• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Looking at scanners

zackesch

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 12, 2012
Messages
132
Location
Waukesha, WI
Format
35mm
I am looking for a scanner to use, but I'm not sure what to look for. What is the difference between a dedicated film scanner and a flatbed? The two that I have in mind, the pulstek 8100 and the canoscan 9000F mark II. As of now, all I shoot is 35mm, but in the future I may shoot large format.
 
Flatbeds can be used to scan stuff like prints or other paper. the ones that can scan both film and docs use two light sources, one below the bed for opaque materials and one above for transparent stuff (like film).
Dedicated film scanners, for example, the Nikon Coolscan series, can only scan film.
Especially for 35, a dedicated film scanner will likely give you better results, with the downside that you can't use it for much else.
That said, a decent flatbed will probably be "good enough" to make scans with enough resolution for 11x14 or so.
 
I have scanned the same 6x6 Portra 400 image with both a Coolscan 9000 (dedicated film) and an Epson V750 (flatbed), both at the same resolution and each with an ANR glass carrier.

Looking at the grain enlarged to 1:1, the film scanner was slightly sharper. This might not be an issue for reasonable sized prints. The Coolscan 9000 actually has autofocus built in (other film scanners may also autofocus). The Epson focus is fixed and has to be adjusted by shimming the carrier.

I used PSE 11 and tried various means to adjust the color for the flatbed scan scan to match the richness of the scan as it came straight from the Coolscan. It was nearly impossible. Maybe different software or someone with more skill could have done a better job than I did, but it would still take some effort.

What I take away from this is that a film scanner would be better if you can afford it and especially if you want to do color. However, a flatbed is quicker and more convenient, good enough for B&W and the V750 provides the option to scan 4x5 and 8x10.
 
To be sure, the difference in actual detail resolved between the Coolscan's optical 4000dpi and the Epson's optical 6400dpi will depend on the detail that is actually on the film. If the film is high resolving, taken with great care and good optics, then the difference can be very dramatic. In "real world" tests, the difference may not likely be seen unless printed large or cropped greatly.
 
At this moment in time, I do not have plans to make large prints. One of my goals for scanning would be for creating a digital copy for sharing, alternate printing like metal, canvas,etc, and a backup incase if the original is damaged. Print size, 11 x 14 may be as big as I would like to go. I can see where the flatbed will be more useful for the fact that I can scan in my traditional prints and archive them too. It would be nice to make a quick contact print too.

I would like to note that large format at this point in time is a dream, maybe a distant dream. 35mm right now is all that I shoot.
I guess the real question is how different in quality is a flatbed scanner compared to a dedicated scanner?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Film scanners

I noticed that no one has attached an image from a scanner, so I will try. I have the Epson V 600 flatbed scanner that I paid $ 195 for about 3 weeks ago. I am using the Epson software and the Epson film holders so there is a little room for improvement using the Better Scaning holders and the Vue Scan software. Plus, since I only have three weeks experience using it, I might get better.





The picture of the Basilica is a scan of a 4x6 print and the Zebra is from a 35 mm negative. The print was scanned at 400 dpi and 48 bit color and the Zebra was scanned at 3200 dpi and 48 bit color.
 
It has taken me a very long time to come to grips with a workflow that is good for me, and it most likely will not work at all for you, but this is what I do.

I do not stress over my scans. I scan using an Epson V500 scanner. It is good enough to use those files as if they are contact sheets on steroids and I select my images using those files.

I do the same with my printing. I use those same files to get my work prints to the point where I either do, or I do not, want them professionally printed. I use an inexpensive color printer to get to that point. If I don't want those prints to go any further then things are fine and the negatives and scans stay as they are.

However, if I decide I do want something professionally printed then I send the original negative off to get it professionally scanned by someone who knows what they are doing. Ditto for the printing.

There are some professional scanners and printers out there that make my work look like it was done by an....amateur!! I prefer their work so I use them.

A lot less stress and a lot less costly in the long run.

Of course I have not always been this way, and may not always stay this way either. Face it, I like new, fancy gear just like everyone else. So, no promises on the future.
 
Here is a compressed file of scans i did of different color films with different cameras all medium formats [120], all scanned by V750, all with Epson Scan software and then little tweak with Photoshop, unsharpened, i just used the Epson default holder for all the scan images, dry mounted, i did scan with 48-bit color at 2400 DPI, so figure out if my scan is good or bad.

Color Scans.zip

If you want scans of B&W films just let me know.
 

These numbers are not correct. The word "optical" adds a different meaning to resolution. Epson's, for example, may be able to generate 6400 pixels, but the optical resolution of the scanner is nowhere near 6400. It is more in the range of 1/3 of that, 2000 or 2200. You are talking, in both these cases, about CCD's, and all of these consumer-level scanners will get in the neighborhood of 1800-2400, depending on how well they are tuned, and a number of other factors.

Lenny
 
I prefer a good, dedicated 35mm film scanner. Smaller footprint. Simpler workflow (just feed the film, preview, and scan). A bit sharper. Reasonable cost. I shoot 35mm only. I would like to try MF at some point as well but have never made the move.
 

I believe you did a good job as can be expected from knowledgeable use of the V750.
 
Tariq

The scans look very good, but don't enlarge very well because they were done at 2400 dpi. I've been doing mine at 3200 dpi or so at very little difference in time.
 
I went with the Reflecta RPS 7200 Pro and Silverfast 8 Ai Studio. It's been a bumpy ride regarding the scanner software, started out with the software shipped with the scanner, works like a clock but really dry on features, went to VueScan, who never managed to get the software to work for this scanner, and then ended up with the Silverfast software, works like a charm, not the least with color scanning thanks to the calibration slide I got with the software!

Only problem I've had is with preview-batchscan, as this wasnt supported from the start in Silverfast, but now is, though still a lil bit buggy, however the response is great from Lasersoft so I have good hopes on it!




JF
 
Price/performance-wise, you can't do much better that a good Nikon LS-2000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register