SCANNING 35MM FILM?

[anthony_randazzo]

<p>Hello,<br>

I'd like to save money and buy my own scanner, but I don't know what to get. It's very difficult to research every product so I'd like to get some advice. I realize that the dedicated film scanners will be the best, but I don't have 1000 dollars to spend on a nikon. <br>

As far as dedicated scanners go it seems like minolta's are affordable, although are they compatible with a MAC or anything above windows xp?<br>

Should I just get a flatbed scanner? I want to have the photos on my computer and maybe do some decent prints. What is a good scanner for 100-250$?</p>

[anthony_randazzo]

<p>also is it possible to find film slide/trays for minolta scanners?</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Have a look at http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html<br>

At the price you mentioned you can buy a simple dedicated filmscanner. Also consider a Canon or Epson flatbed scanner with film/slide accessory. I'd forget the Minolta/Nikon/Canon scanners since these are now quite old. </p>

[SCL]

<p>Or you could scan with your digital camera on a tripod, especially if you plan to view mostly on your computer. .</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>I have the Canoscan 9000F Mark 2. Not terribly expensive and I have been satisfied with the results. You can see if it meets your needs, and you like what it can deliver -- I have a New York 69 folder that was done with it. Old negatives, but most in decent shape.<br>

If you go that way track down an extra film strip holder -- worth the price for increased work flow. Good Luck with it!</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I'm still using my older Minolta Dimage Scan dual 3 for my 35mm scanning. It scans at 2800 ppi, which is fine for 11x14 to 16x20 inch prints. I've always used Hamrick's Vuescan 64 bit software on Windows 7. It looks like Vuescan is current on Windows and Mac platforms. It also will operate any scanner you have. </p>

[david_r._edan]

<p>With optical resolutions below 4000dpi, you could run into serious film grain aliasing problems with certain emulsions, chiefly color negatives but other types too. Not sure what's the deal with flatbeds these days but I doubt that any affordable models can scan at true, optical 4000 dpi. Plus, I haven't heard of any digital ICE-compatible flatbeds but then, I didn't really do any research on this. At any rate, scanning a 35mm film frame at 4000 dpi will give you an image of only about 21MP. There's little point (but still is) of scanning higher than 4000dpi, however, going below that, to me is a no-no. Not sure where the flatbeds stand in this regard...<br /> If all you're planning to scan is 35mm film, then the most sensible way to go about it would be to get a dedicated 35mm film scanner. Personally I'd stay clear of Minolta as they've had a terrible QC record. You may get lucky and get yourself a unit that's 100% fine but it's a crapshoot and the odds are not in your favor.<br /> And I wouldn't fuss about getting an old film scanner so long as it was supported by Vuescan, since it's the only sensible way of utilizing the full potential of the scanner anyway.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I would definitely stick with a dedicated film scanner for 35mm. Vuescan is very sophisticated and does professional work with any scanner. Even with my 2800 ppi Minolta, I get very satisfactory scans that size to about 9x13 inches at 300 ppi print. I uprez to 13x19 with pscc to print on 16x20 and get a very acceptable print. A 4000 ppi scanner would give you about 13 x 19 inch print at 300 ppi directly. I don't see much difference between my uprezed images and one's done at 4000 ppi on a different scanner (Nikon I think). You didn' t mention if you are wanting images to print or what size, or if you just want small jpgs for internet.</p><div></div>

[jaydann_walker]

<p>Scanning? Don't get me started...</p>

<p>I'm not a technical type. I do research and read OL before I buy anything for my photo work. Quality is a must, but price is also important. I own and use two scanners: a Plustek 7600i purchased secondhand in 2011 from a trusted seller who had bought it new and found he couldn't stand working with it, and an Epson V600, bought new in 2012. I have no plans to upgrade either for now.</p>

<p>Both do the jobs I expect from them,with some fiddling and tweaking. The Plustek is for 35mm only, and I use it mostly for B&W. It does what I want it to, slowly, and so I get by with it, and get fairly acceptable first time scans with B&W. Color work can be unpredictable. Often several scans are required with no end of fiddling with the controls before I get colors and contrast I'm happy with. Color negatives are fairly fast to scan. Slides can take an endless time. The Plustek has a calibrating slide which I used one time and then put away (I've now forgotten where it is). The Auto function usually works best. I then sweat out the rest in post processing. Endless amounts of time go into my 35mm work, but that's how it is and I live with it, as I have to.</p>

<p>The V600 produces acceptable first time scans with MF B&W and color negatives and slides. A little post processing is often needed after the scan, but usually not a lot. I did try 35mm scanning with the V600 but decided the quality wasn't up to the Plustek, 'tho I found the first time scans on Auto function were often not as good as subsequent scans. Again, a lot of fiddling and testing is required.</p>

<p>My scanned photos are for web use (I put them in folders for clients to see) and are low res scans) and prints up to 11x14. My best large prints come from MF negatives scanned with the Epson. The Plustek gives me OK prints to 8x10 but is often iffy in larger sizes. The negative is everything. A good sharp neg will scan faster and produce better results on the first scan. Unfortunately, most of my negs don't always fall into this category, tho' in the end result they print up well.</p>

<p>Lest anyone thinks my photo techniques and processing are at fault here, let me say I often get big enlargements custom printed for sale to clients. They are always fine.</p>

<p>I also go with Viewscan, it's a gift from the gods to us. Nothing else comes close to it for my work.</p>

<p>Recently I had to scan some very old (1960s-1970s) Kodacolor negatives I had lost for many years but then found in my mother's house, hidden in a document folder. As a test run, I put them thru' the two scanners to compare the results. The Plustek did a good job but the multiple scans took an endless amount of time. The V600 was much faster. Results were mostly the same. Even the oldest negs with only faint markings visible came up reasonably well, which I consider as nothing short of a major miracle. Colors were amazingly good, even skin tones. Softening was visible from 5x7 prints but geez, we're talking old Kocacolor here. Lest we forget... A lot of 20 Kodacolor negs I shot in New Mexico in 1970 came up with a pattern like marble in the skies, interesting! and each image took up to 30 minutes to clean up, sharpen (especially sharpen) and fix up the colors and contrast. I particularly wanted these for an album for my then partner, so I did the work. That's 15 hours of my life now gone forever. Oh, well.</p>

<p>I hope all this is useful. If you want web images, either scanner will do the basic work well. For prints, the Plustek outdoes all its competition in the same price and quality range, but limits you to 35mm. The V600 is OK+ for MF but I wouldn't do most of my 35mm on it.</p>

<p>Trying to do scans with a DSLR and a tripod on a laptop is a recipe for madness, I think. Some swear by it, others swear at it. Me, I would need Diazepam after one session with this rig. </p>

<p>In summing up, I would say go with an old Plustek and Vuescan for 35mm work. You will save a lot of time (and likely your sanity).</p>

[anthony_randazzo]

Thanks a lot people! Honestly, I just want quality images that I can blow up if I want to. Mostly I'll just be soon stuff for th

web or little photobooks, but it's always nice to have the option to blow something up if I need it.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The Plustek and Pacific Images (in Europe: Reflecta) scanners for 35mm are fine; sure the Nikons are better, but these scanners can fit your budget and can be bought new today, with warranty and with compatibility with current day operating systems.<br>

Nearly <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1067465">all these photos</a> are done with my Reflecta, and I've prints of 13"x 18" (A3+) and had larger prints made, and the quality holds up just fine. It doesn't have this 4000 dpi resolution David talks about, but none of the problems he talks about are something I actually ever ran into in the real world, and the resulting ~14 MP that I get is really sufficient for all regular uses.</p>

[hapien]

<p>I have not tested Minolta Scan Dual systems compability with other than windows xp and linux. And I did not liked Scan Dual under linux. Flatbeds have lower resolution, but often add advantage to scan medium format, aswell as 35mm. For new, one can get Canon Canoscan 9000F Mk2 that is very nice up print size 16x24 cm from 35mm source. If You are in need for bigger prints look for mustek scanners.</p>

<p>Then there are direct imaging units that reproduce 35mm film frames in digital format. These can be bought in 50 range and are not necessarily bad.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>T<em>rying to do scans with a DSLR and a tripod on a laptop is a recipe for madness, I think. Some swear by it, others swear at it. Me, I would need Diazepam after one session with this rig.</em><br>

<em><br /></em>Try using a copy stand and light box/panel with a 24mp+ DSLR and a macro lens for 35mm and 120.</p>

[Didier Lamy]

<p>Nikon Coolscan 5000ED, see below a 100% crop, no sharpening, 4000ppi 16 bits B&W scan of Tmax400 Xtol1:1 21°C, and the full photo at:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/18080369</p>

<div></div>

[david_henderson]

<blockquote>

<p> I just want quality images that I can blow up</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And that's just the thing that costs money, right there. Most people who ask questions about scanning don't talk about what they want the scans to achieve, so well done for not falling down that hole. Also people tend to invent a budget without any knowledge to guide them on whether its actually possible to achieve what they want/need for what they can or want to spend. Being able to afford £xxx doesn't mean there's a good solution at that cost.<br>

If you want to make prints much bigger than proof sizes at good quality then ideally you need to use a film scanner. Either</p>

<ul>

<li>Buy an older one such as one of the Minoltas; hope it works and stays working and that you can deal with any computing issues that might emerge. </li>

<li>Buy a newer scanner maybe Coolscan 4000/5000 at more than your budget-</li>

<li>Decide that you'll buy a scanner for web and small prints that you can afford- probably a consumer flatbed. Send larger scans out to a lab offering film scans. Whether this route is viable depends largely on how many larger prints you want to make.</li>

<li>Explore further the possibilities of using a Dslr to scan. There does seem to be a number of threads here on Photo.net on how to do this/what you need to do it/what results you can expect. I suspect for a lot of people its going to depend on whether they own the stuff already. </li>

</ul>

[c_watson1]

<p>David's advice is rock-solid. Film scanners are part of a residual market that's static--at best. Dedicated film scanners or film-compatible flatbeds haven't seen measurable improvements for years. Epson switches light sources, improves film holders and raises prices but hasn't apparently updated its sensors. Manual focus macro lenses and old school copy stands and light boxes aren't ruinously pricey for most DSLR owners. The D7200 I picked up last year actually got me shooting way more 120 and knocked off the dust my Mamiya and Bronica kits were starting to collect. I understand the hesitancy since this isn't an off the shelf/plug-n-play solution but it's worth a look for anyone still keen to shoot film.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>How about a screaming deal on a superb scanner (Imacon Flextight):<br /> http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=110839.0;topicseen<br /><br /></p>

[c_watson1]

<p><em>How about a screaming deal on a superb scanner (Imacon Flextight):</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>How old is that baby?</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>How old is that baby?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You'd have to ping the seller. But I owned several different Imacon's years ago and they are built quite well! </p>

[c_watson1]

<p>.<em>..I owned several different Imacon's years ago and they are built quite well!</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>I'd say borderline relic("legacy" is the polite euphemism) given the OS specs. <br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em></p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd say borderline relic("legacy" is the polite euphemism) given the OS specs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The software, which is quite good, can't run on newer OSs yes. The hardware is superb. Ever used one? <br>

I'm coming from a bkgnd using dozens upon dozens of scanners over the decades. From a Leaf 45 to two PMT drum scanners, Duoscan, SprintScan, Linotype scanners, etc. <br>

One of the best scanners I've never owned, a ScanMate 5000 isn't going have it's superb hardware and software run on a modern OS either. BFD, get an old Mac to run it. That you're using an old OS doesn't in any way affect the quality of scanning hardware or software! </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Since you want to spend under $250, the Epson V600 flat bed which I use might work for you. See my link for 35mm and medium format samples. Good luck.</p>

[john_enea2]

<p>keep looking, deals do come up. I found a backup Minolta Dimage5400 for $50 with everything included. sold it to a friend as mine works fine. every once in a while they pop up on ebay and KEH. make sure it has all the film holders and the AC plug!<br>

I tried many and found that the original Dimage 5400 works best with black and white as its light is different from the other scanners. Works great with vuescan.</p>