Help me choose a MF Scanner

<blockquote>

<p>The cheapest new Flextight is over $13,000</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But not the cheapest used Flextight. <br /> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Imacon-Flextight-Precision-II-Slide-Film-Scanner-/321489473232?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ada440ed0</p>

<blockquote>

<p>can you buy any working Flextight and whatever other computer hardware and software you need to run it for $1000?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is possible. Might ask the OP what computer systems he has as an existing one might fit the bill.</p>

<p>Andrew, you may be right--I'm genuinely ignorant and curious--but the linked-to listing is for a just-started auction (almost a week remaining). What are the sale prices among the completed listings? Also, the linked-to auction is for one that the seller cannot verify is working and is selling as-is. The two Flextight IIs you can buy now are $2500 each.</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>I hadn't really thought of that but that's an excellent point. If I get a Sprintscan or Pacific Image, these have Taiwanese lenses that might be plastic, and are never going to be nearly as good. Basically with a CCD scanner I am taking another picture and what is the point of me shooting with the best Zeiss optics on my Hasselblad, if I will be retaking that same image with a scanner that has Taiwanese optics. At least the Rodenstock used in the Flextight will be at least as good as the Zeiss. That said, most of the images I have in my portfolio www.silverchroma.com were scanned on a Plustek 7200 for 35mm and at a minilab for the medium format. I think they look OK, but like I said, I want something for archiving.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That is possible. Might ask the OP what computer systems he has as an existing one might fit the bill.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am using a Sony Vaio Z with 8gb ram, Solid State drive, a Quadcore 2.4GHZ i7, and Windows 7 64 bit. It's the ONLY laptop I found to have 96% Adobe RGB, all the other LED's are much less. I think the Macbook Pro has something like 67-77% Adobe RGB. I've never seen such accurate colour rendition on ANY LED screen before so it's perfect for photo editing which is what I bought it for. I bought Vuescan but I know this won't work with the Flextight. I'm OK to grab an older machine from someone on craigslist and get a SCSI card. I have a PCMCIA SCSI card for my old computer running Windows XP 32bit so can use that...<br>

Andrew - in general your post has been the most informative. I guess it depends what I can find. I have seen the Flextights for about $1500 selling on eBay. I could probably find one for $1000 without trays and buy some trays for $100 each. It should STILL be better than ANYTHING except a modern Flextight or Drumscanner.<br>

However, my dillema is I could use that extra money (IE buy a Sprintscan or Pacific Image, or Flatbed such as a Cezanne for half the price or less). If I buy the cheaper scanner I could spend that $500 on a new Hassy or Leica lens, or get an X-Pro 1 with M adapters... That is my only Dillema, as the Flextight would really stretch my budget...</p>

<p>If you really do intend to scan a significant volume of negs/slides at a level that would support a print that you could hang on a wall, or send to a stock agency, then I'd support a Flextight. I think they can scan very well and I'm happy to make prints up to about 24"sq from a 6x6 transparency, from that source. </p>

<p>However if the vast majority of your scans are going to go no further than a screen, there's a lot to be said for the V700/V750 route and buying in a drum or Imacon scan for the few you want to print above proof size, depending on the degree of enlargement you require. </p>

<p>Dave, the link provided is either the best deal of the century or a potential ripoff as it's ridiculously low. But I just wanted to point out that it isnt' necesary to spend $15K on a new Flextight. Looks like $2K is probably about right in terms of a used older unit which of course is $1500 over budget. And that's the key. The budget and some of the scanners under discussion just don't jive. Yes an Imacon or PMT Drum is vastly superior but I suspect just shipping either and insured would take half the $500 budget. It is kind of pointless to even consider such scanners unless the budget is reasonable. </p>

<p>That brings up Dave's last and critical post. Just what does Daniel want to use the scanner for? IF it's screen presentation, then the budget and some of the scanners under discussion make sense. IF the scans are for the purpose of digitizing the film such it can be used for all the same purposes it could be using in the analog processing, (big prints and the like, repro, stock), then the budget is hugely inadequate. So we probably need Daniel to specify what he hopes to accomplish and based on that, give him some idea if the budget makes any sense at all. </p>

<p>Scanners are a dying, some would say dead market. That $1500 Flextight today might be $500 in two years so maybe, depending on the needs of the OP, he just waits as the prices are sure to come down. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>That brings up Dave's last and critical post. Just what does Daniel want to use the scanner for? IF it's screen presentation, then the budget and some of the scanners under discussion make sense. IF the scans are for the purpose of digitizing the film such it can be used for all the same purposes it could be using in the analog processing, (big prints and the like, repro, stock), then the budget is hugely inadequate. So we probably need Daniel to specify what he hopes to accomplish and based on that, give him some idea if the budget makes any sense at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is for screen presentation as well as archiving (in case something should happen to the negatives). I only would want to print if I have an exhibition. I have only done this once really and I think for something like that I can just send the negs/transparency in to be printed from vs. scanning. I don't do much touching up (except some contrast/levels work and colour adjustment if the negatives were expired).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However if the vast majority of your scans are going to go no further than a screen, there's a lot to be said for the V700/V750 route and buying in a drum or Imacon scan for the few you want to print above proof size, depending on the degree of enlargement you require.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Um not really true. Just because I won't be printing doesn't mean you can't tell the difference when looking online. Look at these scans done on the flextight http://oneofmanycameras.com/rent-our-imacon-flextight-precision-ii-high-end-scanner/ I doubt you can get something that sharp and clear off a V700. That's my endgame goal is to have the sharpest images possible for my online portfolio. IF I can get images that are sharp enough or clear enough with enough dynamic range off the Sprintscan 120, Pacific Image 120, Cezanne, etc... then sure I don't need the flextight.</p>

<p>Hey! I saw that Flextight link first! It was a relist because the original buyer disappeared. I believe it "sold" to that buyer for ~USD 1500.<br /><br />The Polaroid/Microtek 120 scanners were the bee's knees in The Day. I just gave away a SprintScan 4000 because I couldn't get it to work on my computer, and I'm <em>good</em> at that sort of thing. I didn't want to get an older computer for it, but the quality of the scans was superb. The Braun 120 scanner gets very good ratings from The German Site, but I don't think it is available outside Europe. (I'm also pretty certain it is <em>not</em> a rebadged Reflecta/PIE.)<br /><br />I think I'm buying an Epson V700. I've seen some very good results from it--not up to a Coolscan 9000, but not all that far away either. I think 20" is the widest I'll go from 120, and I have a Nikon 35mm scanner already.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is for screen presentation as well as archiving (in case something should happen to the negatives).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those two needs are diametrically opposite! An archive that <em>could</em> replace the film calls for something like a drum scanner using a very high optical resolution. I'm sure Lenny can add further. A really good scan of high quality could in theory be output to a film recorder and replace the original with nearly the same quality. Or one could just use the digital data to output to the same size/quality as the original. So if you are serious about having a digital archive, your budget isn't close to being high enough. </p>

<p>Just a note here. I looked at the Flextight scans the OP linked. Suggest looking at <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericvanden/14412888779/sizes/l">this image</a>, and then check out some more of the guy's scans. All from Epson V600.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Those two needs are diametrically opposite! An archive that <em>could</em> replace the film calls for something like a drum scanner using a very high optical resolution. I'm sure Lenny can add further. A really good scan of high quality could in theory be output to a film recorder and replace the original with nearly the same quality. Or one could just use the digital data to output to the same size/quality as the original. So if you are serious about having a digital archive, your budget isn't close to being high enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well I basically have a childhood negative project I want to do restoration on. I have hundreds of negatives in both 16mm and 35mm that I need to scan and restore. Getting a drum scanner is NOT an option not because of finances (I see a Scanmate 5000 I can get for under $1000) but because it doesn't allow for fast scanning. I don't have my whole life to mount hundreds of rolls of film onto those drums. I work full time, have my own startup, have my photography and film to do, and have a club to run... If the mini labs did even half decent tiff scans that would be great, but they do crappy jpeg scans on those crappy Fuji or Agfa mini lab scanners where all the contrast and colours are blown out and charge an arm and a leg. I've spent hundreds of dollars on sending out negs to get scanned when I can probably do better even on a V700 at home... Anyway this is the Archiving I want to do is this childhood project and batch scanning would be ideal but at decent quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just a note here. I looked at the Flextight scans the OP linked. Suggest looking at <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericvanden/14412888779/sizes/l" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this image</a>, and then check out some more of the guy's scans. All from Epson V600.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not bad, but the first image on the link I posted has way better dynamic range, tonality, contrast, and sharpness. My point is - why should I go for an Epson V600/V700/V750 when for the same price or less I can get a Sprintscan 120 (Last one sold for $330 on eBay), Pacific Image 120 (Some selling for the $500-$600 range used), or if I were to go flatbed I could get a Screen Cezanne (which sold for $20,000 new and is probably the best flatbed scanner ever made, last one sold for $350 on eBay) or that strange Leaf 45 which sells for really cheap. All those should be vastly superior to the Epson's, although vastly inferior to the Imacon's.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see a Scanmate 5000 I can get for under $1000) but because it doesn't allow for fast scanning.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can batch scan once you mount a pile of images on the drum. It's not ideal but I'll bet the quality is vastly better than those cheaper scanners. <br>

Too bad you can't find a Kodak PhotoCD scanner, talk about fast (about 6 seconds per scan, but kind of on the small size, 18MB). </p>

I wish i could find a drum scanner for under $ 1000 ...<br>But they are big and heavy, and i'm running out of space. Any recommendations for a drum scanner that isn't huge and heavy, that can be had for that kind of money?

<blockquote>

<p>I wish i could find a drum scanner for under $ 1000 ...<br />But they are big and heavy, and i'm running out of space. Any recommendations for a drum scanner that isn't huge and heavy, that can be had for that kind of money?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well the smallest and cheapest one I have seen is a Scanmate. The Scanmate 5000 seems to be the most popular. It's not that big and as far as price goes, it depends how much they want to get rid of it. I've seen people practically giving them away. When I lived in London someone was going to GIVE me one of these, but I had to go up and pick it up in another city and transport it back which was a problem back then since I didn't have a car. Drum Scanners unfortunately aren't worth as much anymore. Most photographers prefer the convenience and popularity of the Nikon D9000 or Minolta Multiscan Pro which sell for thousands of dollars (2-5x what drum scanners sell for) and are much worse in terms of scanning quality.</p>

<p>I've practically decided on a Flextight. It is the closest thing to a drum scanner you can get, without actually having a drum scanner. It's quick and easy to use, probably the easiest scanner I have seen in terms of mounting negs. It has the best optics of any CCD scanner, and best of all is the form factor: it kind of stands upright, so if you don't have much desk space it's fine...</p>

<p>Now if I can find one for around $1000 or less I will get it. If not I will settle for the Sprintscan 120 or something like that for now. Unless someone gives me a drum scanner or I can get one dirt cheap, but again I don't have the time or space for mounting.</p>

<p>I'd be hard pressed to call the ScanMate 5000 small, you still need to deadicate a 4 foot table to one. That said, I loved mine. IF someone wants to give you one again in the future, take it!<br>

The Flextight takes up far less room. </p>

Thanks. I will keep an eye out for a Scanmate.<br>Are there others that would fit the bill (small and cheap)?<br><br>I worry about connectivity though. Probably SCSI? I still have an old PC, with old bus system, that has SCSI on board. Slow... And i can connect SCSI devices through a PCMCIA adapter to a number of up to date laptops. But there is SCSI and there is SCSI...<br>And software (driver and operator) may be a problem.

<blockquote>

<p>Are there others that would fit the bill (small and cheap)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ScanView had an entry level unit called the Scanmate 3000. Spec's were not as impressive (lower optical resolution, lower dynamic range, I don't think the drum was removable). It was a bit smaller, cost less. Like it's big brothers, it was SCSI. Anyone selling such units should provide the very old software which was very good (ColorQuartet). You will not need a fast computer, there isn't much processing overhead in just scanning. Them move the scans over to a modern machine for other work. </p>

Thanks Andrew.<br>It perhaps defeats the aim of the exercise to look for lower spec machines. I have seen some scanners offered by sellers who never used them themselves, and i think that then even getting a complete unit would be a matter of luck. I've also found a big Dainippon Screen scanner for sale with everything you'd need not too far away (30 minutes from where i live. I could go pick it up. Would save a lot in shipping fees. But it's 160 kg, so not by myself. And where to put such a beast...)<br>I'll keep looking.

<blockquote>

<p>I've also found a big Dainippon Screen scanner for sale with everything you'd need not too far away (30 minutes from where i live.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No real familiar with that unit but I think it's designed for big prepress facilities so make sure that the software can even provide RGB data. Many really old prepress scanners spit out CMYK based on some output specific press conditions with lots of sharpening which would be far from ideal for a photographer. The desktop units were built for service bureaus and photo work. <br>

<br>

Now if you can find a Lino Tango scanner, that's one hell of a unit. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now if you can find a Lino Tango scanner, that's one hell of a unit.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Tango is a good scanner. However, there are two that surpass it. These would be an ICG 380 and an Aztek Premier. The Tango, and all the other scanners not mentioned, were made to a 6 micron precision. The ICG 380 and the Premier were made to a 3 micron level.</p>

<p>I've tested my Premier against a well-tuned Tango run by an experienced operator and the sharpness difference was significant. Of course, this is at the high end where very small differences are important to people.</p>

<p>That said, just like prints, great scans are made by scanner operators who know their equipment and understand what the images are trying to accomplish.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For anyone that is interested in a comparison between a Flextight and a Drumscan, this is a REAL eye opener: http://carrietaphoto.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/should-i-drum-scan-my-film-or-is-an-imacon-or-film-scanner-good-enough/</p>

<p>BTW, if I buy a drum scanner do I REALLY have to make a mounting station? Also do I REALLY have to wetmount? I am sure that if I just tape the negs up, it will look MUCH better than the Flextight or anything else either way... I just really don't want to deal with chemicals and then washing the negs... Unless there is a "natural" drum fluid I can use...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I've also found a big Dainippon Screen scanner for sale with everything you'd need not too far away</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, Dainippon Screen made the Cezanne which was considered one of the best flatbeds ever made, supposedly the closest there was to get anywhere even close to drum or dedicated scanners..</p>

<p>You don't <strong>have</strong> to have a mounting station but it does improve productively especially if you have more than one drum (you can be mounting while scanning). <br>

Depending on the film/image, you don't have to wet mount but you'll get a better scan wet mounting. Depending on the image (something shot on a white bkgnd), you'll probably see newton rings and you'll really want to wet mount. </p>

<p>Lumina is supposed to be less toxic. BUT it still says:</p>

<table width="575" border="5" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td bgcolor="#FFFFFF" width="123" height="171">

<table width="123" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><strong>Are any scanning <br />fluids<br />"NON -TOXIC" ?<br /></strong></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

<td bgcolor="#FFFFFF" width="424" height="171">

<table width="424" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>NO! All scanning fluids are petroleum distillates and all are TOXIC. <br />There are no exceptions! But the degree of toxicity of scanning <br />fluids can vary a great deal.<br />Respiratory toxicity increases with volatility and the % of aromatic <br />hydrocarbons in the mixture.</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>On top of the added expense of this scanning fluid. It contains known carcinogens. Why can't I wet mount with water or some natural chemical free oil?</p>

<p>Daniel, do you actually want to scan or not? You have at least two recognized experts giving info here, quite possibly a few more. Some good info has been revealed thru the discussion, and this is good. However, all your responses are "do I really have to?" Truly, you don't have to do this at all.... no one is forcing you.</p>

<p>If you consider for just a moment what water would do to your film, you wouldn't ask this question. First, you'd have to make sure it didn't adhere to the drum if left for just a bit longer than the drying time. The emulsion would swell up and cause other issues, possibly with focus, possible with color shifting, etc. Of course, once done, you'd have to rewet it with wetting agent and dry it. I can imagine you taking all the slides off the drum and hanging them up individually... what a PIA....</p>

<p>There are people who still use baby oil to mount. It works wonderfully. Of course, one has quite a mess to clean up after every scan both on the film and the drum. There are good reasons that naphtha, which is essentially dry cleaning fluid, is used...</p>

<p>A mounting station is very helpful to make sure the film is perfectly against the drum surface, maintaining perfect sharpness across the entire negative, and it also helps with avoiding bubbles that can occur during the mounting process.</p>

<p>There are definitely expenses that occur with every piece of film that is scanned. Probably about $1.50 or so per drum. Of course, that's for a whole drum load... and if you have 30 or more transparencies on the drum it amortizes out nicely. Photography is expensive these days.... I wouldn't do a project like this with a Vaio... I'd suggest a desktop machine that you can add plenty of RAM to, and additional hard drives to hold all the scans... maybe even some management software so you can find things... </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Daniel, do you actually want to scan or not? You have at least two recognized experts giving info here, quite possibly a few more. Some good info has been revealed thru the discussion, and this is good. However, all your responses are "do I really have to?" Truly, you don't have to do this at all.... no one is forcing you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just don't like inhaling or touching carcinogenic chemicals.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, once done, you'd have to rewet it with wetting agent and dry it. I can imagine you taking all the slides off the drum and hanging them up individually... what a PIA....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it is a PIA drum scanning, BUT I realized how much time I would save by basically batch scanning all the negative strips and in post doing: sharpening, colour/exposure compensation, touching up the scratches and dust, etc... It might pretty much even out or maybe it will be even faster drum scanning if you think of it that way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are people who still use baby oil to mount. It works wonderfully. Of course, one has quite a mess to clean up after every scan both on the film and the drum. There are good reasons that naphtha, which is essentially dry cleaning fluid, is used...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is exactly what I was asking. I researched this and heard that some people have used Glycerin in the past. Does the baby oil have to be mineral oil (Petrolatum) based or can the non petroleum based apricot/grape seed oil be used? Will baby oil and/or glycerin look any less sharp than naphtha or is it all about cleanup? What can be used to clean it up after?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are definitely expenses that occur with every piece of film that is scanned. Probably about $1.50 or so per drum. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's pretty cheap, might be even cheaper with Baby Oil or Glycerine instead of mounting fluid ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photography is expensive these days....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The price of film and processing has skyrocketed in the past decade due to digital taking over. I had one of the last rolls of Kodachrome processed at Wayne's before they stopped. Really sad! If I had the money I would buy a Phase One P45 for $5000 used, but a drum scanner is still cheaper and I feel like I should shoot film while it's still around and not take it for granted.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't do a project like this with a Vaio... I'd suggest a desktop machine that you can add plenty of RAM to, and additional hard drives to hold all the scans... maybe even some management software so you can find things...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well it's not just any Vaio, as mentioned it's a true Quadcore i7 with 8gb of ram, a special 256gb solid state drive from Sony that will blow away any normal retail SSD because it is a raid0 setup with speeds over 1000 MB/sec. It's one of the only 13" that has true procesors (not Ultra low voltage), a full HD screen, 96% Adobe RGB on its special matte screen, etc... Sony basically developed almost every part of the laptop to be its own (IE they didn't source most of the parts elsewhere). On top of that the laptop is made in Japan from carbonfiber, etc... It's about 18 months old now, but still one heck of a laptop, and you would have trouble finding an LED that got that kind of Adobe RGB percentage. On top of that I have a TB external HD to store the files once they have been scanned and edited... I might master them onto Bluray discs and/or a network drive to archive.</p>

<p>You should not "master" anything on DVD or BluRay. They are not reliable - you can read other recent threads about this. For hundreds of slides, you need hard drives, and backup hard drives.</p>

<p>You are still talking about money. You have hundreds of slides to process, you need hard drives, backups, etc. You bought a really slick laptop, but now you want the scanner to be cheap, or you don't want to pay for mounting fluid. It's ridiculous. You don't plan to spend a winter in Antarctica and start haggling about the price of a down jacket.</p>

<p>I am a power user, and you can't impress me with 8GB or RAM or a 256 GB drive. I'm sure its great. I have an Eizo screen that will do plenty of the Adobe RGB, and it's 27 inches large. I wouldn't do any large photo project on a 13 inch screen, but maybe that's just me.</p>

<p>You've used up 5 pages of responses from all kinds of people trying to help you. Yet you don't read very carefully. I said it was a PIA to re-wet and dry film after using water, not that drum scanning is a PIA. I am a professional drum scanner operator, and I don't think it is a PIA. It's my livelihood, and frankly I enjoy it.</p>

<p>I'm done helping here...</p>