A solution for scanning rolls of negatives at a time

[dzeanah]

I've been resisting the move to digital capture for a number of

reasons, but I've been needing a good way to capture thousands of

images (wedding photography) in a short amount of time, with as little

interaction as possible.  Nothing has really been workable to

date, but I think I've finally found the answer.<br>

<br>

I asked a question <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000vJa">here</a>

related to this years ago, and the best answer I got was to buy a Sony

UY-S77 or UY-S90 scanner.  These are designed for high-volume

scanning in mini-labs, and they are priced accordingly (a quick google

search today found these with a <a

href="http://www.minilab.net/sonuy35filsc.html">list price of

$6,700</a>.) 

The specifications aren't bad though: 2,200 dpi max, SCSI interface,

though only 8-bit color output (12-bit within the scanner).<br>

<br>

These have been out of my price range for the last few years, until I

found one priced at $1,200 shipped on an online auction site last

week.  That's still expensive, but it's less than I paid to proof

my last wedding (paper proofs and ProShots scanning are <span

style="font-style: italic;">not</span> cheap, which is why I was

looking for this sort of alternative).  Mine came with APS, 35mm

film strip, and 35mm slide holders, an Adaptec SCSI card, SCSI cable,

and miscellaneous other accessories.<br>

<br>

So, here's what I've discovered in the past few hours:<br>

<br>

You load the software on your computer, and tell the software to either

preview your film or scan directly (I always preview first).  It

will prompt you to insert the film, then it will fiddle for a few

seconds while it scans the bar code on the film to determine the

manufacturer and finds the frame spacing, then it will draw the entire

roll into the machine (up to 50 frames).  Once this is done (about

30 seconds from film insertion) you'll be presented with a preview

screen where you can fine-tune the settings for each image (or all at

once).<br>

<br>

After fine-tuning as required, you tell the machine to scan the

negatives you've selected (it defaults to all of them), tell it the

file name and folder to use, and specify file format (TIFF, JPEG, or

BMP).  The film is scanned and slowly ejected from the scanner;

you'll be prompted to remove the film when the scan is complete.<br>

<br>

Scans are fast.  <span style="font-style: italic;">Really

fast</span>. 

Here are the times I recorded when scanning 36 frames (scanning on an

Athlon 1800, though task manager never showed CPU utilization above 8%

or so):<br>

<br>

<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" border="1"

style="text-align: left; width: 50%;">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><span

style="font-weight: bold;">Resolution</span><br>

</td>

<td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><span

style="font-weight: bold;">Scan Time</span><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">348x256<br>

</td>

<td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">4:17<br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">768x512</td>

<td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">4:17<br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">1536x1024<br>

</td>

<td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">4:17<br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">3072x2048<br>

</td>

<td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">10:05<br>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<br>

The above times were to scan to a JPG image.  When I scanned on

the highest resolution and asked for TIFF images instead (which also

saves thumbnail images), the time to scan the roll increased to 12

minutes and 45 seconds.<br>

<br>

Scan quality is better than I expected, but I'm not enough of a scanner

expert to give any real opinion other than "the 4x6's I printed from

vacation scans look pretty good."  I've scanned some negatives and

posted them <a

href="http://www.derekzeanah.com/gallery/sample-scans">here</a>,

and I hope someone more skilled than I can look at them and post a

follow-up.  All images were scanned using the defaults at highest

resolution (click on the image once to see a larger version; click it

again to see the 1.3 MB high-res scan), except I changed the sharpening

to "none" (it defaults to "low".)  One negative was Portra 400NC

(and needed to be handprinted to compensate for the poor use of flash,

which might account for the questionable colors the scanner gave me),

the other two were Ilford XP2 negatives.  Each of the black and

white negatives was scanned twice: once as color negative film, and

once as black-and-white film.<br>

<br>

From my limited experimentation, the XP2 negatives seem to scan <span

style="font-style: italic;">much</span> better than Portra B&W

negs.<br clear="all">

[carl smith]

I guess if you need the speed, this is great. 2200ppi and 8bit max specs do no excite me. Whats the density capability?

[erik]

Those XP2s look washed out for the whites, but maybe that's just my monitor. However the color scans look good--just fine for 4x6 or 5x7 prints, which is what 98% of people use anyway. I think you got a good deal if you do a lot of bulk work. Upload the scans to shutterbug and if anyone wants an 8x10 or a custom print you can still make one.

 

Not incidentally, you may be able to make some spare cash scanning older negs, if your machine will accept already-cut negative strips. Lots of people around with thousands of old photos who want to share them.