A modern scanner for 35mm and 120 film

moshin

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
30
Location
Miami
Format
35mm
Hey there! I wanted to hear your experience for a dedicated and modern scanner for 35mm and 120 film, what to look for, available brands, technologies, etc.

I want something for windows or macos with a fast interface like usb 3.

Thank you
.
 

Alan9940

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
2,467
Location
Arizona
Format
Multi Format
Usually answer...it depends. For absolute top-notch quality you're looking at the Flextight/Hasselblad or a drum scanner. Since hardly anybody can afford most of those, the next step down would be the Nikon 9000 or Minolta Multi Pro. I've never used the Plustek, but I'd strongly suggest you do your research before buying. With careful technique and proper sharpening, you can actually pull pretty nice scans from an Epson flatbed. For 35mm, I'd recommend the Nikon 5000 or Konica/Minolta 5400. There is a new 35mm scanner (I think it's from Pacific Image) that gets pretty good reviews so you may want to look at that.
 
OP
OP

moshin

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
30
Location
Miami
Format
35mm
I´ve found this review

https://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS10M.html

Seems like a good option for the price.
 

Les Sarile

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
3,426
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Format
35mm


Just to be sure, the Coolscan 9000 may be much cheaper then the Hasselblad/Flextight/Imacon but it is by no means a stepdown when it comes to performance, handling and results. Sure, the top of the line Hasselblad/Flextight/Imacon can apply 8000dpi on 35mm film but drops to 3200dpi with medium format. The Minolta Multi Pro is not in the same league as the Coolscan 9000. And if you need dust and scratch removal, the 9000+Nikonscan ICE has no equivalent. When it comes to 120 & 35mm workflow there is none better.

Neither is there anything comparable to the Coolscan 5000 in performance and results when ti comes to 35mm or smaller film. Most certainly not either version of the Minolta 5400 particularly in actual use. In fact the next best thing to the 5000 is the typically much more affordable Coolscan V. Only thing faster are the mini lab scanners - like the Noritsu, but the color/contrast and resolution results are atrocious by comparison.

I have scanned over 30K frames with these to date and I can characterize their use as uneventful and the results are great.
 

Ivo Stunga

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,227
Location
Latvia
Format
35mm
I use Plustek 7600i Ai - all my scans to date are made with it. As mentioned before, this too needs to be operated at 7200 and file to be deflated to 3600 to get the truer optical resolution. Slow, but obviously doable with a healthy dose of patience. Flickr for examples.

From my experience I'd steer away from anything flatbed, for I simply haven't got good results with it both personally and as a service. One time I had to present my own scan for better results, because lab used flatbed to translate my 35mm frame to an A3 print.

Fresh Plustek should perform better and be faster. And is very affordable.
 

fs999

Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
398
Location
Luxembourg
Format
Multi Format
moshin said:
https://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS10M.html
Click to expand...
It's only a 35mm scanner. Don't give filmscanner.info too much credit, they are testing only what they are selling...
And their "test" of the OpticFilm 120 is bs.
Even here some are complaining the scanner is crap, but the real problem is to get a good working version of the scanner (not so good QC), so don't take a discount model, it is mostly refurbished.
 
OP
OP

moshin

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
30
Location
Miami
Format
35mm

thanks for the info, good to know.
 

tomkatf

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
292
Location
San Diego
Format
Medium Format
How would one of these with a high end digital camera and an APO enlarging or copy lens compare? Big advantage is individual slide color/exposure/contrast control (if necessary) and if you set up your work flow right you can shoot a slide every 10sec or so... you also have the option of using flash or quartz halogen bulb exposure for whatever that's worth
 

Auer

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
928
Location
sixfourfive
Format
Hybrid
Epson V600.
It's fairly unintrusive in my office space and good enough for shit that I share on the web.
I like having just one piece of equipment that does this for me, I'm a bit of a minimalist. ( I could exist with one camera, a Lab-Box, scanner and laptop.)
If I need something better I can send out for that work, or use my local camera shop that has a Fuji Frontier.
I dont scan every negative I own.



City Frame-14 by Eric Auer, on Flickr
 

albireo

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,553
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format

Sounds like you tested a faulty unit. I personally know a few people who own one, and follow a trustworthy person on flickr who scans all his 120 with his. Absolutely wonderful results.
 

Les Sarile

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
3,426
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Format
35mm

This is a comparison of detail that can be captured with a Pentax K20D 14.6MP @ 4672 X 3104, Coolscan 4000dpi @ 5700 X 3780, Nikon D800 36MP @ 7360 X 4912. As you can see, the D800 has more pixels then a 4000dpi scan but the Coolscan is able to achieve a tad more detail.

Resolution testing my SMC Pentax-M 50mm F4 macro lens by Les DMess, on Flickr

The big crop on the right is an optical magnification of about 4.5X of the center portion that clearly shows the detail achieved on this frame of 35mm Kodak Techpan (shot at ISO25 and processed in Technidol) and not resoilved by the scans conducted.

I would agree that a DSLR scan is far faster particularly on true b&w film where the effectiveness of ICE does not come into play and post work is very limited to inversion. For color slides it can be faster but not if the slide contains dust and scratches. The Coolscan 5000 takes about 50 seconds to get a full res and clean scan using ICE - about 30 seconds without.

Kodachrome D800-Coolscan by Les DMess, on Flickr

Spotting this DSLR scan would take far longer then the scan.

But when it comes to scanning color negatives, then the much more complicated post work would take far longer then a scan from the Coolscan. And if spotting dust and scratches is required then even longer . . .

Kodak 160VC-06-36 K20D vs 9K ICE by Les DMess, on Flickr

Excuse my poor attempt at color negative conversion compared to the fully automatic results from the Coolscan+Nikonscan. As good as I am in post work, I can't imagine how long it would take for me to match the magical ICE of the Coolscan+Nikonscan.
 

Tom Kershaw

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
4,975
Location
Norfolk, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
albireo said:
Sounds like you tested a faulty unit. I personally know a few people who own one, and follow a trustworthy person on flickr who scans all his 120 with his. Absolutely wonderful results.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to his Flickr page? As mentioned before I use a Coolscan 9000 but I do try and follow the more modern options as well.
 

albireo

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,553
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Tom Kershaw said:
Do you have a link to his Flickr page? As mentioned before I use a Coolscan 9000 but I do try and follow the more modern options as well.
Click to expand...

Hans Kerensky is the person I had in mind - hope it's ok to link his work here

OpticFilm 120 Pro First Scan Kowa Six (01) by Hans Kerensky, on Flickr


Canon 7.Winter 2020 (201) by Hans Kerensky, on Flickr

He states for sure he owns the newer 'Pro' unit, rather than the old 120.

There are many photographers who use a Plustek 120 - though it's sometimes unclear if they use the Pro or the older one. Here's a couple more I like who seem to proficiently use a 120 for their work.

Andrzej:

28 by Andrzej, on Flickr

and Christian Senger
+ by Christian Senger, on Flickr
The Economist by Christian Senger, on Flickr
 

brbo

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
2,293
Location
EU
Format
Multi Format
There are many reviews/tests of this scanner and you can easily google them. One you probably won't find is a series of tests/comparisons done by David Mantripp:
- The Plustek OpticFilm 120 film scanner
- OpticFilm 120 vs. Flextight X5
- OpticFilm 120 vs. Flextight X5 - Round 2

I've never used this scanner but have (or had) many other scanners (from flatbeds to drum scanner) to have a pretty good idea of what I'm seeing in those reviews of the Plustek/OpticFilm 120. It's not the best, but when working properly (which by many reports might not be a safe assumption) it's not bad at all. The focus (should be eliminated with the new Pro version) and banding issues are well documented. I've never heard of the shadow noise issue mentioned by Old Gregg, though. Could that be a misinterpretation of the colour negative structure as presented by a high resolution ccd scanner vs. digital Bayer sensor camera scan? As demonstrated in...

Old Gregg said:
Here's a "scan" made with Sony a7r IV using Sigma Macro lens, downsampled to 5,600x3,400 pixels. Portra 400.
Click to expand...

This digital camera scan is a good example of how the C-41 film structure DOESN'T look at big magnification. Here, all you see is grain totally devoid of any colour information that you would observe in analogue workflow where big enlargements would reveal "noise" or "grain" from dye clouds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register