okcomputer
Member
I use a V700 with good results for 6x6 and 4x5. Recently I picked up a Leica M6 and a 50mm summicron... don't have it in my hands yet, but I'm wondering if it is even worth getting nice lenses if the final scans are going to be done on a flat bed scanner!
So far, I'm not thrilled with what I can get on a V700 for 35mm, esp when dealing with curled 35mm film. Typically, I get my best results emulsion side down directly on the glass, flattened with a piece of ANR glass (tri-x emulsion side down seems to avoid moire rings)
Would something like a Plustek 8200i be significantly better?
Here's about the best I can get in terms of sharpness with my current set up (this is Canon's cool new 45mm pancake lens on TRI-X)
So far, I'm not thrilled with what I can get on a V700 for 35mm, esp when dealing with curled 35mm film. Typically, I get my best results emulsion side down directly on the glass, flattened with a piece of ANR glass (tri-x emulsion side down seems to avoid moire rings)
Would something like a Plustek 8200i be significantly better?
Here's about the best I can get in terms of sharpness with my current set up (this is Canon's cool new 45mm pancake lens on TRI-X)
gavinlg
Veteran
The plustek 8100/8200 will probably give you a bit more resolution, but it brings out the grain more.
richardhkirkando
Well-known
I've found my old Plustek 7300 to be significantly better than my Epson 4990 (very similar optically to the V700) on resolution and sharpness, but the 4990 beats it on dynamic range. The Plustek seems to handle multi-pass scanning better though, which helps make up for the weaker DR.
Murchu
Well-known
Think the Plusteks have been clocked at offering about 40% more resolution that the V700/V750, so in 35mm terms you're talking about the difference between 3600 x 2400 real resolution for 35mm with the V700, versus 4900 x 3300 with the Plusteks. Of course the big win also with the Plustek is less dust on your scans, as you are not contending with an open scanning surface, as you are with a flatbed.
In all, for me, I would need a dedicated negative scanner like the Plustek, to justify spending decent sums on lenses.
In all, for me, I would need a dedicated negative scanner like the Plustek, to justify spending decent sums on lenses.
okcomputer
Member
Ended up getting a Reflecta RPS 7200. They're well under $300 these days. Haven't had a chance to do much quality comparison with an Epson, but the batch scanning is fantastic! Fed in the first frame, and walked away, while the scanner kept busy for about 90 minutes.
The bundled software was giving me some strange artifacts at 100%, but Vuescan worked fine.
The bundled software was giving me some strange artifacts at 100%, but Vuescan worked fine.
Highway 61
Revisited
Second hand Minolta Dual Scan II, Dual Scan III, Dual Scan IV, Scan Elite 5400.
Second hand Nikon Coolscan III, Coolscan IV, Coolscan V.
And - unfortunately - nothing else.
But the Minolta DSII and III, and the Coolscan III, which can all be bought for around $100 with some patience, will already be head and shoulders above the V700 for 35mm.
Don't forget to scan as 14-16bits per channel TIFF RVB files so that the scanner will capture all what it can off the film. This implies lots of time spent in post-processing but the reward is worth it.