A return to film..

[kparratt]

So, now having read through all of the above, what did I tell you at the top of the thread?

[ty_mickan]

Go for a cheap scanner such as Canon 8800f and send the really great shots for drum scans.

[fotografz]

MY advice would be be to indulge your "return to film" desire by sending for pro scans at first ... then go from there.

 

I have been scanning film for 10 years now, often for professional usage ... and now use an Epson V750 for scanning prints, large format films, and to make contact sheets. Good

scanner.

 

However, if you use a MF camera it's usually for increased image qualities. Personally, while I love the V750, I wouldn't use it to do any serious scanning of MF films ... even for 8X10,

or 11X14 prints. Dedicated film scanners produce better tonal range, capture more subtile characteristics of the MF lenses, and generally are more 3D looking than the same film

scanned on a flatbed.

 

Scans from my old Polaroid MF scanner still are better than the same film scanned on my V750. I sold that Polaroid scanner years ago and replaced it with a Minolta MF scanner that

was even better. Those Minoltas still can be found used from time-to-time. I sold mine for $850. to a Photo.Netter.

 

I now use an Imacon 949 ... and had to re-scan all of my serious work.

[erik scanhancer]

In the league of Nikon 9000 the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi pro should also be mentioned:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OX1U

[Ed_Ingold]

Charles,

 

"Sharp" is a subjective term, so let's put some number to it. The Epson V700/750 has a resolution equivalent to an LS-9000 downsampled to 2000 ppi. In short, the LS-9000 is twice as sharp on an objective scale. The LS-9000 has been cited at 3750 ppi using resolution targets. The highest credible value I've seen for a V750 is 2200 ppi, and that with considerable USM sharpening.

[mauro_franic]

Edward I know it is just your quick typing but someone may get confused.

 

Twice the detail; YES.

 

Sharp refers to the contrast level around edges. Nothing to do with detail. Detail refers to lp/mm for e.g. what are the smaller branches you can discern. Sharpening won't increase detail (it may let you see what you have though).

 

The epsons are soft AND have a forth of the detail (about one half linear) than the coolscan. Also have higher noise and less reach in the shadows and extreme highlights.

[Ed_Ingold]

Mauro,

 

You are quite correct that USM sharpening adds nothing to the resolution, only the perception of sharpness. I added this comment because most "reviews" of various flatbed scanners trivialize the comparision with film scanners by downsampling Coolscan results and using liberal amounts of USM sharpening on the flatbed results. I should have been more precise.

[charles_hess2]

Edward, you are talking techno-babble here. Sharp to the naked eye is sharp, and the naked

eye doesn't care what camera or lens or scanner was used. Something can't be more than

twice as sharp as another...to the naked eye, if the first something appears as sharp.

[mauro_franic]

Edward, I figured you meant that. Didn't mean to correct but clarify for others.

 

Here is a resolution test (I tested the 40D and the RZ67, Gene at DPreview provided the same test chart for the Canon 5D and the Canon 1DsIII).

 

In lines per picture hight:

_____

Camera: a) picture height / chart height b) resolving number = lines per picture height (a*b*100)

_____

1DsII: a)3.34 b)7.8 = 2607 lines (from Gene's test)

_____

5D: a)3.34 b)6.6 = 2206 lines (from Gene's test)

_____

40D: a)6.31 b)3.3 = 2083 lines (my test, a is higher because I had to shoot from further away)

_____

RZ67 scanned with a flatbed: a)6.31 b)5.5 = 3472 lines (my test)

_____

RZ67 scanned with Coolscan: a)6.31 b)11.5 = 7261 lines (my test)

_____

RZ67 film under microscope: a)6.31 b)14.5 = 9155 lines (my test)

_____

[mauro_franic]

I apologize for the line breaks not working in my post. If someone can fix most appreciated.

[mauro_franic]

Typo. Also it is the 1DsIII not 1DsII.

[Kent Shafer]

Though I stick by my praise of the V700, Id's still like a Cooolscan 9000 if they ever become available again. If that happens, I know one should also get the glass holder, but which one? The FH-869G or the "rotating" FH-869GR? It's unclear to me what rotates or why that would be useful.<p>

 

Also, would the same holder work for 35mm negatives? How about mounted 35mm slides?<p>

 

Thanks,<p>

Kent

[mikeseb]

@Kent: I have the nonrotating version. Like you, I'm befuddled why anyone would need the rotating one.

 

I guess you could use this holder for 35mm, but not sure why you'd need to. The standard two-strip 35mm holder, while glassless, pinches the film pretty tightly and in my experience, keeps it acceptably flat.

 

No harm in trying it, though.

 

@Marc:

 

I've wondered about the Imacon scanners, see that you use the 949. Are these still being made/sold new? Is the quality a mind-blowing leap up from a Nikon 8000/9000? And will it run on an Intel Mac running Leopard?

[thomas_janik]

Michael:

 

949 is discontinued, replaced by new X1 and X5; see:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/downloads/datasheets/scanner.aspx

[fotografz]

Micheal, yes they are still being made under the Hasselblad name (who merged with Imacon). The 949 is now called the Flextight X5, but is functionally exactly the same scanner as the 949.

 

It IS a quantum leap from any other desktop scanner I've used and approaches some drum scanners ... but without all the work : -) Everything I scanned on my Minolta MF MultiPro had to be scanned over because of the

visible difference ... and that is saying something given how good the Minolta was. It is the fastest high resolution scanner in the world and can scan 35mm films at 8000 true dpi in 2 minutes! 6X6 takes 1.10 minutes.

4X5 takes 1.23 minutes. I can hardly prep the next film strip before it's done with the one before. You can also batch scan. The D-Max is 4.9, and that number isn't some interpolated juggling of math either ... the

shadow detail is astounding.

 

 

Scans from the 949 can run with the big dogs ... I like the stuff just as much or more than from my Hasselblad H3DII-39 meg digital camera ... maybe more, since I like the look of film : -)

 

In short, it's a joy to work with. Big $$$$$$ commitment however. But if you're dedicated to film, why spend that much on a digital back when you can shoot film and still go digital?

[ted_norris]

I will add a vote for the Microtek Artixscan 120tf. When used with the Scanscience fluid

mounting system, it produces scans which are very close indeed to what I get from

professional drum scans. It does not have ICE, so you do have to spend some time spotting,

which is annoying, but the results are superb.

[yuri_huta]

Hi Nick,

 

I have started to shoot more film, Pentax 645 (and 6x7 as soon as it comes back from the shop) and have finally found a good deal on a Coolscan 8000. I got mine for $800 with the standard 6cm film holder as well as the glass film holder. The unit was sent to Nikon for an 'overhaul' prior to me purchasing it. I have seen this model going for $1000-$1200 pretty regularly, so you might consider the older model and maybe spend the savings on a fluid holder for 6cm film.

[yuri_huta]

last snetence should read: fluid mount holder

[mikeseb]

@Marc:

I saw the X1 at Calumet for a mere $13,000, while the X5 is $20,000. Not for the faint of wallet.

 

However, if the scanner is truly that fast and good, you could make the case that it would be a better value than a digital bsck costing at least $30k. As long as someone is making film, and as long as newer OS's support its software and drivers, it will not become obsolete.

 

All this is true, assuming it produces a similarly "clean" file compared to a digiback's output, and that the time required to scan and postprocess is similar to that with native digital capture. If so, this negates one advantage of the digiback--speed--though another, immediacy, remains in favor of the digiback.

[nick_england]

Thanks for the replies chaps. All good stuff to look into and pore over a bit more before deciding what to do.

 

Cheers,

 

Nick