for the Heidelberg/Linoscan Saphir Ultra series. The 3000 is the "HiRes" model. Beware, when scanning LF, it has no advantages over the "lesser" (and even more affordable) sister model Ultra II.

 

[brbo]

They are technically better made in that their physical and effective resolution are much closer to each other - and by now they are cheaper. But as far as the end results are concerned, there is not really that much difference between a nominally 6400dpi scanner that delivers around 3200dpi (the V700) and a nominally 3048dpi scanner that delivers around 2800 (the Saphir Hires). In Europe look for the Heidelberg/Linoscan Saphir Ultra series. The 3000 is the "HiRes" model. Beware, when scanning LF, it has no advantages over the "lesser" (and even more affordable) sister model Ultra II.

I know the equivalent Linoscan models. They too are quite rare in Europe and priced pretty high on the Great auction site. I guess a person with ties to photo business can run into them more often and take them away for free or a really small price but for the rest of us this is not the case.

I had V700 and 3200dpi is a dream. 2500dpi at best. I'd take 50 EUR 2800dpi scanner (even if I had to stitch 4x5" scans) over 500 EUR 2500dpi with ICE any day...

 

[Kate-the-Great]

Scanner and air filter works great! I still have the challenge of getting the film completely clean before it goes in the scanner, but unlike before it stays clean once it's there.

I solved my "not having film holders and not wanting to wet mount again" problem by cutting masks out of thin plastic to keep the negs off the glass. Seems I can do slides right on the glass just fine, but I got mad crazy Newton Rings every time I tried that with negatives.

(This is before I removed the dust. Hence dust specs everywhere)

You can also see in the photo the silicone sealant I put around the edges of the glass to keep things contained for wet mounting, which I probably won't be doing anymore because I wet-scanned some frames yesterday and was reminded why I swore I'd never wet mount again last time I did it. Such a friggin' hassle 🙄