froyd
Veteran
Pretty sure you can now use VueScan with the 120.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Unfortunately, the OpticFilm 120 is now out of production. The replacement model is just vaporware.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Any 120 film subformat is so big, any new flatbed Epson supporting it will be sufficient.
And to be honest same is enough for 135. Epson comes with easy to use software.
And to be honest same is enough for 135. Epson comes with easy to use software.
Ted Striker
Well-known
I dont want sufficient, I want excellence when it comes to my scans. My MF cameras cost $2,000 and $3800 each. A dedicated 120 film scanner absolutely destroys the results of an Epson. It's not even close.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Any evidence what your excellency has practical outcome?
Prest_400
Multiformat
I've considered myself a "maximizer". Epson flatbeds are more than sufficient for sharing (despire the irony of ppl sharing it in smaller than the neg formats, Instagram) or hybrid prints at not too large a size, but easily feel they leave a lot out of the scan.
For B&W we have a 4990 in the Camera club and it's rather OKish but having the community darkroom under the same roof basically means I print.
We have a copy stand with a schneider lens and bought an adapter to try using my EM5 on. I've seen really gorgeous results of many people "camera scanning". NLP group in facebook has many examples. Drum scanners would be the ultimate in quality and it shows, specially with color slide film, but I have seen great "camera scans".
oftheherd
Veteran
I have an Epson 4870 that does all I need. I've had it for several years now. It does 4x5 down to 35mm. If I wanted 30x40 from 35mm I expect I would want something better, but the Epson with its native software is OK for me as I use it. 8x10 prints are quite acceptable. I can't print any larger as that is the best my of HP printer can manage.
Ted Striker
Well-known
All kinds of evidence. Just start with the spec sheet and work from there. The multiple exposure mode on the OpticFilm 120 allows for some nicely expanded dynamic range, mostly in the dark spots of the negative.
Then look at the OpticFilm's negative holders. A better negative holder that keeps the film 100% flat is hard to imagine. World's better than Epson.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Jamie123
Veteran
As stated, I have a Nikon CS 9000 which surpasses the quality of the OpticFilm 120 (not by much but somewhat noticeably at 100% magnification) and I will still go for the Epson V850 sometimes even for magazine work. The thing is, once the image is resized to the magazine's specs (usually at most 300dpi at around A4 for a single page or cover) there's barely any difference.
The tiny bit of difference that might still be noticeable on the screen side by side in favor of the Nikon would probably not be apparent in print anyway.
Is a dedicated film scanner better? Sure. But the newest Epsons with the variable height glass holders actually come reasonably close to something like the Nikon or Plustek for 120 film. For 35mm the Epsons are still quite inadequate, though.
A Flextight is a whole other matter, though. There I feel like you can see the difference at every document size.
PRJ
Another Day in Paradise
The mistake here in this thread by some people is thinking that your way is good enough for you, so it is good enough for everyone. Some people have higher standards though.
To the OP- If you find scanning 35mm tedious, then get a Nikon 4000 or 5000. They both do bulk scanning, and with VueScan it is pretty simple to scan an entire roll if the film is uncut. Even if you cut it, you can set up VueScan easily to start scanning when the film is inserted and spit the film out when it is done. Easy peasy.
For 120 with the Epson, if you are using VueScan enable "scan from preview" in the settings then do a preview of the entire roll with the preview resolution set to the resolution you desire. Then it is as simple as cropping each frame and hitting save. You can adjust each frame too before you save it. The preview will take longer, but you will only have to do one pass instead of a bunch.
Hope that helps you.
To the OP- If you find scanning 35mm tedious, then get a Nikon 4000 or 5000. They both do bulk scanning, and with VueScan it is pretty simple to scan an entire roll if the film is uncut. Even if you cut it, you can set up VueScan easily to start scanning when the film is inserted and spit the film out when it is done. Easy peasy.
For 120 with the Epson, if you are using VueScan enable "scan from preview" in the settings then do a preview of the entire roll with the preview resolution set to the resolution you desire. Then it is as simple as cropping each frame and hitting save. You can adjust each frame too before you save it. The preview will take longer, but you will only have to do one pass instead of a bunch.
Hope that helps you.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I have different approach.
I look at results and work from there.
I have scans from my Epson flatbed printed by me and by professional on lager size paper. It looks awesome.
I have no problem to put negatives into thick book and wait for them to become flat before scanning.
As for specs, my Epson does take it from 0 to 255 and does 48-bit if I want to.
nightfly
Well-known
The things that bother me most about my current Epson 4990 are the crappy negative holders (I actually use some older ones from a prior Epson scanner that suck somewhat less) and it's pretty slow process.
The quality of 35mm is just so/so. I find the 120 acceptable if not great.
I don't need to bulk scan, I only scan the frames I like.
It sounds like a Nikon 4000 or one of the Optic Film scanners is the best solution for me or a Minolta although I'd lean toward the Optic Film as I don't really love the idea of buying 10 year old (plus?) tech gear.
The quality of 35mm is just so/so. I find the 120 acceptable if not great.
I don't need to bulk scan, I only scan the frames I like.
It sounds like a Nikon 4000 or one of the Optic Film scanners is the best solution for me or a Minolta although I'd lean toward the Optic Film as I don't really love the idea of buying 10 year old (plus?) tech gear.
olifaunt
Well-known
For something totally different: I've had rather nice results doing 6x9 wet prints in the darkroom and taking pictures of the prints with my Ricoh GR.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Before I dropped the cash on the OpticFilm 120, I had my 35mm negatives scanned by an Epson V750. Only super fine films like Neopan Acros look any good. ISO400 and up look awful. Once I had the OpticFilm 120, I was totally satisfied with how my 35mm film looked. That alone was worth the purchase. The jump in quality is enormous.
Peter_S
Peter_S
Still running a Nikon 8000ED. As long as it does, it does. Will be my last scanner, I think.
lawrence
Veteran
For 35mm I use a Minolta 5400 Mk.1 and for medium format an Epson V750 with the Betterscanning film holder. Very happy with both of them
Just to pick up on a point made earlier in this thread, the V750 is not satisfactory for 35mm because it cannot fully resolve the film grain (I mean 'not satisfactory for me' not necessarily for everyone else), whereas the 5400 is extremely sharp without being harsh. However, I do use the V750 for 35mm 'digital contact sheets' from which I then select the frames to run through the 5400.
Just to pick up on a point made earlier in this thread, the V750 is not satisfactory for 35mm because it cannot fully resolve the film grain (I mean 'not satisfactory for me' not necessarily for everyone else), whereas the 5400 is extremely sharp without being harsh. However, I do use the V750 for 35mm 'digital contact sheets' from which I then select the frames to run through the 5400.
bhop73
Well-known
I'm still using my v700 that I bought years ago.. It's decent. If someone released a new scanner that's like the old nikon scanners, i'd be all over it, but I guess that's probably not gonna happen.
wjlapier
Well-known
Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm and Epson V500 for 120. I'm happy so far. I use Vuescan as my software.
Ronald M
Veteran
Nikon ES 2, D800E, current 60 2.8 lens, and Luma Pro light.
Works as nice a my D5400 Minolta whose software no longer works. Available software is trash, tried it all.
Works as nice a my D5400 Minolta whose software no longer works. Available software is trash, tried it all.