Best 120 scanning under $1200

[citizenx]

Thanks everyone! Looks like the V600 is the best bet to hold me over until I can get my hands on a Coolscan 8000, which by all accounts should take care of both my 35mm and 120 format needs. Looks like it also has autofocus, which is a plus.

 

[Les Sarile]

Interesting, better than the above dedicated scanners?



Thanks! This would be for 6x6. Sounds like the old scanners can have some issues and camera scanning might be the better choice out of the above then. I have the Fuji 60mm macro and the Canon 100 2.8L macro. I’d have to invest in a proper stand and film carrier setup.



The 9000 was so far outside of my budget that I didn’t consider that the 8000 would be within my budget. Looking further into this it appears the 8000 is optically the same as the 9000, but may not be as fast and uses FireWire (neither are an issue for me).

Do you have any samples of scans of both 35mm and 120 taken with the 8000?

Under ideal conditions, using Kodak Techpan 35mm shot at ISO25 and processed in Kodak Technidol, here is a comparison of what 4000dpi Coolscan results look like in terms of resolution. Bottom left is the target. Above it are 100% crops from: scan from 14.6MP K20D, 4000dpi scan, 36MP Nikon D800. You'll notice that even though the D800 applies more pixels it is about the same as the 4000dpi scan.

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

The big 100% crop to the right is about a 4.5X optical magnification of the target and clearly you can see the details not achieved by these methods. Of course the Coolscan applies 4000dpi across a larger size film while the DSLRs will apply the same number of pixels across hence lessening resolution greatly.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Interesting, better than the above dedicated scanners?

Orders of magnitude faster. Scan a whole roll of 120 in literally a minute or two.

 

[JerseyDoug]

At first my thought process was similar to yours, but I quickly realized the flaw.

• The Polaroid is 4000 dpi, not 4000 pixels across entire image. 4000 dpi for each inch of the image. 4000 dpi = about 157.4 dots per millimeter, or 8818 pixels across each direction, if we started with a Hassy image on film.
• If you used your XT20 to shoot a MF image, the image is optically reduced to fit the XT20 frame resulting in 4000 x 4000 pixels. So the XT20 ends up with about 1/4 the total pixel count coming from the Polaroid.

That was similar to the issue I raised in Post 4, first sentence in the post.

Which is exactly what I said. 1900/4000 linear is very roughly 1/4 area.

 

[wiltw]

Which is exactly what I said. 1900/4000 linear is very roughly 1/4 area.

I see similarity in proportion 1/4
But I fail to see where 1900 comes from or 4000...what units per what distance? help me understand.
My numbers are 4000 x 4000 (shot on XT20) vs. 8818 x 8818 (scanned at 4000 dpi), both are final pixel count of the respective digitized image,
or 16MPixels vs. 77.76MPixels.

 

[citizenx]

I’ve ordered the v600. I understand it has an actual resolution or 2400ppi. I think my Plustek 8200i has an actual resolution of 3200ppi.

So, all things being equal, if I were to scan 35mm negatives/slides on the v600 and Plustek at 2400ppi, would they be of equal sharpness and quality?

 

[mshchem]

I bought a Canon Canoscan 9000F from B&H several years ago. I never use it because I hate messing around scanning film.

I have used it to scan 6x17 Fujichrome. Before my friend closed his shop his master printer used the scan to make two great prints. One was 11" x 36" RA4 print and another was a Canon inkjet print that was nearly 6 feet long. I spent over $150 on this experience, really amazing results. Now the prints are rolled up in my studio. I like smaller prints.

I use a Nikon Coolscan for 35mm slides, my Dad's Kodachrome ASA 10 slides absolutely blow my mind. Kodak's labs were the best.
I think I paid a couple hundred bucks for the Canon scanner, I use VueScan for everything.

I would look for a nice reasonable price on a Canon (used) or an Epson (new or used) scanner.

 

[Les Sarile]

I’ve ordered the v600. I understand it has an actual resolution or 2400ppi. I think my Plustek 8200i has an actual resolution of 3200ppi.

So, all things being equal, if I were to scan 35mm negatives/slides on the v600 and Plustek at 2400ppi, would they be of equal sharpness and quality?

I only had an Epson V500 and not the V600 so it might be similar. On Kodak Ektar 100, it doesn't appear to get much above 2400dpi setting which goes with what you understand it to be.

Kodak Ektar 100_12-05 V500 by Les DMess, on Flickr


This is the same Kodak Ektar 100 using a Coolscan at 4000dpi and may not be too disimilar to the Plustek.

Kodak Ektar 100_12-05 CS5000 by Les DMess, on Flickr


Same Ektar 100 on Epson V700 and maxes out at 4800dpi. Notice the difference between Epson 4800dpi and Coolscan 4000dpi in terms of sharpness and actual detail achieved even with ICE turned on.

Kodak Ektar 100_12-05 V700 by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[citizenx]

I only had an Epson V500 and not the V600 so it might be similar. On Kodak Ektar 100, it doesn't appear to get much above 2400dpi setting which goes with what you understand it to be.

Kodak Ektar 100_12-05 V500 by Les DMess, on Flickr


This is the same Kodak Ektar 100 using a Coolscan at 4000dpi and may not be too disimilar to the Plustek.

Kodak Ektar 100_12-05 CS5000 by Les DMess, on Flickr


Same Ektar 100 on Epson V700 and maxes out at 4800dpi. Notice the difference between Epson 4800dpi and Coolscan 4000dpi in terms of sharpness and actual detail achieved even with ICE turned on.

Kodak Ektar 100_12-05 V700 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Thank you for that! I’m surprised, it seems to hold its own at its native resolution and definitely doesn’t appear to be as soft as much of the internet has made it out to be. I certainly wouldn’t expect it to rival anything at 4000dpi, but it absolutely appears to be very respectable at 2400dpi and should hold me over just fine as I delve into film development further, until I’m able to get a Coolscan 8000/9000.

 

[brbo]

Film scanning...an optic of undertain optimization presenting an image on CCD sensor

A good CCD scanner will have a better lens (for that specific job) than most copy lenses most of us can buy. The best CCD line scanners will have a better lens than any copy lens available.

 

[JerseyDoug]

I see similarity in proportion 1/4
But I fail to see where 1900 comes from or 4000...what units per what distance? help me understand.
My numbers are 4000 x 4000 (shot on XT20) vs. 8818 x 8818 (scanned at 4000 dpi), both are final pixel count of the respective digitized image,
or 16MPixels vs. 77.76MPixels.

I repeat, we are both saying the same thing about camera scanning. I said nothing about scanning with a flatbed or with a dedicated film scanner. The point I was making is that scanning 6x6 negatives with a single exposure of a digital camera results in a much lower resolution scan than scanning a 35mm negative with the same camera.

I use a Fuji X-T20 for scanning negatives. It has a sensor of 4000x6000 px. A 35mm negative is roughly 1x1.5 in. My three MF cameras all have different negative sizes but 2.125x2.125 in is a rough average.

If I scan a 35mm negative with a single exposure the resolution is 4000 px divided by 1 in, which is 4000 ppi. The resulting file is 24 megapixels.

If I scan a nominal 6x6 negative with a single exposure the resolution is 4000 px divided by roughly 2.125 in, which is roughly 1900 ppi. The resulting file is 16 megapixels.

 

[jeffreyg]

I can't speak for the tech specs but for a practical experience I had four images enlarged and printed for an exhibition. Three were enlarged to five feet and one to six feet. The six foot one was a digital camera (Nikon D300) capture of an 11x14 print. Of the other three one was from a digital capture with the D300 and Nikon zoom lens, one was from a 35mm Tri-x negative and Epson V850 and the fourth from an Ilford Delta 400 120 negative also with the Epson V850. The scanner was set at 2400ppi and SilverFast Ai Studio8 software was used. All were very sharp and from normal viewing distance looked the same quality. I have routinely scanned 120 and 4x5 with the Epson V850 and printed up to 16x20 with excellent results that is not to say there can be better technical results with a drum scanner or dedicated film scanner but for practical high quality prints this has worked for me.

ABOUT | JEFFREY GLASSER

HOME | SCULPTURE and PHOTOGRAPHY

 

[JerseyDoug]

With scanned images just about anything can be made to appear sharp using digital post processing.

The best scanning test I have come up with is to compare the best 11x14 darkroom print of a particular negative I made 50 years ago with the best inkjet print of the same size and similar paper surface that I can make today using a scan of the same negative.

I do two comparisons: an arms length look at the two prints for an overall impression, and a close look at the grain in both prints using a 8x loupe. The inkjet prints that best match the appearance of the grain of the corresponding darkroom prints almost always are the ones that I like best at arms length.

I also find that some films and developer combinations work better, i.e., produce a better match of the darkroom prints, than others when scanned, but that is a topic for another conversation.

 

[wiltw]

I repeat, we are both saying the same thing about camera scanning. I said nothing about scanning with a flatbed or with a dedicated film scanner. The point I was making is that scanning 6x6 negatives with a single exposure of a digital camera results in a much lower resolution scan than scanning a 35mm negative with the same camera.

I use a Fuji X-T20 for scanning negatives. It has a sensor of 4000x6000 px. A 35mm negative is roughly 1x1.5 in. My three MF cameras all have different negative sizes but 2.125x2.125 in is a rough average.

If I scan a 35mm negative with a single exposure the resolution is 4000 px divided by 1 in, which is 4000 ppi. The resulting file is 24 megapixels.

If I scan a nominal 6x6 negative with a single exposure the resolution is 4000 px divided by roughly 2.125 in, which is roughly 1900 ppi. The resulting file is 16 megapixels.

OK, now understand what you meant...start with 4000 pixels in XT20, photograph a 56mm slide image onto that area equates to using 1900 pixels 'per inch of the original image'

 

[citizenx]

Hi everyone,

I just want to thank everyone again for the suggestions! The Epson V600 arrived today and I tried scanning two 120 6x6 negatives. Admittedly I am very new to film, and this is the first roll of 120 film I’ve shot on my new (to me) Rolleiflex 2.8F.

Initial thoughts are that I’m not too big of a fan of flatbeds because picking up the holder is difficult to do without leaving fingerprints. I guess a microfiber cloth and some Zeiss lens cleaner might help? I think my first purchase is going to be a V600 film holder that is modified to use the ANR glass, as this will help keep the film flat.

Anyway, here are my first two scans. Rollieflex 2.8F, Ilford HP4, developed by The Dark Room, and scanned with the V600 at 3200dpi (make sure to download the file. Google’s preview sucks):

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16xWy6EXy4SCYXStQvad9Wm1-WetlhItC

Overall I’m happy with the results and I think that this will hold me over just fine until I can get a dedicated 120 film scanner (either Coolscan or Pacific Image’s new 120 scanner coming out later this year).

Finally, as I understand it, Digital ICE and Silverfast’s iSRD doesn’t work on Black & White negatives. Does anyone have any recommendations for workflows or an automated process of removing dust, debris, and scratches?

 

[McDiesel]

@citizenx regarding dust: in my experience the most effective way to not have any is to start scanning as soon as possible, i.e. immediately after drying. Tegardless of how clean your environment is, it's amazing how quickly it accumulates if you let your rolls hang.

I also looked at your TIFF scans. I too started scanning with a V600 and still have it. Congratulations: your unit somehow is better than mine in terms of resolution, either they have improved something in its construction, or perhaps there are manufacturing variations between copies.

I did notice some highlight clipping though, probably something you can address with scanning settings.

 

[JerseyDoug]

Another good option for holding the negatives flat is the Lomography DigitaLIZA 120 Scanning Mask. It costs just $45, it holds the film very flat, and there are no additional glass surfaces to add to the dust problems.

When I am using my V600 with the DigitaLIZA I pass the film gently through a folded over clean new Paterson Anti-Static Cloth, load the film into the DigitaLIZA, wipe the scanner glass with the Anti-Static Cloth, and place the DigitaLIZA on the glass taking care not to touch the narrow strip of glass under where the negatives will be.

 

[citizenx]

@citizenx regarding dust: in my experience the most effective way to not have any is to start scanning as soon as possible, i.e. immediately after drying. Tegardless of how clean your environment is, it's amazing how quickly it accumulates if you let your rolls hang.

I also looked at your TIFF scans. I too started scanning with a V600 and still have it. Congratulations: your unit somehow is better than mine in terms of resolution, either they have improved something in its construction, or perhaps there are manufacturing variations between copies.

I did notice some highlight clipping though, probably something you can address with scanning settings.

Thank you! I’m pretty happy with the results but I imagine I’ll get better as I continue to work with it.

Another good option for holding the negatives flat is the Lomography DigitaLIZA 120 Scanning Mask. It costs just $45, it holds the film very flat, and there are no additional glass surfaces to add to the dust problems.

When I am using my V600 with the DigitaLIZA I pass the film gently through a folded over clean new Paterson Anti-Static Cloth, load the film into the DigitaLIZA, wipe the scanner glass with the Anti-Static Cloth, and place the DigitaLIZA on the glass taking care not to touch the narrow strip of glass under where the negatives will be.

Thanks for that! That looks really cool. In your experience, do you need any type of height adjustment with your V600 when using these masks?

 

[JerseyDoug]

Thank you! I’m pretty happy with the results but I imagine I’ll get better as I continue to work with it.



Thanks for that! That looks really cool. In your experience, do you need any type of height adjustment with your V600 when using these masks?

When I was using the OEM Epson V600 120 film holder I did a series of scans with various numbers of card stock shims to see if raising the holder would result in better focus. I went all the way from no shims to a stack of six shims* The differences were subtle but it seemed that one shim might have been a bit better than zero shims or two shims.

As near as I can tell with a dial caliper the height of the surface contacting the film in the DigitaLIZA is about half of one of my shims higher than the OEM Epson carrier. I repeated the shim test with the DigitaLIZA and couldn't decide if I preferred no shim or one shim. Two shims looks a bit worse. For simplicity as much as anything else I am using no shims.

I would have worried if no shims was noticeably better in either test than one shim because minus one shim might be even better and there is no practical way to do that.

Lastly, I do not know how repeatable the optimum height is from one V600 to another V600. I do not remember seeing any documented discussion of this topic. Lots of opinions and anecdotes but no tests that I have seen.

* The shims were little squares of a cut up business card with Scotch double sided tape to hold them together and attach them to the film carrier. They measure about 1/64" in thickness.

 

[JerseyDoug]

One last thing about the DigitaLIZA: At least one reviewer mentioned that it is hard to place it on the glass platen centered on the scanning path and square with the scanning axis. I discovered by accident that the metal insert that is removed before placing the DigitaLIZA on the scanner works perfectly as a spacer from the left side of the glass. Since it is not as thick as the actual DigitaLIZA I just leave it there for the scan.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Film copied to film...an optimized optic presenting an image on film.
Film copied to sensor...an optimized optic presenting an image on CMOS sensor
Film scanning...an optic of undertain optimization presenting an image on CCD sensor

How is film-to-film different from film-to-CMOS...apart from how many sensels and their dynamic range and freedom from circuit noise?!

The difference is the result is film in one case and 1s and 0s in the second case.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My V850 film holders are height adjustable. I found it really does make a difference in sharpness and focus. A new buyer of the unit should check each film holder for the optimal height and mark it for future use.

 

[warden]

I just want to thank everyone again for the suggestions! The Epson V600 arrived today and I tried scanning two 120 6x6 negatives.

Looking good!

 

[Cinema]

personally i find the epson gives much better flat scan and inversion through epsonscan than i get through negative lab pro, which is always wrong and hard to get a neutral clean scan. however i find that even a single frame DSLR
scan is sharper than my v500.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

personally i find the epson gives much better flat scan and inversion through epsonscan than i get through negative lab pro, which is always wrong and hard to get a neutral clean scan. however i find that even a single frame DSLR
scan is sharper than my v500.

In what format?