I need a film scanner

<p>I'm looking for a good film scanner, possibly even for medium format. Could you help me?</p>

<p>Depending on what your purposes are, you should look at the Epson V500. I have had it for a year and really enjoyed it. Most everything in my portfolio was scanned with it, if you care to take a peek. JR</p>

<p>Alessandro, I also have the V500, and I have been very satisfied with it. I got mine from Epson's "clearance center" at a very low price. The film holders for 120 and 35mm are poorly designed and frustrating to use, but I get very good scans once I get the film into the holders. :-) </p>

<p>I would look for the Nikon Coolscan 9000 - the price might be a bit stiff, but I guess there are a lot of nicely used scanners on the market.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>'m looking for a good film scanner, possibly even for medium format.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon CS9000. About $2500 new.</p>

<p>Another satisfied user of the epson V500, as much as I'd like to own the coolscan not all of us afford it. I've made 8x10's from 35mm negatives that look great, but probably wouldn't be able make larger prints from 35mm. I haven't tried any larger prints from medium format but would guess it could go larger.</p>

<p>The various new Canoscan scanners (e.g., 8800F and up) are also quite good, and do large format film easily as well as doing strips of 35mm film rather more efficiently, if a little less quality, than a dedicated film scanner. This is the number one scanner bought by film users in our university's photographic program.</p>

<p>I suggest that you first think about how the scanner fits into your workflow. Is it for occasional use? Small prints? Gallery prints? I have a hybrid workflow (no digital capture), so an excellent scanner is vital for my needs. You will have to pay more for excellent quality. </p>

<p>Second, I would suggest thinking about your film format. If you will NEVER go larger than 35mm, then a dedicated 35mm scanner is the way to go. If you will never go larger than medium format, then the Coolscan 9000 is a great scanner.</p>

<p>I have owned an Epson 4990 for years and I will not knock my faithful companion, but the Epson flatbeds have an effective resolution of about 2200 ppi or 45 lp/mm. The Nikon Coolscans have an effective resolution of about 4000 ppi. With the Epson I can get a so-so scan from medium format, but a scan from the Nikon 9000 would run circles around it. </p>

<p>If you foresee moving into large format, then the Epson scanners are an economical option, but a used professional flatbed scanner is better. I recently bought a Screen Cezanne that has an effective resolution of about 5000 ppi, can handle film formats up to 11x14, and cost about $1,000 less than a new coolscan 9000. The tradeoff, though, is that it is enormous, and if it does break down, I cannot afford to have it serviced.</p>

<p>If you decide to look at professional flatbeds, you have to be very careful and do your research with regards to the condition of the equipment, necessary software and accessories, etc. You are buying used industrial equipment and servicing that equipment may not even be possible, or will be very expensive. To give you an example, Screen charges $1500 to replace the standard tray on the Cezanne, $1,000 to upgrade software, and $1500 for a new white balance strip. </p>

<p>Once you nail down your maximum film format, try to have scans made on the scanners you are considering. They all have different "looks." The Coolscan 5000, for example, looks like a condenser enlarger with my B&W. Sometimes I find this attractive, sometimes not.</p>

<p>Finally, think again about the quality of the scanners you are looking at. Should you take a more economical route now, if you decide to get a better scanner in the future, you will not relish re-scanning all your film. In hindsight, I wish I had started with a top-noth scanner. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you will NEVER go larger than 35mm, then a dedicated 35mm scanner is the way to go.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right. So instead of a Nikon 9000, a good compromise is a Nikon 5000, and a V500 class flatbed for 6x7 and larger MF. This is a combination I had used for a few years.</p>

<p>Get the flatbeds directly from Epson refurb. I think my V500 was under $100 a few years back.</p>

<p>So, thanks to all. I would like to use scanner for 35mm and 6x4,5mm. I'm not a pro photographer, so I would like to use the scanner to work black&white film or slides, for having digital images for printing (I don't print so frequently in big format).<br>

The budget is not so high, so I think I will try an used Epson v500. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Alessandro, I am sure that you will be satisfied with your choice. Just be prepared to invest much time in scanning projects. Both scanning as well as the post scanning PS work will take a substantial amount of time.</p>

<p>Hi, between epson 4490 and V500 wich is better? With scanned file from 6x4,5mm film, what maximum magnification that I can get in print for a good quality?<br>

Thanks again to all and happy Christmas,<br>

Alessandro.</p>

<p>I have both: the 4490 and the V500 are the same scanner. The only difference is that the 4490 uses a fluorescent light and the V500 uses a LED. This was done for Epson's convenience. It makes no difference to the user.</p>

<p>The scanners are good for about a 5X enlargement. I shoot with 6x7 cameras. 8x10 prints from these flatbeds are quite good.</p>

<p>I just read this article, that doesn't speak highly of the v500 scanner: <br /> http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV500Photo.html <br /> <br /> However, the v700 is more expensive :(</p>

<p>For 35 mm none other than the Nikon 9000 or save your money and get mediocrity. If you want to do medium format as well the Nikon 9000 is it. The resolution in 35 mm from flat beds is only about 2200 dpi, not enough for 35 mm. </p>

<p>I have a V500. I find that by being a bit careful - the best results happen when I use Vuescan without sharpening, save a DNG and work with the color and sharpen in Adobe Camera Raw - I can get 35mm enlarged to about 8x12. There's about as much detail in the scan as a 6MP DSLR. (So Ken Rockwell would say you can enlarge that to 36x48 inches but that would be pressing your luck.)</p>

<p>My main complaint with the V500 is "ergonomics" - unless the negs are very flat, getting 2 strips in the holder and snapping them in is a big pain, it only takes 4 mounted slides at a time and the MF holder takes one frame at a time from my cameras (6x7 and 6x9). Betterscanning.com glass for the 35mm strip holder makes loading much easier and I might get the MF holder.</p>

<p>my two cents, it maybe easier and quicker to have them commercially scanned at the lab.<br>

i owned a coolscan iv, but after the invasion of digital camera, it has been collecting dust for some time, recently i have the need to scan some 120, the price is very cheap to do them at the lab.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a Nikon 9000 and am very pleased with the results. With a fluid scan kit, I was able to scan medium format with better results than the scan I got from a Tango drum scanner. It will cost you. I compared the results from my Minolta 5400 compared to my 9000, and the 9000 was by far better, even though the resolution was 4000 vs 5400 for Minolta. It's probably the Nikon Optics of the scanner. Now you will have to wait a month or more for the Nikon to arrive in the mail as there is more demand than supply. Everyone gets put on a waiting list, unless you are willing to pay extra to a few shady businesses that buy them for $2000 and then sell them for $2800. It's all about the demand. Nikon has ICE and other features that really help. If you are only using 35mm then save your money and go with a less expensive Nikon unit. Anything dealing with Medium format scanning is going to cost you money. Same with professional digital SLRs.</p>

<p>Hi J Marrs, $2000 is too expensive for me.</p>

<p>Three strategies I can think of. </p>

<p>1. Get the flatbed, accept the limitations on print size and quality that this imposes. Basically anything above proof size from 35mm wouldn't satisfy me, and personally I'll buy the 10" x 8" from 67 indicated above. Maybe your combination of expectations and viewing distances might allow you to get a little larger but you'll need to accept that what you say you can afford doesn't achieve the same quality as something like a Coolscan.</p>

<p>2. Get the flatbed, use it for on screen applications and small prints. Accept that you will need to put scans to make larger prints to a lab. This is getting to be pretty good value. It's what I do, after previously owning more expensive medium format film scanners. </p>

<p>3. Get a 35mm film scanner such as a Coolscan, which are much cheaper than the MF equivalent, and outsource all the MF scanning you need.</p>

<p>Which of these strategies to choose will depend on the relative volume of 35mm vs MF, how big you want to print. and the quality standards you expect. You can achieve a lot with a restricted budget. You just can't buy a scanner that performs as well as a film scanner for the price of a consumer flatbed.</p>

<p>Where can I get a new 135 dedicated scanner (in EU)? Is the Minolta 5400 (I or II) discontinued?<br>

Thanks again.<br>

Good evening.</p>

<p>I just found an old used acer scanwit (35mm dedicated) at about 50€. The scanner has scsi interface but the vendor sells also a pci/scsi interface.<br /> What do you think about?</p>