choice of reasonably priced scanner for medium format film

[vartan_grigorian]

Although I don't want to give up on traditional darkroom work, the

fact is I use my 35 mm filmscanner more often. I am reasonably happy

with the results from my Nikon Coolscan III despite it having a

modest spec. by todays standards. Sharpness in an A4 print is good.

 

My previous experience with flatbeds for film scanning has not been

good. The question is, will a reasonably priced flatbed such as the

Epson 2450 Photo give results at least as good as the Coolscan III

with MF film in the 6x4.5 to 6x7 range? By as good I mean in terms

of sharpness, density range, noise etc. Does the filmholder hold the

film adequately flat? This has been a problem with my Coolscan on

occasion. I think the optical resolution is 2400 dpi which should be

adequate for MF. I am more interested in empirical evidence rather

than the manufacturers specs. Are there other scanners that I should

consider up to about £600? I would rather have a SCSI interface so

that I don't need new hardware. I would like to print up to A3 when

I upgrade my printer.

 

Obviously a specialised MF film scanner would give the best results,

but this will complement a wet darkroom and I can not afford £2000+

prices.

[hans_sachs]

<center>

<img src="http://www.ravenvision.com/images/denisepumpkin.jpg">

</center><p><center><i>Denise [w/pumpkin], Winter, 2002</i></center><p>

I've gotten decent results from B&W, acceptable results from color, with an HP 7400c scanning 6x6 negs. Sharpness good, compressed dynamics, some very minor banding. But what do you want for $500?

[tom_bowling1664874721]

Vartan, I have one of these 2450s. I like it but you have to take my comments with a pinch of salt... I am completely new to digital photography (but not to photography - learned it at art school 25 years ago).

There is a problem with film flatness which comes from the natural curvature of the terylene base, as you know. The holders are as good as they can be, but without glass they don't hold the film flat. My cure is to put the film in the holders emulsion side up. The holders are much better at holding it relatively flat that way round. Then you can just reverse the image in photoshop. The scanner will scan at 2400 or even 4800 dpi. I have made 4800 dpi scans for 21/4 sq, but the files are very unwieldy. I have a 900Ghz computer with 1/2 a Gbt of memory and it runs out of puff manipulating them, even though I followed all the instructions abt memory allocation. 2400 is adequate, anyway, even to print the squar neg on A3. If like me you have a fast isp connection drop me an email (john.milne@orange.net) and I'll send you some big files I did of landscape slides on the Epson and you can tell for yourself.

[daniel_kreithen1]

I've owned my 2450 for a few weeks now. I have scanned both 4x5 and 120 negatives (of various sizes), but only B&W. In short, it's a great scanner FOR THE MONEY. It is not the equal of the Nikon 8000 or the Polaroid 120, but it's much less expensive. The procedure that I've followed that works best is: put the film directly on the glass, emulsion side down to avoid Newton's rings. You can flip the image later in Photoshop. Place the film "carrier" on top to hold the film flat. Scan as a color transparency (to obtain the 3 color channel output) at full resolution (actually "2400 dpi"...more later about this). In photoshop, flip the image, and use channel mixer to average the three channels (actually, my first examination showed the blue channel to be noisier than the other two, so I just use red and green). Then invert to get the image. I've been getting really nice looking 13 x 19 inch prints using Nik Sharpener Pro Inkjet for sharpening and Piezography for printing with these scans (1200 dpi for 4x5 film, "2400" dpi with 6x9). I have also produced very nice looking 11x14 prints from 6x4.5. Based on my anecdotal evidence I would estimate the actual "resolution" to be closer to 2000 dpi than the stated 2400 dpi...but resolution measurement is a slippery thing and I have not made any methodical observations. I say this because it seems to support about a 5-6x enlargement before the image begins to "fall apart". This is sufficient for 13x19 from 6x9 negatives and 11x14s from 645 negatives.

 

I haven't used it for color scans except for a single 4x5 slide, which I have not yet printed or examined closely. Also, I have experienced problems with the display using the included software (the Epson driver and Silverfast SE). Possibly a video-card issue, but I have not investigated. I have used Vuescan as my driver without a problem, and it preserves full bit depth, which I'm not certain either of the other drivers do.

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

Hi Vartan.

 

(I have recently purchases a MF neg. scanner, and an A3 printer.)

 

This raises several questions:

 

What MF lenses/film do you use?

 

Do you use mostly colour or mono, negs. or transparencies?

 

Do you want to scan mounted transparencies?

 

Which A3 printer are you contemplating?

 

Do you use PhotoShop or which software?

 

What advantages would you expect or look for in a scanner as opposed to a wet darkroom? One of the most obvious is repeatability for multiple prints - but you could get this for the occasional print run by using a bureau scan or making up the print file to MF resolution by joining scans from 35mm originals.

 

If you want to be sure of being able to get the negs. absolutely flat, then you need the option of a glass film holder, which is probably not available in your target price range (it is available on the Nikon 8000, but not on the Polaroid PrintScan 120).

 

The requirements for a scanner are similar to those for a camera, lens or enlarger: resolution, contrast, latitude, saturation, speed, compatibility.

 

With a scanner or the associated hardware/software bundle you look for features such as sharpening, grain reduction (this is not a problem when you use low res. scanners on fine grain film.) software perspective correction and picture joining.

 

As previously discussed, scanning 6cm @ 4,000 ppi gives 9,000 pixels which gives 38.1 cm @ 600 ppi, which neatly nearly fills an A3 sheet (42cm) on an HP printer, but Epson printers work on (sub)multiples of 1440.

 

Pixel to pixel printing eliminates loss of resolution through scaling.

 

How much better are the £2,000+ scanners?

 

I have not really found my way round my equipment yet, but, if you would be interested to see if you think they are significantly better, send or bring me a neg. or two, or give me your address so that I can send you a print of one of my MF transparencies.

 

I have a Polaroid SprintScan 120 and an HP Deskjet 1220C.

Dick

[eric friedemann]

I haven't bought a scanner, yet. I am, however, drawn to the Minolta DiMage mulit-format scanners that come with masked carriers for 35mm and 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9. I find this appealing, as I have medium format images of all shapes and sizes. The 2820 d.p.i. scanner with the SCSI interface is $1,550 at B&H- 1,075 British pounds.

 

The Nikon Super Coolscan 8000 ED (4000dpi 35mm/Medium Format) Film Scanner is a beauty. However, the $3,000 price tag leaves me gasping for breath.

[david_f._stein]

The Epson 2450 seems to be getting high marks and I have always had

EXCELLENT technical support with Epson products. Because higher

resolution scanners are coming out, however, there are great values

right now on the previous generation ones. Don't discount something

like the UMAX Powerlook III, which I see is about $700 right now and

what I consider of professional build quality. It may come with both

reflection and transparency targets-at least Linocolor's version of it

does. It's not super-fast but you have a full 8x10 transparency area,

42-bit ouput and UMax has a nice duo of software Twains-Vistascan and

Magicscan. It is a SCSI connection. At 1200 dpi, you will get files

from 120 film that can print about 9x13 inches at 360 dpi printer

output. If you print at 240 dpi output to an inkjet printer, you

could go higher. Many times I think the quality limitation is still

the original-for me, the finer grain films scan better. "Resampling"

utilies like Genuin Fractals and Nik Sharpener still need lots of

data-there is no magic bullet to getting larger prints-I have only

tried demos but think Photoshop can resample as good as anything else

out there. As much as I enjoy inkjet printing, I suggest an

experiment. Take a nice file and upload to a service like Ofoto and

order a laser enlarged print on photo paper-then compare to

[audidudi]

Although it uses now-outdated technology, the Minolta Scan-Multi isn't a bad deal for the money. I purchased a factory refurbished one for a little over $1100 last spring and it has enough resolution to allow me to print excellent quality 8x8 to 10x10 prints using an Epson 1270. I have also used Genuine Fractals to up-res the files enough to print at 20x20 with a friend's Epson 7000 and with a good original, the results are quite impressive. A friend recently purchased a Polaroid 45i on a closeout deal and paid only $1975 for it new-in-the-box. It will scan medium- AND large-format images at 2000spi and can reach a bit further into the shadows than the Scan-Multi.

 

If you do go this route, though, I recommend using Vuescan instead of Minolta's software. At $40 with lifetime upgrades, it's a steal.

[vartan_grigorian1]

Thanks to everyone for your input. It looks as though the Minolta Dimage Multi may be a better option than the Epson 2450 even if the optical resolution is lower. It is a bit more than I wanted to spend however. It does have the advantage that it could also be better for 35 mm than my Coolscan III (~same resolution but greater bit depth and dynamic range). If I buy an Epson C80 instead of an A3 printer this will compensate for the cost somewhat. I would like A3, but am tempted by the claimed 70 year life of the C80 prints.

[vartan_grigorian1]

Incidentally I have used an Epson GT7000 Photo and found it unacceptable:

 

1. Optical resolution is too low for MF film (600 dpi) though okay for 5x4.

 

2. Poor dynamic range (okay for some negs but struggles with chromes).

 

3. Noise in the shadow regions.

 

4. Bad film holder design (does not hold film flat).

 

It would have been okay for web postings, but struggles even with an A4 print from 6x7. All of these criticisms apply to my Coolscan III to some degree as well. Despite this, with some tweaks and by combining seperate scans for the highlights and shadows (if needed) I can produce nice, sharp, detailed A4 prints from 35 mm.

[vartan_grigorian1]

Although I'm not usually a great proponent of 'testing'; unless you suspect malfunctions; out of curiosity I did attempt to measure the actual resolution of my Coolscan III. What I did was to scan a minature glass USAF 1951 resolution target. The optical resolution is 2700 dpi. This translates to ~53 lp/mm if you use the Nyquist criterion. What I measured (after carefully focussing) was in the range of 35~45 lp/mm depending on the orientation of the bars. This is considerably below what I read in another test on the web (don't have the URL to hand) but pretty much what I would expect.

[vartan_grigorian1]

I forgot to say that there was very pronounced colour fringing as well. This is not meant to be overly critical. When I bought the scanner, a few years back, it was amongst the best in its price class. Despite its limitations it does what I consider to be an acceptable job.

[audidudi]

One point I neglected to make: The Minolta Scan-Multi sucks for 6x4.5 originals. I shoot 6x6 and 6x7 so this doesn't matter to me but I've scanned some 6x4.5s for a friend and it was difficult to print a good 8x10 from them.

 

One other point: Where I live, there are at least two camera stores that will rent you a Scan-Multi for ~$50/day or $75/weekend. This is perhaps the most cost-effective approach since you can easily scan 25 or 30 images a day before driving yourself nuts -- i.e., a per-scan cost of $1.25 - 1.50 -- and somebody else gets to take the depreciation hit. The only reason I eventually bought one of my own was for the convenience of being able to make scans as needed rather than waiting until I had assembled a large batch. Prior to this, I happily rented one twice a year.

[vartan_grigorian]

I agree that the optical resolution of the original Dimage Scan Multi is a bit low (1128 dpi for MF). Has anyone used the Dimage Scan Multi II? This delivers a true 2820 in the middle region and for 35 mm and uses software interpolation and a smaller step size to get 2820 dpi over the rest of the area. I think that the filmscanner may have a better dynamic range and less noise than a flatbed such as the Epson 2450. This matters more to me than sheer resolution.

[squareframe]

> I think that the filmscanner may have a better dynamic range and less noise than a flatbed such as the Epson 2450.

 

this statement tells all. the rubber meets the road, when you take two scans using a flatbed and a filmscanner and compare them directly, without conjecture or continued propagation of myth and photo lore. enlarging as actual pixels may yield differences, and they will. the question is, when printing the image file, does the print process mask these differences such that the performance versus cost comparisons tend to converge. resample to print resolution and assess these differences. I also match my media to better optimize the process. I can scan TMax negatives using an Epson flatbed, well within the Epson bandwidth, that are indistinguishable and many times better, than the film scanner equivalent. better, because I have more control and greater options.

 

I am not arguing against the performance of film scanners, as there are many applications that require the high resolution and range. not all applications are best served however, especially when the monies could be better spent elsewhere.

[vartan_grigorian]

The fact is my experience with an old Epson flatbed indicates that the film holder was inadequate to hold the film even vaguely flat. The images were really noisy in the shadow areas. Unless the 2450 is considerabley better in this respect (and it may be) I have doubts if I will be happy with it. If the image is out of focus the seemingly high optical resolution is irrelevant. I am not a huge fan of spending money, but I want something that works properly, not a poor compromise. I can always wait a bit until I can afford what is required to do a good job.

 

The printing process is a worth another thread in its own right. In my experience a poor scan yields a poor print regardless of what media you select.

[Spearhead]

Don't go just on resolution numbers. The UMAX Powerlook III produces far better scans than the Epson 1640, despite stated lower resolution. I haven't tried the new Epson as I gave up on the 1640 (a real waste of $400) and bought a film scanner. There are good flatbeds for scanning, but I don't think a flatbed cheaper than $500 is going to compete with any film scanner.

 

Also, when you do 35mm, you will see a huge difference.

[vartan_grigorian]

I have already stated that resolution is not the only criteria. I have no intention of using a flatbed for 35 mm scans. That is my question, what flatbeds will produce good MF scans and are they better than the Epson 2450? The Minolta Dimage Scan Multi or Multi II looks like a reasonable albeit more expensive contender that may be better than a flatbed.

[squareframe]

since this is a medium-format forum, it is appropriate to reference scanning medium-format negatives. 35mm needs the resolution. Velvia needs the Dmax, your grandmothers wedding photos need the flatbed.

 

I use the Epson 1640 and it is an excellent performer, especially for the cost, so I will disagree with Jeff Spirer. I made the same comparisons, and identified how to best select my media to optimize my scanning results. though it can be a cost issue, everyone seems to want to agree that spending $3000 on the Minolta scanner, scanning at 3280spi, massaging half-gigabyte files in Photoshop, and dumping their resampled equivalents to an inkjet printer is Nirvana. why talk about it and simply do it? when you evaluate the comparison prints do you find that there are other parameters within the process that mask out the performance gains. perhaps everyone is making poster-sized prints?

 

the rants I hear are something like 'your $300 Epson pales (sucks) compared to my $12k Imacon'. ok, agreed, but by how much? I don't advertise it, because I felt the setup was too rushed, but I preferred a comparison scan from an Epson 1680 to what I got off the Imacon. once I saw that, and assessed the density of my standard TMax negatives, I realized that affordable flatbed technology had come of age.

[Spearhead]

I have a long list of problems with the 1640, all of which I have seen documented by other people. Most notably, the autofocus is poor, and doesn't always focus in the same place twice. I get some banding and some clumping in large solid areas. The shadow detail is definitely less than the UMAX.

 

I don't know why you are stuck on a flatbed. Really good flatbeds for film scanning like the Heidelberg Linoscan products cost as much as a film scanner.

[squareframe]

I am not stuck exclusively on a flatbed. I have both flatbed and film scanner. I do however, champion the medium and large-format scan performance to cost ratio afforded by the newer Epson scanners. as mentioned previously, I also feel strongly that the process can modified by the photographer to a degree, as to optimize results.

 

my true thoughts surround finding a general purpose, cost-effective scanner and be done with it. my best images have been taken with a Holga and a Rolleicord, the engineer in me long ago realized what I need in scan requirements, and I've long since gotten bored with this idea of assuming a 10% gain in scan performance equates to Ansel Adams blowing magic dust across my print.

[godfrey]

I have been using the Epson 2450 for several weeks. I find the

results just a hair soft but they clean up nicely with Photoshop,

working with 645 and 6x6 negs. I've scanned Minox negatives

with it (8x11mm) and made surprisingly good 4x5" prints from

them. <BR><BR>

It's probably not the equal of a dedicated film scanner 4-5x the

price, but the 13x19" prints I've made don't know that. :-)<BR>

<BR>

 

Two examples on my web page at

<A HREF="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/

epson2450test/e2450.htm">http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/

photostuff/epson2450test/e2450.htm</A>.

[brian walsh]

<I>. . . [W]hat flatbeds will produce good MF scans and are they better than the Epson 2450?</I><P>

 

Epson also produces more robust scanners in the 1680 series. They can handle denser materials (Dmax is 3.6 vs the 3.3 for the 2450), and feature a precise stepping motor which can apparently handle multi-pass scanning. The issue of Photo Techniques now on the shelves includes an enthusiastic review of the scanner.<P>

 

I just purchased the 2450, and--while I'd much rather have Jeff's Sprintscan 120--I'm rather pleased with what I can produce with it and an Epson 1270 from 6x7. I agree that matching the materials to the scanner may be fruitful; Velvia may not be the material of choice. . . .<P>

 

With respect to noise, you might wish to investigate software such as Holographic Technologies' Photo-Sampler, which can be used to compare two or more scans and filter out the random noise.

[audidudi]

There is no mechanical difference between the original Scan-Multi and the Scan-Multi II; the only difference is the software and Minolta is asking $100+ for the upgrade here in the U.S.

 

Vuescan, on the other hand, costs only $40 and is also able to scan a 24mm-wide strip down the middle of each MF frame at 2820spi. Minolta sells a Universal Film Holder for ~$350 that allows you to make three passes with good registration and then stitch them together with your choice of editing program. With some minor machine work, you can put together an improvised version of this (very, very) costly holder for less than $100 (including a brand-new replacement MF holder!) that is every bit as effective. (I've done this myself and while it's a PITA and time-consuming to work with, it DOES work.)

 

Best of all, Vuescan also allows you to make multiple scan passes for each increment of the stepper motor (i.e., before the film is moved), thereby avoiding the registration problems that affect other scanners that must make several separate passes instead to accomplish the same thing. By averaging these scanning passes together, the software can eliminate a lot of the random noise that surfaces in shadow areas and thus slightly improve the scanner's effective dynamic range.

 

With regard to the Epson 1640, I carefully evaluted this model before purchasing my Scan-Multi and decided that for my images, it wasn't as good a performer as the Minolta nor was it good enough for me to live with anyway just to save a few bucks. YMMV, of course, but for me, I have no regrets about my decision since there is no way I could bring myself to spend the extra $1500-2000 necessary to move up to the next level of scanner performance. This may change in time but for now, I am happy to live with the Scan-Multi for my day-to-day scanning needs and pop $50 for a drum-scan when I need something better.

[vartan_grigorian1]

Interesting information Jeffrey, thank you and everyone else for your contributions.