MF Scanner for slides/negs

[dave_butler]

What are you using to scan 6x6 and 6x9 slides and negs? I'm in the

market for a MF scanner and would like to know about your

experiences. I'm an advanced hobbyiest and want to try out

Mypublisher's books with some of my MF work. I'm not sure what the

price range of the MF scanners are, but I'd like to stay under 1K, if

possible. If I check out the classifieds/eBay, which MF models should

I consider? Thank you.

[glen_johnson]

The Epson Photo Perfection 2450 is a very nice scanner, and it has a film holder that will handle medium format up to 6x9, as well as holders for two 6-frame 135 strips, up to four at a time 135 mounted slides, and a single 4x5 frame. The transparancy adapter (lid light) is actually quite large, so you can do transparancies larger than 4x5 if you want. I would expect such transparancies to lay flat enough to eliminate the need for a special holder.

 

The 2450 comes with Photo Shop Elements, Twain, and Silverfast FE. It can be connected to your computer via firewire, or usb. I was scanning within an hour of opening the box, and this was my first venture into film scanning. I have been quite impressed with this little package, especially since it has been available for $350 to $400. Some folks have criticized it since it doesn't have either ICE or FARE software (the Canonscan 2400 has FARE, for example). If you want to scan stuff that's damaged, ICE or FARE would be indispensible. For clean undamaged slides, a Static Master brush will do the trick, and if you've got stuff that's just dirty, PEC 12 and PEC pads will go a long way toward eliminating the need for special software.

 

I'm running it on a 1.5 Gigahertz Intel Pentium 4 with 256 Meg of memory and Windows XP.

[dave_butler]

Thank you for the info. When I went to the Epson site and read the system requirements it said that Win98se had to be factory installed - I upgraded my Win95 system to Win98se and included the USB drivers - I now use various USB devices without a problem, but I'm concerned about the 'factory installation' requirement. I could not find why the requirement is for a 'factory installation' of Win98se.

[erol_a.]

I've been using an Epson 1650 w/ tranny adaptor- while

obviously not the quality on chromes of a dedicated MF scanner,

negatives looked superb and chromes were certainly

acceptable. Then the tranny scanner decided to stop working. I

also use two Epson printers, one of which (a 1280) does not like

to finish it's print jobs unless I'm running Mac os9. Reinstalled

drivers a billion times, no luck. Epson service has never once

gotten back to me on queries. <P>So while Epson products are

fantastic, I urge you to shop cautiously. Their reliability hasn't

been superb in my case. A friend of mine has a Hewlett-Packard

that gives pretty decent results, so shop around.

[mel_brown1]

Dave, I found your question about "factory installation" interesting, so I called Epson to get a clarification. A nice lady there told me the reason for stating the Windows requirement that way is that there were several Win98 upgrade versions. She added that Win98SE, however installed, fully qualifies and will work just fine with the 2450 scanner.

 

Also, I noticed that their website doesn't mention Windows XP. She told me the scanner does ship with drivers for XP as well as for the earlier versions.

[miles_feigenbaum___dallas_]

Howdy Dave and friends,

A very good post; i have not had ANY scanning experience but am very interested in the 35, 6 by 7 and 4 by 5 modes for extremely sharp scans. I would rather wait until I can afford the near top end scanner than get something mediocre. The epson that you decribe sounds really nice although its difficult to visualize from posts. Any other cheers, jeers, comments on this unit or others?

thanks for the input guys!

m.

mfa1@ix.netcom.com

[erol_a.]

http://www.photo.net/photo/443481&size=lg

<P>

http://www.photo.net/photo/466130 (both BW

film) <P>

http://www.photo.net/photo/366113&size=lg

(c41, edgy pixels not because of the scanner; this was a low-

light handheld shot and ws a little soft and I oversharpened in

digitizing...)<P>

http://www.photo.net/photo/425178&size=lg

(e6)

[scott_eaton]

Most of the images in my <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=182542">"Portraits of the Garden" </a>were made with an Espon 1640 from 6x7 film. The 1640 is the little brother to the 2450, which I find outstanding in it's price/performance.

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

If you appreciate the quality of MF, and you use fine grain film, save up until you can find £2k+ for a 4,000 dpi Nickon Coolscan 8000 or the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 (which I have).

[scott_eaton]

I'd like to see a comparison between the Nikon unit and the 2450 - at 1200 dpi which is the limit most people scan MF film. I bet there isn't much a different at that rez.

[carbonado]

I'll add to the recommendations for the 2450. I scan MF at 1600 dpi, and works very well. This weekend I've scanned a couple of shots from my Kiev 60 and posted them in my single photos folder. A buddy of mine who has a Nikon 4000 was quite surprised by the results.

 

We found that the Nikon did, indeed, have less noise in the dark areas -- but not much less. Not enough (IMHO) to justify the whopping big price difference, at least.

 

My more pressing problem at this point is my monitor and color calibration. I've conquered -- for the time being, at least -- my scanner dilemma, but now I need to look into devices that can more accurately calibrate my system. The pix I scanned this weekend look much too dark when I look at them on different monitors.

[dan_sweet]

There is a LARGE test scan of the 2450 in one of my folders. Click on my name--its shot with a holga so not the best to test razor sharpness--but this thing will give you a 500MB file from a 4x5 if you really want one. I've printed 35mm at 13x19 so it will definately handle your mf/lf scanning needs.

[bob_tescione]

I, too, will be new at the scanning of film. Everything I've read about the Epson 2450 seems to be positive, which is good. I have MF films in the sizes 6x6, 6x9 and 6x17cm. The articles and literature say the 2450 only scans up to 6x9, yet I've heard that it will do 6x17. Do any of you have experiences along these lines.

 

Thanks for any help you may be able to give.

 

Bob Tescione

[patrick_drennon]

I have a Polaroid Sprintscan 120. When I need (or want) 130 mb

files it is the only way to go. It is very good at auto focussing and

produces remarkably sharp/detailed images........but.......I also

have an older Agfa Duoscan that is probably little different from

the output of the 2450.

 

There is little competition in the $/output ratio (PARTICULARLY

for web publishing). Get a 2450, then, if you absolutely need the

big files, have it done. It simply doesn't come up that often. The

2450 (or similar) will easily satisfy the 80/20 rule (in this case

80% of everything you need for 20% of the cost).

[dave_butler]

Thank you to the list. I will put the Epson 2450 on my shopping list.

Gateway.com is selling it for $379 with free shipping. And B&H is selling it for the same, with shipping between $15-26. Outpost.com is selling it for $399, plus shipping. Here is an interesting review link between various scanners. http://www.virtualtraveller.org/epson2450p4.htm

[mark_mitchell5]

Dave, if you're a sam's club member, I was there yesterday (Atlanta) and they had 6 or 7 of 'em at 349.00.

[carbonado]

I bought mine from Buy.com for around $340 and free shipping. I also bought the extended warranty for $20.

 

I've had two scanners die each only a couple months after purchase, so I figured the extra warranty would at least cover me with the 2450 for a year.

 

As I pointed out above, I'm really happy with the 2450. I'd like a Nikon 4000, of course, but after seeing the 2450 scans -- and seeing the price of the newer Nikons -- I'll happily stick with the 2450.

 

I plan to scan a couple 4X5's this weekend...

[edward_c._nemergut]

Although I don't currently own a MF capable scanner, someday I hope to have enough money to purchase either a Coolscan 8000 or a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. I haven't ever used an Epson flatbed, but I have heard good things about them--especially in terms of "bang for the proverbial buck." Nevertheless, I do think that the Nikon or Minolta (or Polaroid 120) probably produces a sharper image and certainly has a higher Dmax compared to the Epson scanners (although probably not 4.8 as Mionolta claims for the DSMP or 4.2 as Nikon claims for the 8000). A review of the Minolta (as well as a comparison with the older Epson 1640) can be found here:

 

http://www.photographical.net/minolta_pro.html

 

Whether or not the differences apparent in the above comparison mean much at at less than 11x14 remains to be seen...

[glen_johnson]

Or not seen.

[chris_patti1]

For a comparison between scans of the same negative made on an Epson 2450 and a (c.$6k) Flextight scanner, see http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=124550. I've been using the Epson for several months now and am happy with it.

[d.j._wilkins]

Hi Dave,

The Epson 2450 is fine for 6x6 through 4x5 -- even passable quality for 35mm with some sharpening to compensate for the diffusion light source (but very slow at 2400 dpi on USB - 8 minutes for a 35mm scan). At 1200 (and more slowly at 2400) dpi, beautiful results with 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5 work I've done. I was amazed, considering the cost (<$400). And it's an excellent flatbed for reflective copies if you need to do any restoration of prints. I just joined photo.net, so no photos up yet, but I'll put some 2450 scanned images up soon, along with other digital and scanned film images.

 

D.J. Wilkins

[brian_c._miller]

I also have an Epson 1650 Photo, and I also have the 4x5 transparency adaptor. I have found out that when switching from the 35mm light source in the hood to the 4x5, I have to power off the scanner. The Twain software will not automatically detect that I have changed light sources, and it will give me a 35mm strip instead of a 4x5 layout if I don't reboot the scanner.

 

My impression of the Epson 1650 is that the scanner inherently makes scans which are out of focus. There is a little checkbox on the Twain window for sharpness mask. This must be checked for decent sharpness, but it's still based on the software algorithm. I have one 645 E-6 (Kodak E-100) of downtown Seattle at sunset, and on the film with a 22x loupe I can easily count every window in all the buildings. The scan does NOT do it justice.

 

Otherwise, it's a really great scanner.

[Spearhead]

<i>My impression of the Epson 1650 is that the scanner inherently makes scans which are out of focus.</i><p>

 

My impression of Epson scanners is that one way they keep the cost down is by not investing heavily in the autofocus mechanism. I found that the scans I get from the 1640 were almost always well out-of-focus and needed huge amounts of sharpening. By contrast, the Polaroid SS120 I bought to replace the Epson requires far less sharpening.

[squareframe]

my new Epson 2450 requires much less sharpening compared to my 1640SU and 1200. the first two scanners were rather soft but quite useable. scans of 6x6 and 4x5 formats are excellent and film holders much improved.

[j.martin___]

Does anyone know if it is possible to buy a strip film holder for a flatbed scanner? I have the Linotype Saphir Ultra II, which comes with a holder for one 6x7; I guess it is designed for a slide. If I use it for a strip, it scrunches the other 2 frames. I guess it doesn't matter who the manufacturer is, because I can't imagine there would be much difference in thickness. If it is possible, does anyone know where they would be for sale.