Are SCSI Scanners worth it?

[mehguy]

Hi,

I have an old pentium 3 machine that I like to keep kicking around for legacy software purposes, and I'm wondering if it's worth it to take advantage of the low priced scanners that used the SCSI interface and came out around the turn of the millennium. Something like a Nikon LS30 was not cheap when it came out (one tier below Nikon's top of the line scanner) but can be picked up today for peanuts (assuming since it uses a SCSI interface rather than USB) and I was wondering if something like this still holds up today.

Can these SCSI scanners still offer good results? Disregarding their outdated interface.

 

[Chan Tran]

I think they are OK but still they are not cheap on Ebay. I still have a PC with SCSI 320 running Windows XP.

 

[faberryman]

I have an old pentium 3 machine that I like to keep kicking around for legacy software purposes, and I'm wondering if it's worth it to take advantage of the low priced scanners that used the SCSI interface and came out around the turn of the millennium. Something like a Nikon LS30 was not cheap when it came out (one tier below Nikon's top of the line scanner) but can be picked up today for peanuts (assuming since it uses a SCSI interface rather than USB) and I was wondering if something like this still holds up today.

The Nikon LS30 has a claimed resolution of 2700dpi. Who knows what the actual resolution is. That one doesn't look like a top candidate.

 

[mehguy]

The Nikon LS30 has a claimed resolution of 2700dpi. Who knows what the actual resolution is. That one doesn't look like a top candidate.

I'd imagine that the actual sensor size is a lot larger than most flatbeds, so perhaps the quality can be better despite the lower DPI.

 

[cramej]

I'm wondering if it's worth it

IMO, no. Even more No if it wasn't a TOTL scanner in the day.

The workarounds can be such a pain and legacy hardware can get expensive. Failures could leave you starting from scratch again.

 

[mehguy]

IMO, no. Even more No if it wasn't a TOTL scanner in the day.

The workarounds can be such a pain and legacy hardware can get expensive. Failures could leave you starting from scratch again.

Why? legacy software headaches aside, were these scanners not good when they came out?

 

[Chan Tran]

Why? legacy software headaches aside, were these scanners not good when they came out?

I my opinion it's OK but how much would you expect to pay for one of those in good working condition?

 

[mehguy]

I my opinion it's OK but how much would you expect to pay for one of those in good working condition?

I've seen them go for around $100. Which is the same price as a flatbed scanner that's 10 years newer.

 

[cramej]

Speaking specifically to the LS30, it's only 2700dpi and SCSI. The V or 5000 would be better choices for 35mm with 4000dpi and USB. Even the 4000 with Firewire would probably be easier to use.

 

[mehguy]

Speaking specifically to the LS30, it's only 2700dpi and SCSI. The V or 5000 would be better choices for 35mm with 4000dpi and USB. Even the 4000 with Firewire would probably be easier to use.

For the price that the 4000 and 5000 go for you might as well just buy a modern scanner.

 

[gone]

Nikon scanners were some of the best on the market at the time. I had a V ED that was just great, plus it had the ICE, which is a life saver if you have some beat up color negs (sadly, it doesn't work w/ B&W films). The Nikon software worked fine, never saw a need for anything different. I think the LS30 is essentially the same scanner, just less resolution, but 2700 will give you plenty of detail and 11x19 prints.

The old Epson 2450 flatbed is a beast too. It can make negative scans as big as it's bed, which is quite large, just by taping the neg to the glass. I saw almost no difference in scan quality between it and my Nikon scanner, but the file sizes were different, and no ICE on the Epson. Minolta Scan Dual is another good scanner, but it's sometimes hard to find them w/ all the negative trays.

 

[runswithsizzers]

If I already had something like that, bought and paid for, then I might be willing to invest some time into keeping it up and running. But no, I would not buy a SCSI scanner today. Instead, I would set that money aside and put some more with it until I had enough to buy into a more future-proof solution.

Actually, I do have something like that - a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite F-2900. That scanner connects by SCSI, and I was using it with a SCSI-to-Firewire adaptor with my 2011 iMac. When I replaced that old iMac with a newer model, I gave away the old one. Personally, I am not willing to devote the time and space to maintaining a second work station just for the SCSI scanner, but that's just me. Once I started copying my film with a digital camera, I lost all interest in the old SCSI film scanner.

 

[mehguy]

If I already had something like that, bought and paid for, then I might be willing to invest some time into keeping it up and running. But no, I would not buy a SCSI scanner today. Instead, I would set that money aside and put some more with it until I had enough to buy into a more future-proof solution.

Actually, I do have something like that - a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite F-2900. That scanner connects by SCSI, and I was using it with a SCSI-to-Firewire adaptor with my 2011 iMac. When I replaced that old iMac with a newer model, I gave away the old one. Personally, I am not willing to devote the time and space to maintaining a second work station just for the SCSI scanner, but that's just me. Once I started copying my film with a digital camera, I lost all interest in the old SCSI film scanner.

I have no issue with maintaining an older system just for the scanner and have no intention of throwing away my SCSI-capable machine. I already have quite a few older machines kicking around for various purposes and it is a second hobby to me .

 

[runswithsizzers]

I have no issue with maintaining an older system just for the scanner and have no intention of throwing away my SCSI-capable machine. I already have quite a few older machines kicking around for various purposes and it is a second hobby to me .

Well, you did ask.

 

[MattKing]

If you already work with SCSI capable computers and operating systems, the answer to your question depends on:
1) availability of compatible software and accessories such as film holders;
2) condition of the scanners themselves; and
3) reparability of the scanners.
I would suggest that #3 will be a potential problem for any scanner of that vintage.
It is quite possible that you could obtain a scanner that works quite well, but it is likely that it will be slow.

 

[reddesert]

The Nikon Coolscan III or LS-30 was a professional scanner when it was released - pretty much second only to whatever the Nikon uber-pro model was at the time. I bought one new in I think 1999 and it was $750-800 (and for the nostalgia LOLs, it was the first time I bought anything expensive from an e-commerce site). It's very similar to the successor Coolscan IV, which had USB, and thus costs more now.

I believe that dpi ratings are a lousy way to compare scanners. Many flatbeds or anything that isn't a dedicated film scanner report a dpi that is ridiculously high compared to the useful resolution delivered.

The thing to watch out for with Coolscans is that the transport can become immovable due to (I think) dried grease from sitting around for a long time. There are people who can fix it, but that makes it not cheap anymore. So make sure it works. You need separate adapters (MA-20 and SA-20) for mounted slides vs negative strips.

If you can deal with the SCSI it should still produce quality results, because IMO it was good and film scanners haven't advanced enormously.

The scanner worked well with the Adaptec PCI SCSI card that it was bundled with, and also an Adaptec PCMCIA SCSI card. IIRC, the only adapter that would let you run it without a SCSI card was an Adaptec USB-SCSI adapter that was expensive BITD and is finest unobtainium now. I wonder where they all went. Anyway, other USB-SCSI adapters are likely to be a waste of time.

 

[PhilBurton]

If you already work with SCSI capable computers and operating systems, the answer to your question depends on:


3) reparability of the scanners.
I would suggest that #3 will be a potential problem for any scanner of that vintage.
It is quite possible that you could obtain a scanner that works quite well, but it is likely that it will be slow

There is a facebook group devoted to all Nikon scanners. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1514948298527146/. There are two guys in that group who service these scanners full-time. There are also very knowledgeable people there who can answer your question.

 

[mehguy]

The Nikon Coolscan III or LS-30 was a professional scanner when it was released - pretty much second only to whatever the Nikon uber-pro model was at the time. I bought one new in I think 1999 and it was $750-800 (and for the nostalgia LOLs, it was the first time I bought anything expensive from an e-commerce site). It's very similar to the successor Coolscan IV, which had USB, and thus costs more now.

I believe that dpi ratings are a lousy way to compare scanners. Many flatbeds or anything that isn't a dedicated film scanner report a dpi that is ridiculously high compared to the useful resolution delivered.

The thing to watch out for with Coolscans is that the transport can become immovable due to (I think) dried grease from sitting around for a long time. There are people who can fix it, but that makes it not cheap anymore. So make sure it works. You need separate adapters (MA-20 and SA-20) for mounted slides vs negative strips.

If you can deal with the SCSI it should still produce quality results, because IMO it was good and film scanners haven't advanced enormously.

The scanner worked well with the Adaptec PCI SCSI card that it was bundled with, and also an Adaptec PCMCIA SCSI card. IIRC, the only adapter that would let you run it without a SCSI card was an Adaptec USB-SCSI adapter that was expensive BITD and is finest unobtainium now. I wonder where they all went. Anyway, other USB-SCSI adapters are likely to be a waste of time.

Yes! thank you! this is exactly my way of thinking! Flatbeds end up giving bleh results and were never used by pros. it feels like the film scanning feature is an after thought whereas an LS30, a scanner very much used by pros back in the day and designed exclusively for film, was expected to give good quality results, despite the rather dated specs compared to today's scanners.

 

[yeolde]

Better go with a camera stand

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Yes! thank you! this is exactly my way of thinking! Flatbeds end up giving bleh results and were never used by pros. it feels like the film scanning feature is an after thought whereas an LS30, a scanner very much used by pros back in the day and designed exclusively for film, was expected to give good quality results, despite the rather dated specs compared to today's scanners.

Here is an old review of the LS30 by Thom Hogan

https://www.filmbodies.com/articles/coolscan-iii-ls-30-review.html

He was not totally enthusiastic, but if you have a SCSI computer, it should be worth the experiment.

 

[jtk]

Scanner "specs" have always been dubious, not to mention irrelevant.

Nikon V is/was distinctly better than 30 and better than todays best flatbed (unless you fluid mount). Nikons hold film flat but allow focusing on whatever part of frame you think is most significant if your film is curly..

I use a Nikon V. I wouldn't buy a used Nikon because I'd be concerned about how it was stored (temperature) and transported (bouncing around).

Nikon seems to have no competition in 35mm. Current Epsons are apparently pretty good at 6X6 etc.

 

[bernard_L]

I scan my 35mm film on a LS-2000. Desktop computer is Win 10; added dual boot Win 7 to accomodate my legacy Adaptec PCI SCSI interface (there may be solutions for Win 10).
35mm scans from the LS-2000 are of better quality than from my V700. Better as-scanned resolution and sharpness. Better color separation also, which I ascribe (without proof) to the tri-Led lighting system of the LS-2000 (more selective color channels) versus the CFL of the Epson machine. Plus it has autofocus.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you have the equipment to support SCSI sure why not?

 

[wiltw]

Why? legacy software headaches aside, were these scanners not good when they came out?

There are more recent flatbed scanners (some no longer manufactured) that have 4800 ppi scan density. It was good 'in its time' but time improved scanners.

 

[tokam]

There are more recent flatbed scanners (some no longer manufactured) that have 4800 ppi scan density. It was good 'in its time' but time improved scanners.

..and NONE of the Epson Vxxx scanners autofocus. You can play around with the height of the film holders which you should calibrate yourself. I have a set of Betterscanning 120 film holders for the V700 and they are much better than the Epson holders. Unfortunately it seems that Betterscanning are not operating at the moment.

I'm not drinking that 4800 ppi Cool-Aid. Most reviews of recent flatbed scanner say the optical resolution tops out much less than 4800ppi, closer to half of that in fact.

An autofocusing Nikon scanner at 2700ppi will give a nearly 11 MP image. More than enough for most 35mm negs. The big worry is SCSII.