Dedicated film scanner or flatbed?.

<p>Hello,<br>

I am having some doubts about what approach to take; either buying a dedicated scanner (Reflecta Professional 7200) or a flatbed one (Epson V700). I have read many opinions on people favouring one approach or the other, but not many contrasting performance for both approaches that have effectively tested/used both.<br>

On my needs, I would like to have the best possible quality (not worried about scan time) and will scan mostly 35mm (I also do 120mm, but this is not a must, as I do not want to condition my decision). </p>

<p> Anybody effectively comparing these two scanners?.</p>

<p> Many thanks,<br>

Iván. </p>

 

<p>Don't know the two scanners you ask about, but as a major scanner (over 30,000 done),</p>

<blockquote>

<p>not worried about scan time</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can assure you that you will, you will worry about scan time.</p>

<p>For all that, the flatbeds these days in general do a good job, I got one to use for larger negatives (6x6, 4x5).</p>

<p>There's no doubt in my mind that most dedicated film scanners like my old Canon 4000 or the Nikon scanners, actually do a superior job.</p>

<p>Even someone who has scanned maybe a tenth as much as JDM can assure you than scan time is a major consideration. If it isn't important for you, you may not be planning to scan enough to justify purchasing a scanner, and might be better off having it done. To do it yourself, the Nikon dedicated film scanners are excellent. If the Nikon 9000 is still available, it will do both 35mm and MF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On my needs, I would like to have the best possible quality (not worried about scan time) and will scan mostly 35mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look for a used Nikon 5000/8000/9000.</p>

<p>Ivan,<br>

If you want the "best possible quality" from 35mm, then can we assume you are also using the best quality lenses? Just to put things in perspective, a Nikon 9000 costs no more than, or not much more than, a top Canon or Nikon zoom, or Leica prime. But regardless of this perspective, the flatbed scanners will not give you this quality. They simply do not resolve at the grain level, and the Nikons, even the V, do.<br>

And as the others have said, scan time WILL become an issue. The Reflecta you mentioned seems not to have an auto feed.</p>

<p>Ok, I've used both, dedicated film scanner, especially for 35mm is much better in any practical visual "test" I would care to think about, ie, pictures are sharper, tone is better. I think most of the threads on this have been pretty unequivocal.</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

Many thanks for all the opinions, very useful.<br>

Not concerned about scanning time means that I will not surely scan all the old film I have already on paper. I have my own enlarger, etc... but do not have the space at home to keep it. So I take this as a lower excitement alternative to traditional lab.<br>

I mostly do B&W photography, if this changes a bit the scenario.<br>

Many thanks,<br>

Iván.</p>

<p>I thought I read somewhere that flat bed scanners don't do well with B/W and Kodachrome film.</p>

<p>I thought I read somewhere that flat bed scanners don't do well with B/W and Kodachrome film. Or maybe they will scan B/W but cannot do ICE with B/W. Not sure but you better check it out before buying. Alan</p>

<p>If you are not going to do a lot of scanning, then I would think about sending it to a service. The scanning process along with digital editing can be more involved than your wet darkroom. Think of it like sending c-41 or Kodachrome film out to be developed. Scanning has a huge learning curve and is not a very creative process. If you find a decent service to scan the film you will be able to focus on the more creative parts of making a good print or taking more photos. However, there are a lot of people who find it rewarding. But they do a lot more scanning than it sounds like you are planning on doing.</p>

<p>IMO skip the epsons, they require a large amount of post processing with no guarantee that you will end up with something usable. I've done that, spent many days on a scan only to find the amount of work required leaves too many digital artifacts that make the result unusable.</p>

<p>I have a flatbed. The first time I saw a dedicated film scanner at work, I realised I had made a mistake.</p>

<p>If you want a good quality desktop scanner the Coolscan 9000 is excelent. It's not cheap and it does medium format as well as 35mm. Some of those cheaper dedicated scanners like the Reflecta are supposed to be quite good for the money. With a flatbed you won't get scans of the same quality as a dedicated film scanner but if you don't print very big they could be good enough.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>IMO skip the epsons, they require a large amount of post processing with no guarantee that you will end up with something usable. I've done that, spent many days on a scan only to find the amount of work required leaves too many digital artifacts that make the result unusable.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is not my experience. Most material scans fine. The only issues I get with a V700 are that it doesn't penetrate right into the deepest blacks , so if you scan an original with the thought of making the shadow area much lighter than the original, you're liable to get some nasty posterisation . I think that pretty much all scanners require you to work in post to match the original. Frankly I don't even try , since I'd rather adjust in PS or LR than play too much with scanning software.</p>

<p>The essential point here though as others have mentioned is that flatbed scanners won't give enough resolution to make a good large print. If what you want is something for screen-based applications or small prints then in my experience you'll be OK. If you want to make prints much bigger than 7" x 5" proofs from 35mm, you'll need a film scanner if you want to print your work at its best. </p>

<p>Now one problem you have here is that the Reflecta isn't in good distribution in most of the territory where the larger numbers of Photo.net users live. So as you'll be guessing by now the amount of user based opinion isn't high. Which leaves you with a lot of opinions that you need a Nikon from people that have no experience with the Reflecta. They may be right, but you might want to try a couple of German sites, since Reflecta is a german brand.</p>

<p>Or you can play the odds. The Reflecta 7200 professional isn't the top of their range and it is less expensive than the Epson flatbed. That doesn't indicate to me, on the face of it, that its going to give scans as good as a Nikon film scanner and its not realistic to rely on all film scanners being identical performers. By all means look into it more, but if as you say you want the best I'd be pretty sure that the reflecta isn't it. Otherwise we'd all have one. I can't answer the question as to whether a low -end film scanner is better than a decent flatbed like the V700 (which I do own), and as I say I suggest looking on some German sites for reviews or comments on this.</p>

 

<p>Hello,<br>

Many thanks for your response, I have now my mind much clearer. I think that, until I fully acknowledge if scanning a lot is the way I would like to go or not, I will buy a "bang for the buck" dedicated scanner, maybe the Reflecta. After that, I would be ready to understand if I am willing to make the big investment (v.g. Nikon 9000) or not.<br>

Some of you mention the learning curve about scanning... never thought it would be that way. Any resource/book/material that make sense to get initiated in this?. If it is extremely involved and not very creative, I am not sure I will like it, but I would like to get into this with the best information upfront it is possible.</p>

<p>Many thanks, much appreciated all your insights.<br>

Iván.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some of you mention the learning curve about scanning... never thought it would be that way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You know, this keeps coming up and I really don't understand why: scanning <em>isn't</em> difficult. I use a Nikon 5000, and Nikon 9000. I have various Epson flatbed flavors as well as a bunch of other scanner types. Basically, the driver bundled by the manufacturers is good enough. The software are all able to capably and without fuss digitize what is on the film to the limit of the scanner hardware. Scanner specific post-scan adjustments are rare.</p>

<p>Get the Nikon 5000 if you're shooting primarily 135. The bundled feed mechanism can be DIY modified to digitize up to 40 frames at once, or buy the optional Nikon version if you're so inclined. In either case, scanning 135 with the Nikon 5000 is as simple as inserting an uncut 36 frame roll then coming back to 36 digitized files in about an hour.</p>

<p>The real work starts in the digital darkroom.</p>

<p>Or, the best, fastest and easiest way - obtain a old 35mm slide duplicator, (Nikon PB-4 or PB-6) along with the slide mount holder. Use lightbox as continuous light source. Nikon Camera Control 2 software allows for tethered control. A full frame camera is necessary BTW. You can shoot RAW, and even HDR under or overexposed negatives or slides. Color correction is easy. In 1/15 of a second you get 25mb files or larger. With Photoshop ACR and Nik software, you'll get astonishing results.<br>

No longer do you have to sit and listen to the weird noises coming from your scanner while you wait for one image to scan. In the time it takes to scan one image on my Minolta Dimage Multi Pro, I can do five slides or negatives with better quality.</p>

<p>I am glad Studio brought up this method because I was wondering if it would work..</p>

<p><em>“Or, the best, fastest and easiest way - obtain a old 35mm slide duplicator, (Nikon PB-4 or PB-6) along with the slide mount holder. Use lightbox as continuous light source. Nikon Camera Control 2 software allows for tethered control. A full frame camera is necessary BTW. You can shoot RAW, and even HDR under or overexposed negatives or slides. Color correction is easy. In 1/15 of a second you get 25mb files or larger. With Photoshop ACR and Nik software, you'll get astonishing results.“</em></p>

<p>Why does it have to be a full frame camera? And don't I have to use a macro lens to use a slide duplicator. Also there are a lot of slide duplicators out there why Nikon (especially since I am a canon shooter). And lastly why do I need to tether it? Can I just use LiveView and a remote release?</p>

 

<p>I saw an interesting idea for a DIY slide scanner using an old slide projector. Basically you remove the lense, put a defuser in front of the mirror, aim the dslr through where the lens was with a macro lens and shoot the picture. This guy also did some electronic work to sync the slide projector and fire the camera so that he could just shoot picture after picture automatically.<br>

If it works good a great idea for shooting the thousands of slides I have but doesn’t solve the issue of how I do my negatives. There are other diy projects using shoe boxes etc to shoot negatives and slides. I am worried the DOF is so small that getting a focused picture this way won't work due the curve on most slides and negatives.<br>

Ideas or Thoughts?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am worried the DOF is so small that getting a focused picture this way won't work due the curve on most slides and negatives.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are two broad approaches to solving this:</p>

<ol>

<li>Sweep through a range of focus planes. Take exposures at each. Focus blend the combined stack with software like <a href="http://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse">enfuse</a>. You might also take a look at <a href="http://auricle.dyndns.org/ALE/">ALE </a>and CombineZP. Also, I believe Photoshop also has a built-in focus stacking module.</li>

<li>Physically hold the film flat. Jig something up with negative carriers from an enlarger, a film tray from a cheap flatbed, or sandwich the film between two sheets of glass (one of which should be anti-Newton ring.)</li>

</ol>

<blockquote>

<p>Why does it have to be a full frame camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't. Of the non-specialist cameras, FF DSLR does tend to offer the highest available resolution.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And don't I have to use a macro lens to use a slide duplicator. Also there are a lot of slide duplicators out there why Nikon (especially since I am a canon shooter).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might think about adapting a wet darkroom enlarger instead. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>And lastly why do I need to tether it? Can I just use LiveView and a remote release?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's just a nicer workflow if you're going to do any volume digitization at all. Since you're a Canon shooter, check out their <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/eos_digital_slr_cameras/digital_rebel_xti?pageKeyCode=downloadSDK&productOverviewCid=0901e0248003ce3b&id=0901e02480057a74_1&fileURL=ps_sdk_form">SDK</a>.</p>

<p>An alternative is to use an industrial instrumentation/inspection camera. These are specifically designed for custom applications like this, and tend to be very easy to work with.</p>