Many different questions about scanning

[Vincent Boman]

but realistically I'd go with camera scanning if possible.

Because of the reliability compared to old scanners, the quality or a combination of both?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Because of the reliability compared to old scanners, the quality or a combination of both?

Non obsolescence of parts, modularity, upgradeability. CMOS sensors offer better noise: signal relationships & pixel shift solves the potential Bayer array issues. A solution that was good for the computing power of 1988-2000 is not necessarily the best in 2020.

 

[Vincent Boman]

Do you scan with a DSLR now?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

re: the Coolscan 9000 being automated so you can walk away while it's scanning, that's true, you can and each frame in a strip of 3 will take about 5 minutes. Loading film + previewing+selecting+changing settings takes about 5 minutes at the start of each "batch" of three. To scan a roll of 12 shots on 120 it takes about an hour, with 5 minute interactions at minute 0, 15, 30, and 45. On the other hand, DSLR scanning a roll of 12 shots in 120 takes about 10 minutes of fully active time. Thinking about it that way, it is less clear that the Coolscan is less work.

Anyways, I understand why you don't want to spend $2000 on a DSLR setup like some have suggested. But I think buying a few-years-old DSLR, a copy stand, a good vintage macro lens like the Nikkor 55 2.8, and using an enlarger negative holder will blow the pants off anything under $500, even including the startup cost of buying a DSLR. For what it's worth, many scanners, including the Coolscan 9000 are not dissimilar to a DSLR: there is a large macro lens in them that projects the negative onto an imaging sensor. The difference is they go at it line-by-line, rather than all at once so they can use the optical sweet spot of the lens and the sensor type can be different. But it's not a fundamentally different process.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Do you scan with a DSLR now?

It's in the R&D stage, things have been delayed by the current COVID situation. And I've had more interesting things to deal with, like assembling an 8x10 enlarger & pin registering another. A lot depends on what formats you use, what films you use & how big you print. Don't reckon on it being cheaper than an old Coolscan or Imacon if you want to do it really well, but it should hopefully give less aggravation in the long term - and being able to handle 8x10 etc without having to run an Apple/ SCSI museum is very attractive! Like a lot of things, there is a considerable gulf between internet hypotheticals & adequate quality in practice. Modulation Transfer Function matters far more than nominal resolution - and adequate reproduction of an emulsion's colour & granularity really matter too. On the other hand, there are plenty of relatively easy & quick ways to set up a camera scan setup, sufficient at least to see if it's worth your while pursuing that route.

 

[Vincent Boman]

But it's not a fundamentally different process.

I understand that, though my reluctance has more to do with the whole setup, than buying a DSLR just to take photos of photos.
It'll require watching a lot of videos on the setup itself, and then some more about performing the ICE yourself. I'm not averse to learning anything new, it's just that a dedicated scanner seem less complicated. I'll admit that my reasoning regarding time efficiency was flawed, but I guess I didn't know that the Coolscan was so fast, and neither that the DSLR scanning was so fast.

 

[Vincent Boman]

It's in the R&D stage

But do you own a DSLR and use it? Regarding formats, I'll only ever shoot 35mm and MF.
I have glanced at RA-4 printing, which I guess would remove any need for a scanner at all. But of course that's a hassle on a whole different level for me, but could be fun too.
Though the pros for a scanner include having a more detailed view of your photos, rather than a box full of contact sheets.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Obsolete? In what sense? The ones on the market now don't rival the qualities of the old ones, at least not for 35mm.

In sense of not been supported by manufacturer. Means no new parts are availble. It means obsolete in electronics goods manufacturing.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I think Nikon 9000 prices are at least insanely inflated, given that Nikon had given up on its support years back, which was likely to drive digital sales. As good as 9000 was, not to continue its support is to me a prime example of manufacturer's go-to-hell approach to its customers. It could certainly remain in at least a limited support stage forever, if Nikon did give crap about it. So when I had a chance few years back to get one under 2k, I did not for this exact reason. Just a decision I made, perhaps baseless.

It is one thing to see Minolta give up on its great scanning products, because ... they (eventually) left the business, clearly something in their planning long before it happened. Yet another for Nikon, still "supporting" film shooters with F6, yet showing all of them middle finger in image transfer to digital format department. I call it hypocritical and the fact that bean counters run majority of businesses these days does not change it at all.

As for the suggestions I read here, I don't think there is a cheaper way to get top results than digital camera scanning. Set up needs to be right, so investment is called, but for 3K should be easily a high precision gear in every required area. As quality needs grow, frame subdivision for later stitching can always be implemented with essentially same camera used to do it. I've never done it, but have seen results and don't believe there is a better way. Learning curve is there for any type of scanning, flatbeds being probably the most prone to user errors, hence insanely wide (and wild) scanning results from same scanner, all dependent on user, not the machine. Yet, for quick and dirty with quite good results, a flatbed has its place, with obvious advantages of being capable of other tasks.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

DSLR scanning is not for me. From what I've read, you need a light table, a film holder, the whole contraption to hold the DSLR: plus of course the DSLR, and the macro lens.
Everything that involves the set-up is one thing. But to do research for a good camera+lens, just to use that camera for taking photos of photos, is ridiculous. Not to mention the lack of ICE.
And what will all that cost you? It's not like I would be saving any money. Not time either, considering all the research to get a functioning set-up.

I'm in the same boat. I don't own a DSLR and it would be very expensive for a setup. SInce I rarely print, my V600 and now my V850 is good enough for the web and for making "slideshows" to show on my 75" UHDTV. If I really need a better scan for printing large once in a while, I could send it out to a pro scanner lab who could handle the printing as well. It all depends what your needs are.

 

[Vincent Boman]

I could send it out to a pro scanner lab who could handle the printing as well. It all depends what your needs are.

There is a lab that provides Imacon scans 5 minutes from where I live, though I’ve never quite understood what it costs.
They’re kind of bad at explaining if you ask, and they have two different prices on their website. I don’t know either what model Imacon they have.
Have you had any experience with drum scans from a lab? The same lab acts as a middle man for some people who provide drum scanning, and it seems insanely expensive. But does the quality of a drum scan vary widely depending on how experienced the person does it is?

 

[Les Sarile]

I know that there are comparisons online between the Flextights and Nikons. I have to admit I don't know much about ppi or dpi, but all I want personally is to be able to scan my images at the highest resolution the scanner allows me to, and work on the image afterwards to feel that I have a finished image that I can then print.
At that point, is there such a difference in the image from a Nikon and a Flextight that merits the price difference?

In what aspects? And what is a reasonable quality level? I don't know anything about printing.

Coolscan vs DSLR scanning.

Here is a frame of 35mm Kodak Techpan shot at ISO25 processed in Kodak Technidol and scanned with the Coolscan vs a 14.6MP Pentax K20D and a 36.3MP Nikon D800. The target is an arrangement of 12233 rescharts arranged 4 X 4 and taken under ideal settings under various apertures of the lens (Pentax LX + Pentax M50 f4 macro) and selected the best frame of the roll. My intention was to capture the most detail on a frame of 35mm film and hoped that it would exceed the resolution of the scanners so that I would know the extent they can achieve.

On the left bottom shows the full target image and the red boundary is the cropped area to compare.
Above it is the 100% crop of the scan by the 14.6MP Pentax K20D.
Above it is the 100% crop of the scan by the 4000dpi Coolscan.
Above it is the 100% crop of the scan by the 36.3MP Nikon D800.
On the left is about a 4.5X optical magnification of the center area. Clearly, none of the scans above could resolve all the details of this 35mm frame of film.

Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/8372250EA44CB06/orig.jpg

The 36.3MP D800 scan comes out to 7360 x 4912 pixels compared to the Coolscan 4000dpi at about 5600 X 3600. Even though the D800 applies more pixels then the Coolscan you can see they are about even in detail achieved. This means that you will need a DSLR as good or better then the D800 to match the Coolscan with 35mm and considerably more when scanning MF. And of course DSLR scanning has no ICE.

When I first got my Coolscan, I shot and scanned various films that I could get my hands on and sent a sample frame off to Fuji Professional to get some 20" X 30" optical enlargements made so that I can compare detail, color and contrast. I specified glossy paper as that would be able to capture the most detail - as opposed to some textured paper for example. When I got the prints back I can easily see that even at those large prints the 4000dpi Coolscan scans still shows more detail. Just as important to me was that color and contrast from Coolscan+Nikonscan were spot on.

Interstingly, I even sent them slides but they first made an interneg of the slide and then made optical enlargements from the negative which resulted in considerable loss of detail although color and contrast were still good. I was hoping they would make chrome prints (Cibachrome) but unfortunately in early 2000s those were already extremely rare.

 

[markjwyatt]

Any thoughts on this?

Pacific Image PF120 Pro Multi-Format Film Scanner

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._PF120_Multiformat_Film_Scanner.html/overview

The Negative Supply Kit looks interesting, but is a similar price, and requires a digital camera.

 

[Vincent Boman]

Any thoughts on this?

Pacific Image PF120 Pro Multi-Format Film Scanner

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._PF120_Multiformat_Film_Scanner.html/overview

The Negative Supply Kit looks interesting, but is a similar price, and requires a digital camera.

The reviews don't look too good.

 

[alanrockwood]

For 35mm scanning the most cost effective route to high quality (but slow) scanning is probably to find a used Canon FS4000us scanner. Some head-to-head comparisons rate the scan quality to be approximately on a par with Nikon scanners, or at least very very close. You can often find them on ebay in the $100-$200 price range. Make sure it comes with film holders because those are no longer available. Don't worry about having the software included because you will end up using either Vuescan (price around $70) or the more expensive Silverfast scanning software.

If you have a computer rigged up with a SCSI interface that is the fastest way to scan with the Canon FS4000us. Otherwise you will have to use the slower USB port. Note: I'm not talking about that new-fangled USB-2 technology. No, this is plain old fashioned original USB, so although you can use it on a computer with a USB-2 port, it will be slow.

If you want to do medium format scanning then add an Epson V700 (or V750 or V800, or V850) scanner. Once tuned up these can give quite good results, though not the best possible results. Many people find them good enough for their medium format work. They are also good for large format scanning.

So, for about $1000 or maybe a little more you will be all set to do everything from 35mm to large format, and for those very few once-in-a-lifetime shots where you need the best quality that money can buy there is always the possibility to send out for a drum scan. As for me, I have never shot anything that would come close to justifying sending a negative out for a drum scan.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

For 35mm scanning the most cost effective route to high quality (but slow) scanning is probably to find a used Canon FS4000us scanner. Some head-to-head comparisons rate the scan quality to be approximately on a par with Nikon scanners, or at least very very close. You can often find them on ebay in the $100-$200 price range. Make sure it comes with film holders because those are no longer available. Don't worry about having the software included because you will end up using either Vuescan (price around $70) or the more expensive Silverfast scanning software.

Did any of the Minolta 35mm film scanners approach this quality? Various models often show up on the 'bay.

 

[Les Sarile]

Did any of the Minolta 35mm film scanners approach this quality? Various models often show up on the 'bay.

The first version Minolta 5400 was a available at the time of the Coolscan V, 5000 and 9000 and provided 5400dpi scans compared to the Coolscan's 4000dpi. With ICE on, a scan took many minutes per frame > 8minutes. The version II greatly speeded up at about 1.5mintes which is still slower then the 5000 at 50 seconds but faster then the V at 3 minutes.

The Canon and Minolta uses film holders which adds time and inaccuracy in framing compared to the V and 5000 where you just fed strips of film (up to 6 frames) or whole strips with the 5000+adapter.

Canon FS4000 also was as slow as the first version Minolta 5400 and it's version of ICE - called FARE, is very poor compared to ICE4 in the Coolscans and Minolta.

All of these run native software only with older OS.

 

[Vincent Boman]

The first version Minolta 5400 was a available at the time of the Coolscan V, 5000 and 9000 and provided 5400dpi scans compared to the Coolscan's 4000dpi. With ICE on, a scan took many minutes per frame > 8minutes. The version II greatly speeded up at about 1.5mintes which is still slower then the 5000 at 50 seconds but faster then the V at 3 minutes.

The Canon and Minolta uses film holders which adds time and inaccuracy in framing compared to the V and 5000 where you just fed strips of film (up to 6 frames) or whole strips with the 5000+adapter.

Canon FS4000 also was as slow as the first version Minolta 5400 and it's version of ICE - called FARE, is very poor compared to ICE4 in the Coolscans and Minolta.

All of these run native software only with older OS.

There was recently a Minolta Dimagescan IV for sale for less than 80 dollars, that I of course missed.
I'm sure it doesn't measure up to a Coolscan 5000, but what kind of results do you get? And how slow is it compared to the 5000?

 

[Les Sarile]

There was recently a Minolta Dimagescan IV for sale for less than 80 dollars, that I of course missed.
I'm sure it doesn't measure up to a Coolscan 5000, but what kind of results do you get? And how slow is it compared to the 5000?

Sorry but I never tried the IV but it has no ICE so I would not have considered it.

If you're considering that class of scanner then keep an eye out for a Coolscan V with an SA-21 strip film feeder.

 

[alanrockwood]

More thoughts and info: Some tests on the top of the line Minolta scanners (the ones with 5400 dpi) have given better results than the Nikon scanners. However, there have been a lot of comments on various discussion groups that the Minolta scanners are not as reliable.

Someone commented that certain scanners will only run on older computers (i.e. under older operating systems) with their own software. This needs to be interpreted correctly. The vendor's own software will only run under older operating systems. However, almost all scanners can be operated using vuescan or silverfast software, and those software packages can be run under current operating systems, with the caveat that old versions of silverfast won't run under current versions of windows. An partial exception to this the Leafscan scanners. Vuescan will not operate Leaf scanners. There is a version of silverfast that will operate Leaf scanner. This doesn't matter much because leafscan scanners are not very easy to find.

On the canon, the dust and scratch system called FARE is said to not work as well as ICE that runs on other scanners. This is a software issue that is more or less irrelevant these days because almost nobody runs the canon with its own software. Pretty much everyone uses Vuescan of Silverfast software.

As far as resolution is concerned, the best of the desktop scanners are the 5400 dpi Minolta scanners and the Leafscan scanners. Both are up in the neighborhood of 5000 dpi or a bit more. The next tier down we have some of the Nikon and Canon scanners at 4000 dpi. I think some Polaroid scanners can also do 4000 dpi. There are a bunch of older scanners that can do about 2700 or 2800 dpi. Those are nominal specifications. Actual effective resolution is generally a bit less, but some come quite close to their effective resolution. The effective resolution of a well-tuned Epson (V700, V750, V800, or V850) scanner is fairly close to the effective resolution of the 2700 dpi dedicated film scanners.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't recall if I mentioned this already. But I did a comparison between an Epson V850 and Howtek 8000 with 4x5 BW film over in the Large Format forum site.
https://www.largeformatphotography....-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek

 

[MattKing]

When it comes to older scanners, watch out for scanners that require an SCSI connection.
I had to go through hoops to acquire a Windows 7 compatible Adaptec SCSI card in order to use a Minolta scanner. Since then, I upgraded the computer to Windows 10, and there are no Adaptec drivers for Windows 10 and that (or any?) SCSI card.
I no longer have the scanner, and I haven't gone down the rabbit hole of looking for methods to use SCSI with Windows 10.

 

[Les Sarile]

On the canon, the dust and scratch system called FARE is said to not work as well as ICE that runs on other scanners. This is a software issue that is more or less irrelevant these days because almost nobody runs the canon with its own software. Pretty much everyone uses Vuescan of Silverfast software.

FARE uses both hardware (infrared light) and software. I believe 3rd party software may use both. For instance Coolscans V, 5000 and 9000 uses a trade marked proprietary Digital ICE4 that Vuescan cannot use but have instead implemented their form of ICE. This was according to Ed back when I first tried it and may have since changed.

 

[Les Sarile]

Did any of the Minolta 35mm film scanners approach this quality? Various models often show up on the 'bay.

Since your forum name is Kodachromeguy, if you do have Kodachrome to scan and you need ICE, I should tell you that only Coolscan+Nikonscan works with that film with the 9000 implementation being the best.

I've seen Canoscan's FARE applied to Kodachrome and you will not be able to make out the image from the scans as it will be completely overrun with artifacting. Highly unlikely that 3rd party software will fare any better.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

When it comes to older scanners, watch out for scanners that require an SCSI connection.
I had to go through hoops to acquire a Windows 7 compatible Adaptec SCSI card in order to use a Minolta scanner. Since then, I upgraded the computer to Windows 10, and there are no Adaptec drivers for Windows 10 and that (or any?) SCSI card.
I no longer have the scanner, and I haven't gone down the rabbit hole of looking for methods to use SCSI with Windows 10.

Matt, I faced a similar dilemma. I have a Minolta Scan Multi medium format scanner, and specifically to operate it, I have kept an old 32-bit Dell computer running WIN 7 Professional. The SCSI card took a bit of fiddling to run properly, but it is stable now. The old Dell is not networked, so no virus risk. It's only job is to run Silverfast Ai and the Minolta scanner and run an equally old Epson flat-bed scanner. A Minolta 5400 with a SCSI connection would be fine for my setup.