disappointed in consumer grade film scanners

[weasel_bar]

For over 10 years, I've been scanning my film with Plustek's Opticfilm 7200i. It's CCD sensor has a resolution of 7200 pixels per inch. I started reading some scanner tests, and learned about the large difference between nominal resolution and actually achieved resolution https://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerRangliste.html

So I bought a 35mm slide made by Silverfast of the 1951 USAF target intended to test the resolving power of optical systems 

https://www.silverfast.com/products-overview-products-company-lasersoft-imaging/silverfast-resolution-target-usaf-1951/

 

I found the following for my 7200

set scan res / actual res

7200 / 3250 (45% of stated resolution)

3600 / 2300 (64% of stated resolution)

3250 is plenty for me, if actually achieved with no bloat. I could print my 35mm shots at 11x17. Other than some rare frames of velvia 50 shot with a tripod, I doubt I have many images that would be of high enough technical quality (not artistic quality) and detail to justify any bigger.

Here's the rub. in order to get 3250 ppi of resolution, I have to scan at 7200, and the image generated has a ton of garbage pixels. I found that when downsizing, there is resolution loss. For example, If I downsize 7200 to 3600, the resulting image has a resolution of about 2900 ppi according to the USAF chart, so I've lost 11% from the originally achieved 3250. This seems to be true even using Resize Magic, which uses a Lanczos-like algorithm, which gave somewhat better results than bicubic. Downsizing a 3600 ppi scan to 1800 resulted in essentially no resolution loss. So, even if a 7200 ppi scan has enough detail to print fine details at 300 dpi at 11x17 size, the downsizing results in what I think will be effectively printing at 250 dpi resolution. Which maybe isn't the end of the world.

So I bought a Pacific Image Primefilm XEs. The XE is supposed to be the same as the Reflecta 10T, which according to tests from the above website yielded resolutions of 4100 at the 5000 ppi setting. The XEs is apparently the newer version of XE. I was grossly disappointed to find that at 10000 and 7500 ppi, the resulting resolution was 3650--only barely better than my bluecollar Plustek. At 5000 ppi, the quuality was even worse. Just like the Plustek, the scanner generated far more pixels than it did actual usable information.

I looked at some used Nikon coolscan Vs, but they are now fetching exorbitant prices. 

I guess I'll just project my Velvia slides so they can be viewed as intended, and force my wife to watch slide shows. I bought some used ektagraphics for around $50 each, including shipping. There's still nothing, NOTHING, like a projected image. 

When film equipment dies or I die, whichever comes first, I'll quit and find a new hobby.

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by weasel_bar

[Niels - NHSN]

I feel your pain.

I don’t have the patience to work with film scanners anymore.
I make do with camera scanning now. An old slide copier bellows and a good macro lens allows for quick scanning.

[SCL]

Welcome to the real world. I second Niels-NHSN's comments. I gave up using scanners several years ago and found camera scanning delivers much better images, at least in my case. I  can't say if the results meet your criteria, but I've been able to produce some exhibition sized 3x4 ft B&W prints this way, which when viewed from the proper distance are just fine. BTW there's noting wrong with projecting those slides, I occasionally still do the same, but gave up on producing color  slides about 5 years ago when most of the processors disappeared. Alas, I mourn Kodachrome.

[Bettendorf]

I'll add a third to Niels' comment.

Just the other day I received an email about this new starter kit, and I'm beginning to think about making the switch.

https://www.freestylephoto.com/8501236-Negative-Supply-Essential-35mm-Film-Scanning-Freestyle-Exclusive

 

[James G. Dainis]

 I used to make Cibachrome prints for friends from their slides until I got tired of hearing, "But these don't glow like the projected slides do." Project a slide of a light bulb on a slide screen and the darkened room lights up from the light reflected off of the screen.  Stick a photograph of the light bulb on the wall and what do you see? Nothing. The room remains dark. You've lost the glow.

[AlanKlein]

1 hour ago, James G. Dainis said:

 I used to make Cibachrome prints for friends from their slides until I got tired of hearing, "But these don't glow like the projected slides do." Project a slide of a light bulb on a slide screen and the darkened room lights up from the light reflected off of the screen.  Stick a photograph of the light bulb on the wall and what do you see? Nothing. The room remains dark. You've lost the glow.

Show your scanned slides or negative color film shots on a 4K TV for a similar glowing effect. 

[weasel_bar]

4 hours ago, James G. Dainis said:

 I used to make Cibachrome prints for friends from their slides until I got tired of hearing, "But these don't glow like the projected slides do." Project a slide of a light bulb on a slide screen and the darkened room lights up from the light reflected off of the screen.  Stick a photograph of the light bulb on the wall and what do you see? Nothing. The room remains dark. You've lost the glow.

I unfortunately never had the chance to make Cibachromes of any of my landscapes. I don't know if anyone still offering this service.

[weasel_bar]

5 hours ago, Bettendorf said:

I'll add a third to Niels' comment.

Just the other day I received an email about this new starter kit, and I'm beginning to think about making the switch.

https://www.freestylephoto.com/8501236-Negative-Supply-Essential-35mm-Film-Scanning-Freestyle-Exclusive

 

This setup looks nice. I don't have a digital slr, and I'm stalling as long as I can. Shooting my old canon fd gear. In fact, bought a used Canon ftb and had it CLAd. Being mostly metal, it doubles as a self-defense weapon. 

[Bettendorf]

2 hours ago, weasel_bar said:

This setup looks nice. I don't have a digital slr, and I'm stalling as long as I can. Shooting my old canon fd gear. In fact, bought a used Canon ftb and had it CLAd. Being mostly metal, it doubles as a self-defense weapon. 

It doesn't have to be an SLR.  I was stalling too, shooting all my old Canon FD gear, until a couple months ago when I bought a used Sony a6000 from KEH and then a new Fotodiox all metal Canon FD adapter.  I have many lenses I can use on it in manual mode.

I've bought a couple used FTbs over the decades also, because it was my first SLR, new in 1974.

[c_watson1]

Film scanner technology has been dead in the water for years. Coolscan cultists soft-pedal the lack of Nikon support and service and sucker film shooters to buy scanners requiring endless hacks and antique OS adaptions. DSLR scanning works. Next?

I share a Mamiya Pro Cabin MF projector with friends.  6x6 and 67 Velvia, E100SW and Scala b&w slides still startle us.

[ben_hutcherson]

33 minutes ago, c_watson1 said:

Film scanner technology has been dead in the water for years. Coolscan cultists soft-pedal the lack of Nikon support and service and sucker film shooters to buy scanners requiring endless hacks and antique OS adaptions. DSLR scanning works. Next?

I share a Mamiya Pro Cabin MF projector with friends.  6x6 and 67 Velvia, E100SW and Scala b&w slides still startle us.

I know I shouldn't expect anything but a nasty toxic respsonse from you(why did the mods ever let you back after you were banned years ago?) but really-cultists?

Scanning has its ups and downs. DSLR use has its ups and downs. On the whole I prefer the speed of DSLRs but the ultimate results of scanning.

And after using a bunch of different scanners, I still find the Nikons the best. Yes they have their shortcomings. I consider it worth the trouble to keep them going.

So thanks but no thanks for your opinion. I can only hope that one of these days that the mods will do right and re-instate the ban that was well deserved 15 years ago and you only managed to get through in a software update.

[James G. Dainis]

c_watson1,  is sharing his opinion. This moderator fails to see it as a nasty toxic response.

[ben_hutcherson]

11 minutes ago, James G. Dainis said:

c_watson1,  is sharing his opinion. This moderator fails to see it as a nasty toxic response.

Really?

"Coolscan cultists"

"sucker film shooters"

That's pretty darn inflammatory language in my book. In the past that wouldn't have flown here and in fact it didn't, but I guess times have changed...

Sharing an opinion is one thing. Veiled barbs and insults(which you will find in nearly everything this individual posts) don't exactly make for a pleasant forum atmosphere.

Whatever, delete my post if you want to.

 

 

[James G. Dainis]

"sucker" is used as a verb as in "entice  film shooters to buy scanners requiring endless hacks and antique OS adaptions.

[iosif_astrukov]

Using camera and adapter like the Nikon ES-1 or the new ES-2 gives much better results than scanning - I use this method for over 6-7 years now, I have plenty of test with Nikon 810/850 + Nikkor 60mm AF-S + BR-5 + ES-1

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10160407794574009&set=pb.536954008.-2207520000&type=3

I use direct sunlight as light source, it's best for colour rendition and brightness

Also recommend the HDR function

That's of course for 35mm slides, for others you can use other sets

Try it, you won't regret 

Edited October 22, 2023 by iosif_astrukov

[hjoseph7]

"There's still nothing, NOTHING, like a projected image"

I was thinking of getting an old style Kodak Carousel projector myself, but they are so noisy.  I'm not sure how they match up with the newer LCD projectors ? I doubt if the newer models give you that sence of magic like the older slide projectors do, but I don't own one myself... 

 

Edited October 23, 2023 by hjoseph7

[AlanKlein]

2 hours ago, hjoseph7 said:

"There's still nothing, NOTHING, like a projected image"

I was thinking of getting an old style Kodak Carousel projector myself, but they are so noisy.  I'm not sure how they match up with the newer LCD projectors ? I doubt if the newer models give you that sence of magic like the older slide projectors do, but I don't own one myself... 

 

Why buy a digital projector? Just dump the scanned digital photos onto a memory card and plug it into your smart TV USB jack and play it on your 4K TV.  I do that with mine and see a 75" picture.  You can also do that with your videos.  

[ben_hutcherson]

I don't find Carousels particularly noisy. The fan is the only constant noise. Yes, the slide change mechanism has its own distinct sound, something you never forget if you've ever sat through a slide show, but I don't find it particularly loud or bothersome.

If shopping for one, my two small suggestion would be to look for an Ektagraphic and not a Carousel. The former were more intended for heavy institutional usage, and not occasional home usage like Carousels. The difference in price today is practically negligible, but I find that for a given age of projector Ektagraphics are often brighter and in general have better illumination optics(more even) than Carousels. They also, IME, are easier to find in halogen on the second hand market. I don't remember if any had dual bulbs(like a lot of overhead projectors-for easy swap if the bulb burns out while you're using it) but most did make bulb changes VERY fast and easy. I'd not buy one without a halogen lamp as, aside from being brighter, they are much easier to change as most are a sealed "cartridge" with an integral reflector.

More importantly, I find that the change mechanism on the Carousels isn't the most robust and uses a lot of plastic that often will have turned brittle just with age and exposure to hot, bright light. The Ektragraphic mechanism is MUCH more robust. I've found the same true of the focus mechanisms. I'd also not skip autofocus-you still need to get focus in range(and remote focus is also super handy for this) but autofocus handles small slide-to-slide variations and also the tendency for paper or plastic mounted slides to "pop" after a second or two of being projected.

Last thing-Kodak was capable of making among the best lenses in the world, but the ones you find on most projectors are not among them. I lucked into a really nice Buhl 135mm lens several years ago-it actually looks a lot like an old 4 D cell Mag Light complete with red annodization on the barrel, but is SO much sharper than the typical Kodak standard lens. With that said, 135mm isn't a great choice for home use-it's a big auditorium lens. A lot of Carousels came with either a fixed 40-50mm or so, or maybe a 30-70 zoom(the zooms are handy but make other compromises-I don't like them) which is a lot more suitable to projecting a big photo in your living room...

[AlanKlein]

10 hours ago, ben_hutcherson said:

I don't find Carousels particularly noisy. The fan is the only constant noise. Yes, the slide change mechanism has its own distinct sound, something you never forget if you've ever sat through a slide show, but I don't find it particularly loud or bothersome.

If shopping for one, my two small suggestion would be to look for an Ektagraphic and not a Carousel. The former were more intended for heavy institutional usage, and not occasional home usage like Carousels. The difference in price today is practically negligible, but I find that for a given age of projector Ektagraphics are often brighter and in general have better illumination optics(more even) than Carousels. They also, IME, are easier to find in halogen on the second hand market. I don't remember if any had dual bulbs(like a lot of overhead projectors-for easy swap if the bulb burns out while you're using it) but most did make bulb changes VERY fast and easy. I'd not buy one without a halogen lamp as, aside from being brighter, they are much easier to change as most are a sealed "cartridge" with an integral reflector.

More importantly, I find that the change mechanism on the Carousels isn't the most robust and uses a lot of plastic that often will have turned brittle just with age and exposure to hot, bright light. The Ektragraphic mechanism is MUCH more robust. I've found the same true of the focus mechanisms. I'd also not skip autofocus-you still need to get focus in range(and remote focus is also super handy for this) but autofocus handles small slide-to-slide variations and also the tendency for paper or plastic mounted slides to "pop" after a second or two of being projected.

Last thing-Kodak was capable of making among the best lenses in the world, but the ones you find on most projectors are not among them. I lucked into a really nice Buhl 135mm lens several years ago-it actually looks a lot like an old 4 D cell Mag Light complete with red annodization on the barrel, but is SO much sharper than the typical Kodak standard lens. With that said, 135mm isn't a great choice for home use-it's a big auditorium lens. A lot of Carousels came with either a fixed 40-50mm or so, or maybe a 30-70 zoom(the zooms are handy but make other compromises-I don't like them) which is a lot more suitable to projecting a big photo in your living room...

I had an Ektagraphic with the random selection module where you can select whatever slide you wanted to show.  When I moved to NJ ten years ago, it wasn't working.  The zoom is handy though unless you calculate the exact lens your need for the room you intend to set up the camera as distance from projector to screen is critical when picking the lens's focal length.  There are charts available on line that you can search for. 

[weasel_bar]

I bought a nikon coolscan v on ebay. Actual achieved resolution is somewhat better than plustek (somewhere between 3600-3800 dpi vs 3200). But the real difference is in other aspects of image quality-much less noise, higher de facto resolution despite smaller files due to less bloat, and better dynamic range. Pretty happy. 

[ajkocu]

On 11/1/2023 at 3:53 PM, weasel_bar said:

I bought a nikon coolscan v on ebay. Actual achieved resolution is somewhat better than plustek (somewhere between 3600-3800 dpi vs 3200). But the real difference is in other aspects of image quality-much less noise, higher de facto resolution despite smaller files due to less bloat, and better dynamic range. Pretty happy. 

That's what I use to scan and am happy with the results. There are plenty of YouTube videos on scanning with Vuescan or Silverfast. I've copied a few slides with a dslr but the resulting files require cleaning. I bought the Nikon just before they were discontinued.

[Dave Luttmann]

On 10/18/2023 at 6:45 AM, ben_hutcherson said:

Really?

"Coolscan cultists"

"sucker film shooters"

That's pretty darn inflammatory language in my book. In the past that wouldn't have flown here and in fact it didn't, but I guess times have changed...

Sharing an opinion is one thing. Veiled barbs and insults(which you will find in nearly everything this individual posts) don't exactly make for a pleasant forum atmosphere.

Whatever, delete my post if you want to.

 

 

He has a long history of anti film posts.  

[polka]

The question is : through how many lenses goes your picture : shooting analog is the first lens, then either you scan the film, the scanner is a second lens ; or you enlarge to paper in a wet laboratory, the enlarger lens is also a second lens, or else you scan it with a digital camera, thus also through a second lens, or you use a slide projector and you have also a second lens. In any case each second lens adds some convolution to your original picture on film and thus reduces somehow its resolution. 🙄So, doesn't the only way seem to shoot directly digital ?😉

[c_watson1]

On 11/4/2023 at 1:14 PM, Dave Luttmann said:

He has a long history of anti film posts.  

Seriously??? Stating an opinion about Coolscans hardly makes me "anti film"(sic) given the range of other options, does it...

Edited November 10, 2023 by c_watson1

[weasel_bar]

On 11/9/2023 at 8:16 AM, polka said:

The question is : through how many lenses goes your picture : shooting analog is the first lens, then either you scan the film, the scanner is a second lens ; or you enlarge to paper in a wet laboratory, the enlarger lens is also a second lens, or else you scan it with a digital camera, thus also through a second lens, or you use a slide projector and you have also a second lens. In any case each second lens adds some convolution to your original picture on film and thus reduces somehow its resolution. 🙄So, doesn't the only way seem to shoot directly digital ?😉

Comparison is not valid for projected slides. The second lens would be required to project an image captured by a digital camera. 

For printing agree about the second lens, at least in theory. 20 years ago, I used to get optical color prints made by a local lab. I remember the achieved resolution being very good. One could extract a lot of fine detail from a negative. Scanning gives more control over color, contrast, etc. 

I would guess that the effect of second lens depends greatly on the quality. My "new" nikon coolscan gives much better results than my previous scanner, due to much better lens, despite the ccd sensor having a lower nominal resolution. For slides, I noticed a difference in analog projected image quality between different projector lenses. My Golden Navitar gives better results than the kodak lens i have