Best 35mm film scanner?

[holly_pedlosky]

I am in the market for a film scanner under $1,700. I will be scanning slides primarily. I want to make the largest possible print from slides, without

losing too much resolution. Which is the highest quality scanner? Can flatbed scanners for this price scan film and slides as well as film scanners?

 

Thanks,

 

Holly

[william_patterson]

You should look at the Nikon 4000 dpi scanner. You might also want to consider buying the SilverFast AI software with an IT-8 target to calibrate your scans. This will cost you serveral hundred dollars, but it will give you much better control over your scans. Go to http://www.silverfast.com. You can download a trial copy.

 

Also, be sure and check out the Fred Miranda PhotoShop actions at the URL http://www.fredmiranda.com/Action_profilesPage/index.html. He has some powerful actions to expand images, sharpen then amd recover shadow detail. All are priced at very low prices.

[carl smith]

For 35mm scanning, the top two models under $2000 are the Canon FS4000US and the Nikon 4000. Quality wise it's a tough choice once you take in to consideration all the various tips and tricks that people can teach you to maximize the output from either scanner. I've had extensive experience with each and the biggest difference between these two is cost, not quality. If you erase cost from consideration you're looking at two very similar scanners in terms of quality and capability. Using Exposure adjustments like Lock Exposure in Vuescan and Gain controls in the first party scanner software can pull out all the detail there is to be had. I have a review/comparison of these two scanner which I will hopefully be adding to soon <a href="http://www.rit.edu/~cgs2794/comparison.htm">here</a>.

[mike_lumpkin1]

You should also consider the new Microtek Artixscan 4000tf. The Dmax is greatly improved with the new tf version, and it ships with Silverfast AI for a tad over $1000US.

 

Mike

[Ed_Ingold]

The Nikon 4000ED is great! Scans are much sharper than with the Nikon 2000 (2900 dpi), even at lower resolution (2400x3600 pixels) to save disk space. For larger prints, scan at higher resolution, or resample the master scan in photoshop to get 360 lpi in the print. Sooner or later, you will want the automatic slide or film-strip feeders. That's not an option with the Artixscan.

[robert_price1]

Infinitycameras.com lists the Nikon 4000 scanner at under $1100 and PCNation.com lists the Artixscan at $900. So the price difference might only be $200, and may be less. I have used both, and the Nikon appears to have better resolution of detail in the darker areas. [i am not endorsing either of these vendors, and have never dealt with either of them. Caveat emptor on lowball pricers.]

[holly_pedlosky]

Thanks so much for your responses! I have read in Macworld (October 2001) that the Polaroid SprintScan 4000 is the best 35mm film scanner. Has anyone had experience with this? How does it compare with the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED?

 

Holly

[qtluong]

I remember reading that Macworld article, and back then

the Sprintscan was offered with substantial rebate, making

it half the price of the Nikon. I nevertheless bought the Nikon.

It is much more suited to scanning a large number

of slides thanks to the loader and infrared dust removal. The

main reason the article downrated the Nikon is that it is

significantly slower, in particular if you want to get the most of

its capabilities (a 16x 48bit 4000dpi scan takes 20 minutes !),

not because of the scanning quality.

 

No flatbed scanner

costing a few thousand dollars can match the quality of a

35mm film scanner.

 

 

Tuan <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com">Terra Galleria

images</a>

[kgraff]

Last spring I used a Canon FS4000US in the Instructional Media lab at UW Milwaukee to scan slides for a faculty artist's web site. It was attached to a white tower G4 Macintosh running System 9.2. At one point the computer wouldn't recognize the scanner, but re-arranging the USB connectors cured that. The scan quality was great, plus the four-slide holder made scanning a lot faster.<p>

The bundled software was adequate, but I would have liked to try it on a Mac using OS X and Photoshop 7, but unfortunately the school didn't support either at that time.

[david_w._ziegler]

I don't have a lot of experience with film scanners, but here's what I found.

 

After a bad experience with a PrimeFilm 1800U (not sure whether it was defective or just that poor), I upgraded to a Canon CanoScan FS 4000 US ($874.95 from B&H) -- and it was one of the best purchases I have made. I get beautiful 8" x 12" prints at about 450 dpi. Color, contrast, and brightness beat what I get at my local lab, and that's just using the bundled software. I'm just starting to play with VueScan, and I can see that I am currently limited by the software and not the scanner.

 

The downside of the FS 4000 is the speed (it can take upwards of 5 minutes for a 4000 dpi scan with FARE dust/scratch removal), but then I'm using the USB option and not SCSI. Not a big problem for me because I don't do high volume.

 

Attached is an untouched, unadjusted picture, reduced to 8" x 12" at 100 DPI. The grain is mostly the film (it shows in the optical prints as well).

 

Hope this helps.

 

--Dave<div></div>