Need 35mm film scanner

Retired photographer...very retired....haven't touched a camera for about 15 years...

But I have about 10,000 slides I would like to scan...well...not ALL of them but maybe

pick a 1000 out of that...

 

Need 35mm film scanner...nice if it works on W10...but I have older OS's I can use

if I have to...

 

Want good sharp scans...But I think the big deal is some kind of auto feed device...

If I remember correctly...when the Nikon Coolscans came out....I think that was what

they were called....there was a device we could attach and drop in a load of 36

slides turn it on and go have a beer...

 

So....this is what I'm looking for.....what scanner choices do I have....

What do you recommend...

 

Many thanks

Coolcsan SF-210 Auto Slide Feeder for Coolscan 4000/5000. A complete setup is likely in the $1500 to $2000 range used! There are current alternatives depending on what sort of quality you want. There are the EPSON V flatbed scanners that can scan about 10 slides at a time, and the Canoscan 9000f as well. Then there are dedicated film scanners from Pacific Image and Plustek which have feeds as well. I scan using my DSLR, which is not for the faint of heart, so I will defer to others on the merits of all of these options. Check out B&H's Film Scanners Buying Guide for a start.

I have a Nikon Coolscan LS-4000 with an automatic slide feeder. The scanner is as good as it gets, but the slide feeder is prone to jamming. Cardboard mounts must be in perfect condition, without bent or frayed edges, and oriented so the folded edge is facing to the left. You can step away to have a beer, and IMO you'll need it.

 

The strip feeder and whole-roll feeder are reliable, as long as the film strips are cut between sprocket holes. The LS-4000 takes about 2 minutes per slide, which seems like an eternity (and for some, that may be a literal assessment).

 

For the less money, you could by a 24 MP digital camera, macro lens, and slide holder. The resolution is the same, but it only takes 5-10 minutes to "scan" a 36 exposure box of slides, including sorting and cleaning. If you are looking for archival quality, this is the route I recommend, and use myself. This method has been discussed exhaustive on PNET.

 

A flatbed film scanner is inexpensive, but slow and has limited resolution (about 1/3rd that cited above). That's good enough for Facebook and postcard sized prints.

You might want to search for "scanwit 2720" on Ebay. I've had one for years. The software it came with was junk, but it's well supported by Vuescan. The only catch is that it's a SCSI device, which can be difficult to support in a modern computing setup. OTOH, you're getting a high-quality scanner for ~$150, which may leave enough in your budget for an appropriate computer.

 

It won't do a 36-frame roll, but it will take 6-frame strips, has motorized feed, and autofocus.

If you use a digital camera you could modify a Kodak Carousel slide projector to do batch scan. Change the condenser in the projector to a diffused light source and shoot the slides. You can then quickly advance to the next slide.

I've done this, unfortunately more than once

2015: A scanning Odyssey - Nikon Super Coolscan LS-9000 ED also has links to other posts on scanning.

 

Some pictures were pasted in directly so just skip over the alphabet soup parts...

I have a Nikon Coolscan LS-4000 with an automatic slide feeder. The scanner is as good as it gets, but the slide feeder is prone to jamming. The LS-4000 takes about 2 minutes per slide, which seems like an eternity (and for some, that may be a literal assessment).

Ah, you should have seen how long it took to scan full resolution in the day, on a Leaf 35 scanner (like 30 minutes per slide). It wasn't as good as it gets but the Nikon never made anything that could touch it. Even my PMT drum (ScanView or Howtek) wasn't as good as it gets but we couldn’t afford a Lino Tango :). Now the desktop PIW (Kodak PhotoCD scanner) could make a mere 18mb scan, from slides in a Kodak carousel in 3 seconds. Pretty good quality.

Going back on topic, IF I had to do this toady, like the OP, I'd look seriously into a soliton outlined by BeBu, using a digital camera setup if ultimate quality isn't a factor but speed is.

But I have about 10,000 slides I would like to scan...well...not ALL of them but maybe

pick a 1000 out of that...

 

A thousand slides is not a lot and does not require an automatic feed device.

 

If you scanned 10 slides per day (about two hours, mostly likely less on a Coolscan V with the manual slide feed) it would take you about 100 days, just over three months, to scan your 1,000 slides. You (like me) are retired; there is no deadline, no due date. Take your time. Heck, take the weekends off and take six months. <grin>

 

You will need a good DAM (Digital Asset Manager) that allows you to put key words on your scans so you can find the images you are looking for later. I use Lightroom, but that is overkill, and since it is by subscription only, far too expensive for your purpose. Before Lightroom, I used the Organizer in Photoshop Elements. It worked well for my films scans and Elements will give you some editing capabilities as a bonus. If you wait for a new release to come out or for the Holidays, you can usually purchase the previous release at a good discount.

WWW.digmypix.com can do it for you economically, and they are based in Arizona www.scancafe.com can do it probably more economically but they send your slides to India. Both will do a great job for small money and save you from a lot of learning curve, time and drudgery. I scanned most of my slides that I cared about with a KM Dimage Elite 5400. Way too much work.

Scanning encourages the urge to blow your brains out. :)

 

Be prepared to spend a lot of time scanning and post processing. Be selective. Narrow the number of pictures your really need to scan. Get a second hobby you can do while you wait through the scans. If you survive, get back here and tell us how much you aged.

There's nothing difficult about scanning slides. Very little post processing is needed. Negative film is another matter. Sometimes it works, other times you can't get the color you want for love nor money. Feeding slides one at a time, or negatives in strips of 6 is very tedious, and you can't wander very far from the scanner.

 

I would shoot an event on the weekend, often 6-8 rolls, and have them ready to deliver by Wednesday (if diligent).

The only currently available new (and affordable) proper film scanners are made by Primefilm/Pacific Image or Plustek. Of the two, IME Primefilm (also sold as Reflecta) has the superior build quality. But as others have said; it's going to be a slow and tedious process using a scanner. You'll get almost identical and faster digitisation by using a 24 megapixel digital camera, which can also be used to actually take pictures when not being used to 'scan', rather than just cluttering up desktop space tethered to a computer. The digital camera is also entirely independent of computer operating system, associated software and driver issues.

 

The other alternative is a film-capable flatbed, if you're happy with less than pin-sharp results.

You'll get almost identical and faster digitisation by using a 24 megapixel digital camera

 

Since rodeo_joe keeps claiming this, I will have to keep saying that in my experience the copy camera technique is inferior to an actual high-resolution film scanner in both speed and quality.

It's good-enough for many uses, of course, if you're not doing too many scans.

I have many slides and can hardly stand copying them with my dedicated slide copying system (too busy taking and processing current images): I dread to think how awful it would be to do it with a scanner. Definitely agree with Rodeo that if you have to do it, use a digital camera/macro 1:1 setup. Great quality: but you will have dust issues even if you have kept your slides nicely.

Since rodeo_joe keeps claiming this

- Two side-by-side example 100% crops from a colour neg 'scan'.

One from a dedicated and good-quality 3600ppi film scanner, and the other from a 24 megapixel digital camera.

Which is which?

Guesses invited.

 

Here's the whole frame:

I am not going to go over this all again. Anyone who wants to can search this site for increasingly tedious discussions of this issue, or that is, you can try to search since the search function here doesn't seem to work very well any more.

 

A really careful copy done with a high-resolution camera, with great care in alignment, use of the best macro lenses, copy stand or light box.,, etc., etc., can produce passable results. I still say that a 4000ppi film scanner will be easier to use, especially when large numbers of images are involved.

 

FWIW, a 3600 ppi scanner is not actually as good as scanners like the Nikon Coolscan and some others at 4000 ppi. Above a real 4000 (not "interpolated") ppi, you most just get more definition of grain or dye cloud.

A dedicated scanner handles the presentation and alignment of the film with little or no effort on your part. Digital ICE can even remove dust you forgot to remove, or was re-deposited from inside the scanner. Exceptional scanners, like the Nikons, haven't been made for over 5 years, and are avaialbe only used, often without accessories, and at a premium price. For drivers, you need expensive software, or an operating system nearly 15 years old.

 

Slide copiers have been around for a long time, but of little use with film. Camera copies were expensive, of questionable quality, and encumbered by long delays to see your results. These simple devices have experienced renewed interest now that inexpensive cameras have 24 MP or higher sensors - equal to the resolution of a Coolscan LS-4000. If you already have such a camera, you probably not buying much film any more, but you can simply and inexpensively archive the film you have before it fades with age. Even if you have to buy a camera, you'll still have it when the copying project is done. It makes more sense to me to spend $3000 (or less) on a modern camera kit than the same on an obsolete film scanner.

- Two side-by-side example 100% crops from a colour neg 'scan'.

One from a dedicated and good-quality 3600ppi film scanner, and the other from a 24 megapixel digital camera.

[ATTACH=full]1301591[/ATTACH]

Which is which?

Guesses invited.

 

Here's the whole frame:

[ATTACH=full]1301593[/ATTACH]

Joe, the crops are different sizes. How can you compare?

Joe, the crops are different sizes. How can you compare?

- Qualitatively.

 

They're both 100% pixel-for-pixel. I could go back and put myself out to balance the sizes, but in my view they vary little in actual sharpness, especially when viewed at a sensible size, rather than pixel-peeping.

 

Plus, you get stupidly inflated numbers of pixels from the likes of an Epson V800. Pixels that are mainly empty of detail. How would you compare a camera scan to that? Equally inflate the camera scan? Downscale the Epson, and be accused of 'ruining' its definition? In short: Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

 

Just use your eyeballs on what's presented to 'em!

A really careful copy done with a high-resolution camera, with great care in alignment, use of the best macro lenses, copy stand or light box.,, etc., etc., can produce passable results.

 

Nope. It doesn't have to be that complicated or tedious at all. A good lens is key, agreed, but that can be a used enlarging lens picked up for relative peanuts - as was used for the example posted above.

When making a comparison between images produced at different resolutions, it is customary to resample one or the other so that the resolutions match, before selecting samples with a fixed size in pixels. For best results, the image is resampled before sampling, not aftwards. When a pixel-pixel crop is made, lower resolution produces lower magnification. The same number of pixels (e.g., 250x250) encompasses a larger proportion of the field of view.

 

Resampling is unnecessary if you are making a pixel=pixel insert to illustrate details in the overall image, resampled to fit the medium (e.g., PNET).

 

For the purpose of evaluating sharpness and resolution, pixel peeping is a valid tool. How else would you describe the pixel=pixel crop given above?

Edited July 4, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

- Qualitatively.

 

They're both 100% pixel-for-pixel. I could go back and put myself out to balance the sizes, but in my view they vary little in actual sharpness, especially when viewed at a sensible size, rather than pixel-peeping.

 

Plus, you get stupidly inflated numbers of pixels from the likes of an Epson V800. Pixels that are mainly empty of detail. How would you compare a camera scan to that? Equally inflate the camera scan? Downscale the Epson, and be accused of 'ruining' its definition? In short: Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

 

Just use your eyeballs on what's presented to 'em!

The photo on the right seems sharper but its smaller. Could the larger one on the left be magnifying artifacts? How would I know?

When making a comparison between images produced at different resolutions, it is customary to resample one or the other so that the resolutions match, before selecting samples with a fixed size in pixels. For best results, the image is resampled before sampling, not aftwards. When a pixel-pixel crop is made, lower resolution produces lower magnification. The same number of pixels (e.g., 250x250) encompasses a larger proportion of the field of view.

 

Resampling is unnecessary if you are making a pixel=pixel insert to illustrate details in the overall image, resampled to fit the medium (e.g., PNET).

 

For the purpose of evaluating sharpness and resolution, pixel peeping is a valid tool. How else would you describe the pixel=pixel crop given above?

I don;t understand what you said. I'm not an expert on these things. What I know is that if two pictures show different things and/or are sizde differently, I immediately discount trying to make a comparison which is "better". A viewer doesn't know what the photographer did in post. So how can he be expected to reasonably judge two different pictures? It's like trying to compare apples to oranges.

In the example, the same negative was scanned using different devices, a scanner at 3600 ppi and a digital camera at 4000 ppi. If you want to compare the image quality, it's best to make the subjects the same size. If you are sampling pixel=pixel, the best way to do that is to resample one of the originals to the same overall resolution.

 

You are really looking for resolution of dye clouds (or grain) in high-resolution film scans, which aren't affected much by resampling. Edge detail is less important, since it is only equivalent to about 6 MP (2000 ppi). If you can see the dye clouds, more resolution isn't going to help much. If you can't, then you don't have enough resolution for scanning.

 

You face the same issue when comparing results from lenses with slightly different focal lengths, e.g., 85 v 90 v 105. Resampling helps you compare micro detail in 100% crops. Images posted in PNET default to pixel=pixel in most browsers.

 

It probably doesn't matter whether you resample before or after cropping. In fact, resampling afterwards may have fewer artifacts. I avoid resampling or cropping from JPEG images, which generally have a lot of artifacts on close examination. I start with RAW or TIFF images, crop to TIFF images, then convert to JPEG for PNET display.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

OK. So which of the two pictures are better? Which scanner did it?