What is the best non-commercial scanner on the market right now?

[Fernando2]

Ditto here.
The CS8000 has 4000x4000 *real* ppi, autofocus, manual focus, real single-pass multisampling, auto and manual exposure for each RGB channel.
They are solid machines, built to last and still serviceable to an extent.

Downsides are speed (it's slow because you *need* Fine Mode), sub-par holders (unless you shell out for the glass holder), FireWire-only interface.

Fernando

 

[wakarimasen]

The more i scan, the more I think it's the achilles heel of the whole process - at least for 35mmm using an Epson 4490. I think I need to look again for a dedicated film scanner - perhaps one of the later Nikon models.
I do wonder whether scanning a wet print wood yield better results?

 

[Fernando2]

I do wonder whether scanning a wet print wood yield better results?

No, you'd lose even more image data.
A wet print is a second-generation media (film->wet print), a scanned wet print is a third-generation media (film->wet print->scan).
But more importantly, a wet print has less dynamic range and usually less details than the negative it came from.

A Plustek 7xxx or 8xxx may suit your needs; a Reflecta RPS 7200 Pro may end up even better.

Fernando

 

[kanzlr]

The more i scan, the more I think it's the achilles heel of the whole process - at least for 35mmm using an Epson 4490. I think I need to look again for a dedicated film scanner - perhaps one of the later Nikon models.
I do wonder whether scanning a wet print wood yield better results?

I have that very scanner too, it is pretty weak resolution wise, a dedicated 35mm scanner will blow it away, detailwise

 

[philosomatographer]

I think you are all overlooking an obvious solution - a good second-hand 12MP or 16MP SLR, and a great - but cheap - macro lens, together with a copy stand, or a glass slide duplicator.

My Olympus E-5 with a 50mm f/2.0 Macro lens - total kit probably worth $1000 - knocks the socks off what my Epson V750 can do for 35mm. A true, sharp, 12MP image right down to grain level. And it takes 1/10s or less to digitise a negative 🙂

I don't have any files handy to show you, but - does anybody else here do this? I think that slow, mechanical line-scanning technology has run its course, and is totally obsolete.

For example, with a really top-notch macro lens (an old Olympus OM 80mm f/4 bellows lens, for example) and a Sony A7r, you can in an instant procure a digitise image which no current scanner in existence can produce (there is no scanner that can produce a truly sharp 36MP image from 35mm film that I am aware of). At not much over $2000.

Such is the progress in digital sensor technology, and the lenses have been there for a while.

 

[philosomatographer]

No, you'd lose even more image data.
A wet print is a second-generation media (film->wet print), a scanned wet print is a third-generation media (film->wet print->scan).
But more importantly, a wet print has less dynamic range and usually less details than the negative it came from.

A Plustek 7xxx or 8xxx may suit your needs; a Reflecta RPS 7200 Pro may end up even better.

Fernando

I have to strongly disagree. If a wet print is your "art" - your final output - you wouldn't want to scan anything else. So what if the resolution is a tiny bit less? I would work for hours to get the tones right in my print, and scan the print for online viewing. I would never use this print to produce a duplicate. For example (and note - this has extremely high dynamic range):

Film scanning is not the darkroom printer's friend 🙂

 

[Fernando2]

Well, if it's good for you... more power to you! 🙂

 

[dfoo]

I have both a CS5000 and v700. There is no comparison in quality between the two scanners. The CS5000 is leaps & bounds better.

For that matter I'd be willing to sell the CS5000 for the right price. PM me if interested.

 

[k__43]

I just had to put the canon out for sale FS4000 cos I bought a Coolscan 8000 .. I'm so excited can't wait to scan my test neg from above with that. meanwhile here is a sample from the FS4000 with ektar 100:

I find the colours I get from this device exceptional I can only hope the nikon is similar (although it uses a different kind of light source) .. I often get perfect scans from vuescan and if not I only have to control the blue channel a bit in photoshop (not much).

 

[k__43]

Scanned my first 35mm film with the Coolscan 8000 yesterday. Great results, really!
I've read the thing is supposed to make loud noises when scanning, but it really is almost comical how a scanner can sound like a WWII tank.
Will post a scan of the test neg as soon as possible. Having visitors over the weekend could delay this. (I hate when I get disrupted playing with a new toy LOL)

 

[Joosep]

I have scanned everything on a Frontier up to now. Getting into home scanners. Already ordered new scanner, will post a comparison between a few scanners in the upcoming weeks. There will be a frontier, nikon, epson, plustek and a pacific image/reflecta involved.

 

[gnuyork]

Limiting your selection to current manufacture units really limits you. Film scanners seem to be very much like film cameras where few are being manufactured but there are many great deals on superior quality equipment out there in the used marketplace. There always seems to be a reasonable supply of Minolta 5400 scanners on EBay for about the same price as a new Epson 700. There are some scan test targets in this thread. Check what one of those Minolta 5400s will do.

Don't constrain yourself to a scanner with low resolution just to you have one that comes new in a box. Remember there have been no breakthroughs in scanner technology since Digital Ice about 10-12 years ago.

While I realize this thread is pretty old, I'll add my 2¢... Yes, yes, yes about a used Minolta 5400s. It scans beautifully with lots of resolution.

One of my prints...I think this was close to 48 inches wide if I recall....scanned Kodachrome on the Minolta 5400 and some careful up-resing.

 

[doolittle]

For example, with a really top-notch macro lens (an old Olympus OM 80mm f/4 bellows lens, for example) and a Sony A7r, you can in an instant procure a digitise image which no current scanner in existence can produce (there is no scanner that can produce a truly sharp 36MP image from 35mm film that I am aware of). At not much over $2000.

Such is the progress in digital sensor technology, and the lenses have been there for a while.

Interesting proposition. I would love to see a comparison of a D800 with macro lens vs a dedicated 35mm scanner.

 

[rumblesushi]

I have scanned everything on a Frontier up to now. Getting into home scanners. Already ordered new scanner, will post a comparison between a few scanners in the upcoming weeks. There will be a frontier, nikon, epson, plustek and a pacific image/reflecta involved.

I look forward to your comparisons.

I'm about to post a comparison of a Plustek and a Pacific Image 7250pro3 (Reflecta RPS 7200), as they are 2 common, affordable machines.

 

[gnuyork]

Interesting proposition. I would love to see a comparison of a D800 with macro lens vs a dedicated 35mm scanner.

I have a feeling the scanner would win... I have a friend with a D800 and there's no way I could get a 48" wide image from a D800 file as sharp as I did my scan...of course I could be proven wrong...

 

[gustavoAvila]

I think you are all overlooking an obvious solution - a good second-hand 12MP or 16MP SLR, and a great - but cheap - macro lens, together with a copy stand, or a glass slide duplicator.

My Olympus E-5 with a 50mm f/2.0 Macro lens - total kit probably worth $1000 - knocks the socks off what my Epson V750 can do for 35mm. A true, sharp, 12MP image right down to grain level. And it takes 1/10s or less to digitise a negative 🙂

I don't have any files handy to show you, but - does anybody else here do this? I think that slow, mechanical line-scanning technology has run its course, and is totally obsolete.

For example, with a really top-notch macro lens (an old Olympus OM 80mm f/4 bellows lens, for example) and a Sony A7r, you can in an instant procure a digitise image which no current scanner in existence can produce (there is no scanner that can produce a truly sharp 36MP image from 35mm film that I am aware of). At not much over $2000.

Such is the progress in digital sensor technology, and the lenses have been there for a while.

In a similar vein, Pekka Potka described using a m.Zuiko 60mm to digitize slides.

http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/10/18/olympus-m-zuiko-60mm-f28-macro.html

However, even though an ILC is certainly a digitizing option, it does not obsolete dedicated film scanners for many reasons.

Most importantly, the ILC does not provide an IR cleaning channel, which is a huge time saver.

(One of the inconvenient truths regarding film scanning is the massive amount of PhotoShop time required to remove dust and scratches!)

 

[Noll]

In a similar vein, Pekka Potka described using a m.Zuiko 60mm to digitize slides.

http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/10/18/olympus-m-zuiko-60mm-f28-macro.html

However, even though an ILC is certainly a digitizing option, it does not obsolete dedicated film scanners for many reasons.

Most importantly, the ILC does not provide an IR cleaning channel, which is a huge time saver.

(One of the inconvenient truths regarding film scanning is the massive amount of PhotoShop time required to remove dust and scratches!)

There are at least a few camera/scanner comparisons posted on this forum, just need to search a bit...

I posted some comparisons using a $60 50mm f/3.5 macro and $150 16mp Panasonic G3 to other scanning methods here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133031&highlight=panasonic+g3
I should actually post an update to this thread with some more new scans...

I also did an investigation of perceived grain vs actual grain here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138560
Bottom line - what we assume to be film grain in scans is often grain aliasing which exaggerates its appearance.

 

[regular]

Bottom line - what we assume to be film grain in scans is often grain aliasing which exaggerates its appearance.

I read a convincing explanation on french forum summilux.net.
When capturing a film with a DSLR, the raw processing software is performing at least a 2 steps :
- interpolating the color pixels of the Bayer matrix, which is like mixing a soup with the neighbor pixels as main ingredients,
- trying to recover/recreate some sharpness out of this mess.

Those filters may be confused by the (real) grain of a film, and recreate patterns that do not exist.

If you disable the 'smart' sharpness filter in the raw processing tool, you should get more accurate results.
Alternatively, use a sensor without Bayer matrix, such as in the Leica Monochrome, or some scientific devices.

Ps: found link to the mentioned discussion :
http://www.summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=65069

 

[hanskerensky]

One of the best explanations about grain aliasing can be seen here :
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm

Found that after problems i had with it when scanning Reala 100 on my Plustek Opticfilm 120.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/29504544@N08/8668031780/in/set-72157633289644687

 

[Fernando2]

One of the best explanations about grain aliasing can be seen here :
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm

Looks like the article misses a key concept:

Aliasing occurs when your signal is sampled at insufficient resolution.

In the case of scanning:

Aliasing occurs when the scanner's sensor has insufficient resolution, compared to the scanner's lens.

So it's not a question of focus, absolute resolution, flatbed vs filmscanner etc.
It's just that many scanner manifacturers should use higher resolution sensors (or less sharp lenses, but we would not like that 😉 ).

Let's take a Minolta 5400 (or every Minolta or Canon film scanner, for that).

It has an excellent lens, with very high resolving power; the image it forms on the sensor's plane has details way beyond 106 lp/mm, which is the Nyqist frequency of its 5400 ppi sensor.

So the scans are affected by aliasing, most notably on the grain because that's the highest-frequency "signal" the lens transmits.

Fer