Help me choose a MF Scanner

[daniel_katz2]

<blockquote>

<p>You are still talking about money. You have hundreds of slides to process, you need hard drives, backups, etc. You bought a really slick laptop, but now you want the scanner to be cheap, or you don't want to pay for mounting fluid. It's ridiculous. You don't plan to spend a winter in Antarctica and start haggling about the price of a down jacket.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it seems you are the one not reading carefully. I didn't say that I didn't want to buy mounting fluid because it's expensive. I don't want to buy mounting fluid because it's toxic and carcinogenic! Also HD's are cheap now, I am going to use my SS for processing and then I will buy a 2TB or 4TB network drive for storing. I will mirror the drives for backup purposes... And anyway you can buy one now for a couple of hundred bucks, it's really not expensive.</p>

<p>I mentioned before that I would be willing to pay more if it were a Flextight or a Drum Scanner. I just don't see the point of buying a Nikon LS-9000 for $5000 when one can purchase a good drum scanner in the $1000 range or less these days which will do a much better job.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I said it was a PIA to re-wet and dry film after using water, not that drum scanning is a PIA. I am a professional drum scanner operator, and I don't think it is a PIA. It's my livelihood, and frankly I enjoy it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry for the confusion. Maybe you are used to it, but in general one of the reasons many people don't drum scan and prefer to buy a Nikon or Minolta film scanner or even an Epson flatbed is because they think that drum scanning is a PIA. I thought you said that water shouldn't be used, now you are saying you can use water on film... Do you mean to just use water to clean the film after the baby oil (IE hang to dry)?</p>

<p>Anyway, thank you for your help Lenny, I know you're quite passionate about this. My main sway towards drum scanning is really batch scanning abilities and quality. I was more concerned about the chemicals of the scanning, wetting/cleaning fluid as well as any potential radiation that PMT's can put out (is it equivalent to CRT's?)</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>I think the reason most people don't buy drum scanners instead of the desktop units you mention is cost. It certainly isn't quality, the drum will provide a hugely superior scan. Anything new seems a PIA and once you gain experience and comfort, it's not. The same is true with drum scanning. As for the chemicals used for scanning, I don't recommend you inhale them in mass but I doubt they are any more toxic than a lot of household items. If you are super sensitive, might be an issue. There are ways to protect yourself and still use them. </p>

[daniel_katz2]

<blockquote>

<p>I think the reason most people don't buy drum scanners instead of the desktop units you mention is cost.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I seriously doubt that people that can afford Imacon Flextights, or even used Nikon LS-9000's worry about the cost of drum scanners. The Imacon's and Nikon's start at around $5000 in terms of sale price for the most part. Many people are getting rid of drum scanners for quite cheap these days. You can find many on eBay in the $1000-$2000 range. So NO, I don't think it's due to cost. Maybe it was a decade or two ago, but not anymore with the used market as it is. I think it's really down to size (many people don't have the space for them or don't want something that big) and due to people being afraid of the whole mounting process.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for the chemicals used for scanning, I don't recommend you inhale them in mass but I doubt they are any more toxic than a lot of household items. If you are super sensitive, might be an issue. There are ways to protect yourself and still use them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah I don't really use household chemicals. I use natural stuff instead for cleaning from natural countertop cleaner to natural soap and natural laundry detergent. So no chemicals really in my house, unless you consider vinegar or vegetable glycerin a chemical. I don't really want to be wearing a mask and super protective gear when wet mounting.<br>

Good point about the getting used to it part but you have to admit that it's intimidating, especially after watching all the videos and steps, etc... Most people prefer convenience over quality is what it comes down to.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Anyone today who would spend $5000 on a Nikon scanner is an utter fool! Those who would spend $5000 when the unit came out, a bit less so. Plus the software (NikonScan) is an awful joke. You shouldn't even put it in the same sentence with an Imacon. <br>

You say you can't deal with chemicals so wet mounting is a deal breaker. The Imacon is about the best option but hold on... you say you have a $500 budget. Probably cost you at least $150 to ship one to you slow and I'd suggest insured. Unless you are the luckiest guy around, the likelihood you'll find a working Imacon in your budget this year is pretty slim. You can up your budget 4X or more, or wait 3-4 years or more. <br>

Hopefully you learned something about scanners. But at this point, there isn't much more anyone can do here to assist you. So we really should do as Lenny suggests and move on! We're at a point that's a bit like someone writing:<br>

<em>I have $10,000 to buy a car and I can't decide which one housed in Jay Leno's car museums I should buy.</em> ;-)</p>

[daniel_katz2]

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone today who would spend $5000 on a Nikon scanner is an utter fool! Those who would spend $5000 when the unit came out, a bit less so. Plus the software (NikonScan) is an awful joke. You shouldn't even put it in the same sentence with an Imacon. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, I just said it for price point reference and not comparing them at all. I don't understand how the Nikon's are $5000 now and were $3000 when they came out. One can easily buy a Flextight II for $2000 or so which will yield way better results than the Imacon.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You say you can't deal with chemicals so wet mounting is a deal breaker.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But Lenny mentioned I can use Baby Oil and I read that Glycerine works as well. Cleaning might be a pain but just not sure what to clean it with after?</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Whatever you use to clean off the baby oil will be as bad or worse than the mounting gel in the first place. Unless you're just OK throwing the film away after the scan (which I doubt). </p>

[daniel_katz2]

<blockquote>

<p>I have also used Johnson Baby Oil as the mounting fluid, and it is in some ways superior because its viscosity holds the negative flat during very long scans better than both the Scanmax and Kami fluids. You can easily clean negatives mounted with the Baby Oil, but it takes a slightly longer wash in the dishwater detergent than with the Kami.<br>

The dishwasher liquid I am using for the clean up is called Sun Light Ultra (The greater grease fighter, El luchador contra la grasa). I bought it at a local Ingles grocery store, $1.08 for a 14.7 ounce bottle. Made in Canada for Phoenix Brands of Stanford, CT.<br /><br />However, I am thinking that most dishwater liquids should be very similar. After all, this is the first one I picked off the shelf when I went looking for a diswashing degreaser.<br /><br />However, I was advised to avoid detergents that worked at high pH, and this one works at about base.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or the other option I found:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>National geographic uses baby oil for their drum scanning. after scanning, they would put the chromes between the yellow pages (phone book) to get the baby oil off.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it's good enough for National Geographic, it's good enough for me... ;)</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>If it's good enough for National Geographic, it's good enough for me... ;)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is getting ridiculous, really. Do you really believe that NG puts baby oil on all that film and <strong>only</strong> uses the phone book to get it all off? Really? The stuff you're talking about is kind of insane to consider putting on anyone's film. And it doesn't matter, you can't afford a drum scanner and you're unwilling to treat the film correctly. Dishwasher degreaser? Look, take out some of your prized film, oil it down, clean it up and report back how well the film appears the next day. </p>

[daniel_katz2]

<blockquote>

<p>This is getting ridiculous, really. Do you really believe that NG puts baby oil on all that film and <strong>only</strong> uses the phone book to get it all off? Really? The stuff you're talking about is kind of insane to consider putting on anyone's film. And it doesn't matter, you can't afford a drum scanner and you're unwilling to treat the film correctly. Dishwasher degreaser? Look, take out some of your prized film, oil it down, clean it up and report back how well the film appears the next day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These are solutions I found on other forums online. I am not vouching for them but just asking if they would really work. Other people have found lighter fluid to work, but that's the same as the scanning fluid in terms of toxicity.<br>

And I mentioned before that I CAN afford a drum scanner. I have seen Screens and Scanviews selling for the $500-$700 range. If I couldn't afford that, I wouldn't even be talking about my options here! It's much more affordable than getting a used Imacon Flextight, which is another reason I am considering drum scanners.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>These are solutions I found on other forums online.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, yeah, and I have beach front properly in New Mexico for sale ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not vouching for them but just asking if they would really work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. I mean seriously think about the nonsense posted in those forums. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>And I mentioned before that I CAN afford a drum scanner.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>With a $500 budget? Go for it. </p>

[daniel_katz2]

<blockquote>

<p>Go for it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is there anything I need to know in terms of Calibration, Maintenance, etc... How often does it need to be calibrated and the tubes changed, etc... Besides just cleaning the drum is there any other maintenance I will need to do? I could use pure mineral oil and clean the negs with pure glycerin soap and then hang to dry or pat down dry with a special towel?</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>From what I read in a forum, the drums are dishwasher safe. </p>

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

<p>http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1287969/0?keyword=drum,scanner#12281260</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=1511891<br>

====================<br>

a bit above your baseline price - but might give you some idea on what options you have if you do decide on drum scanning...</p>

[daniel_katz2]

<blockquote>

<p>a bit above your baseline price - but might give you some idea on what options you have if you do decide on drum scanning...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you. That's really helpful. How do these compare to the Scanview Scanmates? For some reason the Scanmates sell for a lot less than other brands but they seem to be good quality and Made in Denmark. They also have a nicer form factor and look and are smaller than others. Will 5000DPI really be enough for archiving 16mm, 35mm, and medium format negatives and will the Scanmate do it just as well as some of the others you listed? Thank you!</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Have we concluded that there's nothing at or near $500 that will scan medium format film substantially better than a $204 Epson V600?</p>

<p>I was curious to see what that Flextight II that Andrew linked to (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Imacon-Flextight-Precision-II-Slide-Film-Scanner-/321489473232?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ada440ed0&autorefresh=true) went for--$2184, and it's sold "as is" and maybe without all the accessories.</p>

<p>So where does that leave us? I go back to thinking that for medium format film, the next quality / price step up from the V600 may be a Nikon 8000. Complete and working for $1200:<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=88839.0<br>

No film holders, $810 to $1248:<br>

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Super-CoolScan-8000-ED-Slide-Film-Scanner-/181489238864?pt=US_Scanners&hash=item2a419a0350<br>

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Super-Coolscan-LS-8000-ED-ls8000-/311055276136?pt=US_Scanners&hash=item486c56d868<br>

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-Super-COOLSCAN-8000-ED-/361027254156?pt=US_Scanners&hash=item540ee6b78c<br>

For the latter three, you'd need a medium format film holder like this one, $380:<br>

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-FH-869M-120-220-Mounted-Film-Holder-for-Coolscan-LS-8000-9000ED-/331294891071?pt=US_Scanner_Parts&hash=item4d22b6dc3f</p>

<p>Any other / further thoughts? (Yes, I see the drum scanners for $1450 and $1750--good links, Robert--but obviously those are big steps up in price, size, and complexity to use.)</p>

 

[daniel_katz2]

<blockquote>

<p>I was curious to see what that Flextight II that Andrew linked to went for--$2184, and it's sold "as is" and maybe without all the accessories.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes the flextight seems to be out of the picture at this point...<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>o where does that leave us? I go back to thinking that for medium format film, the next quality / price step up from the V600 may be a Nikon 8000. Complete and working for $1200<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No thanks, I can get the same or better quality with a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 with glass holders. One sold on eBay recently for $330... the Leafscan will probably do better too at $165 or the Pacific Image Primefilm 120 that sold for $550 on eBay recently. I don't really see a reason for buy the Nikon 8000 or even 9000 when one can get a Drum Scanner for that price.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, I see the drum scanners for $1450 and $1750--good links, Robert--but obviously those are big steps up in price, size, and complexity to use.)<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>How is $1450 a big step up from $1200? You can find drum scanners for less than $1000 even, which is less than the 8000 and has way higher resolution, sharpness, dynamic range, etc... Sure it's bigger but I wouldn't say more complex to use... I think the mounting might take time to get used to but other than that it doesn't seem complicated to use compared to those Nikon's and in fact drums allow for better batch scanning capabilities.<br>

I think it's rather ludicrous to spend money on a dedicated film scanner that costs as much ore more than a drum scanner...</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>No thanks, I can get the same or better quality with a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 with glass holders. One sold on eBay recently for $330... the Leafscan will probably do better too at $165 or the Pacific Image Primefilm 120 that sold for $550 on eBay recently.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you sure about that? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't really see a reason for buy the Nikon 8000 or even 9000 when one can get a Drum Scanner for that price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How much is your time worth? But go get it tiger. If you are about getting absolute best quality scan, get your drum scanner. Let us know how the project goes.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Daniel, I'm not trying to argue with you. I had the impression that the Sprintscan 120--which if you read back in the thread I said had interested me--had gotten some negative reviews here; maybe I misunderstood. I know the Pacific Image has gotten many complaints (why else would a model that sells new for $1500 sell used for $550?). And I thought you didn't want to fool with fluid mounting for drum scanning, both for the hassle and for your health concerns over the mounting fluids that all the experts said you really need to use. And of course, $1450 is a big step up from your original price point $500, and any drum scanner is a big step up from most of the other things we've discussed in terms of size, complexity, and nuisance.</p>

<p>You and I are actually looking for pretty similar things, even if we don't weigh the pros and cons of all the options quite the same--so good luck. But I'm done here.</p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

Drum scanners used to be extremely expensive. Machines like the Nikon 8000 and 9000 aren't as good, but pretty good, pretty close still (compared to what else was avaliable, and still is available, comparing them to an Epson V700 or 750). People who bought such machines (myself included) aren't nuts for throwing money away. These machines perform well enough to be worth what you paid for them.<br>'Virtual drum scanners' such as the Imacon/Hasselblad scanners just have an edge over the Nikons. But were quite a bit more expensive.<br>But that was then. Nowadays (i still quite happily use the Nikons) drum scanners are more affordable (though you need space, and - more importantly - a computer with software that is able to connect to them). That (and wanting to scan film bigger than roll film) is what got me interested.<br>Scanning can be quite tedious. It takes up a lot of time. Drum scanning, as i understand, takes even more time. But when having the options to choose between, it is a matter of deciding if the specific task at hand merits the investment in time and effort.<br>Having already invested in Nikons, i am not facing the decision whether to invest in them today. I think they are good (probably the best of their class. Better than the Sprintscan, for instance. Though clearly not the best overall. The software, Andrew, is not an awful joke. It works). And so do many other people, hence the still high asking price. Imacon/Hasselblad scanners still cost a lot more, and though small and easy to use, i would think they are a worse option than a Nikon. Drum scanners however... at the price point discussed, under $ 1000, it is a bit of a no brainer. If you can find one with all the bits and trimmings, and have the space, and the PC to run the thing... i would not hessitate.<br>But my point is that less expensive scanners, though certainly not equal in quality, have their place too. It doesn't always have to be the best (many the times, for instance, that a good scan has to be downsampled, losing a lot of the quality scanning at high resolution provided). If you balance needs, time and other practical issues, and the money side of it, you're certainly not mad because you would consider buying an Epson.

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Having already invested in Nikons, i am not facing the decision whether to invest in them today. I think they are good (probably the best of their class. Better than the Sprintscan, for instance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No question the Nikon hardware is vastly superior. And the Sprintscan software was equally "a joke". Don't take this the wrong way, it's not intended to be even a bit racist, just my experience: I've never seen software developed in Japan that wasn't a GUI nightware ala Hello Kitty. Yes, the software works, it's just not an intuitive interface. The Polaroid product was actually a MircoTeck through and through with their (Polaroid) name on it. </p>

[danielheller]

<p>For $1,999 at B&H you can get a Plustek Optic film 120, which is a new contender, and may do the job for you. I have not used it personally.</p>

[daniel_katz2]

<blockquote>

<p>For $1,999 at B&H you can get a Plustek Optic film 120, which is a new contender, and may do the job for you. I have not used it personally.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know if you've read the rest of the posts. But I think we've established that my budget is in the $500 range, and that for $2000 you can get a drum scanner, or a used Imacon Flextight II, or a used Nikon D8000 (possibly D9000) or for much less other scanners. Really don't think the Plustek Opticfilm 120 is worth it, especially considering all the better options you can buy and how these Plustek scanners don't keep their value well! Thanks for the suggestion though.</p>

[danielheller]

<p>Daniel,<br>

I did read the posts.<br>

In all honesty, IMHO the $500 budget will not be sufficient to get you the quality you desire. You need to be realistic about it. I wasn't going to recommend the Flextight (much much higher than your budget), although you correctly pinpointed this most desirable scanner.<br>

Sometimes they come on the big auction site at $2,500-3,500 or so. You'll have to have a SCSI connection, the proper older computer and operating system, and take a chance that if something goes wrong it may not be repairable. At least not by Hasselblad/Bron. If you are prepared to struggle to make it work, by all means.<br>

However, if you do go that route I can guarantee that the roughly 7000 x 7000 pixels from a 6x6 frame, would be the most beautiful "pixels", true to the original (if you scan them Raw as a Linear scan) that you have ever seen.<br>

And this scanner I do know, I am currently using one. I own a Flextight X5.</p>

[daniel_katz2]

<p>The Scanview Scanmate 5000 manual says it's 3x12bits of colour. This means 36bit colour, not 48bit. Will this matter THAT much? I mean, it's still going to look a lot better in terms of colour than a flatbed or even an Imacon with 14 or 16 bits per channel? Also the Dynamic range is only a 4, but the Imacon and Canon's and others state 4.6 or 4.8... However, a Drum Scanner with 36 bits of colour and 4 dynamic range, will be better than even an Imacon with 48 bits of colour and 48 of dynamic range? And either way I can save as a 48bitt tiff correct?</p>

[daniel_katz2]

<p>Also it looks like the Scanmate 5000 has a built in mounting station... http://www.terrapinphoto.com/drumscansaga/like_new.jpg This means I can mount one drum, while the other is scanning, and I don't need another mounting station? Is it bad for vision/health in terms of standing by and looking into the drum scanner (does it emit and electromagnet radiation or anything as a microwave or CRT TV would?)</p>