Best 120 scanning under $1200

[citizenx]

So as the title says, what offers the best scanning under $1200?

I’d prefer a dedicated film scanner. I’m happy with the Plustek 8200i for 35mm.

So far I see the Pacific Image PF120 and the Polaroid SprintScan 120. Am I missing any other models?

For flatbeds I see the Epson V850, but so far most of what I’ve read is it’s “ok”.

Finally DSLR scanning, not something I’d really prefer, but I do have a Canon 5D MKIII and a Fuji XT4.

Out of all of the above mentioned, which will produce the best quality scans?

Also I should mention, I’ll only be scanning newly developed strips. Nothing old, so I imagine IR capabilities aren’t a must.

 

[mshchem]

DSLR is fast!

 

[Alan9940]

As the above says, camera scanning will provide MUCH better quality scans than any of the options you mention IMO.

 

[wiltw]

Using XT4, there are the equivalent of 4400 pixels per inch, but you are shooting 120 format image (you did not specify what format size shot on 120 film) down to 24mm image height!
Keep in mind you should use a good macro lens (flat field corrected, optimized to perform well at very close focus distance) and a means to hold the transparency at the proper distance with suitable even backlighting

OTOH The PF120 Pro Multi-Format Film Scanner features a 3-line CCD sensor that is capable of 3200dpi optical resolution.

OTOH the V850 specs...

6400 dpi (Optical)​

4800 x 9600 dpi (Hardware)​

6400 x 9600 dpi (Hardware)​

12,800 x 12,800 dpi (Interpolated)​

​

OTOH Sprintscan 120 "has a true optical resolution of 4000 dpi, making it the highest resolution in its class" (yet lower optical res than the V850 ?!). But the Polaroid comment from a user: "Slow when scanning medium format. 6x7 at 4000dpi takes over 10 minutes." points out throughput issues inherent to scanners at high dpi.

 

[albireo]

So as the title says, what offers the best scanning under $1200?

I’d prefer a dedicated film scanner. I’m happy with the Plustek 8200i for 35mm.

So far I see the Pacific Image PF120 and the Polaroid SprintScan 120. Am I missing any other models?

For flatbeds I see the Epson V850, but so far most of what I’ve read is it’s “ok”.

If you'd consider buying used, I can recommend a refurbished Coolscan 8000ED. Contact Frank Phillips on the Coolscan facebook group. I bought mine from him, well within your budget, and it's the best photography purchase I've made in a long time. Works perfectly on my Windows 10 64bit machine, both with Vuescan and with the original Nikon software.

 

[warden]

Out of all of the above mentioned, which will produce the best quality scans?

The Canon or Fuji. If I were you I'd invest in a proper lens and a copy stand.

 

[bernard_L]

OTOH the V850 specs...
6400 dpi (Optical)

Nah, that is advertising BS. The optical resolution is 2400dpi or slightly more. Which nevertheless translates to a >40" print at 300dpi from 2-1/4" negative. Not enough?

 

[citizenx]

DSLR is fast!

As the above says, camera scanning will provide MUCH better quality scans than any of the options you mention IMO.

Interesting, better than the above dedicated scanners?

Using XT4, there are the equivalent of 4400 pixels per inch, but you are shooting 120 format image (you did not specify what format size shot on 120 film) down to 24mm image height!
Keep in mind you should use a good macro lens (flat field corrected, optimized to perform well at very close focus distance) and a means to hold the transparency at the proper distance with suitable even backlighting

OTOH The PF120 Pro Multi-Format Film Scanner features a 3-line CCD sensor that is capable of 3200dpi optical resolution.

OTOH the V850 specs...

6400 dpi (Optical)​

4800 x 9600 dpi (Hardware)​

6400 x 9600 dpi (Hardware)​

12,800 x 12,800 dpi (Interpolated)​

​

OTOH Sprintscan 120 "has a true optical resolution of 4000 dpi, making it the highest resolution in its class" (yet lower optical res than the V850 ?!). But the Polaroid comment from a user: "Slow when scanning medium format. 6x7 at 4000dpi takes over 10 minutes." points out throughput issues inherent to scanners at high dpi.

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.

If you'd consider buying used, I can recommend a refurbished Coolscan 8000ED. Contact Frank Phillips on the Coolscan facebook group. I bought mine from him, well within your budget, and it's the best photography purchase I've made in a long time. Works perfectly on my Windows 10 64bit machine, both with Vuescan and with the original Nikon software.

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?

 

[warden]

Interesting, better than the above dedicated scanners?

I forgot to ask what you will be doing with the images once you have them digitized, and that's important to know. Making frequent giant enlargements requires more overall quality compared to sharing images on social media for instance. It's easy to invest a lot of time and energy in more quality than is actually needed.

 

[grat]

I'd like to see a "good" DSLR scanning rig for under $1200. Most reasonable DSLR's are going to be in the $1200 range by themselves, and a flat lens such as a decent macro will be another $500.

Now, if the OP has a 100mm f/2.8L Canon macro, that's a really solid lens. The 5D III is a nice camera, and will produce good results, with the caveat that for maximum resolution, you'll want to stitch 120 film images. People will tell you DSLR scanning is "faster" and "better", and they're not wrong-- but they overlook the fact that the learning curve is steep, and the process requires a number of specialized bits and developing your own workflow.

It's worth it-- but there's also something to be said for loading the film into a holder, clicking a few buttons, and waiting for the scanner to produce a pretty nice image.

Regarding the Epsons, they're not as good as Epson claims-- but they're not as bad as Teh Internets claim. I have a v800, and with a bit of practice, they can produce excellent scans of 135, 120 and 4x5. Exceeding 3200 PPI is... questionable. I've done 6400 PPI scans, but honestly, I'm not seeing any more detail-- and since the resolution of the film was 100 lp/mm, or roughly 3500 DPI (very roughly), that's not surprising. I really need to get my hands on some CMS II 25 to see what the real limits of the Epson is.

I do have to do some sharpening in post (I don't sharpen during scanning).

If you have interest, here are some samples of Epson scans that I'm not too embarrassed to show off: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmVY1c1S

Still 2400 and 3200 is a perfectly reasonable resolution for most work. It's going to be good for 8x or 10x which should cover most needs.

 

[citizenx]

The Canon or Fuji. If I were you I'd invest in a proper lens and a copy stand.

I forgot to ask what you will be doing with the images once you have them digitized, and that's important to know. Making frequent giant enlargements requires more overall quality compared to sharing images on social media for instance. It's easy to invest a lot of time and energy in more quality than is actually needed.

Mostly sharing on social media with prints here and there up to 16”. If I need anything more than that, it’d be rarely and I’d send off to a lab to get scanned.

Nah, that is advertising BS. The optical resolution is 2400dpi or slightly more. Which nevertheless translates to a >40" print at 300dpi from 2-1/4" negative. Not enough?

I think that’s definitely sufficient. I got pretty decent prints up to 8x10 from an old 3mp Canon D30 back in the day. 2400dpi is definitely respectable IMO

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Mostly sharing on social media with prints here and there up to 16”. If I need anything more than that, it’d be rarely and I’d send off to a lab to get scanned.



I think that’s definitely sufficient. I got pretty decent prints up to 8x10 from an old 3mp Canon D30 back in the day. 2400dpi is definitely respectable IMO

Based on your needs either a V600 at $225 or a V850 at $1150 would work for you. I've had both and have scanned 35mm, 120 (6x7) and 4x5 (with the V850 only). check my Flickr portfolio for samples.

 

[warden]

Mostly sharing on social media with prints here and there up to 16”. If I need anything more than that, it’d be rarely and I’d send off to a lab to get scanned.

For social media and 16" prints I'd just get a new Epson flatbed. You don't need better than that for sharing online, and it fits your budget.

 

[flavio81]

OTOH the V850 specs...

6400 dpi (Optical)​

​

- Vegeta, what does the scouter say about the V850's optical resolution?
- It's OVER 6000 !!
- What? Over 6000 dpi?! There's no way that could be right!!

There's no way that could be right. I wouldn't be surprised if on actual tests this scanner doesn't achieve more than 2600dpi. And even if it can achieve such 2600 dpi, it will be with very low crispness (fuzzy image). Of couse, then the operator will apply sharpening to overcome the fuzziness in low-level detail. This will end up with an image full of digital artifacts.

 

[flavio81]

Exceeding 3200 PPI is... questionable. I've done 6400 PPI scans, but honestly, I'm not seeing any more detail-- and since the resolution of the film was 100 lp/mm, or roughly 3500 DPI (very roughly), that's not surprising.

It would be questionable, yes, if at those hypotetical 3500DPI, the modulation transfer function (MTF) was 100%.

In real life if you get a scanner able of 3500dpi optical (maximum), you'll see the details at that resolution (at that "frequency") are very fuzzy, often filled with artifacts like chromatic aberration, etc.

Thus the need for a scanner that exceeds that DPI metric and thus give clearer details on negatives.

The tests out there on the 'net that compare DSLR scanning to even fine dedicated scanners are very telling -- you'll see how much your scanner is destroying detail.

 

[JerseyDoug]

My 120 scans for web sharing, "contact" sheets and 8x8" prints are done with an Epson V600 and a DigitaLIZA 120 Scanning Mask ($275 total).

My 120 scans for larger prints are done by stitching six digital camera scans done with my 35mm scanning setup - an old Logan 4x5" light pad, Leitz BEOON copy stand, Fuji X-T20 and 50/2.8 Schneider Componon S enlarging lens. (~$1,200 total on eBay assuming ~400 for the BEOON).

The only issue I found with the latter setup was finding a total length of 39mm LTM extension tubes for the BEOON to produce a full APS-C (25.1×16.7mm) image of a FF (24x36mm) original.

 

[250swb]

A DSLR or a mirrorless is the way to go. A second hand Nikon D810, a Nikon 60mm Micro lens, a cheap copy stand, a Kaiser Plano, and some software is all you need, and under $1200. When you've got your basic setup if you ever feel the need to upgrade it just upgrade the camera or other bits. Unlike a dedicated scanner which if it takes a turn for the worse and dies, or is outdated, and it then becomes a door stop, you have flexibility in the camera digitisation process to switch individual bits of kit or software as time goes on, it isn't just a dedicated box sitting on your desktop fixed in time.

 

[wiltw]

camera, macro lens, film holder, and illumination source...certainly the method used for decades to duplicate slides back in the film days!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

camera, macro lens, film holder, and illumination source...certainly the method used for decades to duplicate slides back in the film days!

But you're not duplicating film. You're converting film to digital.

 

[wiltw]

But you're not duplicating film. You're converting film to digital.

The difference is the analog-to-digital involving an image formed by a CMOS sensor pixel matrix, vs CCD sensors.
In film scanners it's CCD lines, in digital cameras it's CMOS chips. So where is there a major advantage to the film scanner?
(Flatbeds use a moving linear sensor.)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The difference is the analog-to-digital involving an image formed by a CMOS sensor pixel matrix, vs CCD sensors.
In film scanners it's CCD lines, in digital cameras it's CMOS chips. So where is there a major advantage to the film scanner?
(Flatbeds use a moving linear sensor.)

You're describing film converted to digital. What does that have to do with film copying film? DIgital scanners and digital cameras have nothing to do with that process.

 

[JerseyDoug]

One issue with digital camera scanning of 120 negatives is that the number of pixels and image aspect ratio in the camera are fixed. With my Fuji X-T20 a 35mm scan is 4000x6000 px = 4000 ppi. A 6x6 scan is 4000x4000 px = 1900 ppi (approx). The only way to match the 35mm scan resolution for 120 is stitching multiple scans, which is a PITA.

 

[wiltw]

You're describing film converted to digital. What does that have to do with film copying film? DIgital scanners and digital cameras have nothing to do with that process.

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?!

 

[MattKing]

camera, macro lens, film holder, and illumination source...certainly the method used for decades to duplicate slides back in the film days!

This is exactly the same as using a digital camera to digitize film, save for the "capture" medium.
And just like with slide duplication, the quality of the results is mostly determined by the quality of the light source, the quality - particularly the alignment - of the source film holder - the quality of the lens, and the quality of the "capture" medium's flatness and alignment.

The optics, in particular, are a real challenge.
It is far easier to design and manufacture a lens for a CCD line sensor that only has to deal with a narrow range of magnifications near 1:1 than it is to design and manufacture a lens designed to image 1:1 from a flat, two dimensional object to a flat, two dimensional "capture" medium, while still providing for high quality results at a wide range of magnifications with that lens.

 

[wiltw]

One issue with digital camera scanning of 120 negatives is that the number of pixels and image aspect ratio in the camera are fixed. With my Fuji X-T20 a 35mm scan is 4000x6000 px = 4000 ppi. A 6x6 scan is 4000x4000 px = 1900 ppi (approx). The only way to match the 35mm scan resolution for 120 is stitching multiple scans, which is a PITA.

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.