Medium Format Scanner

[carl chandler]

Can anyone tell me of a good Medium Format Scanner? I was interested

in the Epson Perfection 2450, and was told by a friend that the

printed outcome is not desirable. I'm on a limited budget and just

want to digitize my pix for now.

[jbq]

If you think of the 2450/3200/4870 as decent 1600 dpi scanners, you'll be happy with those.

 

If you really want to extract as much as possible from your film, you'll need to go for a real film scanner.

 

The rumored Epson F3200 may be a very good deal if it turns into something real (I'd love to have a $500 3200 dpi 4x5 film scanner).

[amelieeugene]

It depends how big the prints you intend to be. I found it very good for 8x10 "wet" prints from Walmart at 300 dpi, althought I have not tried bigger prints.

[dale_dickerson2]

Look at the example from the 2450 in the review at

 

http://www.virtualtraveller.org/epson2450.htm

 

I would say the most bang for the buck in a flat bed is a reconditioned 2450 and buy latest version Silverfast AI 6

 

http://www.virtualtraveller.org/silverfast/silverfast.htm

 

When you need really large prints, sent the negative to a pro lab to be scanned. Other wise for most uses this combination will work very well.

[madwand]

How much are you willing to pay? The $2000 scanners don't exist just because people have the money -- they perform better than the $500 scanners. Similary, for the $10,000 scanners, etc.

 

If all you can afford is the 2450, I say go for it. Spend some more time tweeking, and be happy with the results -- they'll probably be better than an apathetic lab's, and they'll be your results. There's a Yahoo group dedicated to this family of scanners.

 

If you can afford the 4870, surely it's somewhat better. And it has ICE, so that'll save you some dusting time.

 

And so on...

 

Note also that your results will depend on the film granularity and technique as much as on the scanner (not to mention the image). Noise reduction, sharpening, and colour calibration / correction tools can be used with all scanners.

[nick roberts]

Depends what you're scanning. If it's colour print film, it'll do a grand job - if it's Velvia, forget it, it doesn't have anything like the dynamic range to do the film justice.

[carl chandler]

Thank's everyone, for the input. I guess that ill buy the Epson Perfection 2450.

[pavelp]

Well, how much are you going to pay for 2450 and what size of film you want to scan? I'm asking because if you only need a scanner for 120/220 film, the Epson 3170 can be better choice. You can get it new for $199 (maybe even less) and it's more current than 2450. I'm gonna repeat myself be saying that this scanner is supposed to have better lamps than 2450 and 3200. I have scanned Velvia using the scanner (it did not get every detail out of film, but still did a decent job). My whole portfolio was scanned on 3170 (and it's pretty much vanilla, without excessive sharpening).

[gene crumpler]

I also have a Epson 3170 and I am pleased with the results scanning 6x6 and 6x7 negatives and slides. I got mine for $189 at CompUSA. I've made 13x19 inch prints on my Canon s9000 that are excellent.

 

If you will be happy with prints up to 16x20, it is a great buy!I don't know if they have discontinued the 3170. The only difference between the 3170 and the 3200 is not being able to scan 4x5 negatives and slides. I've had my fling with 4x5 a number of years ago and if I can't get a sufficient quality 16x20 from a 6x7 negative, then the picture does not get taken!

 

http://genecrumpler.home.att.net

[krimple]

I use an Epson 4870 to scan my B&W and Transparency 6x6 film shots. I shoot film with a Mamiya 6 these days (and also a 35mm). The images are, in my opinion, just fine for my use. That is, 8.5 x 11 to 11 x 14, and a few 13 x 19 images as well. I print with an Epson 2200.

 

The 35mm images are excellent, on par with what I was getting with my Canon dedicated film scanner. It is a bit slow, and ICE doesn't really work for me (or I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm doing, more likely there), but if I keep the scanner bed clean and dust off the images, I have very little to do. You may peruse my film galleries at http://www.rimple.com/albums/film which is scanned primarily with the 4870, and older shots with the 2450.

 

I would say the 4870 is a cut above the 2450, with much better tonal range and great B&W scans.

[perttu_luukkanen1]

If you're considering the 3170, please pay a visit to my <a href="

http://personal.inet.fi/private/luukkanen/3170_review.html">review. </a>

I've included a few medium format images as well.

[norris_lam]

I'm using epson 2450 to scan 120 and 4x5 slides. The outcome is very satisfactory when i print it on 13x19 inch (A3+ size) via the inkjet printer. The only complaint is the little bit bias to red colour which can be adjust easily via photoshop. Even it's resolution is upto 2400 dpi, i only need to use 1600dpi and it will produce a very good quality with suitable file size to run on my PC and Photoshop. If you are greedy on v high resolution, file size becomes large and Photoshop will perform slower. Another disadvantage is that it has a glass on top, so i am expecting the coming of new model f3200. But epson flatbed scanner is cheaper indeed.

[robert_martin5]

It depends on what your are after. I had an Epson 3200 scanner for a month when they first were available and returned it because scans were very soft and not as good as scan from a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II scanner at 1128 dpi for medium format film. The higher dpi on the Epson 3200 only bought me larger file sizes.

 

I now have a Nikon 9000ED and it makes fantastic scans. I now get something for the large file sizes.

[Ed_Ingold]

I have an Epson 2450, which I used for 6x6 before getting a Nikon LS-8000.

 

The 2450 is capable of remarkably good scans and color with both negative and reversal color film, up to 4x5 (the scanning area is 4"x9"). It is certainly a bargain, as are it's successors, the 3200 and 4870. A couple of years ago, Hasselblad threw in a 2450 with the purchase of a camera kit.

 

Adequate sharpness can be obtained through aggressive USM sharpening in Photoshop. The results are not as sharp as 35mm scanned in the Nikon, but are adequate up to 11"x14" enlargements, where a 35mm film scanner is clearly superior (but grainier).

 

To get the best sharpness, the film must be placed on the glass bed, emulsion side down. A piece of anti-Newton glass is put over the top with a spacer of some sort. I'm using a black matte board template about 1 mm thick. By my tests, using an engraved scale and a sine bar, the focal plane is at the surface, with useable DOF up to about 1.5 mm.

 

The software that comes with the Epson 2450 is not very useful, including SilverFast LE. It is very difficult to get good color with the Epson software, and SF/LE doesn't do batch scanning. I bought the full version of SilverFast (AI 6.x), which works very well, has multiple scans and dust reduction. There's no tradeup, but it only costs $115. Some like VueScan. Whatever! You'll tear your hair out if you don't get something.

 

You'll eventually want a dedicated MF film scanner to get results worthy of the larger size. In the meantime, you can get good results with little investment.

[marius_finkenhagen]

You should check out the CanoScan 9900F. Maybe It's a bit over your budget, but It's a great scanner for both 35mm and MF. Ive scanned all the photos in my portfolio here on photo.net with It and Im very happy with the results. It can scan up to two 6x6 negatives at the time and can scan up tp 3200dpi. Check it out!