Scanner Recommendation

<p>Well, I got my new desktop computer set up, and not my old Epson 2450 scanner won't work. Probably incompatibility with Windows 7 64-bit I suspect. Not that tragic since I've been thinking of replacing it one of these days anyway. The question now is replace it with what?</p>

<p>It was always my intention to get a dedicated film scanner to process all those boxes of slides in the back room. Unfortunately I never could quite come up with the scratch for a Nikon Coolscan 8000ED (or 9000). Now that film scanners are a lot less common, I figured I'd missed the boat. </p>

<p>The way I look at it I have a couple of options. I could just get a high-end flatbed scanner, e.g., Epson V750, or equivalent. That way I'll have a good flatbed scanner to use for assorted documents, e.g., receipts, etc. Hoperfully the quality for slides will be good enough for my uses (I am not a professional. My intended uses are all personal, with printing of scanned photos up to a maximum of 11x14, more likely 8x10).</p>

<p>Another option would be to get a dedicated film scanner. I notice Plustek has a couple, and they seem close to finally releasing the OpticFilm 120 (I do have some medium format, but >95% is 35 mm). I'd still have to pick up a flatbed scanner for other uses, probably something like the Epson V500, maybe even the V500 Office (which has a document feeder - seems like a useful option). Who knows, maybe I'd find the V500 does a good enough job that I could forego the film scanner.</p>

<p>Any suggestions? Is there that much of a difference between a good film scanner vs the V750 vs the V500 flatbed scanners (based on the criteria I have identified)?</p>

<p>Thanks for any opinions or thoughts.</p>

<p>SteveR</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think IMO only there is always the risk now with Coolscans. Yes they can be more expensive than they were new, the quality is good but many countries at least have ran out of parts to service them (me included).</p>

<p>Plustek is maybe one of last hope film shooters hope for. It is $2k and can be pre-ordered now. Same price as the Coolscan 9000 but over the yrs I guess you could say it is less than the Nikon after adjusting for the years... There is also a cheaper 35mm version.</p>

<p>Are your sure your 2450 won't work? Have you checked out Vu Scan? It shows it being supported. Or do you just want to get a newer scanner? :) Don't know the Plustek or its results. Nikon 9000 is great but hard to find and not made any more. Maybe the Plustek is the one. 35mm film does not do so good on the mentioned flatbeds though for web use they would be fine.</p>

<p>we have a epson 2580/. it has a film slot for any 35mm wide film<br>

and a holder for a single slide. despite my urging my wife has not takes a single file to print.<br>

I wonder of the quality is there. from the looks of the images that will do ok for 3 x 6 or 5 x 7.<br>

But unless we actually try we will not know<br>

the articicial stupidity of the software prevents us from scanning a singel negative., the software thinks it is a nslide and reverses it and we get a blish negative and loose the color<br>

but any negative in the film slot seemt be easy to use and do. it pops up on the screen as a positive.<br>

we were told the earlier model would not be so constipated and would scan single frames in the slide holder.</p>

<p>But again what is the quality ? I think with the flat plastic holders the v500 v700 or v750<br>

would be harder to use . </p>

<p>My wife has practiced " have scanner will travel" and gone to relatives ho,mes to scan photos and burn a cd alpomg with ones she has already done before. So the entire family has copies of these photos.<br>

one unoit that will do both slides and prints is useful<br>

but so far nobody has asked us or had negatives to scan.</p>

 

<p>Barry - The 2450 may work using Vuescan; or maybe not. Researching that software and trying out the demo version was an option I didn't mention because my wife isn't that thrilled with the 2450. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if using Vuescan or some other driver allows me to continue using the 2450. I was just hoping that after all these years, there would be a better option. </p>

<p>I am tempted to get the V500 if for no other reason than the automatic document feeder, which would speed up scanning of non-photo related items, e.g., receipts, manuals, etc. I guess I'm just wondering if it is worth the cost difference to go with the V700/V750, or even one of the Plusteks.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses so far.</p>

<p>SteveR</p>

<p>Is there any evidence that the V750 is actually any better than the 2450? It scans a larger film area, but is it superior in reality when it comes to scanning your film. The specs may suggest this, but I am suspicious.</p>

<p>The experience here was that the 2450 was pretty poor, the V700 pretty good, the 9000 better. YMMV, of course. Vuescan does better IR cleaning than Epson Scan (artifacts were ugly with Epson Scan), FWIW.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Robin and David - That's almost exactly my question. Is the V500 (or V700 or V750) noticeably better than the 2450? Or do I need to be looking at the $2k Plustek to get decent scans for printing up to 8x10?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>SteveR</p>

<p>Again, my experience was that the V700 was a lot better than the 2450. I didn't find the 2450 adequate at all. The V700, with some effort, could be persuaded to get some sharp scans if the film was at the exact right height. Finding that height and getting it set up so you are scanning there regularly was such a bear that I never got there. But some of my better scans were OK. My 2450 scans were all mush.</p>

<p>The problem with 8x10 from 35mm is that except for the very best films scanned on the very best scanners, it looks like crap. In my experience, on a good day, the best films hold up to about a 7x enlargement. On a good day, the V700 gets fairly close to that. The good news is that 7" x 10.5" printed on an A4 sheet has nice even borders. But if a family photo taken on 8x10 film appears in your family attic, you'll be able to scan it on the V700. E.g.<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/110305157/original">http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/110305157/original</a> (Taken in 1920 or so.)</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the insights David. I hope to take a look at a V700 this weekend and make a decision soon.</p>

<p>SteveR</p>

<p>The V700, would definitely be superior to the the 2450. For medium format, Coolscan 9000 would be better than the V700-750. The flatbed gives you the opportunity to scan prints and line art. I actually have a 2450 I use just for that, rarely, and it does ok for the limited use I use. I use a 9000 for scanning film. The weakness of the flatbed will be in scanning 35mm film. It actually does a very good job on Med. Format. I would say the choice would depend on how much of your film is Med. Format and how much you scan prints or line art.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My 2450 scans were all mush.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you talking 35mm or Medium format?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The V700, with some effort, could be persuaded to get some sharp scans if the film was at the exact right height.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 2450 improves too with better film holders. The same issue in fact as you mention with the V700 - are you taking that into account?</p>

<p>I never saw anything but mush from the 2450. The V700, on a good day in a good mood, was surprisingly close to the 9000. Even away from perfect focus, the V700 is much better than anything I saw from _my_ 2450. Again, I'm reporting what I saw, and it wasn't nice.</p>

<p>The V700 has some color fringing problems that the 9000 doesn't have, so in real life, it's a long way from the 9000. But the 9000 is a pain, too. I couldn't persuade the standard MF holder to ever hold a piece of film flat, but the stupid glass holder requires that most films be held above the lower (non-anti-Newton) glass to prevent Newton's rings. But once you did that, it was very nice.</p>

 

<p>I don't have the V700, but I do have the 2450, and I don't find it produces mush with MF film. Certainly I could get a very nice 8 x 10 or 8.5 x 11 out of it. Larger than that - yes too but it depends on the film and luck. The issue is always focus and film flatness. I found putting the film under glass can produce stellar results, but, of course, sometimes this does produce Newton's rings - so I don't do it. I have third party holders that flatten the film, but they are sometimes (often) insufficient. Since I identify the poor quality issue as a flatness and focus problem, I am sceptical that the resolution or imaging characteristics of the scanner (light source, moving platform, lens, driver etc) itself are all that significant, hence a priori I am doubtful that a better flatbed like the V700 will produce a significantly better result than the 2450. Unless they have solved this issue with these scanners, which it doesn't really sound as though they have, then the root problem remains. Note: I am not doubting David's experience, but it sounds like my experience is different.</p>

<p>If the OP had predominantly shot MF I might give a different answer, but if as he seems to state he wants to make 10" x 8" prints from 35mm, I would not expect to do that well with scans from a a flatbed. My V700 will give 12" sq from a 6x6 original, but that equates only to small proof prints from 35mm. And yes I have a third party mount and AN glass for film flatness to get that far. So from 35mm I'd suggest you do need to use a film scanner, whether yours or a labs depends on your volume. </p>

<p>Steve,<br>

I've used crappy $100 scanners and high-end $3,000 scanners. You know what's the difference? Nothing but the software that came with the scanner. <br>

Let me explain.<br>

All scanners do the same thing: scan at high resolutions. Scanner manufactures know this. They know that THEIR scanner does exactly the same thing as the next guy.<br>

So what do they do to compete?<br>

They add bells and whistles: scanning software that promise it will remove dust, fix faded colors, etc. So what you're really paying for is NOT the scanner hardware.... but for the scanner software.<br>

So when you go buy a cheap $100 scanner, you'll see the basic version of "Digital ICE". But a more expensive scanner will have "Digital ICE Advanced 4".<br>

How does this have anything to do with you? </p>

<ol>

<li>Don't be fooled into buying a high-end scanner because off the technical mumbo jumbo (look how Monster Cables are able to market HDMI cables for $200 because they talk good tech talk).</li>

<li>Decide if you're willing to pay extra for scanner software that "promises" quality scans. In my experience, Digital ICE 4 sucks. I rather use Photoshop to fix my scans.</li>

<li>If you're good at using Photoshop or GIMP, you don't need to pay extra for this software... you can buy a $200 scanner, and fix the digital images yourself.</li>

<li>Or you can buy a expensive scanner and rely on the scanner to repair your scans. </li>

</ol>

<p>I'm curious, Steve... did this help? Reply back and Let me know your thoughts.<br>

Thanks!<br>

<p><b>Moderator: Link removed. Not allowed per photo.net Terms of Use.</b></p></p>

<p> </p>

<p>As someone who's worked with some pretty high end scanners (from Howtek to ScanView down a bit lower to Imacon and Leaf as well as Epson/Nikon etc and scanner most here can afford), the idea that a $3000 scanner is high end is kind of amusing. And no, there's a huge difference in scan quality just between say an Imacon FlexTight and a Nikon (the lens in the FlexTight probably cost more than the entire Nikon!). So <strong>yes</strong>, <strong>hardware can make a HUGE difference in quality</strong>. As can the software driving it. All scanners do the same thing (digitize an image). All scanners are not the same, produce the same quality (even at low resolution where you could compare them apples to apples. My Howtek was a PMT 5000ppi scanner!). </p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

You're correct. Nothing comes close to the FlexTight. But it's also $20,000. But when you compare a $200 Epson V500 with a $3000 Nikon, there's not much difference. The only difference is the software.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nothing comes close to the FlexTight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, there are (were) scanners that would eat the FlexTight for lunch! But for the price, it was a very, very good product. While new it may be $20K, I've seen used ones at really bargin prices. You all realized that the scanner market is kind of wilting on the vine. At least in terms of the number of companies making them, the numbers sold etc. It just isn't a growth market. I've seen high end drum scanners for ridiculous low prices. Problem is finding the scanner drivers (software) that can run on a modern OS. I know people still running LinoColor and Tango scanners on really old Mac's running OS9! <br>

I sold my Imacon years ago and got myself (at the time) a 5D. Still needed a scanner for rare work. I talked to a number of people I respect, like Mac Holbert formally of Nash Editions and he suggested the Epson V750. It isn't an Imacon. But for the money, with SilverFast and when gel mounting, it is VERY impressive. For a few scans a year, it's great. If I needed to work faster and did more scans, I'd have stuck with the Imacon. </p>