A modern scanner for 35mm and 120 film

[Les Sarile]

It is - apologies I should have read the title better

No apologies needed as I heard it's a good solution for 35mm but apparently their prices have gone way up.

 

[wiltw]

The Canon flatbed scanners I have always found to do scans of film (neg or slides) of more than acceptable quality, with relative ease of good color balance or B&W tone. Originally the 8000F could handle 135 thru 4x5, but then Canon stopped providing 4x5 capability, so the 8800F and later scanners only came with hardware accessories to support 135 and medium format. The Canon flatbed scanner line is discontinued, but it is still possible to buy new 9000F scanner for about $240 https://www.aceofficemachines.com/c...ge-scanner-4800-x-4800-dpi-cnm4207b002aa.html (although there are dealers asking $800-900!). It scans to 9600x9600 resolution with ICE support.

 

[MattKing]

A Canon 9950 came with 4x5 capability.
But I don't think any of the Canon scanners licensed ICE. Instead, some offered FARE, which isn't quite as effective.

 

[wiltw]

A Canon 9950 came with 4x5 capability.
But I don't think any of the Canon scanners licensed ICE. Instead, some offered FARE, which isn't quite as effective.

And unfortunately the Canon 9950 was discontinued in 2007, although there are a few available new still. But thx for the mention that it had 4x5 scanning capability!

 

[MattKing]

The Canon 9000F came in two flavours - the initial version and the last one offered - the 9000F Mark II.
I paid under $100.00 for a used 9000F a few years ago and it gives me pretty decent results from medium format.
And usable results for 135 film.
It isn't quick.

 

[braxus]

Re post 187, a good choice IMO. The Primefilm XA appears to be identical to the Reflecta 10M which, having a true measured resolution of 4300 dpi seems to be the highest resolution 35mm scanner available new at this time.
https://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS10M.html

Interesting. I wasn't aware of this info. Could explain why other reviews have said don't bother going above 5000 ppi. Im still waiting to do some color on this scanner, but will at some point.

The V850 had a 2300 to 2600ppi rez.

 

[vwalt]

I know this is a very old thread. Nonetheless I thought it might be interesting for those still curious about the Plustek OpticFilm 120 and Silverfast software.

Having some spare time I decided to re-scan old negatives so I dusted off my Plustek OpticFilm 120 (not Pro) and updated the Silverfast software. So far I'm about 100 images into the project and here are some examples:

Alpa-1.jpg +31 more

www.amazon.co.uk

You will be the judge but I'd say that the results are pleasing and the experience has, so far, been surprisingly positive.

A bunch of patience is certainly required as the process is far from swift but I've found the quality consistent and have relied on a number of features built in the software (multi-exposure, SDRx or iSRD and Negafix) which have made things easier.

I remembered the frustrations I had experienced with Silverfast so I started the project with Vuescan but was disappointed so bit the bullet and upgraded Silverfast to version 9 and found the software almost unrecognisable; and in a good way. It is now stable - not one crash and the results are in most aspects quite a lot better than what I am getting from Vuescan.

My workflow:

- Scan
- First adjustments in PhotoShop
- Import into LightRoom Classic for fine-tuning
- Re-edit in PhotoShop to make print ready
- Send off to dStudio for printing, everything the same size (35cm on the long side with a 50 percent white border)

If someone has any questions on either the scanner or the software I'll only be too happy to answer them.

All best, Vincent

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use the Epson V850 Pro for scanning 135, 120 and 4"x5".

 

[MFstooges]

A Facebook big honcho once said to "lean in".

These folks really lean in

 

[George Mann]

A Facebook big honcho once said to "lean in".

These folks really lean in

The Fuji Frontier yields the most "film-like" results.

 

[brbo]

The Fuji Frontier yields the most "film-like" results.

Yes, definitely more film-like results than a RA-4 wet print...

But you probably mean that of the three scanners compared, the Frontier is closest to the wet print. I'd say that it gets some colours "right", but the others "wrong". A toss between Epson and Frontier, Imacon being totally off (but still pleasing). And I'm pretty sure some other person operating those scanners would get significantly different results.

 

[George Mann]

Yes, definitely more film-like results than a RA-4 wet print...

I wouldn't say so, no.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

That guy went the extra mile for Fidel-ity, no?

 

[BMbikerider]

I think I mentioned this before but in case it has been missed there has not been a'conventional' film scanner to equal the last versions of the Nikon, both 35mm or 120 sizes. 4000DPI is enough for anything but there are two points in which they have never been exceeded or equalled and that is the Dmax is over and above any flat bed scanner (I think about 4.3) and the ability to scan in RAW does not seemingly appear on any flatbed.

I have had Coolscan 5 since around 2006 and this last year it went away for a clean and check and it is performing as good as new. It was returned with a clean bill of health and a report that there were no faults found, wear was minimal and operating as it should.

The drawbacks are, it is quite slow and if you stick to the original software you are tied to a computer using Windows XP. There are 3rd party software products such as Viewscan but having seen them working I am not impressed. The Nikon scan software is easier to manage.

 

[albireo]

The drawbacks are, it is quite slow and if you stick to the original software you are tied to a computer using Windows XP.

That's incorrect. I use my Coolscan 8000ED with Nikonscan 4.0.3 on a modern PC running Windows 11 64bit without any issues. Installation is pretty straightforward, there are guides around eg Lincolnscan has one.

I prefer it to Vuescan for scanning C41 material, much better colours out of the box IMO and much better ICE implementation.

 

[BMbikerider]

That's incorrect. I use my Coolscan 8000ED with Nikonscan 4.0.3 on a modern PC running Windows 11 64bit without any issues. Installation is pretty straightforward, there are guides around eg Lincolnscan has one.

I prefer it to Vuescan for scanning C41 material, much better colours out of the box IMO and much better ICE implementation.

It was announced by Nikon that the Coolscan in both versions, would not be supported by any software after Windows XP. This was not only on line, but announced by Nikon themselves. I did try when I changed over the Windows 7 after my desktop burned out, and it would part load then a error message would come up. A lot of people are using the Viewscan with the later versions of Windows but as I said I don't like the system.

However I know the gentleman trading as Lincolnscan and he was the guy who serviced my Scanner. He never mentioned anything about being able to load Nikon software using a computer with Windows 10 or 11. After the furor of Xmas is over I will get in touch with him.

 

[dokko]

[...] 4000DPI is enough for anything [...]

I would disagree here...

I just scanned a 35mm image at 11'000ppi which was printed 5 meter wide for an exhibition, and it definitely looks better than if it would have been scanned at 4000ppi.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would disagree here...

I just scanned a 35mm image at 11'000ppi which was printed 5 meter wide for an exhibition, and it definitely looks better than if it would have been scanned at 4000ppi.

But how often do you print a 5 meter wide print? I have never in my life and if I did I would have started with medium format [6x6] or 4"x5" film.

 

[dokko]

But how often do you print a 5 meter wide print? I have never in my life and if I did I would have started with medium format [6x6] or 4"x5" film.

personally never.
but I scan for a few people who do. and yes often it's medium or large format, but in this case the artist wanted the grain texture to be an important element of the work.

 

[BMbikerider]

I would disagree here...

I just scanned a 35mm image at 11'000ppi which was printed 5 meter wide for an exhibition, and it definitely looks better than if it would have been scanned at 4000ppi.

Disagree all you like. We are talking of home produced images for printing to normal sized pictures at that resolution (which I have never heard discussed before,) On a 35mm film even the finest grain colour or monochrome type would give you grain which would be uncomfortable to look at when viewed at normal distances and the edge resolution would have broken down and looked dreadful.

What was the make and model of the scanner you were able to use? Or even the printer, it may be able to print at 5m wide but what was the other dimension? I mean height of the print

 

[BMbikerider]

I have just done a search on the web and come up with this:-

Maximum useful resolution for scanning 35mm film​

Photography Stack Exchange
https://photo.stackexchange.com › questions › maximu...




18 Jan 2021 — To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels. That's about 8128 DPI.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am thinking of a possible slight exageration with your figures here.

 

[BMbikerider]

But how often do you print a 5 meter wide print? I have never in my life and if I did I would have started with medium format [6x6] or 4"x5" film.

Or more likely a high resolution medium format digital camera.

 

[dokko]

Disagree all you like. We are talking of home produced images for printing to normal sized pictures at that resolution

errrm, my reply was specifically addressed to this point:

[...] 4000DPI is enough for anything [...]

if by the term "anything" you instead meant:
"home produced images for printing to normal sized pictures at that resolution"

.. then I agree, 4000ppi usually should be ok for that (although at around 40x30cm you'll start to see a difference)

What was the make and model of the scanner you were able to use? Or even the printer, it may be able to print at 5m wide but what was the other dimension? I mean height of the print

there are lots of industrial printers which can print over 3meters wide and on rolls as long as you want. and for those who need bigger than that, there's the possibility to seamlessly stitch prints together (in Germany, Grieger is well know for their skills on that).

I used a scanner of my own design which was specially build for high resolution scans and can scan up to 40'000ppi (although the sweet spot for most films is around 10'000-15'000ppi).

I don't have a 4000ppi comparison, but here some crops of 3200ppi vs 11'000ppi in a gif animation:

more details in this thread:

Scan of Grain Texture at 11'000ppi

As a side issue, or maybe it's really a central issue, the results in this thread should permanently put to rest the idea that once you get to 4000 ppi you have extracted all of the information the film can give. "Extracting all information" is not a practical goal. I interpreted the OPs...

www.photrio.com

 

[Richard Man]

Wow, that's crazy resolution!

 

[alanrockwood]

errrm, my reply was specifically addressed to this point:



if by the term "anything" you instead meant:
"home produced images for printing to normal sized pictures at that resolution"

.. then I agree, 4000ppi usually should be ok for that (although at around 40x30cm you'll start to see a difference)


there are lots of industrial printers which can print over 3meters wide and on rolls as long as you want. and for those who need bigger than that, there's the possibility to seamlessly stitch prints together (in Germany, Grieger is well know for their skills on that).

I used a scanner of my own design which was specially build for high resolution scans and can scan up to 40'000ppi (although the sweet spot for most films is around 10'000-15'000ppi).

I don't have a 4000ppi comparison, but here some crops of 3200ppi vs 11'000ppi in a gif animation:

more details in this thread:

Scan of Grain Texture at 11'000ppi

As a side issue, or maybe it's really a central issue, the results in this thread should permanently put to rest the idea that once you get to 4000 ppi you have extracted all of the information the film can give. "Extracting all information" is not a practical goal. I interpreted the OPs...

www.photrio.com

This should put to rest any question of whether there is any significant detail beyond 3200ppi. It would probably also put to rest any question of whether there is significant detail in a scan beyond 4000ppi if we had a 4000ppi image to compare to.

That said, it would depend quite a bit on what kind of film was being scanned.

Also, in terms of resolution, one should keep in mind that with film there is a gradual loss of contrast as the spatial frequency goes up. This is in contrast to a digital image where the contrast is (at least in principle) constant until it suddenly falls of the table at very high spatial frequency. (Actually, this is an oversimplification, but I won't attempt to get into the weeds of a more detailed explanation, which gets into the topic of aliasing, quality of lens, etc.)

I do not mean this comment to address the long-standing controversy about which is better, analog or digital, but rather it is meant to address the concept(s) of what happens when you convert a film image to a digital image using a scanner. An ideal scanner (which doesn't actually exist) would maintain a good representation of the image for the lower spatial frequencies in the film image, but because there is a spatial frequency cutoff in the scanner the scanned image will not record the higher spatial frequencies of the image. Those higher spatial frequencies may or may not contribute to visually perceptible detail in the image, depending on how much contrast there is at those higher spatial frequencies.

For an image recorded on an extremely sharp film using an extremely sharp lens with the camera held rigidly in place there is almost certainly visually perceptible information in the image that is not captured with a 4000ppi scanner. Such a scanner cannot possibly capture spatial frequencies above 78.74 line pairs per mm because that's the Nyquist limit. It is known that certain film/lens combinations can do better than that, so under ideal conditions a 4000 dpi scanner is not enough to capture all of the detail. However, it might capture enough of the detail to be good enough for most people under most conditions but not enough for everyone under the most demanding conditions.

Then of course, there is the matter of film grain. My understanding is that, statistically speaking, grain is quite similar to white noise up to a very high spatial frequency range. what that means is that some film grain will be visible in a relatively low ppi image, but it becomes more visible as the scanner ppi increases. This is a gradual process, and the higher the ppi of the scan the more grain becomes resolved. How much grain is enough and how much is too much is both a technical and an aesthetic issue. However, generally speaking there will be spatial frequency components in the grain that are higher than the spatial frequency components of the underlying image.

There's a lot more that could be discussed, such as viewing distance, the resolution of the eye used to observe the photo, and many other factors, but I will leave it at that for now.