Scanning color negatives. Can this be done?

[stevecolemanaus]

<p>I've seen a number of people make reference to scanning color negativies then putting these on their web sites as 'positive' color images. I had assumed that you could only scan transparencies or prints?<br>

How is this done and what software would i need to do this.<br>

Im looking at an Epson V700 and SilverFast or SilverFast Ai. Will these allow me to do that?<br>

Many thanks in advance for you help... :)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Sure! Some of the flatbed scanners will do film too. I think there are some epson models, but I don't know which ones are capable.</p>

<p>You can also do like I did. I have a dedicated film scanner -- a Minolta DiMage Scan Dual IV, which is probably a dinosaur now. I bought it to scan my old negatives. It scans both negatives and positives (slides) -- both color and B&W.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>You'll have to look at the Epson site and see which ones do it, and the numbers relating to the scan.....</p>

<p>I have an Epson Perfection 2480, which scans 35mm only. At its <strong>best</strong> quality, it is really <strong>BAD</strong> . Best of luck to you...Bob</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The main problem with most color negative films for scanners is that they are masked (e.g., the orange color of the film on Kodak negatives). I think that almost all modern and many older scanners (including <em>my</em> dinosaur Canon FS4000) handle the masking very easily. Usually, this will be done automatically, although in a few, rare cases you may have to manually "invert" the colors if for some reason the scanner doesn't recognize the film as being negative.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>My DiMage is pretty good. It's a bit slow, and it's horrible at scanning documents, but it's not half bad with film, churning out rather high resolution 16bit files. I think it cost me a few hundred dollars several years ago. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Sarah & Steve, try using the <a href="http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html">VueScan</a> software. I've found that it speeds up my Canon FS4000 considerably when I use that instead of the older Canon software (which has not been upgraded for newer OS anyhow).</p>

<p>If you try it and like it, buy the professional licence which gives unlimited upgrades. This one is worth supporting. It even resurrected my ancient Hewlett-Packard flatbed. On my recent Canoscan 9950 it's a toss-up whether it is not better than the Canon software, and it is certainly more "tweakable" to fine tune than is the Canoscan software.</p>

<p>Since I seem to be pushing VueScan today, I note that I have no connection whatsoever to the company other than as a satisfied user. It is available for all the popular OSs.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

<p>How many negatives do you have to scan? Might be easier to let a service bureau do it. Cheaper too, if you have fewer than 10. Another possibility is to visit Kinkos and do it yourself on their scanner. I would not recommend getting involved in scanner software with less than 100 negatives to scan. The learning curve is steep.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Earlier: "... <em>My DiMage is ... horrible at scanning documents</em> ..."</p>

<p>Sarah,</p>

<p>What "DiMage" model do you have? I thought it was a Minolta trademark name, and all DiMage scanners were dedicated film scanners, not document scanners. Please, do tell!</p>

<p><a href="http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products/index.html">http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products/index.html</a></p>

<p>.</p>

[yoshio]

<p>Hello</p>

<p>yes you can scan negatives, it may be in some ways considered preferable to scanning slides because negatives can present less challenge than slightly darker slides. If you are using 35mm I suggest you simply get a Nikon scanner and do not use the Epson. It is true that the Epson will be sufficient for making scans for many purposes but when you try to cope with dust on the film (almost inevitable) you will regret not getting a scanner which actually implements ICE well (and that is not the Epson). I suggest you get one of</p>

<ol>

<li> LS-IV (or called LS-40 in some places)</li>

<li>LS-V</li>

<li>LS-4000</li>

<li>LS-5000</li>

</ol>

<p>in order of preference (priortising on cost benefit). Models earlier than those are not worth it with todays computers. The scans will be faster and you will start out happier.</p>

<p>There are many 'myths' about the orange mask and people will argue this and that about it, but I will say that the real trick in making good scans of your negatives is to understand that the levels and intensity of R G and B are not the same (unlike slide film which must be). It may seem complex but if you look at the Figure below you will see that for recording a brightness level quite different density is recorded on the film. This means that your 'histogram' of the scan will be specificaly shifted if you follow the same procedures used for slide or color print scanning. So the solution is simple ... do not :-). Most scanners have software systems have simple automated tools to get you started, but I encourage you to look into the details as soon as you can. There is no magic in it and getting your feet wet early will help you to learn faster and make better scans sooner.</p>

<p>Fuji (and Kodak) now make negative films which are built with scanning in mind (Pro160 S for example is one such). I still photograph mainly negative materials (when not using digital) and I very much like the results I obtain with this, I hope you do too.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Peter... Sorry about that. That was another dry joke. My DiMage doesn't scan documents. As I said, it's a dedicated film scanner. It's a bit like saying an f/2.8 lens does a much better job than an f/4 lens below f/4.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Regarding the DiMage software: I don't think it's the software that's slow, so much as the machine. However, that's only with the higher resolution scans. Of course I'm impatient with most machines. I also find fax machines painfully slow. The software is very easily selectable for film/slide type, so the orange mask issue is a nonissue. </p>

<p>In all seriousness, my scanner is a very easy device to use, and it yields very consistent, high quality results. I have no idea how it compares to similar devices from other manufacturers (e.g. Nikon), either in speed, imaging quality, or ease of use.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Hi Sarah,</p>

<p>Earlier: "... <em>My DiMage is ... horrible at scanning documents</em> ..."</p>

<p>Hahahahah. Yes, I FIRST thought you were joking ... but I had to ask! ;-) Of course Minolta only made dedicated "transmissive" (back light) film scanners, and scanning documents was impossible! No so for flatbed "reflective" (front light) scanners.</p>

<p>My DiMage scans quite responsively so long as I clean boot by computer first with nothing loaded in memory, not even antivirus software, so the scanner has complete uninterrupted resources with no competition. I also <strong>defrag the drive</strong>:<br>

<a href="http://www.kessels.com/">http://www.kessels.com/</a> JKDefrag<br>

... and use maximum (4,096) <strong>swap file</strong>, also <strong>defragged</strong>:<br>

<a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx">http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx</a> SysInternals PageDefrag</p>

<p>I have the superlative <strong>Konica Minolta DiMage Scan Elite 5400 II USB </strong>dedicated 35mm film scanner for strips of up to 6 negatives or 4 slides in each batch, and it includes separate <strong>ICE Infrared Channel Elimination</strong> for dust and scratches plus multiscan to average out noise (we seem to think 4 samples is enough). I tested Nikon CoolScans (models 4000 to 9000) and found the Minolta superior in speed, image qualities, and ease of use. The Nikons were fine, and have exclusive features and benefits, but the DiMage was just better for my needs in my experience.</p>

<p>However, I can't scan more than one roll a day because I have to be there to swap to the next strip anyway, and full resolution scans with ICE and multi sampling noise recutction (effectively 5 scans plus processing) take a loooong time and a lot of drive space -- 7,920 x 5,328 pixels at full 16-bit per RGB channel color = 241 megabytes per image file (1 terabyte drives are only $99 and hold ~3,000 scans or ~84 rolls of film, and 2 terabytes drives are being announced as we speak). If I had slides or uncut film strips, I'd consider a Nikon and slide or strip adapter, though some reviewers say they jam when unwatched (just as fax machines pull a page at an angle or jam when unwatched, too). Can we win?</p>

<p>I think the comment about scanner versus non-scanner is moot. Using a slide copier on a digicam will capture a bayer filtered RGGB which must be demosaiced, whereas a true scanner captures full RGB for each pixel and does not need demosiacing. Some poeple think a demosaided image needs to be larger to compare, and needs sharpening to compete. I think a slide copier on a Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 or Nikon D3x at <strong>24 megapixels</strong> demosaiced should make most people happy, but the Minolta at 5,400 dpi or the Plustek OpticFilm 7200 dpi 35mm scanner are equivalent to, what, <strong>50 to 66 megapixels</strong>, RGGB demosiacing wise?</p>

<p>Steve Coleman, check back in and tell us what you are after, what resources you have (a DSLR or other digicam already?), and what you are finding from our exploration here.</p>

<p>.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Peter, in answer to your question, I have the DiMage Scan Dual IV (again, probably a dinosaur). It's a basic model, but it does the 16 bit and the multi-pass. Its ability to get a good focus is stellar, and it has no trouble digitizing the details of even very fine grain structure. It's a nice little machine, but unfortunately it usually gathers dust.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Argh!</p>

<p>Earlier: "... <em>unfortunately [</em>Minolta DiMage Scan Dual IV 16-bit 3,200 dpi<em>] usually gathers dust</em> ..."</p>

<p>... "gathers dust" meaning: "not used", NOT meaning that the scanner is uncompetitively dust-collecting during film scanning!</p>

<p>However, it does not have ICE Infrared Channel Elimination to subtract dust and scratches from a multi-pass scan. I have the earlier Minolta DiMage Scan Dual II 12-bit 2,820 dpi scanner that required service and never recovered full function, often loosing proper color balance, never figuring out why. I repalced it with the Konica Minolta DiMage Scan Elite 5400 II 16-bit 5,400 dpi + ICE, and never looked back.</p>

<p>eBay for [DiMage Scan]: <a href="http://shop.ebay.com/items/__dimage-scan">http://shop.ebay.com/items/__dimage-scan</a></p>

<p>Steve -- are you there? Is this stimulating you, or leaving you confused?</p>

<p>.</p>

[galileo42]

<p>AFAIK, flatbed scanners don't seem to yield good results with 35 mm, though they do with MF (my old Epson 3800 is not bad at all with 120 negatives.) I've been scanning my negs (color and b&w) with an older Nikon LS 4000, and Nikon Scan 4 or Vuescan, for a long time, and it works. I have a very convenient slide-loader (expensive) which allows me to automatically feed and scan up to 50 slides in bulk. I do it overnight. Nice. B&W is more difficult to scan than color, but it can be done, and with good results. And, lately, I've been rediscovering the joys of shooting film.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I've never had any luck in getting usable pictures out of digital ICE on my Canon scanners. I normally clean the slides and negatives as best I can, and then "spot" them manually in Photoshop just like the old days. ICE and the like for me produce artifacts that degrade the fine detail in many pictures. Leaves on trees turning into abstractions and the like.</p>

<p>I have found the comparable infrared scanning in VueScan to work better than the scanner company routines--somehow not so aggressive. As I say, try Vuescan if what you have now is slow. It costs nothing to download, so what can you lose?</p>

<p>As far as scanning on a flatbed, that's all Canon has now, I think, and I have found the scans on my 9950F to be quite acceptable, although I do think the old FS 4000 is better. However, you can get a lot more slides in on one scan with the flatbed. I got it mostly for medium format scanning, but do use it occasionally for things like Stereo Realist and other oddball formats.</p>

[rdm]

<p>hey i have a question. I have only scanned a few prints and some 35mm negatives using the scanner at my school. The schools scanner has trays for 35mm strip , Slides, 120 strips and 4x5 sheets. I have alot of 35mm negatives and some slides also the last few years i moved up to 120 baised on the recomendation of a professor. So I still dont know what scanner to get. It takes a long time to scan the strips with the schools computer.</p>

[bill a.]

<p>How dense a scan do you need? for web only? Why not take your film to a place that develops and scans for you?<br>

I take my print film to the local Costco, develop negatives only and get a archival CDROM of scans back for under US$5 a roll.<br>

I have a Nikon 4000 if I need anything at higher density, but for most web images the former is more than adequate.<br>

Google "Ken Rockwell Free Digital Camera"</p>

<p> </p>

[rdm]

<p>I dont know how dense i would need. I know i would like to be able to scan and make 8x10 prints if i want. I have lots of legatives and almost no contct prints to go wioth them. I would love to be able to preview them and then make nice prints of the ones i like as well a scan all the old negativs my parrents have and the slides they have of their trip to italy back in the 60s. My concern is that i pay too much to scan some things that are not really good pictures and then if i do low res scans for preview i have to pay again to get high res so io can make prints . All and all i guess im afraid that after i scan i find that i could have purchased a scanner for less thain what i payed for scanning.</p>

[eike.welk]

Here is a website that has some reviews of film scanners:

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html

<p>

 

The "Reflecta CrystalScan 7200" seems to be a reasonable choice.