Scanning for a book

Reflecta 10M and Pacific Images XA are the same model, and indeed, the US pricing is a lot more interesting....no idea why, really. I have the previous model of the 10T / Primefilm XE - you need to advance frame by frame manually, but it's a good deal cheaper. The Plusteks can be found for less again, they're tested to have lower resolutions but I have no experience with them at all, so can't say whether those tests are right or not.

For 2nd hand ones, I'd personally only really look for the last generation Nikons at this moment (Coolscan 5 / 5000 and 9000), but they're priced a lot higher. And as said, testing a CoolScan 5 alongside my Reflecta, I see some improvements, but it really is hard to justify the cost of a CoolScan (more than twice as expensive). So, I am not arguing they're great scanner, but I think at the moment they're poor value for money.

Thanks, Wouter.

Well, I am going to digest all the information given in this thread.

About dsrl scanning, I have found two techniques:

- One described by Ed_Ingold, using a slide copying adapter:

A digital camera + macro lens + extension tube (to achieve 1:1) + slide copying adapter (+ another extension tube in the case the camera is DX/non full frame, as far as I understood)

- One described by, for example, this dude:

Yes, your DSLR really is the best film scanner

He doesn’t use a slide copying adapter, but a light pad and a copy macro stand.

This is one of the millions of articles that I should read before asking stupid questions.

But if someone could tell me in a few words why to use one technique or the other, it would be helpful. Is it just because this guy Jamie doesn’t have a real macro lens? Is it always preferable to have 1:1 macro and a slide copying adapter?

Anyway, I promise I am going to study this matter more deeply.

I like the Minolta scanners for 35mm film. They image the 25mm film width onto a linear CCD 3200x3 pixel array.

Scanners like the V500 image the full width, 216mm, onto a 54400 pixel linear CCD, and for 35mm, take the center 24mm.

In all cases, scanners are rated on the resolution of the CCD array, and not on the optics ability to image the source onto the array.

It takes a much fancier lens to image 216mm onto a CCD array at full resolution, than to image 25mm onto its array.

(I suspect that the former is past the diffraction limit, but didn't try to compute it.)

Some of the later V series scanners have two lenses, and maybe two sensors, for full width and not quite as wide, but still not as narrow as a 35mm frame.

You might find that a V800 is enough better to make it a worthwhile investment.

The Pacific XA and XE scanners seem like they might be pretty good.

In the past, there were some very low quality scanners, maybe imaging the whole frame onto a low-resolution 2D CCD, and priced less than USD 100.

Those are the ones that I don't recommend. Maybe good enough for 4x6 prints, for someone with a drawer full of old negatives (and 4x6 prints).

I suspect that any scanner new for less than USD 100, isn't good enough for most uses, other than family snapshots.

If I have it right (and it is easy to get off by a factor of 2), you need an f/11 lens for diffraction limit at 3200dpi, and f/5.6 for 6400dpi.

A 40mm f/11 lens, like a 35mm scanner might use, is nice and small, and not so expensive.

A 300mm (guess) f/5.6 lens that the V500 might require is big and expensive.

Flatbed scanners use a complicated set of moving mirrors to image a moving strip onto the CCD. I suspect 300mm is about right,

Glen_h, thanks for your comments.

I sincerely don’t understand your last post about lenses. Are you talking about lenses for DSLR digitizing? Or about lenses used in scanners?