Wolverine F2D20 digital image converter

[sheryl_bury_michals]

<p>I saw on B&H there is a Wolverine F2D20 digital image converter for 35mm negatives and slides. I was thinking about getting this to scan my negatives - since the resolution supposedly is 20 MP once scanned. That said, does anyone own one - and if so, how good is it. The Nikon coolscans are no longer made, and this is pretty affordable, and easy to use for $109. I have a lot of rugby shots on film and it would be nice to get them on file digitally.<br>

Thanks - Sheryl</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Don't be too impressed by the megapixels. Given the resolution (1800 dpi) I'd think more in the direction 6 MP, comparable to 8 yr old DSLRs. Probably good enough for posting on the web and an occasional print up to A4 (?). Scanning time of 3 sec is fine. Most dedicated filmscanners take much longer.</p>

[michael_elenko]

This is not a scanner, but rather an embedded cheap P&S within a case, aimed at the film media. I tried an older model

just to see a couple of years ago. I returned it the next day. You could do better by attaching a front of lens media holder

to your DSLR and aiming it towards a balanced light source.

 

Avoid.

 

ME

[cabbiinc]

<p>I'd never use one but it suits some people's needs. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125027 Not the same model but it gives you an idea. I'd be lost without IR dust removal.</p>

[barry_norling]

<p>I'm not sure where Jos van Eekelen got his resolution number (1800 dpi). The manufacturer claims a full frame resolution of 5472 x 3648, which is substantially higher than 1800 dpi. (It is actually 3648 per 24 mm or 3861 dpi.)<br>

Jos, perhaps you could clarify.</p>

[bmichel]

<p>I recently got a PrimeFilm 7250 Pro3 from B&H. The current price is a bit better than what I paid and they have corrected the product description. I am scanning lots of old 35mm film that was shot with consumer grade cameras, so I am not sure how good high resolution scanning would be. The selling point to me was not having to put the film into holders. I recently scanned 25 frames from a roll in one pass. Initial frame alignment is a bit touchy.</p>

[spud_speedbump]

<p>Costco is selling the Wolverine F2D20 for $69.99 Shipping & Handling included</p>

[richard_golonka]

<p>Re-activating an old thread here. The cost of developing 35mm c41 and true black and white film in my local area is 6 dollars...but they charge and additional 13 dollars for a contact sheet. I'm just a hobbiest, but still shoot 1 or 2 rolls every weekend, and am looking to save some $$$ here. 6 dollars a roll for developing I can handle, but 20 dollars for developing + contact sheet I cannot. I am thinking of buying this scanner as an alternative to paying for a contact sheet. I would be scanning in my developed rolls with the sole purpose of quickly identifying a few keeper negatives that I may wish to do something with later. I would then take these keepers to a professional lab to get scanned or enlarged. I would not be using this scanner or any other purpose than reviewing the shot on a computer monitor.<br>

This is the fastest scanner I have seen, but I am worried that the quality may not even been good enough to make quality judgements?? I am also looking at the plustek OpticFilm 8100, which is more expensive but also slower. Basically I just need the fastest scanner available that will let me reasonably identity which 35mm negative is both well composed and also sharp enough to look OK from normal viewing distance in an 8X10 enlargement, and that's it. Dont need anything else really. Are there other solutions out there? Thoughts/recommendations?. Thanks! </p>

[sean_merz]

<p>Hello Richard. I am in the exact same situation you are/where in. Ive got the development down to $2.25 and all I want to do is view negatives/slides. I like to print 8x10's occasionally. Im worried about judging the quality of the film if the scanner isn't accurate. It looks like some of these scanners don't have screens, which is important to me. Sharing what you found would be much appreciated.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Hey Richard, just in case you didn't find a place where there are samples from the Wolverine F2D 20 MP scanner, here is a gallery of photos that were scanned with the 14 MP version of that scanner:<br>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/sets/72157631774509984/<br>

I was actually pretty surprised how good they look. For example, the spokes on the bicycle are quite visible in this shot, where the bike is pretty small in the bottom right corner of the photo here:<br>

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8183/8089787059_fc348e9756_o.jpg<br>

Here's another example I think is good:<br>

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8043/8089820156_eb63902436_o.jpg<br>

I don't know if those were sharpened, but they look like they could use a little sharpening. I also suspect the 20 MP version of the scanner will do a slightly better job. I suspect that until we get much higher resolution sensors, these will be about as good as you can get from a really cheap, really fast, home scanner. The alternative solution would be to get yourself a high resolution flatbed scanner, which will take about half an hour or more to scan a roll of film, rather than about five or ten minutes (and if you're fast, I have no doubt you could scan a 24 exposure roll with the Wolverine scanner in about two or three minutes). Here's a flatbed you should look at:<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/985630-REG/epson_b11b210201_perfection_v550_photo_scanner.html<br>

I'm considering getting this HP, because I can scan large format film with it (I have a Toyo 4x5):<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/496397-REG/HP_Hewlett_Packard_L1957A_Scanjet_G4050_Photo_Flatbed.html<br>

I've read that the HP is very slow, but I have no doubt that is only at the highest resolution settings, and I will do preview scans at 1,200 ppi (pixels per inch - similar to dpi, but they are full color vs. what a typical, non-Foveon digital camera outputs or shoots at, which ends up being interpolated to full color ppi). The 1200 ppi scans should go in very fast, and then I'll scan to 4800 ppi 48 bit TIFF for best quality results. I'll probably sharpen a little at that point and then downsize to 10,000 pixels across (the originals will be about twice that resolution I suspect - 4,800 x 5). From a 4,800 ppi optical scan of a 35mm negative or slide, you would get scans a little more than 24 MP. With the Epson at highest optical resolution of 6,400 ppi, you will get scans from 35mm slides that are a little over 50 MP (about 8850 x 5,900). As with just about any scan, you will get better final images if you sharpen them some (maybe a lot), but sharpening can cause the grain to become more visible, so it takes some experimenting to get best results.<br>

Again, the flatbed scanners, at their top optical resolution settings, will take a long time to scan the film - probably a minute or more per frame of 35mm (some people report 2 to 3 minutes per 35mm negative, which would mean that a 24 exposure roll would take over an hour to scan). Certainly the scan times with flatbed scanners depend on the resolution you choose, other settings, like sharpening, dust removal, etc., and the speed of your computer. Apparently the HP G4050 is a pretty slow scanner - probably because it scans the film twice (once with each color of light, which is why it is called a six-color, 96 bit scanner). This is why I suggested you look at the less-expensive Epson first. Epson has a great reputation for color. I have found their printers to produce the best, most pleasing color in the past. (I once compared an Epson printer against an HP and a Canon of comparable price at a computer store, using glossy paper and a photo I had on a memory card.)<br>

This is an interesting old article about scanning film:<br>

http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/drum.vs.flatbed-scanners/index.html<br>

Something you might consider experimenting with, if you get a flatbed scanner, is wet mounting (dripping some liquid, like Kami wet mount solution) on the glass and laying your strip/sheet of film on that. The process of wet mounting reduces optical issues caused by having two separated surfaces (the top surface of the glass and the bottom surface of the film). You need to place your film the right way up/down, so the emulsion is on top or bottom, from what I've read. I'm not sure which will work better. Certainly wet mounting puts the film as close to the glass as possible, which is what flatbed scanners are made for (sheets of paper with print or photos printed). The typical, cheap flatbed scanner is pre-set at the factory to be focused on the top surface of the glass, or maybe a few microns above that, so a printed photo will be perfectly in focus. Using a film holder that places your negative more than a few microns above the surface of the glass will actually make the film go out of focus a little, I believe . . . but I may be wrong about this. I guess it depends on the scanner. Certainly wet mounting improves the image quality in some of the comparisons I have seen. I have yet to try this myself, but when I get a flatbed scanner, I will be experimenting with placing film in the film holder, on the glass, and wet mounting.<br>

Good luck!<br>

:)</p>

[richard_golonka]

<p>2 YEARS LATER<br>

And I remember my password and read your response. Past me got frustrated with the state of film scanning so instead I just spent that money on film instead. Ive been shooting and developing for 2years and have about 150 rolls! No prints or scans yet haha. </p>

<p>I bought the newest wolverine and will be spending a few days (weeks?) here making contact sheets. Windows 10 has an awesome feature (not sure if it did this before) where I can just select photos and it prints them in a contact sheet formate. Awesome! Thanks for sending those links, I just checked them and they do still indeed work. This makes me feel better about the wolverine, as that quality would be fine for reviewing. </p>

<p>I have been debating whether to get a good scanner, or just send them for drum scans. The drum scans will be better and will be cheaper in the long run, but I do like having control over the entire workflow, and do I really need drum scans? Hmmm...perhaps not. I can rent a v850 at vistek in my city, so I will be renting and doing some comparisons after I get the scans back.<br>

I will post them! Might be a few weeks though</p>