Thardy
Veteran
Minolta Scan Dual 4 with Vuescan, on an iMAC OSX.
what scanner do you trust your precious negs with?
- Thread starter ibrando
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 34
- Views 3K
.JL.
Established
I use Minolta 5400 with Vuescan, and it's great.
My previous setup was Nikon Coolscan IV with NikonScan or Vuescan. No complaint either. Scans from Minolta seems to have less extrusive grain than the Nikon for B&W film.
Minolta scan sample
Nikon scan sample
My previous setup was Nikon Coolscan IV with NikonScan or Vuescan. No complaint either. Scans from Minolta seems to have less extrusive grain than the Nikon for B&W film.
Minolta scan sample
Nikon scan sample
robert blu
quiet photographer
pizzahut88 says : Plus, one thing I would want to remind everyone of,
we should support Nikon Coolscan.
I agree, one of the reason for which I bought my 5000 is that in Italy is going to be difficult to buy a high quality film scanner, unless you are ready to go for real expensive machines. probably most digital photos are taken less need for scanner there will be.
For this reason I hurried up and now I'm very happy.
regards
robert
we should support Nikon Coolscan.
I agree, one of the reason for which I bought my 5000 is that in Italy is going to be difficult to buy a high quality film scanner, unless you are ready to go for real expensive machines. probably most digital photos are taken less need for scanner there will be.
For this reason I hurried up and now I'm very happy.
regards
robert
palec
Well-known
I was looking for a good flatbed scanner (I needed 35mm and MF) and choosed Epson V700. I'm happy with the results, you can check my flickr gallery (link is in signature) – all recent photos have been scanned with it. I'm sure dedicated film scanner (Nikon 9000) is better, but it's also much more expensive. My plan was to have scans as good as possible (for preview purpose) and in case I need something better I'll make prints with enlarger and good lens.
x-ray
Veteran
Did you say how much you want to spend?
Imacon is the way to go if price is not a big issue. they start around $5000 and go up but they run circles around the consumer flatbeds. Consumer machines are drastically over rated in Dmax and resolution but the imacon figures are true. Nikon scanners are good but not equal to the Imacons. In flatbed machines you can't fet a really good one unless you're willing to spend $8,000 up. I have a Fuji Finescan 5000 that sold for $25,000 which I know is out of most peoples reach but from time to time the 2750, 5000 and Quatro come up on Ebay at exceptional prices. The 5000 is current and the was current a couple of years ago and runs on the same software. The Quatro is an earlier version of the 5000 and runs on the same software. Colour Kit software comes with the machines but to use it you must have a compatible dongle for your OS. If you look for one make certain it has the software and above all the dongle for your OS. These things are expensive and can easily be lost and without the dongle the scanner only works in demo mode. The Quatro and 5000 have a true Dmax of around 4.2 and res figures are true. All have XY axis scanning so every spot on the 13x18 inch platten is optimum. Scans are fast at about 40 per hour and 100 35mm necs can go on the platten at one time. There are 4 glass Fujinon EBC apo lenses in the scanner for different negs and magnifications. The 2750 has 2 and is half the res of the others and a little slower but plenty fast. Often these scanners can be bought for around $1,000 complete. One thing to note is they are large and heavy. My 5000 weighs about 150 lbs and is about 26x38 inches and 12 inches tall.
The only other great flat beds are the Creo / Scitex but I don't know much first hand info about them.
The only other flatbeds to consider
Imacon is the way to go if price is not a big issue. they start around $5000 and go up but they run circles around the consumer flatbeds. Consumer machines are drastically over rated in Dmax and resolution but the imacon figures are true. Nikon scanners are good but not equal to the Imacons. In flatbed machines you can't fet a really good one unless you're willing to spend $8,000 up. I have a Fuji Finescan 5000 that sold for $25,000 which I know is out of most peoples reach but from time to time the 2750, 5000 and Quatro come up on Ebay at exceptional prices. The 5000 is current and the was current a couple of years ago and runs on the same software. The Quatro is an earlier version of the 5000 and runs on the same software. Colour Kit software comes with the machines but to use it you must have a compatible dongle for your OS. If you look for one make certain it has the software and above all the dongle for your OS. These things are expensive and can easily be lost and without the dongle the scanner only works in demo mode. The Quatro and 5000 have a true Dmax of around 4.2 and res figures are true. All have XY axis scanning so every spot on the 13x18 inch platten is optimum. Scans are fast at about 40 per hour and 100 35mm necs can go on the platten at one time. There are 4 glass Fujinon EBC apo lenses in the scanner for different negs and magnifications. The 2750 has 2 and is half the res of the others and a little slower but plenty fast. Often these scanners can be bought for around $1,000 complete. One thing to note is they are large and heavy. My 5000 weighs about 150 lbs and is about 26x38 inches and 12 inches tall.
The only other great flat beds are the Creo / Scitex but I don't know much first hand info about them.
The only other flatbeds to consider
alansoon
Established
I use a Nikon Coolscan IV with Vuescan. Nice combo for what I do.
Wahoo
Washing on Siegfried Line
This is a scan with my lo, lo cost epson flatbed - nothing particuarly special but it could be a lot worse.
matt fury
Well-known
I picked up a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 on eBay. I would've been just as happy to go with one of the similar Nikons, but I got a deal on the Minolta. I've been totally happy with it thus far. Before this, I only used a big ass Imacon at school, and while the results were superlative, it took a lot more time to get my scans done. Even coming from the Imacon, the 5400 has not disappointed me. And actually, it's even surpassed the Imacon in one or two areas (notably with blown highlights).
PS, any of you Dimage guys got extra film holders? I've got only the strip film holder for my 5400, and no slide holder. I do, for some reason, have a NIB 35mm holder for the 5400 II, in case anyone is looking...
PS, any of you Dimage guys got extra film holders? I've got only the strip film holder for my 5400, and no slide holder. I do, for some reason, have a NIB 35mm holder for the 5400 II, in case anyone is looking...
maddoc
... likes film again.
I used a Nikon Coolscan V ED until I started MF. Now, I switched to a Epson V700 (GT-X900 in Japan) and use it for both, 35mm and MF. The Nikon may deliver better results (35mm) but batch-scan never really worked and if the negs are only slightly curled or miss-cutted, the only way to go is the optional FH-3 holder. The Epson allows me to mount and scan 24 frames (4 stripes a 6 frames) in one go and since I only scan for web-size, the Epson flat-bed works better for me. All my recent photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/maddoc2003jp have been scanned with the Epson and most of these are not post-processed at all, just down-sized for web.
jsuominen
Well-known
Nikon SuperCoolscan 4000 ED and Vuescan software. They both work fine in my XP and Linux PCs. I'm scanning mostly traditional b&w films (Fomapan, Neopan, Agfapan, Rollei Retro etc.) and they need more manual dust remowing with Gimp software clone tool.
About 99% of my photos from film at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/ were scanned with Coolscan.
About 99% of my photos from film at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/ were scanned with Coolscan.
TheHub
Well-known
Scarpia said:
Yep, I use the 8600F with my Mac. Excellent scanner - best $200 I've spent in a long time 🙂
steamer
Well-known
The epson v750 does a pretty good job for not much money. I got one in Japan (GT-X900) for less than $400 US.
sjt
Newbie
I have a Minolta scan multi pro that I got from ebay, and an old canon fs4000 - both film scanners. The minolta is much better than the canon - its higher resolution and the density range is greater.
In my opinion both of these as dedicated film scanners would be streets ahead of a flatbed. The files you get out of these scanners are finer resoultion than the grain of the film. I was told once that tech pan in 35mm is equivalent to 20 megapixel and the canon (the lowest res of the two) produces scans of about 4000 pixels (the linear res of the sensor) x 6000 pixels (the "pixel length of the sensor's traverse along the film as it scans) = 24 megapixel.
Of course the problem is the relative unavailabilty of film scanners due to the relative unpopularity of film compared to digital. It seems Nikon is the only (last?) game in town.
In my opinion a crucial point is to make sure the negative is flat otherwise you will not get sharp scans all over the frame due to neg curve. I have modified the neg carriers to take a piece of anti newton glass (got from a Gepe 6x6 mm slide mount) that clamps on top of the neg (the base side, which is usually the convex side of any curl). This makes the neg flat, and the focus of the scanner can then focus directly on the emulsion.
In my opinion both of these as dedicated film scanners would be streets ahead of a flatbed. The files you get out of these scanners are finer resoultion than the grain of the film. I was told once that tech pan in 35mm is equivalent to 20 megapixel and the canon (the lowest res of the two) produces scans of about 4000 pixels (the linear res of the sensor) x 6000 pixels (the "pixel length of the sensor's traverse along the film as it scans) = 24 megapixel.
Of course the problem is the relative unavailabilty of film scanners due to the relative unpopularity of film compared to digital. It seems Nikon is the only (last?) game in town.
In my opinion a crucial point is to make sure the negative is flat otherwise you will not get sharp scans all over the frame due to neg curve. I have modified the neg carriers to take a piece of anti newton glass (got from a Gepe 6x6 mm slide mount) that clamps on top of the neg (the base side, which is usually the convex side of any curl). This makes the neg flat, and the focus of the scanner can then focus directly on the emulsion.
iml
Well-known
I use an Epson V700. Up to A3 the differences between it and a dedicated film scanner seem pretty small to me, in b&w at least. The Epson does a very decent job for the money, and also does MF. If I was only shooting 35mm I'd use a dedicated 35mm film scanner, otherwise a modern flatbed is a good compromise.
Ian
Ian
jarski
Veteran
with coolscan 5000, is it possible to scan larger than 35mm films ?
or was 9000 needed for this..
or was 9000 needed for this..
