Budget(ish) scanner for film up to 4x5

[Donald Qualls]

I realized the other night that my scanner is 22 years old; I bought it used in 2003. It's occurred to me that it might make sense to replace it, since most of what's offered now has 3-4 times the optical resolution and uses LED lighting that avoids warmup for the cold cathode fluorescents I'm used to, but I have a couple relatively unusual requirements.

Mainly, I need to be able to at least buy or make adapters to scan some less common formats -- 16 mm in both 10x14 Minolta frame, and 13x17/13x18 Kieve and late Minolta (I don't have any 110 cameras to worry about), 828 (35 mm film but with a 28x40 mm frame pushed close to one edge and camera triggering perfs on the other), 127 (3x4, 4x4, and 4x6 formats), as well as 35 mm, 120 (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9, possibly 6x12 or even 6x17 at some point), 9x12 cm and 4x5. Bonus for ability to scan 8x10 film, though I don't have a camera that size at present (I will, if I live long enough and don't fall into poverty).

Apparently, with Epson's Perfection line, you need to spend some money to get the 4x5 capability, though I don't see any reason a scanner that handles mounted 2x2 slides and 35 mm film strips on the same carrier, simultaneously, couldn't deal with the larger formats (maybe I'd have to buy an adapter?).

What other options do I have that will at the least cover 35 mm, 120, and 4x5 (I can fabricate adapters for the other sizes, if necessary)? Ideally, I'd like to spend no more than $300 if I make this move.

 

[DWThomas]

I believe the problem with newer scanners is a limitation on the transparency mode illumination which is built into the lids. The illuminated area is too narrow for 4x5. I still use an Epson Perfection 3200 for 120 and 4x5 (and even it won't do 8x10). I had to switch to Vuescan to talk to it when I went with Windoze 7 in 2010. I have a new Windows 10 machine waiting in the wings here but haven't fully made the transition. Having now a 24 Mpixel digi-cam, I expect to switch to using that for most future negative scanning.

For sub-mini formats I think a flatbed scanner is way less than optimum. I have used a dedicated 35mm scanner with a home made fake slide mount to scan some Minox 8x11 stuff, but even that was tedious, another reason I think digi-cam with macro is the way to go -- fill the whole camera frame with a single negative regardless of format. But I need to come up with a robust, easy to use stand and have too many other things queued up to get to it.

 

[MattKing]

Keep your existing scanner for 4x5.

 

[removed account4]

hi donald

i won't say this will work but i have thought about this often... if you can get a led panel, you might be able to put it over your film directly ontop of your scanner instead of the lid, it wold become the makeshift lid. i have a perfecta4780 that is "vintage" by todays standards, i say that because about 2 years ago, maybe 3, i was printing written materials out and ourIJ printer died, i went to staples and got an all in one epson 640. the scanner scans at least as nice as the 4780 but the mechanism isn't as robust, so I bought the extended warrantee that would replace it no questions asked within a certain time frame. i think it cost me 100$ including the square trade warrantee. when my 4780 dies ( it is 15ish years old ) i might must put an LED light ontop and use the 85$ scanner as i am mentioning to you... led panels are not too expensive. and if you have anyimage editing software you can
adjust the tonality after the fact in 3 seconds...

john

 

[Donald Qualls]

Oh, yes, mention of Windows 7, 10, and VueScan reminded me -- I don't run Windows or Mac. I use Ubuntu, currently version 16.04 (though I'll likely upgrade to 20.04 within the next year). Not usually a big problem; almost all USB scanners work in Ubuntu out of the box (you just can't use the software that ships with them), using the same interface I have now.

@jnantz The issue I see with LED panels is flicker. As far as I know, they all have the same 120 Hz flicker you'd get with a fluorescent, but lack the option for long-persistence phosphor such as is used for fluorescent photographic lighting.

@MattKing Did I mention my scanner is 22 years old? I'm actually mildly surprised it powered up and appears to work, after five years idle. I wouldn't expect a computer to do as well (electrolytic capacitors fail after long idle time -- the unit might have been saved by having the power supply connected all that time despite being turned off).

Worst case, I'll set things up to use a DSLR and macro lens on a light table/copy stand, but with that route, I'm limited to the 12 megapixel of the D90 I have access to, and I'm very unlikely to buy another DSLR because that's the last Nikon that will use the glass we already have, and I'm not interested in digital other than to scan negatives to decide which ones to darkroom print and have files to share online.

 

[shutterfinger]

Apparently, with Epson's Perfection line, you need to spend some money to get the 4x5 capability, though I don't see any reason a scanner that handles mounted 2x2 slides and 35 mm film strips on the same carrier, simultaneously, couldn't deal with the larger formats (maybe I'd have to buy an adapter?).

The film holder for the newer Epson's is a dual sided holder. You put it on the scan bed with either the film strip or slide side over the transparency area. The edge of the bed has notches and the holder has matching protrusions that are lettered for easy matching.

 

[MattKing]

@MattKing Did I mention my scanner is 22 years old?

Yep - but if it is working .....
There isn't much (anything?) around that is new, has 4x5 capability and is designed for those on a budget.
Some use the 120 capable scanners, a home-made negative holder, a flip, a second pass and stitching software to do 4x5.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The film holder for the newer Epson's is a dual sided holder. You put it on the scan bed with either the film strip or slide side over the transparency area. The edge of the bed has notches and the holder has matching protrusions that are lettered for easy matching.

Yes, so I see after finding some better pictures of the Perfection line scanners. Have to spend $850+ for a 700/750 to get one with 4x5. And then pay extra for the 4x5 film carrier. Of drop another couple hundred for an 850 to get the 4x5 carrier included. The 600/650 has does 120, but the lid light is too narrow for 4x5.

Yep - but if it is working .....
There isn't much (anything?) around that is new, has 4x5 capability and is designed for those on a budget.
Some use the 120 capable scanners, a home-made negative holder, a flip, a second pass and stitching software to do 4x5.

I've heard about the flip & stitch methods, though originally for ULF on a scanner like my Agfa.

Honestly, if the Arcus 1200 were doing what I want, I wouldn't consider replacing it -- but there's a software problem. The scanning interface, xsane (version 0.999) will only scan a 5x7 inch portrait oriented rectangle in the upper left corner of the scan area when in transparency mode. It'll scan the whole bed, Letter/A4 size, in "flatbed" mode, but switch to "transparency" and suddenly it thinks it's only got a 5x7 scanner -- and the window it will scan covers one of the two 6x9 film windows, part of the second -- and none of the 35 mm strip. It'll do about half of the 4x5 mask. This worked as expected last time I used it for film (I might have been still running Windows then; I'm certain I've scanned stuff since I jumped to Linux, but not sure about film).

I really don't want to step down to DSLR (12 Mp) or smart phone (claims 24 Mp, but no way to know how much of that is interpolation and no practical way to turn off the "enhancements" or get anything but .jpg files out). I'm getting 100 Mp, near enough, from a 4x5 negative with this old Agfa -- if I can get it to scan its full hardware coverage. And a better DSLR would cost more (body plus suitable macro lens) than a scanner (and I'd probably never use it as a camera).

I've got an email out to the author of the scanning interface I'm using, but I expect to either get back nothing at all, or "sorry, bub, you're on your own" -- one of the downsides of Linux is you can't find who to ask if you have problems the "community" can't solve for you. Still better than being open to every piece of malware some cyberterrorist can think up, though.

 

[MattKing]

Still better than being open to every piece of malware some cyberterrorist can think up, though.

Just this last week there was an article read that someone recently discovered a data hack that had been infecting a number of Linux based servers for a very long time, and had been used to steal a lot of personal data from a lot of sources.
I'm afraid that using Linux is merely a dis-incentive to mischief, not a guarantee.
Will Vuescan's Linux drivers work for you?

 

[shutterfinger]

Honestly, if the Arcus 1200 were doing what I want, I wouldn't consider replacing it -- but there's a software problem. The scanning interface, xsane (version 0.999) will only scan a 5x7 inch portrait oriented rectangle in the upper left corner of the scan area when in transparency mode. It'll scan the whole bed, Letter/A4 size, in "flatbed" mode, but switch to "transparency" and suddenly it thinks it's only got a 5x7 scanner -- and the window it will scan covers one of the two 6x9 film windows, part of the second -- and none of the 35 mm strip. It'll do about half of the 4x5 mask. This worked as expected last time I used it for film (I might have been still running Windows then; I'm certain I've scanned stuff since I jumped to Linux, but not sure about film).

This sounds like a software/driver problem to me.
https://www.hamrick.com/alternate-versions.html vuescan shows 3 file formats for Linux.
Be sure to read the release notes.

 

[Les Sarile]

Yes, so I see after finding some better pictures of the Perfection line scanners. Have to spend $850+ for a 700/750 to get one with 4x5. And then pay extra for the 4x5 film carrier. Of drop another couple hundred for an 850 to get the 4x5 carrier included. The 600/650 has does 120, but the lid light is too narrow for 4x5.

Keep an eye out for an Epson 4990 Photo as it can scan all the way up to 8X10 film. A review can be found at -> https://www.kenrockwell.com/epson/4990.htm
I found it on a local CL listing - complete with box and all accessories it came with, for the price of gas to go get it.
I've used it to preview scan a bunch of 110 film strips - and combinations of any film up to 8X10, simply by putting it on the glass. I haven't critically tested it like I did with my previous V700 but it seems to provide similar results.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I found a HP G4050 at a church sale a couple years ago. It was only a couple bucks so I said, what the hay? Turns out it was much maligned when it was new, but it was the HP software. Produced horrible scans with the HP software. I have Vuescan though and with Vuescan it is basically as good as any tenish year old scanner. I have two Canons too so I only use it every now and then. You could probably get one of those for cheap since no one wants them. I don't know how big it can scan but it does 4x5 no problem. Has a 4x5 holder too.

Here is a scan from the HP of a Minox 8x11 neg placed right on the glass. Not too shabby for a flatbed...

Another scanner that is older but will do what you want is the Canon 9950f. Basically a little better than the Epsons at the time. And of course the Epson 4990 which has already been mentioned.

Hope that helps you Donald.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Just this last week there was an article read that someone recently discovered a data hack that had been infecting a number of Linux based servers for a very long time, and had been used to steal a lot of personal data from a lot of sources.
I'm afraid that using Linux is merely a dis-incentive to mischief, not a guarantee.
Will Vuescan's Linux drivers work for you?

Linux servers are the most common on Earth, but desktop Linux machines aren't targeted like servers are. There is Linux malware, no doubt -- but virtually all of it is aimed at servers. Why waste effort on an OS that's on less than 1% of desktop machines? Not to say server malware can't infect a desktop machine, but they have different vectors.

This sounds like a software/driver problem to me.
https://www.hamrick.com/alternate-versions.html vuescan shows 3 file formats for Linux.
Be sure to read the release notes.

At present, Vuescan is $40 for flatbed only "for occasional use" to do what I can already do for free, or $90 to enable film scanning, to find out if it can get past the 5x7 limit I've got at present. My scanner is on their supported list, but I'm not very inclined to spend that money without hearing from someone with the same scanner and OS combination.

Keep an eye out for an Epson 4990 Photo as it can scan all the way up to 8X10 film. A review can be found at -> https://www.kenrockwell.com/epson/4990.htm
I found it on a local CL listing - complete with box and all accessories it came with, for the price of gas to go get it.
I've used it to preview scan a bunch of 110 film strips - and combinations of any film up to 8X10, simply by putting it on the glass. I haven't critically tested it like I did with my previous V700 but it seems to provide similar results.

Well, "simply putting is on the glass" isn't the preferred method of dealing with odd film formats (Newton's rings), but it would be an option if I can find one.

 

[Les Sarile]

Well, "simply putting is on the glass" isn't the preferred method of dealing with odd film formats (Newton's rings), but it would be an option if I can find one.

A colleague of mine's dad was a WWII photog and he asked me to scan a 4X5 b&w film he had to see what it would look like on an V700. So I scanned it off the glass at 2400dpi.

Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/5DCEE0B3D75F78C/orig.jpg

This one of a full roll of Fuji Astia 100 (slide) in holder at 600dpi off the glass for quick preview.

Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/EEEB5C4CBC442CB/orig.jpg

This one of a full roll of Kodak 400UC (color negatives) at 600dpi off the glass for quick preview. Could have probably placed it closer to avoid cut off.

Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/B3997C3A230D873/orig.jpg

Putting it on the glass may not be ideal but it serves a purpose and actually pretty convenient and pretty good.

Like I said, I have not critically tested the 4990 as I did my V700 but casual observation of results seem to indicate it is good.

 

[MattKing]

At present, Vuescan is $40 for flatbed only "for occasional use" to do what I can already do for free, or $90 to enable film scanning, to find out if it can get past the 5x7 limit I've got at present. My scanner is on their supported list, but I'm not very inclined to spend that money without hearing from someone with the same scanner and OS combination.

Reach out to them - they may have advice on how you could use their free download trial (leaves embedded watermarks) to check.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've got email going back and forth with the listed author for xsane; I'd prefer to use that, and have scans wind up directly in GIMP, as opposed to having every scan save as a TIFF or a lossy JPG and leave extra files on my HDD taking up space where I don't want them permanently stored. I also don't care to spend a month's film and chemicals budget on software to duplicate what free software is supposed to be able to do.

That said, I will if I have to, but unless Vuescan downloads a bunch of additional film color profiles it's not really a major improvement over GIMP with xsane, once xsane is working correctly. I did just scan a strip with the Vuescan trial -- partly to have a screenshot of the full-bed preview to send to xsane's author, and partly just to see what my negatives look like.

Underexposed, I think. Hard to be sure with all the automatic correction Vuescan does; the graininess might be because the film was stored at room temperature for ten-plus years, and in unknown conditions for unknown time before that for some of what I have (Freecycle offering). Yes, one of the expired film Nazis will be along shortly to tell me what a bad idea is is to shoot expired film. With a little luck, I can snag his wallet while he's prattling to be able to afford fresh film...

 

[mohmad khatab]

I've got email going back and forth with the listed author for xsane; I'd prefer to use that, and have scans wind up directly in GIMP, as opposed to having every scan save as a TIFF or a lossy JPG and leave extra files on my HDD taking up space where I don't want them permanently stored. I also don't care to spend a month's film and chemicals budget on software to duplicate what free software is supposed to be able to do.

That said, I will if I have to, but unless Vuescan downloads a bunch of additional film color profiles it's not really a major improvement over GIMP with xsane, once xsane is working correctly. I did just scan a strip with the Vuescan trial -- partly to have a screenshot of the full-bed preview to send to xsane's author, and partly just to see what my negatives look like.

Underexposed, I think. Hard to be sure with all the automatic correction Vuescan does; the graininess might be because the film was stored at room temperature for ten-plus years, and in unknown conditions for unknown time before that for some of what I have (Freecycle offering). Yes, one of the expired film Nazis will be along shortly to tell me what a bad idea is is to shoot expired film. With a little luck, I can snag his wallet while he's prattling to be able to afford fresh film...

I respect all users of free and open source software in general, especially Debian operating system and GIMP application.