Help me choose a MF Scanner

<p>Hello Everyone,<br>

<br /> I have a dilemma. I have about $500 or so to spend on a used scanner that can scan both MF and 35mm. My previous scanners have included: Plustek 7200, UMAX Powerlook 3000, Polaroid Sprintscan and currently the Microtek Scanmaker 8700.<br>

<br /> The Plustek did only 35mm which didn't work for me. There was something wrong with the UMAX and TBH I have no idea what happened to it. The Polaroid Sprintscan 120 was the perfect size and everything but I couldn't get the feed mechanism to work: I ended up selling it as is. The Scanmaker 8700 I currently have lacks the DPI and D-Max I want.<br>

<br /> So I am debating what to do now. I can't afford to get everything scanned at a decent resolution in tiff format with a good scanner as most of the mini labs use horrible scanners with blown out colours - I have to rescan all the images...<br /> I want to have at least a 3.8 D-Max and at least 3000 DPI. A lot of the new scanners are advertised as 48bits for their colour depth. This is simply 16 bits per channel vs. 14, correct? Will there be a noticeable difference or is it better to get an older 14 bit one with a higher d-max vs. a newer 16 bit with a lower d-max? Here are some that I have been looking at:<br /> Polaroid Sprintscan 120 (One that isn't broken this time). It's 4000 DPI, 4.2D Max, and has a great form factor. Also there is a great glass 120 adapter for it.</p>

<p>Another UMAX Powerlook 3000. It's 3048 DPI if put into the special section. but only 3.6D. Also a flatbed and not the most ideal format. However, I heard the images are splendid and it's cheaper than the rest if it can be found. There are other candidates like this such as the Screen Cenzane, Scitex, etc... The advantage of these flatbeds is that I can mount a bunch of negs at once, thereby doing a kind of batchscan. The problem is that they have to be wetmounted, which means dealing with chemicals and the added expense of buying the fluid, glass to use as a mount, etc...</p>

<p>Pacific Image Primefilm 120 (I think it's called the Braun 120 in Europe). This is a newer one and has the advantage of USB input. It only has 3.6D (which I read in one review to only be 3.0) 3200DPI. This seems a level lower than the other ones I am looking at but is not that expensive if bought used.<br>

<br /> Imacon Flextight II (or other more affordable ones). I am willing to shell out a bit more for this scanner. Maybe even twice as much just to get this. There's someone that sells special trays for these on eBay too. 4.1 D-Max. Goes upto 5760 DPI for 35mm, more than the other scanners in this list. Great scanning form factor. Curves the film as a virtual drum scanner.<br /> Drum Scanner - Big, bulky, but they can be had for fairly cheap nowadays. The biggest problem is setup, wet mounting, etc... I don't think I have the time for this. Of course the quality will be the best with the best dynamic range and resolution, etc...<br>

<br /> I have purchased the VueScan software, so most of these should work in Windows 7 with it. Albeit it with a SCSI card or adapter. If need be, I can always get an old PC from someone to use, better to do that than get worse image quality.<br /> I can't really afford the Nikon 9000 or the Minolta Dimage Multi-Pro. They are great scanners and I wish I could afford them but for that price I can get one of the used older Flextights that would be much better.<br>

<br /> If someone can suggest more scanners to look at or any suggestions of the ones I listed, that would be great.<br>

<br /> Thank you!</p>

<p>Have you considered the Epson V750. It's a flatbed scanner that does 35mm, MF and 4X5. </p>

<p>You won't get a true 3000ppi from an Epson. Its decent at what it does best, but getting you lots of pixels and a good dmax from 35mm isn't part of the armoury.</p>

<p>I like the Imacon scanners-never owned one but had several hundred MF scans made mainly for stock agencies and some printing. I preferred a 3200ppi Imacon scan to to a 4000 ppi Coolscan scan. How easy they are to use; what the learning curve is like, what the computing needs are etc are issues I can't comment upon. But I do know that if a guy was selling me 16 bit Imacon scans, hand cleaned in Photoshop, for about $10 a time up to two years ago, then it must be possible to scan pretty quickly and without much grief once you learn to get it right. </p>

 

<p>Yeah I'm saving the Epson V750 as a very last resort if I can't find any of the other ones in my price range. Even the best scan on a flatbed (given the same "specs" in terms of DPI and D-Max) will never be as good as a flatbed. As David mentioned, they kind of exaggerate the specs on a lot of flatbeds. The only exception I have heard is on the $5000-$20,000 flatbeds I mentioned above such as the Screen Cenzane, which with wet mounting, approaches near drum scan levels of quality...</p>

<p>IF you can find and afford an Imacon, got for it. I've owned a few (along with like you SprintScan, Microtek), and the big boys, Howtek and ScanView drums, Leaf, and more. I have a V750, nice flatbed but it ain't no Imacon.</p>

<p>Read manufacturer specs with a grain of salt.<br>

<strong>Dmax</strong>. Manufacturer tends to translate the number of bits of the A/D converter straight to Dmax, as if it were the only limiting factor, following simple equation<br>

Dmax = 0.3 x (#bits)<br>

and forget flare, etc<br>

<strong>dpi</strong>. Ditto. Even when they don't cheat with "interpolated" dpi, they quote as "optical" dpi what is actually the sampling pitch. And what if the PSF (point spread function) has the size of a potato?<br>

Note, however, that you can recover some contrast at spatial frequencies near the limit by careful and considerate use of USM.<br>

Happy user of a V700. Better scanning holder, AN glass, adjusted focus, optimized USM. Most probably Imacon is technically better. But is the difference visible on a 12x16" from a 645 neg? </p>

<p>The main problem I'd see with the second hand devices you mention is that they are getting seriously old, so if anything happens to them, you end up in the same loop again. It may work, but as a long(er) term solution, it might become annoying that these scanners basically become disposable items. Plus, not sure for the models mentioned, but some only have SCSI or parallel interfaces to the PC/Mac, which will also tie you to keeping an old PC around to run them...<br>

Otherwise, getting all specs you want for that money is going to be pretty hard. An imacon at your budget is not going to happen; neither a Nikon or similar. A flatbed really seems the most doable choice; review of the PrimeFilm MF (well, its european cousing <a href="http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaMF5000.html">here</a>) suggests it has the resolution you want, but not the Dmax, and that's the only afforable option that can be bought new that I'd know of. Still, three times your budget.<br>

There are plenty old threads with examples of the Epson V700 and V750 - worth looking up for the example photos.</p>

<p>You might find a Leafscan for that kind of money. It's slow, but gives good results, scans 35 to 4x5, and, I believe, you can still get parts for it. Originally sold for about 10k. Good luck!</p>

<p>This is the thing that always gets me... Someone comes in and says I want a brand new fantastic machine and my budget is 1/4 of what it is worth. Can you imagine suggesting you buy one of those new, sharp lenses, or a 50 MP digital camera, and insisting you only have $100 to pay for it?</p>

<p>It seems most everyone is willing to pay plenty of money for the camera and lenses, but then is happy to buy a mediocre-to-crappy scanner. By any way of looking at it, when printing thru the computer, the scanner is part of the capture step, just as developing film properly would be, or using a decent lens.</p>

<p>In the OP's case, he has owned numerous scanners. If he added up the price of all of them he could have easily purchased a drum scanner. They are only 1.5 times the price of an Epson, and considerably more capable, much more than even an Imacon type. Sure, you have to learn to mount. It will take you all of 10 minutes. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is the thing that always gets me... Someone comes in and says I want a brand new fantastic machine and my budget is 1/4 of what it is worth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hear your pain. I see the same thing when people ask about what display to buy. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems most everyone is willing to pay plenty of money for the camera and lenses, but then is happy to buy a mediocre-to-crappy scanner.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Got to remind them of GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You might find a Leafscan for that kind of money. It's slow, but gives good results, scans 35 to 4x5, and, I believe, you can still get parts for it. Originally sold for about 10k. Good luck!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean the Leafscan 45? Is it the same company as make the Aptus digital backs? These scanners are super cheap, but the interface doesn't really look that compatible and it seems a bit bulky. It seems a bit complex to use...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is the thing that always gets me... Someone comes in and says I want a brand new fantastic machine and my budget is 1/4 of what it is worth. Can you imagine suggesting you buy one of those new, sharp lenses, or a 50 MP digital camera, and insisting you only have $100 to pay for it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is why I am looking for OLDER stuff, not new. I never said I want a brand new fantastic machine and my budget is 1/4. I said I want an old machine that used to be worth 10-50x what it is now but will still beat newer ones costing even a few times more. For example a Phase One P45 back is excellent, yes it was $30-$40K new, but now one can be had for as low as $5K on the used market. It will still beat the newest Canon 1D, Leica M-240, and many others in quality, even though it's almost 10 years old now.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems most everyone is willing to pay plenty of money for the camera and lenses, but then is happy to buy a mediocre-to-crappy scanner. By any way of looking at it, when printing thru the computer, the scanner is part of the capture step, just as developing film properly would be, or using a decent lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correct, but there is a huge difference. Scanners have diminishing returns, lenses keep their value much more than any other part of the camera system. One can buy an older Summicron if one cannot afford a new one, and it still produces excellent quality. In fact I like my Summicron DR for B+W even better as it has that special Bokeh. For newer lenses I can use the Voigtlander lenses, they aren't close to Leica in terms of quality, but are good. And the Zeiss lenses are excellent too. My point is one can always get a deal by buying used and older gear and still get excellent quality, sometimes better or different than the new one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the OP's case, he has owned numerous scanners. If he added up the price of all of them he could have easily purchased a drum scanner. They are only 1.5 times the price of an Epson, and considerably more capable, much more than even an Imacon type. Sure, you have to learn to mount. It will take you all of 10 minutes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eh, not really. I bought each of those scanners for around $50. I sold one as is/for parts on eBay and actually made a little money on it. Not sure what happened to the other one. In all I maybe lost $50-$100 at most. That's not near enough to buy a drum scanner. That said, I CAN buy a Scanmate 5000 used. I saw one in the UK that they were practically giving away. However, It's just the hassle of having to mount it perfectly straight, and my main problem is buying all the mounting fluid (most of which is hazardous and carcinogenic). I really don't want to be breathing those fumes or dealing with chemicals (it's why I don't develop film myself anymore). If there is some natural organic mounting fluid around then I might consider it. </p>

<p>Daniel, the older Leaf scanners had either a GPIB or SCSI interface, both are ancient but GPIB would be much harder to support on a modern machine. And yes, Leaf is/was the same company making cameras.<br>

See: http://www.leafstuff.com/ls45_gpib.htm<br>

As nice albeit slow that Leaf scanner was, you'd be <strong>far</strong> better off with an Imacon or true drum scanner. </p>

<p>I was brought up to "do it right the first time" and "use the right tool for the job". A 750 will do a poor job on 35mm... that's being polite. Almost any drum scanner will do it proper justice. I am sensitive to fumes as well, but this stuff doesn't bother me.... it's gone too quickly.</p>

<p>You may not have spent that much money on your various scanners, but certainly you have spent $1500 worth of extra time, messing about. I have no need to insult anyone, certainly not you. I have just heard this story too many times.</p>

<p>I see no diminishing returns, the results speak for themselves. I have an 8,000 ppi drum scanner, an Aztek Premier. Full tonal range, sharp scans, every time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was brought up to "do it right the first time" and "use the right tool for the job". A 750 will do a poor job on 35mm... that's being polite. Almost any drum scanner will do it proper justice. I am sensitive to fumes as well, but this stuff doesn't bother me.... it's gone too quickly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see your point, and this is why I am trying to find the best I can afford. My only gripe is that it seems it will take too long to mount. This video kind of proves what I feared:

With the Imacon you just put it on the tray and voila. I understand that it's not AS good, but it seems a lot simpler and faster. I understand that if I get a flatbed, that wetmounting would be ideal too, but wetmounting onto a flatbed is much easier than onto a drum it seems. The one thing that pulls me towards flatbeds and drums is that I can attach a bunch of negative strips at a time... However, I feel like I would rather have something like the Sprintscan 120 with the anti-newton glass holder trays and do that instead....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You may not have spent that much money on your various scanners, but certainly you have spent $1500 worth of extra time, messing about. I have no need to insult anyone, certainly not you. I have just heard this story too many times.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry if I seemed in any way rude in my reply. I don't think I spent that much extra time on those scanners I bought that were broken. TBH, I have A LOT of film to scan (including a childhood restoration project), so if possible I would like to batch scan. I have 16mm, 35mm, and medium format to scan.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see no diminishing returns, the results speak for themselves. I have an 8,000 ppi drum scanner, an Aztek Premier. Full tonal range, sharp scans, every time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You forgot to add the advantage of not seeing as much dust, scratches, etc... when wet mounting. That is the biggest advantage for me. I just can't spend that much time cleaning, taping, mounting, etc... The diminishing returns I was talking about is if bought new. I mean a $30,000 drum scanner can be head for $1,500 on the used market, etc... </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just can't spend that much time cleaning, taping, mounting, etc... The diminishing returns I was talking about is if bought new. I mean a $30,000 drum scanner can be head for $1,500 on the used market, etc...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, that diminishing return. Absolutely. I am very glad mine is paid for... </p>

<p>For a mounting demo, try mine:

<p>Here's what I would say. Imacon's are fast, tho' not quite as good. Depending on how large you print, you may or may not be disappointed. It's still a ccd vs pmt so it won't have the sensitivity, but it really isn't bad... Epson's, on the other hand, use plastic lenses. Some are able to get a lot out of it. I salute them.</p>

<p>The real issue for you, IMO, is how much to scan. I have people come to me and say I have 2,000 images to scan. I don't know any photographer in the history who did 2,000 good (or great) images. Maybe they had 2,000 or so worth scanning, over 10 years or more. I think the answer is to edit more, be ruthless in what is really worth scanning, and get that number down. Then scanning each one of them the best that you can will make more sense. At least that's how I think about it...</p>

<p>It seems that Daniel, a lot like me, would like an inexpensive scanner that will scan larger-than-35mm film and do a good job. A lot of the older hardware being discussed (e.g., Howtek 4500) suffers from one or more of (1) hard to find (not like there are five on eBay right now), (2) large / bulky (my wife would look at me like I was crazy for bringing it home), and/or (3) hardware and/or software difficult if not impossible to use with a semi-modern computer (sitting here using Windows 7-64 bit with the computer connecting to the world through wifi, USB-3, and USB-2). Oh yeah, and mounting for drum scanning isn't as quick, easy, or clean as popping a 35mm strip into a desktop scanner's film holder. So even if somebody offered to <em>give</em> me (i.e., free) a Howtek 4500 and an old Mac to run it, I think I'd have to decline.</p>

<p>Where does that leave me? Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV for 35mm; Epson 3200 for 645, 6x6, and 4x5; and sending out for drum scans at a pro lab anything from which I want truly high quality. (Oh, well, there, and thankful that a 16 MP DSLR can produce such nice images up to pretty decent print sizes.)</p>

<p>Gee, Dave, troll much?</p>

<p>And how is Dave trolling exactly? Because he expresses a different opinion stating different (practical) considerations?</p>

<p>Lenny. You need to understand that the best route for everyone is to follow what you do, and that the right solution for everyone is not a drum scanner. Dave is not trolling. His point of view is as valid as yours and might be more useful. </p>

<p>If you want top quality, you have to go for drum scans. Nothing comes close to that.</p>

<p>If you want high but not top quality, you have to go for a Coolscan. I wouldn't even think of buying one of those given their age.</p>

<p>You can get a Plustek OpticFilm 120. It may be even better than the Nikons. On the other hand, it may turn out much worse. Plustek had prolems with QA and there hasn't yet been indepedent confirmation tha they are over.</p>

<p>For real 3200 dpi, you can get the PIE 120 / Braun 120 / Reflecta MF 5000. It isn't batch-friendly.</p>

<p>Get an Epson V700. Some 'copies' manage to get USAF 6.1 on one of the dimensions if you scan at 6400. You don't need wet scanning nor OEM holders (unless your film is very warped), just learn to use the eprovided ones. Reports of it underperforming often turn out to be operator issues (height, selection of wrong lens). Dmax is of course poor. But it can scan lots of frames on one go. What else do you need?</p>

<p>You say you need 3.8 Dmax? But how did you get at that number? I don't even know if any of the non-drum film scanners ever built have real 3.8 Dmax.</p>

<p>I guess I got a little triggered when Dave started talking about 16 MP digital... the good news is that Dave sent me a very nice email, which I am now responding to, also nicely, and we are fine.</p>

<p>I don't think the drum scanner route is right for everyone. However, as Antonio puts it, perhaps right for those who want top quality. My only real point in this whole thread was that photographers will often spend a giant amount of money on cameras and lenses and then insist on scrimping for the things that come after. Today its scanners, but in past years I heard the same argument about not spending money on printers, on PhotoShop, etc. It is unfortunate that all these things are expensive. I have to pay $400 a roll for paper! However, that is the reality of today's world.</p>

<p>Of course everyone is welcome to disagree with me, and to follow their own way. I like disagreement. It's how we learn... altho' its nicer when its a little less heated.</p>

<p>I've run more scanners over the years than I can remember: Leaf 35 and 45, Howtek and ScanView drums, Agfa Duoscans, Lino, Polaroid, Imacon, even had a PhotoCD scanning system that Kodak sold to run on a Mac. There is no question in my mind, a PMT drum and oil/gel mounting produces the highest quality results. And they save lots of time in spotting dirty film and don't even think about trying to retouch out netwon rings. But mounting isn't a snap and the video reference here is after all, 25 minutes long so that should give you an idea. Once you get the hang of it, <strong>like anything else</strong>, it seems easy.<br>

Next in line for quality and ease would probably be Imacon. I think that unless you really need the ultimate quality scan or you are doing this as a service for others or don't have a lot of film to scan, a drum is maybe more work than you'll want to take on and Imacon is the better option. The software is pretty good too. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You say you need 3.8 Dmax? But how did you get at that number? I don't even know if any of the non-drum film scanners ever built have real 3.8 Dmax.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well most of the scanners I listed have at least 3.6Dmax. The Polaroid Sprintscan even lists a 4.2 Whether this is correct or not is up for debate as manufacturers can make false claims, etc...</p>

<p>People seem to have gone off track on this posting. My main questions were whether an older scanner such as the Flextight II with 14bit colour would still be better than say a newer Pacific Image Primefilm 120 that has 16bit colour (albeit at the cost of DMax and the virtual drum etc...) I could for example find a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 for the $300-$400 range with glass trays, etc... Size is not too big and easy loading with 4000dpi and 4.2dmax HOWEVER, its optics will obviously not be as good as the Flextight and it won't have the virtual drum and will probably have more reliablity problems.</p>

<p>So I could spend $300-$400 for a Polaroid Sprintscan 120, $500-$800 on a used Pacific Image 120, find a Screen Cezanne or something like that for a few hundred, or bight the bullet and get a Flextight II for AT LEAST $1000...</p>

<p>It's all down to money really. If I had the money I would have a new Flextight X5 with a batch scanning unit. I am mostly scanning for my online portfolio. I won't be doing much printing BUT I want this scanner to act as an archive, which is why I want the maximum DPI. Plus I will be doing cropping, etc...</p>

<p>If I do buy a Flextight II or a Drum Scanner (IE the $1000+ range), it will mean sacrificing buying a digital camera anytime soon. I was going to buy a Fuji X Pro1 with M adapter to supplement my Leica M3, but I realize that I will never get the quality of my Hasselblad photo's unless I spend $5000+ on a used Phase on P45 or something... Which is why for now a scanner would be less than a digital back!<br>

Anyway, if drum scanners didn't require all the mounting (IE if it was as easy to mount as on a flatbed... I would consider it, but I don't want to deal with chemicals. I would rather get next to the best quality, but it's also about budget and what I would sacrifice by getting one over another...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well most of the scanners I listed have at least 3.6Dmax. The Polaroid Sprintscan even lists a 4.2 Whether this is correct or not is up for debate as manufacturers can make false claims, etc...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a false claim. It's complete science fiction! There is no universally accepted let alone defined way to measure dynamic range of these scanners. At what point past scanning just a big pile of noise do you start the measure? Polaroid and other's don't tell you of course. You should just ignore the spec. IF you really want a scanner that can produce actual data deep within the shadows of a transparency, you want a PMT scanner. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My main questions were whether an older scanner such as the Flextight II with 14bit colour would still be better than say a newer Pacific Image Primefilm 120 that has 16bit colour (albeit at the cost of DMax and the virtual drum etc...)<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In a word, yes. The lens in the Imacon probably cost more than the entire Primefilm scanner! The bit depth too is equally unimportant once you get past 8-bits per color. <br>

It's a bit like saying: <em>I want a digital camera that produces the best image quality</em>, then someone gives you an answer but doesn't tell you what lens will be used. Or sells you that camera with a complete POS of a lens. That lens is kind of important in terms of the image quality right? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyway, if drum scanners didn't require all the mounting (IE if it was as easy to mount as on a flatbed... I would consider it, but I don't want to deal with chemicals.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's understandable. If so, then as I suggested, go Imacon. If you were to scan the same film on each, one with a high dymamic range, one that's got scratches or dirt, the real PMT drum would easily beat the Imacon viewing 100% zoom of the data view side by side. But that Imacon is pretty good and vastly superior than any of the other options you've listed. It's going to be much sharpener due to the much higher quality optics and the '<em>virtual drum'</em> which places the area being scanned at a very flat and specific distance to the lens system. The virual drum part was a bit of marketing speak but like a real drum, where the film is placed in a very exact placement, it's going to produce a much sharpener scan than laying the film on a piece of glass (ala the flatbeds) and hoping for sharpness due to depth of field. I worked with the Polaroid, it wasn't anywhere as sharp, because the film could pop due to heat or just a lack of a fixed placement within the film mount. The same is true for many of the other scanners you list. Between that and cheap optics, they can't compete with the Flextight which itself can't compete with a good PMT scanner. But there is a point of diminishing return here. <br>

Whatever you do, take spec's like dynamic range with a grain of salt. In the days when there were lots of scanners on the market, ranging from a few hundred to many thousands of dollars, the marketing hype and spec wars were ridiculously false. </p>

 

<p><em>I have about $500 or so to spend on a used scanner that can scan both MF and 35mm.... My main questions were whether an older scanner such as the Flextight II with 14bit colour would still be better than say a newer Pacific Image Primefilm 120 ....</em></p>

<p>The cheapest new Flextight is over $13,000; can you buy any working Flextight and whatever other computer hardware and software you need to run it for $1000? The PrimeFilm 120 is a fairly recent model that sells for $1500 new; can you find a working one for $800? At your originally-stated price point ($500), I'd just buy a new Epson V600 ($204) for medium format, and accept that it will not do a good job on dark transparencies or allow big, detailed prints; and for 35mm (assuming you no longer have your last 35mm-only scanner) buy one of the Plustek (or maybe Pacific Image) 35mm-only scanners that has Digital ICE. And then when you need a really good scan, have a lab do it.</p>

<p>The Polaroid SprintScan 120 is a model I've looked at over the years, and I think there's a Microtek that's supposed to be the same machine. It's probably fairly capable, but any example will be pretty old, they're not easy to find complete and in working condition, and I'm not sure how well they play with modern computers. Another option might be a Nikon 8000, although $1000 for a complete, working example may be a bit hard to do.</p>

<p>Last but not least, Andrew is right about those Dmax specifications. If your scanner will really resolve detail relatively cleanly at 3.5, I think you'll be doing pretty well. For example, Fuji says Provia 100F maxes out at about 3.4 (and only in the green layer, more like 3.25 for red). Velvia 50 can be somewhat denser, but even at 3.6-3.7 you're talking at pulling slight differences out of the darkest shadows. I have to think the scanner claims of 4.2 are an absolute fantasy, and of 3.8 are pretty doubtful.</p>