Film scanners

Any suggestions for film scanners?

I like my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro (scans medium format, too).

What do you need to scan?<br>

Color/BW<br>

Neg/Slide<br>

Transperancy/Prints<br>

35mm/120/4x5...APS?<br>

Final output: Web, 4x6's, 8x10's, Poster size prints???<br>

Spending: $100,$500,$1000,$5000???<br>

Answer those first, then we can come up with a sensible answer for you.

I've been using a Minolta DSE-5400 for 35mm for 13 months now with excellent results. I shoot 80% silver B&W and 20% color negatives. generally, I can get fine 13x17 prints out of its scans.

 

For medium format and 4x5 I have an older Epson 2450 that I hope to replace soon for a 4800.

Jorge,

For how much do you plan to sell your scanner?

Stephen -

 

I shoot color & b/w

 

Normally negatives, not slides

 

I would like to make prints

 

I would be willing to spend up to $1000

 

Thanks for asking -

Bill

 

I would like to have the option of making 8x10s

 

Regular 35mm from SLR & RF

The Dimage 5400 seems to do what I net, silver black and white and color neg. Negs made for condenser enlargers seem to scan a little better.

Based on your needs, you definetely don't want a flatbed style as you are doing 35mm only. You will get much better quality and value from a non-flatbed scanner. Also, as you do some color, I would suggest trying to get a model with Digital ICE or equivalent, and disabling it when doing B&W scans. As you are going to be trying to make prints out of your scans, definetely go for the best DPI/quality you can afford, though 8x10's aren't much of a stretch for film scanners these days, so you might not have to spend all $1000.

<br><br>What kind of computer are you hooking it up to? Definetely want to have LOTS of RAM (1GB-+) + HD space (10's-100's of GB free), and a decent processor (Pentium 4 equivalent and faster). A USB2 or Firewire interface, based on needs of scanner, is certainly a plus too. PCI/PCMCIA cards for these are dirt cheap if you don't have the port built in.<br><br>

As for specifics, you have a lot of options, but I have always been amazed at the price/quality of the Minolta Dimage line. Take a look at some of these.

I've been working with a Minolta Scan Dual II since about August, 2000. It makes very

good scans at 2820ppi, has few fancy features but since my negs are clean I don't need

them. I've made prints up to 11x17 inch (250 ppi output resolution) that look great from

full frame 35mm negs. The current equivalent of this scanner costs $270.

<br><br>

You can get better scanners for prices up to $1000. I would suggest, as others have, a

dedicated film scanner. And I will put in a plug for VueScan, available from

<a href="http://www.hamrick.com/" target=new>

<b>http://www.hamrick.com/</b></a>, to use as your scanning application. It does a

much better job than most of what the manufacturers supply.

<br><br>

Godfrey

I haven't seen much that compares with the newest Nikons. The Super Coolscan 5000 ED is what I would get if I were to replace my current scanner - a Microtek 4000tf (which works fine, just is old and has several thousand images run through it.) Beyond the amazing lens in the Nikon machine, the ability to scan a whole roll of film is a great feature, albeit after buying a $450 adaptor. But it is worth it I think. Allows one to create digital contact sheets, which I really find important for filing and finding past negatives.

 

Alternatively, the Epson 4870 (which I also have) is a good second scanner for speed in 35mm and then a first scanner for medium format - and is way under $1000. For 35mm, prints from the scans do not compare favorably in detail resolution with a film scanner. Film scanners have detail down, even at equivalent dpi. Epson's effective dpi seems much lower than advertised. However, for scanning large amounts of images for use on the web, this scanner works very well. I think dollars to dpi, the Epson 4800 is the best deal going for scanning anything medium format and larger. Color management in the Epson is pretty well spot on, though its in machine sharpening really punches up the grain agressively.

 

I concur on the adding of memory and the installation of a firewire or USB 2.0 card. Makes things easier.

 

So when I have to produce 20 shots for a web page or if I am scanning 120mm or 4x5, I scan with my Epson 4870. But if I am scanning 35mm for a print on my Epson 2100, I scan with my Microtek, which I will replace next year with the Nikon. Your mileage may vary, but that is my decision based on my use and research. Hope it helps.

Bill

 

My Nikon Coolscan V has been set up for only two weeks but I can honestly say it's the best $600 that I ever spent on photo equipment.

 

Full 4000dpi scans opened up in Photoshop and magnified show tremendous detail. I've only printed up to 8X10 so far but I think that 16x20 (or even larger) wouldn't be too much of a reach. Of course, using nothing but Leica and Nikon lenses helps a lot too.

 

The scanning software loaded on my PC in about 5 minutes and I was up and running in 10 with no problems whatsoever. The software also provides plenty of options for fine tuning the scans and is pretty intuitive. The manual is as good as can be expected these days but contains enough information to get the job done.

 

I'm still learning to get the best from this equipment but I would recommend it to anyone shooting 35mm and trying to keep to a budget.

 

My only "gripe" so far is that the thumbnails from scanned negatives only appear as boxes and not small versions of the images themselves. Again, I'm still learning and it could be that I'm doing something wrong.

 

Not having tried the Minolta 5400dpi scanner I can't compare them but I'm very happy with my Nikon purchase.

 

Rich

I use a Minolta 5400. It does a great job. I added memory and a USB 2.0 card. The USB card damn near wiped out my computer so be careful! I had to go back to the USB 1.1 port to keep from crashing my computer. The USB card was made by Belkin and supplied by Dell. Dell has of yet not been able to offer advice which will allow me to use this card. I had a bad experience with Minolta on my warranty also, but that is more down to poor communication on Minolta's part rather than a problem with their equipment.

 

If I had it to do all over again I would go with the Minolta Scan Multi Pro so I could do MF. Or maybe not...I hear many MF users are going digital, in which case they don't need any scanner.

I am interested in the Nikon comments because I have access to getting one at a serious discount. I have read that they have limitations with silver films. I had also read that Minolta was the best for rich color tones. Of course, like most reviews available, these may have been with older models. I have also read that the Minoltas are slooowwww. Nikon sounds faster, so that is appealing. Any thoughts?

I bought a Canon 4000US from a guy who went over all to digital, for a couple hundred bucks. It's no longer being made, but perhaps they are available used. I don't know how it compares to a $650 Minolta 5400 but 4000dpi is enough to make as big a print as I can do with a home printer. What is nice about the Canon is their FARE dust/scratch removal does not (according to the experts) degrade the image the way ICE does.

To make a very long story very short, Nikon is much faster than Minolta: Minolta gives slightly better results. Minolta is quite a bit cheaper (shop around).

Bill, I don't know if the Nikons are appreciably faster than the comparable Minoltas, but my understanding is that the LED-type light source used by Nikon does accentuate scratches more, hence the need for ICE. I believe it is ICE that has a problem w/silver emulsions (i.e., B&W) because it picks up the silver grains as "dust."

 

Per Godfrey's post, I used to have the original Minolta Dimage Scan Dual I (a 2400 dpi machine I recall), & it had more than enough resolution to produce good 8x10s & even the occasional 13x19 on my Epson 1280.

How are the new Nikon scanners for scanning Kodachrome 25 and 64? I have a bunch of slides that I would love to scan but heard that until recently most scanners don't do a decent job of scanning Kodachrome. Thanks.

I have a Nikon Coolscan 4000 and have no trouble scanning Kodachromes... old and

relatively new. Most of my work was with Kodachrome 64.<div></div>

Raid,

 

>> Jorge, For how much do you plan to sell your scanner? <<

 

Not sure yet but you can bet it will be cheap. I'll keep you in mind as a provable customer. I'll throw in some extra goodies too...

 

Let you know when I'm about to order (bout Xmas sounds good to you?)

 

Cheers,

 

Jorge.

Bill,

Canon USA atill lists the 4000 film scanner. In my opinion, it beats the Nikon hands down. I found the Canon easiest to use with great results. My color scans result in 50-60 Meg images, my black and white 20-25 Meg results. The scanner meshes perfectly with Windows XP.

recently purchase a Nikon Coolscan 5000

$1029 shipped.

 

excellent device (4000 dpi)

 

scans are fast. you DO NOT need 1 gig of computer memory (i have 500 megs)

 

processing of images (depending on what you do) takes a modest amount of time (certainly not instantaneous, don't expect to scan hundreds of slides per hour with processing on unless you've got some sort of wicked fast computer..i'm using a 2.8 ghz machine)

 

digital ice is essential.

scans kodachrome very nicely, with digital ice processing

software is decent (occasional "glitch" requires restarting program)

 

overall very pleased, would buy again.