Fuji Frontier vs Coolscan

[screeny]

I did some searching but couldn't find a clear answer: I want 35mm slides

scanned (afterwhich I proces them through PS and have them printed on a Epson

9800 at a lab).

Untill now I rented a Konica Minolta Dual Scan IV for scanning the slides. I'm

happy but allways curious. So what will give better results:

buying/renting a Coolscan V OR having it scanned on a Fuji Frontier?

 

(actually it;s more a question on the scan qualities of the Frontier as I have

been reading a lot on the coolscan but can't seem to find some info on the

Frontier scan quality)

 

thx & cheers

 

Marc

[eye-of-searle]

Coolscan V.

 

I am not sure of the exacts specs but my scanned images from my Coolscan V yield 135mb files. Fuji scans are about 2mb at most. Fuji scans are OK for prints up to 5x7, but that's about it. You really start to notice the lack of detail larger than 5x7. In contrast, my Coolscan prints have been printed up to 12x18 so far and they look great.

[Ed_Ingold]

With practice, you will get far better scans with a Coolscan than from a commercial minilab. Scanning is not plug-and-play. It takes practice and knowledge to do well, much as it takes skill and practice in a conventional darkroom. With a Coolscan, you have much more control over contrast and color than you ever have in a darkroom, and generally sharper results.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

"I did some searching but couldn't find a clear answer:"...

</p>

 

<p>

<a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005pU

z">Are Frontier scans always this bad?

</a>

[carl_klitzke]

Frontier is "decent" scan quality, but my $75 Canon flatbed with neg holder blows it out of the water for end quality. The frontier scanners are WAY faster tho, 3-5 seconds scanning time and they come out pretty well for that. I have also seen a lot of variance from one neg to the next on frontier, I believe it reads dx coding and "compensates" if set up to do so.

[Stock-Photos]

I think I saw a Frontier machine in the Walgreens pharmacy. Would it be fesable for you to get sample scans of the same slide from each machine and compare? If you do, post it here!

[vsx]

<a href="http://vsxd.com/Frontier350/Sharpness.html">Frontier Sharpening</a><br>

You can affect that terrible pattern that looks like over sharpening if you are the Frontier operator or can talk to one that is capable of hitting the buttons. In fact over sharpening is exactly what it is IMO.<P>

On the above page you will see a picture of the control panel of a Frontier 350. The F5 key is the key that should bring up the sharpness settings on the screen when you have a negative in the carrier. The settings are Low 3, 2 and 1, Normal, High 1, 2 and 3. I prefer the Low 1 setting myself. The scanned images on that page speak for themselves - they were made using the NC135Y carrier - the standard 35mm strip/roll carrier for the 350 AFAIK. They were scanned at 10x15 @ 300dpi (roughly) and those images are 100% crops. This should also apply to mounted slide scans but I never tested that specifically. It definitely applies to 35mm scans made using the MFC10Y single neg carrier as well. I found no difference between the single neg and strip/roll carriers regarding this over sharpening stuff.<P>

The negative was a decent exposure and was either 200 or 400 speed film... probably Fuji but I can't be totally certain now. There are other settings within the Frontier's setup & maintenance areas that can affect how much it sharpens a negative going by what the frontier judges as under and overexposed. The average operator may or may not know where that stuff is or have the password/permission to access it. That F5 button isn't passworded though ;)<P>

The Frontier operator will never see these artifacts unless they go looking for them. The PIC software on the digital side never shows a full-resolution image on the screen unless you know how to get it. I have a love/hate opinion of the PIC software but then I only have experience with version 2.1.<P>

The Frontier 350 can scan 35mm at 10x15, 8x12 and 4x6 (all @ 300dpi roughly) without cropping much and doesn't do a bad job at all with 35mm IMO. Forget large format scans though... again IMO.<P>

I believe that any Frontier 300 series scan should be just like this 350's scans (assuming similar settings and whatnot) or very similar at least. I <i>think</i> the 500 series Frontiers use an LED light source and I have no idea what else might be different. I could be wrong though - only have experience with an old 350 :)<P>

***disclaimer***<br>

I do not work for Fuji nor am I a qualified Fuji tech in any way. I was never really trained on this machine, I was simply put on it and told 'any questions just ask' :) I'm simply an imaging geek (not a photographer) who gives a crap and happens to have worked a small family owned lab so I didn't have any stupid rules to follow that were set by some corporate exec in some office thousands of miles away as a means of keeping things efficient and simple. Nothing against those that have to work under those conditions - I can't fault them for not knowing about things they're not told about and could probably be fired for poking around to see what happens when they push different buttons.<P>

[jtk]

Great post from Sean.

 

The difference between the best Frontier scan I've experienced and my own Nikon V scans is obvious. The Frontier is wonderful within its low limits and for its humble, practical purposes.

 

At small sizes, such as letter size, Frontier makes perhaps-unreal, extra-sharp, contrasty, usually-attractive snapshots..better than any non-enthusiast deserves.

 

Not better than a 6MP digicam file printed by the same technician, no matter how good the film camera optics. I think Nikon V @ 4000ppi rivals darkroom 120, looks better than Canon 20D or Nikon D70. I think Nikon D70 looks a lot like Frontier, but 20D looks better.

 

Nikon V scans look great beyond my personal printer limit of 13X19, better by far than I'd expect from a wet darkroom, professional or amateur. Using a Nikon V, the image's limits do not have to do with the technology.

 

I DO think you can cookbook the Nikon's scans very nicely with minimal defaults, that you don't need to do anything tricky to get wonderful results.

[shay collings]

I am a Frontier operator.

 

For a start Fuji Frontiers are OPTIMIZED for C-41 and they do it really well, provided that

 

1) The Operator knows what they are doing

 

2) The Scan at the top resolution (16Base)

 

3) They leave sharpening to the Unsharp mask in photoshop

 

4) The machine is well maintained, film scanner is clean etc.

 

5) The frontiers AUTO CORRECTION feature is OFF when scanning to CD (This is not recommended when doing prints and CD at the same time as the auto correction works wonders for blown out highlights etc.)

 

In my experience with the 2 Frontiers I have worked on (340, 570) slides have never been a strong point, I have been quite disappointed with the results from either machine in their failure to recreate the saturated colours correctly. But like I said the are optimized for C-41 and they do it bloody well in my opinion.

 

All films being processed to CD are corrected by a lab technician for colour, density, shadow/highlight, sharpness etc.

 

For optimum quality scan ask for them to not make any corrections, turn the auto correction off (if they dont know how to do this find another lab) and if it isn't too expensive ask for 16Base JPEG images.

 

Also, as i posted in a similar post this morning, NEVER goto a lab that charges per MB to CD, a good lab will charge a rate based on the amount of picture not the file size (The frontier takes the same amount of time to process a 4Base picture of a black wall as it does to do a 4Base picture of the hippy van next door. Don't let them tell you any different cause it is S***)

[shay collings]

If your Frontier Operator doesn't know the machine passwords then:

 

0000 - Is the standard** password to most basic machine changes

 

7777 - Is the standard** technicians code allowing access to EVERYTHING

 

 

** - These are the standard codes and may have been changes by the respective company, they probably haven't though cause Fuji hates it when people change the machine codes.

 

 

Also the 300 and 500 series frontiers both use an LED light source.

 

Any questions about frontiers e-mail me plasmaglow@xtra.co.nz I'll see if I can help and if not, see if I can find out.

[ed_ralph]

I operate a Fuji Frontier 570 at work and can say that it is absolutely not true that the Frontier scanner doesn't have sufficient resolution. The Fuji minilabs print at 300 dpi and their scanners scan at precisely the resolution to give a file that will print at 300 dpi at the print size selected. For example, if printing 6x4 inches, the scanner will scan to produce an image of 1800 x 1200 pixels. The important point is that the Frontier does not scan at a higher resolution than it has to and then throw data away. The 570 can produce an 18x12" print and for that will scan at 5400x3600 pixels. This produces jpeg of about 5MB and 20 million pixels.

 

When set to scan to CD, most consumer labs will set the resolution low for the sake of speed. To scan for a 6x4 print takes in the region of a second or two per frame; for 18x12 takes a minute or so. Obviously, most labs that have 1 hour photos as their bread and butter cannot afford to have their lab tied up for half an hour or so on a single film. That would make no economic sense. For such high resolution scans one normally has to go to more of a pro lab that handles far fewer films and charges more for the service.

 

The important thing is the main limit of the Fuji Frontiers is economic and a question of time management, not technical.

[huyzer]

I'm 100% sure that my FULL-frame scans (see file attached below), all the way to the negatives sprockets (well, only to one of the edges: top or bottom on a horizontal/landscape oriented image) was scanned on a Fuji Frontier. Now I've been looking around for a lab that knows what I'm talking about when I ask for a full-frame scan. They say they know, but they don't, after I explain to them what I want. I'll include an example file that I get from a lab. Too bad there is those weird cross-hatch artefacts in them. I've been reading here on photo.net that it's due to the hyper-sharpen feature being on, and that it needs to be set to the -3 setting(?). Hmm, I've just read the above post: It has already been answered here: http://vsxd.com/Frontier350/Sharpness.html

 

Anyhow, I have a question now that I just came back from a lab that has the manual carrier, and the auto carrier. The assistant manager and I have been trying to figure out the dang blasted new software they've just installed. It seems as if there are different things that have been taken out compared to the older software (no passport printing ability was one he named). Anyhow, I finally noted that it was due to the negative carrier's (the manual carrier... also the auto-carrier) window that was the problem. I had assumed that all the manual carriers for the Frontier were larger than the 35mm image area. This was not the case.

 

So I'm still looking into what carrier it is, or maybe film mask that is needed to get the uncut roll of 35mm scanned full-frame. Can anyone help me/us in this matter? Maybe especially you Mr. Shay Collings. I'll forward this message to you.

 

Take care all.

 

Sincerely,

Huy (sounds like "we")<div></div>

[shay collings]

It is not about the carriers at all but the size the operator has the machine set to when he scans the film 6x4 for example has a 5% crop factor on a 35mm film which it divides over the 4 sides e.g. it take 1.25% from top, bottom and both sides, try asking them to scan as an 8x12 which still has a little crop but not quite as much or see if you can figure out exactly what proportions would get you a 'Full' scan then get them to set you up a custom size.

[huyzer]

Hi Mr. Collings,

 

As you say, about setting it at 8x12, and it shaving off a little bit still, that little bit irks me to no end. LOL. It's been suggested twice to me already that I should just step back, or zoom out a little to compensate for the crop, but I just can't see myself doing that, especially during a wedding. Plus, then I have to refocus, waste some more time, and I take a "long" time before shutter release (as I've been complained to from my nieces. LOL).

 

Anyhow, my rolls are in the lab now. Wish me luck.

 

Sincerely,

Huy (sounds like "we")

[shay collings]

Well Huy

 

After posting this I got to thinking at work the next day about the magnification that the frontier uses when scanning to attain the frame that you get. So when I get a quiet day (not likely in February) I am going to try decreasing the magnification to see the results, I will also try to get some screenshots of how to do so, in case your local lab is unaware of what you are asking them for. Don't hold you breath on the screenshot thing though because it means use the printscreen key and MS Paint and I don't like playing in the frontiers OS.

[shay collings]

SUCCESS

 

Picture taken on my F4 scanned at an 8x12 frame size, normal magnification

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5650059

 

Now same photo 8x12 frame size, smallest magnification possible

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5650118

 

Will try get frontier screenshots in near future.