Film scanner advice

[Yoricko]

Hello guys,

I need some scanner recommendations from you guys on dedicated film scanners.

I've been recently shooting a lot recently (too much for me to handle). Thus, I am looking for a film scanner that can scan entire rolls of 35mm film. I shoot only B&W and I plan to scan for web-use only.

I would like to know your experience/knowledge/etc with any scanners capable of scanning rolls of 35mm (speed is not an issue, as long as I don't have to attend to it mid-way) with decent quality for web-viewing and picture management. I do have a budget so I would stray away from the Nikon Coolscan ED LS-9000 and such.

Don't suggest any flat-beds for me (except the Epson V700). Because I shoot an average of 4-5 rolls a day and I don't want to waste most of my indoors time scanning my film. Additionally, I've also got an Epson V500 and it's a real hassle to load them into the holders and scan them two-strips by two.

An exception for scanning 35mm roll films is if the scanner is able to scan a strip of 5/6 at blazing speed! (1200dpi, less than 10 seconds).

I did some research on the web but I could only find 3 (or 4)

Nikon Coolscan ED LS-4000 (Discontinued) (With (SA-30?) roll adapter, or DIY hack)
Nikon coolscan ED LS-5000
Imagemart Pakon F235C
Pacific Image PrimeFilm 3610AFL
Pacific Image PF 3600

Thanks for taking the time to read my desperate call for help!

Regards,

 

[jd callow]

I did a bunch of ebay postings for a client once and used a Nikon ls2000 (not sure of the name it was an older 2800ish dpi nikon) with a slide attachment that would hold 50 slides. I shot mostly transparencies, but when I ran out of slide film I had my negs mounted and continued to use the batch slide attachment with good (web quality) success. I have also used a creo eversmart to scan 35mm in batch. You need to mount the film on a template (sheet of paper with windows cut out for the film strips) do a preview and select each frame, but once you've done this you walk away and the output was or could be very good. The eversmart has been on ebay for as little as 100.00 (the one I used was probably about 30k new in 200x). The down side of the eversmart is that it is a graphics art scanner (intended to be used for print), requires a Mac, is a bit emotional, requires daily checks, and if you forget to set up your scans correctly you'll be rewarded with 600 megs of crap. You might also look at getting a minilab scanner these come in a couple different flavors, but essentially they are built to scan rolls quickly with little human intervention.

 

[ozphoto]

I've had an LS2000 Nikon - it was quite good until it went bang, so I parted out the pieces (repairing it was more than buying another 35mm scanner).

I ended up purchasing a Plustek 7600i SE using Silverfast software. Not sure if it meets what you're looking for, but there are a number of reviews available to review.

I use it for my trannies, so don't actually "bulk scan" my films per se.

Specifications | OpticFilm Series Specification | Plustek

 

[gmikol]

One scanner missing from the OP's list is the Pacific Image PrimeFilm 7250 Pro3 (I belive this is the same as the Reflecta RPS 7200 Professional). It's newer than either of the other Pacific Image scanners the OP mentions. It can scan full uncut film strips (up to 40 frames) automatically. It scans at 7200 DPI optical resolution, but it's real resolution is in the 3200-3600 DPI range. It has ICE/GEM/ROC. Pretty good image quality, auto-focus, but no multi-sampling for noise reduction (it has to do multi-pass, but it does good job with registration of the passes).

--Greg

 

[Yoricko]

One scanner missing from the OP's list is the Pacific Image PrimeFilm 7250 Pro3 (I belive this is the same as the Reflecta RPS 7200 Professional). It's newer than either of the other Pacific Image scanners the OP mentions. It can scan full uncut film strips (up to 40 frames) automatically. It scans at 7200 DPI optical resolution, but it's real resolution is in the 3200-3600 DPI range. It has ICE/GEM/ROC. Pretty good image quality, auto-focus, but no multi-sampling for noise reduction (it has to do multi-pass, but it does good job with registration of the passes).

--Greg

Thanks for the information Greg,

That scanner seems promising from the specs. But I'm a little cautious from all the mediocre reviews on the net...

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Kodak Pakon F235 Plus.

should do the trick. I've not used one myself, but only heard good things.

Found this: Pakon f235 scanner samples - a set on Flickr

 

[Donsta]

Nikon Coolscan 5000 with the SA30 is the way to go if you want to scan whole rolls. There is a DIY hack, but managing a whole roll of loose film without the takeup spool is not a great idea - especially with B&W where digital ICE is not availabel to help with dust. Bad news is that you're already in for about $3000 at present...

 

[Athiril]

Plustek are bringing out a dedicated 120 scanner that does both 120 and 35mm if you care about medium format

 

[Yoricko]

Thanks all for your helpful comments and opinions.

I've decided on the Epson V700. First of all, it is readily available in my country. Next, I can use it to scan 4x5" or 120 IF I were to ever shoot something other than small format. Finally, I can occasionally scan my darkroom prints for .. err ... who knows what. The software is also Mac-friendly and I do not need to use Bootcamp or buy another PC just to run some scanner software and use my Mac at the same time.

Now maybe I can keep the extra cash to buy a TLR or something.

 

[Rudeofus]

The V700 is no bad choice but will give you limited results with 35mm film strips, good enough for web sized images but definitely too little for bigger enlargements. If you are worried about Mac OSX support for other scanners, check out vuescan, it runs natively on Windows, Linux and Mac and supports most scanners known to mankind.

 

[cooltouch]

Thanks all for your helpful comments and opinions.

I've decided on the Epson V700. First of all, it is readily available in my country. Next, I can use it to scan 4x5" or 120 IF I were to ever shoot something other than small format. Finally, I can occasionally scan my darkroom prints for .. err ... who knows what. The software is also Mac-friendly and I do not need to use Bootcamp or buy another PC just to run some scanner software and use my Mac at the same time.

Now maybe I can keep the extra cash to buy a TLR or something.

TLRs are cool. I love my Yashica Mat 124. :cool2:

I think you'll find that a V700 will be plenty for 4x5 and 120. For 35mm, check into shooting dupes with your DSLR. I cobbled together a slide duplicator with roll film stage that uses a macro lens for its optics that'll work with my APS-C sized camera, and I've been happy with the results -- much better than what I was able to achieve with my Epson 4990.

 

[John Poirier]

The V700 is no bad choice but will give you limited results with 35mm film strips, good enough for web sized images but definitely too little for bigger enlargements. If you are worried about Mac OSX support for other scanners, check out vuescan, it runs natively on Windows, Linux and Mac and supports most scanners known to mankind.

I have to disagree very strongly with the statement that the Epson V700 used for 35mm is "good enough for web sized images but definitely too little for bigger enlargements".

Used correctly, the V700 can produce files suitable for quite large prints. Key factors include getting the height adjustment of the film carrier right, and making sure the film is quite flat. Other contributors to quality are scanning at appropriate resolution, restrained use of sharpening when scanning, and skilled use of sharpening in post processing.

In my experience the V700 is not far off the performance of the Nikon LS4000/8000 series, the difference being that files from the Epson benefit from slightly more sharpening at the film grain/very fine detail level.

Before I retired I made many thousands of scans with the Nikon units as well as with various Epson flatbeds. My work was often used for large exhibit panels, so I know whereof I speak in terms of image quality.

Detail and sharpness are essential to my personal work. I commonly produce prints 18 to 24 inches across, and with particulary good negs can go to 36 inches across with excellent results.

I don't usuallly comment on scanner discussions, but I don't llike to see people discouraged from using a very useful, affordable tool.

John

 

[keithwms]

I would not recommend a flatbed for 35mm.

Yes, you can make it work acceptably, but you really have to oversample very substantially to get a decent result. E.g. if what you really want is a clean 2400 scan / 8 bit, you still have to multiscan at much higher res and bit depth and then downsample to that to get the best result.

Now, unless you have a blazing fast computer and tons of memory and patience, over/multi-scanning is really hard to do, efficiently. Some time ago I proposed a fix: the scanner would come with some sort of intermediate hard drive with a high speed connection to a downsampling computer, so that all that data doesn't have to go to your pc. You would push "go" and the scanner would scan the crap out of the target (9600 and 24 bit or whatever) and then downsample to your desired size. While you step outdoors and smoke your pipe. I assert that downsampling algorithms are good enough now, to make this possible.

The big problem is that if you do this yourself, it can be really laborious. Particularly when you start doing, you know, dozens of 35mm frames at full res. For MF and LF, which fewer frames to scan, I am perfectly content to go nuts with my flatbed (an epson 4990).

This over/multiscanning issue becomes especially painful when you see with your own eyes what a drum scanner can do with a 35mm frame, even at modest resolution and 8 bit per channel. The drum gets so much more real, clean info, even with modest scan parameters.

 

[pschwart]

Here's the bottom line: scanning with a flatbed is better than scanning with nothing. There are ways to optimize flatbed scans. A decent film holder with ANR glass will make a hugh difference. Print size and the kind of print are also significant factors. You can make very nice 8x10 carbon transfers and platinums from digital negatives scanned on modest hardware. You will not be embarrassed and you won't be struck by lightning.
Oversample if you wish, but it's not required. Step up to better hardware when your needs or finances change.

I would not recommend a flatbed for 35mm.

Yes, you can make it work acceptably, but you really have to oversample very substantially to get a decent result. E.g. if what you really want is a clean 2400 scan / 8 bit, you still have to multiscan at much higher res and bit depth and then downsample to that to get the best result.

Now, unless you have a blazing fast computer and tons of memory and patience, over/multi-scanning is really hard to do, efficiently. Some time ago I proposed a fix: the scanner would come with some sort of intermediate hard drive with a high speed connection to a downsampling computer, so that all that data doesn't have to go to your pc. You would push "go" and the scanner would scan the crap out of the target (9600 and 24 bit or whatever) and then downsample to your desired size. While you step outdoors and smoke your pipe. I assert that downsampling algorithms are good enough now, to make this possible.

The big problem is that if you do this yourself, it can be really laborious. Particularly when you start doing, you know, dozens of 35mm frames at full res. For MF and LF, which fewer frames to scan, I am perfectly content to go nuts with my flatbed (an epson 4990).

This over/multiscanning issue becomes especially painful when you see with your own eyes what a drum scanner can do with a 35mm frame, even at modest resolution and 8 bit per channel. The drum gets so much more real, clean info, even with modest scan parameters.

 

[John Poirier]

I would not recommend a flatbed for 35mm.

Yes, you can make it work acceptably, but you really have to oversample very substantially to get a decent result. E.g. if what you really want is a clean 2400 scan / 8 bit, you still have to multiscan at much higher res and bit depth and then downsample to that to get the best result.

Now, unless you have a blazing fast computer and tons of memory and patience, over/multi-scanning is really hard to do, efficiently. Some time ago I proposed a fix: the scanner would come with some sort of intermediate hard drive with a high speed connection to a downsampling computer, so that all that data doesn't have to go to your pc. You would push "go" and the scanner would scan the crap out of the target (9600 and 24 bit or whatever) and then downsample to your desired size. While you step outdoors and smoke your pipe. I assert that downsampling algorithms are good enough now, to make this possible.

The big problem is that if you do this yourself, it can be really laborious. Particularly when you start doing, you know, dozens of 35mm frames at full res. For MF and LF, which fewer frames to scan, I am perfectly content to go nuts with my flatbed (an epson 4990).

This over/multiscanning issue becomes especially painful when you see with your own eyes what a drum scanner can do with a 35mm frame, even at modest resolution and 8 bit per channel. The drum gets so much more real, clean info, even with modest scan parameters.

Hi. As you did not quote anyone, I'm not certain which posting you were responding to. I agree with you that flatbed scanners are not as good as drum scanners.

On the other hand, it is possible to produce very good results from 35mm with the Epson V700. Not perfect, but certainly suitable for fairly large gallery-quality prints. I consider that acceptable. So did the many people who viewed my recent major show. I did it without oversampling, too.

You could get slightly better results with, say, an LS8000 (which I have used extensively)- and slightly more easily. At much higher cost. It took me a good many hours of tweaking to get where I wanted with the V700- but I did get there.

Unlike you, I do have extensive experience with the V700. I've also done a great deal of scanning with other units- Epson, Nikon, Canon and others- going back to the mid 1990s. On occasion I've had scans done with drum scanners when I considered it appropriate.

As a retired professional, I'm accustomed to having my work evaluated by clients who don't care what scanner I use. They simply want results. I was able to keep top-flight international exhibit designers and publishers happy very consistently over a 20-year film/digital technical career. (i.e. one very minor complaint about quality.)

I have a very cold-blooded approach to image quality, as many years ago I learned to judge my work based on my clients' requirements rather than my belief in a partcular piece of equipment.

In that context, I have to say that those of you dissing the V700 for 35mm scanning are not doing anyone a favour. My hands-on experience has been quite different.

As I said in my earlier posting, I am concerned that this sort of inaccuracy could deprive less experienced people of the opportunity to do nice work for a reasonable cost.

It is particularly frustrating to see very confident comments based on no actual experience with the equipment in question.

I have to admit I'm getting rather grouchy about this sort of thing. I like to see people actually doing things, learning, and having fun rather than being turned off by uber-perfectionists.

John

 

[keithwms]

John, if you want to call me an berperfectionist, fine; just don't forget to use the umlaut.



Anyway, you seem to responding mostly to things that I didn't actually say. I have seen many comparative scans from the 4990 and the V700. And some of my scans come from a lab using the latter; I use the former at home for MF and LF. Unapologetically. So... you have a problem with me saying that it's harder to get a great scan from a 35mm flatbed??? Odd, because you seem to agree with me...

It took me a good many hours of tweaking to get where I wanted with the V700- but I did get there.

I never said it wasn't possible to produce very good results from 35mm film! For some films (c41 and b&w in particular) I would say it is certainly possible. For slide, especially velvia... nah. Too much hassle.

My suggestion to anybody buying a scanner is of course go ahead and purchase whatever scanner is within their means. I did that, and I still get some slides drummed now and then. No big deal.

 

[John Poirier]

John, if you want to call me an berperfectionist, fine; just don't forget to use the umlaut.



Anyway, you seem to responding mostly to things that I didn't actually say. I have seen many comparative scans from the 4990 and the V700. And some of my scans come from a lab using the latter; I use the former at home for MF and LF. Unapologetically. So... you have a problem with me saying that it's harder to get a great scan from a 35mm flatbed??? Odd, because you seem to agree with me...

I never said it wasn't possible to produce very good results from 35mm film! For some films (c41 and b&w in particular) I would say it is certainly possible. For slide, especially velvia... nah. Too much hassle.

My suggestion to anybody buying a scanner is of course go ahead and purchase whatever scanner is within their means. I did that, and I still get some slides drummed now and then. No big deal.

I disagreed with what came across from you as a blanket dismissal of flatbed scanners for 35mm use. Thank you for elaborating on your comments.

I was also commenting in general about the frequently inaccurate things I come across on fora.

I agree that it can be more difficult to obtain fine results with a flatbed than with a dedicated film scanner. However, your comments and others on this forum go too far in discouraging people from giving it a try.

I forgot to mention that I also did a lot of scanning of large format film with the 4990. It was OK but, unlike the V700, I would not use it for serious 35mm work. I did some careful testing and found that the resolution just wasn't there.

I have had no trouble obtaining fine results with slide films such as Velvia and Kodachrome with the V700. No oversampling is required.That comment is based on extensive hands-on experience with the scanner, something you do not have.

It is quite likely that my methods are different from yours, as I have spent many years refining my techniques. You may not have noticed that in my earlier posting I mentioned that I have very substantial professional experience in high-quality scanning. Possibly you haven't consdered what that means. Among other things, my technical comments are based on evaluation of work that I've done myself under consistent conditions, not on comparisons of work done by others using undefined methods.

I enjoy helping people, which is why I occasionally dip into fora such as this. However, I'm not inclined to waste time and energy nitpicking with those whose assertions are based on assumptions rather than direct experience. Therefore I'm out of this discussion.

 

[Rudeofus]

Used correctly, the V700 can produce files suitable for quite large prints. Key factors include getting the height adjustment of the film carrier right, and making sure the film is quite flat. Other contributors to quality are scanning at appropriate resolution, restrained use of sharpening when scanning, and skilled use of sharpening in post processing.

pellicles tests determined the effective bit depth of the V700 to be around 8 bits, the rest is noise. Unless you downscale heavily to cut down the noise I'd like to know how to scan neg film with this. Even with slide film I like the resulting colors from my 6x7 scans a lot better than those from my 35mm scans.

In my experience the V700 is not far off the performance of the Nikon LS4000/8000 series, the difference being that files from the Epson benefit from slightly more sharpening at the film grain/very fine detail level.

In my experience the Coolscan V ED produced a lot more detail at the cost of much more pronounced grain, so obviously the V700 scans can be sharpened more aggressively. There is a reasonable chance that my original statements were influenced by this: coming from the Coolscan I wasn't used to aggressive sharpening and was therefore quite disappointed by the blurry V700 scans.

Detail and sharpness are essential to my personal work. I commonly produce prints 18 to 24 inches across, and with particulary good negs can go to 36 inches across with excellent results.

It all depends on viewer distance. Even the film data sheets don't recommend enlarging 35 mm film stock to 36" unless you can accept the grain. I don't see how scanning would change this unless you apply heavy postprocessing.

I don't usuallly comment on scanner discussions, but I don't llike to see people discouraged from using a very useful, affordable tool.

The V700 is an ok scanner for 35mm but it really shines with MF and LF. If I hadn't gotten an RZ67, I would have definitely kept my Coolscan V ED.

 

[pellicle]

Hi John

nice to see your post (not sure if I've seen you post here before)

I enjoy helping people, which is why I occasionally dip into fora such as this. However, I'm not inclined to waste time and energy nitpicking with those whose assertions are based on assumptions rather than direct experience. Therefore I'm out of this discussion.

feel rather the same myself ... it is often counter productive to argue.

I agree with providing balance to assist those who may read the single side of an argument and based on that miss out on trying something.

As I have written back when this was hybrid, I too think that the Epson flatbed can produce quite acceptable results but I feel that the likes of the LS-4000 can exceed it. This becomes more apparent at larger print size (such as 8x12 inch)

as is mentioned here

From this overview:

at high enlargement (50% of full res)
Nikon LS-4000

and Epson 4870

I find (like yourself) that each requires different technique for sharpening, and that the Epson responds to some small pixel radius sharpens better than the Nikon (which tends to just start looking grainy after much)

All in all though the Epsons represent fine value for money and like all things its a level of diminishing return on the money spent vs the quality obtained

both will require work to master and get the best results from.