Good scanner for relatively cheap? (35mm and MF too maybe)

<p>Walmart is making my pictures look like crap. They're very contrasty in a way they shouldn't be. The resolution is also too low, I can't see any real detail.</p>

<p>So I need a good film scanner that can do both 35mm and medium format very well. Possibly large format, if it can be had for a good price. I've noticed dedicated film scanners like the Minolta Dimage but it only does 35mm. I'd like some flexibility. Flatbed is OK as long as it produces great scans. I will be buying either one used to save money, probably on ebay. Right now I'm only shooting 35mm though.</p>

<p>I'd like to keep it at a good price, say. $200 or so (used). I can go more if it's really worth it. Thanks</p>

<p>Here we go again if you search you will find this has been talked about before. You fill find not only a plethora of knowledge about the different flatbeds but the software to use with them.<br>

Epson and Canon are the Choices you will see the most suggested.</p>

<p>I have done my homework and read other threads. It's mostly Epson Perfection's and Canon Coolscan's. However, I've seen other people post threads about how their v500 sucks, or how their Coolscan 9000 just doesn't cut it.</p>

<p>35mm film is equivalent to about 25MP of digital picture right? I saw a thread about how someones Coolscan is only sharp and great up to like 7mp. I want something that will give me good definition. Maybe not up to 25mp, but somewhere where I can get a large and sharp scan. I'd like to make 8x12 prints from the 35mm.</p>

<p>Victor I use an Epson V700 with Better scanning holders. I have had no problem with it. Sorry I did not mean to sound off base. I am glad you did search the forums. I want to get a dedicated 35mm scanner but since I shoot 16mm-4x5 the Epson V700 was the only answer.</p>

<p>Er, Nikon Coolscans. Canon and Minolta scanners are long discontinued, and driver support may be getting iffy.<br>

Problem is, there are no serious 35mm film scanners made anymore. The Nikon Coolscan IV, 4000, V, and 5000 are all discontinued, and the used prices are presently rising. There's absolutely no way you will get any of them for close to $200.<br>

So it's really down to Epson at that price. Say a 4490 or V500 meet your budget new. But realize that their real resolution off film is probably 1200 pixels/inch, maybe a little better. You're not going to get the detail out of one at the 4000 pixel/inch setting that you would with a 4000 pixel/inch Nikon Coolscan.</p>

 

<p>Victor, check out 'Gallery'>search by photo tags> V500 for some current samples of those of us who use the Epson V500. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Well, a Nikon will give you much better results than any flatbed. Even a good flatbed maxes out at about 2000 DPI of actual detail - these numbers they give like 7200 DPI are fiction. So for 35mm film you can make prints up to about 8x12 with good resolution, but with medium format you can get pretty good large prints.</p>

<p>You can get an Epson V500 and make do. Every once in a while you see a deal on a real film scanner on Craigslist, and with good trolling technique you can snag one. I have a Minolta Dual IV I got for $75 a few weeks ago and it beats the snot out of my V500 despite being older and "only" 3200 DPI.</p>

<p>Epson V500. Almost all the film photos in my folders were scanned on one of these (if you care to look - not to be self-promoting). JR</p>

<p>BTW the V600 is out now.</p>

<p>http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=63084673</p>

<p>I think I must have been looking at the v300 before... because the v500 scans I've seen on flickr have been great. And it works with various formats, so that's good. I think this may be the scanner for me. Does it do 8x12 prints good?</p>

<p>It wil do them real fine from 35mm and you will be amazed at what you can get from your MF negatives....</p>

<p>I made a horrible choice picking up this HP Scanjet 4c on craigslist for $50. It was all that was available. This thing is ANCIENT. and it doesn't do 3200dpi as advertised - it's really only 600dpi optical. I'm stupid for not looking it up. And it uses an SCSI interface, what the hell? He gave me a PCI card adapter though.<br>

Aside from that, the damn transparency head doesn't work and it takes about 8 minutes to scan at 300dpi. Ridiculous.</p>

<p>Medium format scans with Epson V500.</p><div></div>

<p>35mm V500 scan.</p><div></div>

<p>One from 35mm B&W TriX scanned at 2500ppi.</p><div></div>

<p>Very nice scans - I'm impressed! I didn't know they went up to 3200dpi. I suppose I'll be set on the v500 now then. They look great...</p>

<p>I don't think it really has 3200ppi of real resolution. The max resolution is supposed to be 6400ppi but it must be a marketing figure because there is no way the v500 produces 6400ppi of resolution. I would say that 2000ppi is a much more realistic figure. I am quite happy to scan grainy old TriX at 2500ppi. I get reasonably nice scans at that resolution. Remember that the color scans above are from medium format film.</p><div></div>

<p>Yeah, the 4000 looks about the same as the 2500. It's a good enough res for me though, better than I expected....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've seen other people post threads about how their v500 sucks</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I sometimes get the feeling that people who post comments like that have unrealistic expectations of a flatbed and in response they go overboard in their criticism of it. You will not get the same quality of picture from a scanned 35mm negative that you get from a 35mm sensor DSLR. And if a dedicated film scanner exists at the same cost as a flatbed then guess how they can do that - the optics (lens, sensor etc) are not as good in the flatbed.<br>

You also need to consider that there is a temptation to put your nose up to a print before deciding how good it is and any flatbed will suffer - the V500 will give perfectly servicable prints up to 10x8 (maybe even larger) <em>viewed from normal viewing distance</em> (3 feet or more). It depends on how demanding you are.</p>

<p>If you only have $200 to spend then all you can do is find the best one for the money and accept the compromises. I think the closest one for that money will be V500 if you are lucky.</p>

<p>Stuart, the scans look good. Since I have resorted to babying my Konica Minolta DE 5400 mk II, I too am eyeing a V600 for proof scans. Your scans give me confidence.</p>

<p>Victor -- See this thread<br>

<a href="00W7Rk">http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00W7Rk</a><br>

I posted there an example V500 scan from 6x9, including 100% crops and a link to the full resolution file.</p>

<p>My conclusion: From 6x9, the V500 produces good sharp prints at 12x18" and I invite you to download the 3600x5400 pixel file to judge for yourself. I conclude the V500 will be good for prints up to 6x the original film size.</p>

<p>To get this, scan at 2400ppi or even higher ppi and downsample. Don't be confused: The scanner claims much higher resolution, and will give you huge files, but the resolution is only 1300ppi x 2000ppi. Scanner is better in one direction than the other.</p>

<p>If you want more from 35mm, Nikon Coolscan V or 5000 gives you a scan that really is 4000 ppi or very close to it, but it's more than your budget. A different option is to find someone else who using mini-lab equipment (like WalMart) but who does a better job. That equipment is capable of a pretty good scan (search "noritsu scan" here on photo.net) for more.</p>

<p>For Large Format, you'll need a different Epson since the V500 is only up to MF.</p>

<p>Stuart, your posted images are better than I thought we would see from 35mm. Nice job. </p>

<p>According to filmscanner.info a V600 gets a "real" resolution of 1560DPI and to get that you need to set the scanner a 3200. From my experience with a V500 (these are similar enough so I'm using them interchangeably) with some well done sharpening you can use that 3200DPI scan from a 35mm frame to make an 8x12 print without significant quality loss. When you enlarge it on screen it has a bit of an odd fuzzy look to it and it's not easy to tell how it's going to print so I don't like looking at the blowups.</p>

<p>Hello, Victor, I have the same problem.Just now there are some CanoScan FS4000US in US,Australia and Europe.They seem to go finally around 250-350$ (E)<br>

At 14mp, there were some Minolta Dual IV but this one lack ICE .<br>

The Minolta Elite II at 10 MP effective with ICE goes around 350 E<br>

The Minolta 5400 goes usualy around and over 600 E , maybe if you're lucky ,450 $ (in USA and UK the auctions go to a lower price)<br>

A good option seems to be the 14 MP Reflecta Proscan 7200 ,350 E without Silverfast ,but for best results I read that Silverfast is needed. They are rarely offered used.</p>

<p>See next... :-)<br>

<br />Greg</p>

<p>I'll reiterate the V500 comments. Works fine and fast at 2400...can produce a bit more "punch" if scanned at 3200 or 4800dpi and downsampled. I recall getting good results at 3200dpi from Ektar 100 35mm, but most of the time I shoot medium format so 2400dpi is more than enough for my 11x14 print sizes.<br>

<br />Interesting thing I just noticed, though...the ICE seems to fall apart at the higher scanning resolutions. Not sure why. The same frame looked fine at 2400dpi, but when I tried to scan at 4800dpi (to do a 4:1 downsampling), all this fine dust "appeared".</p>

<p>Oh, and I didn't like the results with scanning Kodachromes, so I decided to shoot them using a slide duplicated on my 12mp APS-C Sony A700. I got good results using a 75mm zoom lens at f/8. Much faster than the scanner if nothing else. I look forward to trying it with a FF camera and 50mm macro lens someday. </p>

<p>I was thinking of paying Scancafe to do them, but I'll only get the same 12mp and it'll cost me $10 per 36 frames. I think I can get that done in 15-30 minutes and save myself $20-40 an hour.</p>

<p><br />Greg</p>