Scanning 120/220 for reproduction.

[kparratt]

In addition to documentation of artworks, I am needing to produce

digital files of paintings from negs and slides for printing in

books and good quality catalogues. I understand that a dedicated

medium format film scanner will do a better job than the average

flatbed with a film adapter, ...but how much better? Have not bought

any scanner yet.

Thanks. Kevin

[www.whitemountainphoto.com]

I own a decent quality "combo" scanner that does both. The flat bed was terrific, but the neg/trans adapter for scanning was not up to my standards. Everyone I spoke with said to get a dedicated film scanner, which I eventually did, and they were right. Some others here can tell you the techno why's and what's, but for me there's no comparison.

[silent1]

The usual reasoning for using a dedicated film scanner is that it will have a variable focus and can accurately focus the scanner's optics onto the film emulsion -- at least when operated with third party software. My experience has been that unless you need to get simply immense files, a flatbed with glassless carrier is more than adequate for medium format; the only complaint I have with my Arcus 1200 is that the carrier demands I cut my negatives into single frames, which I'm reluctant to do; so far, I've scanned on the glass instead, which leads to Newton rings and dust spots.

 

For medium format, 2400 ppi is probably adequate, especially so with a scanner that can accurately focus on the film surface; a 6x6 negative will produce around 25 megapixels at that resolution, and if you can scan at 12, 14 or even 16 bits per channel and preserve that information, it's like having 50% more resolution because of the improved gradation.

 

The bad news is, a film specific scanner that can handle 120 strips, even at 2400 or 2800 ppi, will be very costly, and it's just as difficult to be sure you're getting what you pay for with film scanners as with flatbed -- manufacturers will happily advertise an interpolated figure that might be four or six times the actual optical or hardware resolution (my Arcus 1200 was advertised at 9600 ppi when new in 1996 -- though 1200x2400 was plenty high rez for a flatbed in that day), and finding out the actual resolution is much harder than it needs to be.

[Rob_L1664876404]

My Epson 2450 does a very good job (at 2400ppi) of my 6x6 negs (the light source is built into the lid - not an add-on). It will handle up to 4x5 and Epson's current model is probably less than $300. You can check out my portfolio here on photo.net. Everything that is square is 6x6 scanned on the Epson (there are one or two crops that are MF as well). Some of the negs were almost 30 years old when scanned, too! The Epson isn't on a par with my Nikon LS4000, but then the Nikon was over $1000 and only does 35mm.

[jack paradise]

"but how much better?"

 

Here are some scanner test results from a flatbed and two dedicated film scanners. It's in french, just scroll down the images which don't need translation.

 

Epson 2450 vs Epson 4870 Flatbed

 

Epson 4870 4800dpi vs Nikon 8000 4000dpi vs Imacon 3200dpi

 

http://www.galerie-photo.com/scanner-epson-4870.html

[fast_primes]

Very nice post Jack. Does anyone know if the Nikon and Imacon scanners are applying sharpening-my French is too rusty to tell?

[jo_irps]

If you want to know what a flatbed is able to produce in terms of resolution vs dedicated film scanners, in particular for MF, than have a look at some test results here:

 

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html

[fred_bonnett2]

You can buy a new Nikon 9000 ED for less than a new Hasselblad lens --- why go cheap on an important element in the production process?

 

I have an Epson 1680 and a Nikon 8000 ED. When scanning Hassy color negs the results from the Epson are noticably inferior in even 8x10 prints --- they are not as sharp and the colors are garish --- not to mention dust problems, focusing problems, and lousy film carriers.

 

The flatbed scanners are fine for amateur use, but for publication you should get a dedicated film scanner.

[johann_fuller]

"Does anyone know if the Nikon and Imacon scanners are applying sharpening-my French is too rusty to tell?" Imacon scanners have a default USM setting that you can only disable by applying a minus value of 120 in the software. When I compare scans from my LS9000 and Epson 3200 ( and all the other Epson scanners I have owned and used) there is a much bigger difference than that demonstrated on that site.

[paul_graham4]

Get a Nikon 9000 - and forget the rest.

 

if you are scanning m/f films use this scanner with a Wet Mount carrier (from Aztek.com) then nothing comes remotely close to it at that price.

 

I have used all 3 the Nikon is astonishingly good when you wet mount the films. better than Imacons and a lot better than flatbeds.

 

paul

[kparratt]

Thanks everyone. It is interesting to note that neither Polaroid nor Minolta get a mention here. The one Polaroid MF scanner I know of requires roll film to be cut to individual 6x6 frames. A non-starter as far as I'm concerned, but another factor I consider is how much of the image is cropped with the various scanners. When photographing paintings, a comfortable margin is planned, and necessary anyway for placement of colour patches and grey scales. But for pictoral photography, I simply want the full frame. How does the Nikon 9000 measure up on this score? ...if you're still there.

 

Thanks, Kevin.

[kparratt]

...and what!!! "WET MOUNT" ?? Please advise.