Medium Format Scanner

[greg_allum1]

I am in search for a scanner, one that scans 120 (6x6) film...

I shoot solely in BW and am looking at a few options, I just wondered what people's recommendations are?

 

The Polaroid Sprintscan 120? (out of date now?)

Nikon?

Imacon? (too expensive?)

 

Can anyone point me in the right direction? Ideally I'd like to be able to print the images from the scan

afterwards, maximum size I'd probably go to is 20 x 20 inches.

 

What's the best scanner? best value? are they out of date?

[marek_fogiel]

Nikon Coolscan 9000 WITH the glass holder.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Nikon 9000 wet scans are your best option:

 

http://www.weaved.net/wet.htm

 

http://www.wetmounting.com/

[iliafarniev]

IMO quolity scaning starts with drum scanners, say Imacon and higher, Coolscan may do if you scan 35mm neg

shot with Nikon cam and to be published in news paper or similar. Go to pro labs and have them scanned few shots

and specify on what machine they did, then compare.

[Carl Stone]

The Imacon is not a drum scanner.

[chris_maryan]

I don't know about dedicated film scanners, but I get extremely good results scanning MF with an Epson V700 flatbed. Off hand I believe some of the cheaper Epson flatbeds can also do MF with their transparency adapters. The V700 can do 120 and even large format negatives, and the results are fantastic.

[Ed_Ingold]

<i>I don't know about dedicated film scanners...</i>

<p>

That's a common statement associated with flatbed scanners, and pretty much says it all.

<p>

The glass carrier (non-rotating) is essential for corner-to-corner sharpness with the LS-9000. Fluid mounting improves contrast, hides scratches and eliminates Newton's Rings. It does not eliminate dust and often adds bubbles to the retouching task list. It also takes about 20 minutes per frame for preparation and cleanup. The fluid is flammable, so keep your backup discs in a safe location.

[hjoseph7]

"That's a common statement associated with flatbed scanners, and pretty much says it all."

 

Can't you take their word for it ?

[Ed_Ingold]

<i>Can't you take their word for it ?</i>

<p>

I don't need to - been there, done that. The best flatbed scanner (consumer quality), the V750, has a true resolution about half that of the Nikon Coolscan. This puts medium format scans on a V750 in the same class as 35mm scans on a Nikon. It's easy to say you are getting great results if you've never seen anything better.

[iliafarniev]

The Imacons are virtual drum scanners.

[Carl Stone]

A scanner either is a drum scanner, using PMTs, or it is not, and the Imacon is not. Using a curved film path does not make an Imacon a

drum scanner. The Imacon uses marketing hype, not PMTs.

[iliafarniev]

Have to agree with Carl on technical terms. My point is about quolity, which imo starts somewhere about Imacon and continues up into true drum scanning. Conserning OP I was suggesting to try to scan on different macines and compare resultates.

[hjoseph7]

Here is a review of the V750(which I own) and the $2300 Nikon 9000L.

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_5.htm

 

 

I guess you get what you pay for !

[chris_maryan]

Let me rephrase that, I DO know about film scanners, I have access to a Nikon coolscan 5000-ed. However, I don't know about MF film scanners. With the coolscan, I get better results on 35mm, but that's because I'm usually stretching the scanner to it's limits to get a large blowup. Moreover, the coolscan costs $1100 and it only does 35mm. A coollscan 9000 (MF) is $2200. The V700 scans everything I can throw at it and only costs $500. And it does a pretty decent job with film, sufficiently so that I'm not motivated to spend the extra $. I have no problems making good looking 30x30 blowups from the V700 and MF film.

[Ed_Ingold]

Imacons us a lens and CCD array, the same as a Nikon scanner. The difference is that the Nikon uses front-surfaced mirrors to shrink the optical path, whereas the Imacon imposes only a lens between the film and the CCD. A drum scanner holds the film on a transparent drum, which spins while the sensor advances along the length of the cylinder. A drum scanner has only a single sensing point, a photomultiplier tube, compared to the thousands of cells in the CCD arrays of the Nikon and Imacon. The optical arrangement is similar between the Imacon and a drum scanner. A photomultiplier tube has a greater dynamic range than a CCD, provided low-noise, high-gain electronics are used and the tube is properly set up.

[jimsimmons]

I've had my local lab scan a 6x7 FP4 negative on their Imacon, then I've scanned that same negative on my V700 with Doug Fisher's variable height film holder with anti-newton ring glass. Then I've made 16x20 prints (on matte paper) from both files for comparison. I certain high detail parts of the image, I can see small differences. In most parts of the image I can not. If I then apply Bruce Fraser's sharpening techniques to both files, I can pretty much make the differences disappear.

 

Now, take into account that this is B&W negative, which is not dense enough to give the V700 a hard time. I can't tell you how it would handle the shadow areas in a Velvia transparency, but I can say that it handles colour neg and Astia nicely.

 

I've scanned MF transparencies on a Nikon 8000 and got results no better than my V700, however that machine did not have the glass holder, which is supposed to be critical to sharpness on these machines, and the machine was used by university students so could have been abused or out of alignment.

 

BTW, I took the Imacon/V700 test prints to my lab and showed them to the Imacon operator there. He was pretty impressed with the results. We acknowledged the differences we could find, but also recognized that at slightly smaller prints sizes, there was not much to distinguish between the two.

[Lou_Meluso]

I'm afraid Jim's experience reflects my own in regards to the Imacon 848 to the Epson V750 used with negative materials.. The Imacon scans show slightly better dynamic range and the inital scans are sharper. The trick to the Epson is using Doug Fisher's variable height film holders for MF film with A/N glass and a well considered post scanning sharpening approach. An amazing amount of detail can be teased from images on this scanner with that precision film holder. My 4x5 and 35mm scan results were impressive too using the Epson film holders. Considering it's versitility,quality and price, the Epson is great all around choice.