scanner film medium format

[ymages]

I am looking for a very good scanner for film and negative (B&W) which one will you suggest ?

 

thank you

[leicaglow]

Nikon 9000.

[connor_roelke]

Epson 4490 if you're on a budget, Epson V700 if you have some money to spend, or a Nikon dedicated film scanner (such as the 9000) if you have no budget what so ever.

[ymages]

Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED seems very good , I have not really a budget (let's say 2000 to 3000 euros) I want something really good

 

thank you

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Yes, the Nikon 9000 is very good. A better scanner would cost quite a bit more.

[ymages]

Robert what is a better scanner ? Imacon ?

[pankaj purohit]

Cheap but great Canon 8800f.

 

I own this and tested this, performance in speed and quality are great, beyond expectations. Might be slightly lower in quality than Nikon 9000, but not as much as the price difference.

 

I bought this after testing the 4400f and 8800f demo at local canon store, you can also ask for the demos, Even I would say, doesn't mater what you are going to buy, but just buy after testing and than calculate all the things like quality, scanning time and prices.<div></div>

[jeff.grant]

Erick, if you are after very good, Imacon/Hasselblad would be where I would start. When I looked a few years back, the

Nikon just wasn't in the same ballpark as the Imacon when it came to noise, flatness etc. I would think that you should be

able to pick up a second hand one these days.

[jeff.grant]

and of course, there's always this to ponder: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

 

Shot on the deck of my old house a few years back.

[david_henderson]

You don't say what you want to scan for, and how many scans you might need. Both of these should impact your decision. For example if I wanted to scan mainly for the web with a small number of photographs scanned to make large prints, I might well settle for an Epson flatbed for the former and buy-in Imacon/Hasselblad virtual drum scans from a lab for the latter. If OTOH I wanted a significant and continuing volume of quality scans for medium sized and larger prints then the Nikon 9000 -which I have- will do the job and is about the only game in town at your budget.

 

Part of this also is whether you will actually like scanning. Personally I don't, which is a pity since I've spent the enormous amount of money the Nikon and glass holder goes for in Europe, but right now I'm happy to buy Imacon scans for about 8E a time , cleaned manually in Photoshop, rather than sit at a scanner for hours or days at a time preparing stuff for stock libraries. I think the Imacon scans look smoother and need less post processing than the Nikon scans, though I've had prints to about 50cm square made from the Nikon's output and they look pretty good to me. Of course time is particularly significant in the case of b&w work since you won't be able to use Ice and so manual cleaning is essential- don't underestimate this no matter how well you clean the neg and the glass holder. I think you need to reckon on 25-30 minutes to clean the neg, load the holder, make a preview, adjust, scan and clean up. Take ten minutes off that for colour work using Ice.

 

The Nikon 9000 is fine, though for the most demanding of purposes I can see differences between it and Imacon/Drum scanners, which for most people are uneconomic unless your volume need at those quality levels is very high. The real point here is to consider "hybrid" make and buy solutions if your volume & quality needs indicate.

 

Nice work, btw.

[ymages]

Thank you for the link Jeff

 

thank you David, I am looking for a scan for as large prints as possible

[stuart_richardson]

I pretty much agree with David here. If it is the case that you are looking for the best prints possible, then you will want

the Nikon 9000, a used Minolta Scan Multi-Pro (would be my choice over the Nikon) or an Imacon. The 343 does

medium format (but not 4x5), and it can be had for a reasonable amount of money. You are paying for a few different

things in the Imacons -- primarily scan speed. They are much much faster than any of the other desktop scanners like

the Nikon or Minolta. They also require less post processing work (though you need to make sure to put the sharpening

at -50, otherwise it will still apply sharpening). Their film-bending technique also ensures better sharpness than the Nikon

9000 or Minolta multi pro, unless you use those with the glass carriers (which you should, though be aware of dust).

<P>In terms of absolute resolution, the results are similar between the Nikon 9000, Multi-Pro and Imacon scanners,

though the Imacon's give you a better out of the box file. FlexColor is much more robust software than the Nikon or

Minolta versions, though it is a bit quirky and counter intuitive. In general, if you scan every once in awhile, but want high

resolution scans, get the Nikon or the Minolta. If you plan on doing it very frequently, the extra speed of the Imacon will

really be worth it. The more expensive an Imacon you buy, the faster it goes, though the resolution for medium format is

the same at 3200dpi (this is enough for at least 40x40in from 6x6...I have gone to 30x30 from it and it is still very sharp

with your nose in the print).<P>To give you a concrete example, this is a 6x6 negative scanned at 3200 dpi from the

Imacon: <P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/ghost-town-imacon.jpg"><P>This is a 100% crop from the area

just above the head of the figure. No sharpening has been applied. <P><img

src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/ghost-town-crop.jpg"><P>That would be equivalent to a much larger than 30x30

inch print.

[saulzelan]

I scan medium format for printing using an Imacon flextight precision III and love it. If you want to get a quick online comparison, check out my other website postings here:

 

http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/867449

 

most of the images were prepared from imacon scanned files from 6x6cm negs, the exception being the latest upload from istanbul. i think you can really see the difference even in the online images. I print up to 22 inches square on an epson 7600 from these scans.

[hiromu_kurosaki]

I am using V500, which is around $200. I am happy with the result, but also I am not using to print large. The only thing I don't like is it can only scan two 6x4.5 or two 6x6 and only one 6x7 and larger... Otherwise, it's good for $$$.

Hiromu

[ymages]

Thank you Saul

thanks Stuart I'll look for an Imacon 343

[erik scanhancer]

Erick, the Imacons are good, sometimes very good, but I see no real advantage in buying a 343 or a 646 over a Nikon

9000 or Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. Actually I have seen very worrying samples from the "cheaper" Imacons, that

were checked by the factory and declared "on spec". The same slides scanned on a Nikon 9000 or Minolta Multi Pro

looked much better in the shadows. These scanners can use multi-sampling which you can't use with the Imacons. It

takes some more time, but in the end they give lower noise. The Imacon 848 and especially the 949 are great scanners

though. They are actively cooled and the 949 has a built in light diffuser, giving much smoother grain structure and lower

appearance of small dust particles. The light diffuser idea was copied from my Scanhancer 5LE that I make for the

Minolta Multi Pro. Read an interesting review on the 949 here:

 

http://www.giorgiotrucco.com/articles/Imacon%20949%20Review.pdf

 

Also see a simple comparison between the Imacon 848 and the Multi Pro here:

 

http://scanhancer.com/index.php?art=35&men=10

[erik scanhancer]

Erick, the Imacons are good, sometimes very good, but I see no real advantage in buying a 343 or a 646 over a Nikon

9000 or Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. Actually I have seen very worrying samples from the "cheaper" Imacons, that

were checked by the factory and declared "on spec". The same slides scanned on a Nikon 9000 or Minolta Multi Pro

looked much better in the shadows. These scanners can use multi-sampling which you can't use with the Imacons. It

takes some more time, but in the end they give lower noise. The Imacon 848 and especially the 949 are great scanners

though. They are actively cooled and the 949 has a built in light diffuser, giving much smoother grain structure and lower

appearance of small dust particles. The light diffuser idea was copied from my Scanhancer 5LE that I make for the

Minolta Multi Pro. Read an interesting review on the 949 here:

 

http://www.giorgiotrucco.com/articles/Imacon%20949%20Review.pdf

 

Also see a simple comparison between the Imacon 848 and the Multi Pro here:

 

http://scanhancer.com/index.php?art=35&men=10

[erik scanhancer]

Erick, the Imacons are good, sometimes very good, but I see no real advantage in buying a 343 or a 646 over a Nikon

9000 or Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. Actually I have seen very worrying samples from the "cheaper" Imacons, that

were checked by the factory and declared "on spec". The same slides scanned on a Nikon 9000 or Minolta Multi Pro

looked much better in the shadows. These scanners can use multi-sampling which you can't use with the Imacons. It

takes some more time, but in the end they give lower noise. The Imacon 848 and especially the 949 are great scanners

though. They are actively cooled and the 949 has a built in light diffuser, giving much smoother grain structure and lower

appearance of small dust particles. The light diffuser idea was copied from my Scanhancer 5LE that I make for the

Minolta Multi Pro. Read an interesting review on the 949 here:

 

http://www.giorgiotrucco.com/articles/Imacon%20949%20Review.pdf

 

Also see a simple comparison between the Imacon 848 and the Multi Pro here:

 

http://scanhancer.com/index.php?art=35&men=10

[erik scanhancer]

Erick, the Imacons are good, sometimes very good, but I see no real advantage in buying a 343 or a 646 over a Nikon

9000 or Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. Actually I have seen very worrying samples from the "cheaper" Imacons, that

were checked by the factory and declared "on spec". The same slides scanned on a Nikon 9000 or Minolta Multi Pro

looked much better in the shadows. These scanners can use multi-sampling which you can't use with the Imacons. It

takes some more time, but in the end they give lower noise. The Imacon 848 and especially the 949 are great scanners

though. They are actively cooled and the 949 has a built in light diffuser, giving much smoother grain structure and lower

appearance of small dust particles. The light diffuser idea was copied from my Scanhancer 5LE that I make for the

Minolta Multi Pro. Read an interesting review on the 949 here:

 

http://www.giorgiotrucco.com/articles/Imacon%20949%20Review.pdf

 

Also see a simple comparison between the Imacon 848 and the Multi Pro here:

 

http://scanhancer.com/index.php?art=35&men=10

[gt1]

I couldn't be more thrilled with my consumer flatbed. 2400 dpi, no sharpening on the crop.<p>

 

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/getosx/disney.jpg">Full image here.</a><p>

 

I cropped the lower part of the image so you can't see the dedication text on the block wall but I can rescan later. This was from 2 stop underexposed 6x7cm Provia 100.<div></div>

[philippartridge]

B&W implies a craft approach; if that is how you work, the Minolta or Nikon are plenty good enough for anyone. Drum scans are a little better in several respects, but certainly not enough to justify the loss of control and shipping costs, scan cost, configuration (colour space, file size, res).

 

I am saying that the IQ difference will not tranform the image, and is strictly incremental. A friend has a mid-range Imacon; I don't like the lack of multi-pass nor the auto-sharpening. It is quicker to set up and scan fast but for my volume I can wait 20 minutes for a good 8x pass on a 6x7 scan from the MultiScan and the film flatness is fine once you set it up correctly; I feel the MS gives a better result than that Imacon from slow speed colour slide film like Astia/Velvia; but as with most of these comparisons you see it at 100-200% only.

[ymages]

thanks a lot Erik de G

thanks Greg and Philip

[hclim]

David, you are always complaining about slow scan times. Are you using a slow computer? I had been using a Pentium 4 (2.4MHz) and my Epson 4990 took 28 minutes for a 120MB scan of a 6x7 neg with ICE. I am now using a Core 2 Duo (3MHz) with the same scanner and parameters and it takes 11 minutes. Just something to consider.

[david_henderson]

HC Lim

 

Well I'm not convinced that my Dell is the fastest computer in the world but its not the slowest either and whilst I haven't timed it I don't think the actual scan time is over the 11 minutes you're getting, with Ice, and probably 16 bit.

 

Fact is we seem to view this differently. My views are based on how long it takes from pulling a slide from its storage page to having a finished scan on my computer with basic colour adjustments done, and all the repetitive, boring taskd between. It also reflects the sort of person I am- not good at repetitive tasks and easily distracted whilst doing them. If I manage to stick at it ( some doubt here) I reckon I'd get 3 scans an hour from MF transparencies with ICE or two from b&w with clean up time. More likely I'd get bored and wander off, or spend an hour on here, and achieve just a handful of scans in a day.

 

For me, the combination of a decent flatbed for web stuff or viewing on screen and a bought in drum scan or Imacon scan when I want a colur print seems to give me what I need.

[geoffrey goldberg]

A few facts to fill in - the Imacon 343 is a very good scanner. It also is glassless - hopefully wiht less dust to clean. Mine has no

ICE software, which can be a bit of a drag - altho Hassy now offers some diferent software to do this - I've never used it.

 

Also, the Imacon is no good for slides - they have to be taken out of their mounts - so if you are looking for some bulk 35 mm

slide scanning, a flatbed will do better.

 

There is something to be said for letting the lab do the scanning (mine will give 8 mb 6x6 scans for a roll of 120 film for about

$15), and then choosing the one you want and letting them make a good drum scan of it. This allows for the small file to be used

for viewing, and getting the large file only upon need. A really good drum scan is amazing but the Imacon 343 is good enough

for most large scale work also. I have no experience with the Nikon 9000.