Scanner for 120/135: Nikon 8000/9000/Braun FS120/Epson

Re-examining things, I'm wondering about the practical day-to-day use of either a Nikon Coolscan 8000 vs. 9000 vs. Braun FS-120. For that matter, I'm more impressed with the output from Epson flatbeds 500/600/700/800 than I've expected to be. My goal is to have another way to scan an image at top quality... and while I do DSLR scans for speed as a first pass on image content, I recognize it's good to have another option, and having had some commerical scans done on a Hasselblad Imacon, noted the step up in quality - which I liked, but also that the choices the operator made in scanning were his, important... and not really my cup of tea. Control matters when a guy whites out the sunset. Yipes! So I see Epson V600's are about $200 at B&H and that's pretty cheap. Nikon 8000's are around $800... also "not bad". The 9000's are a good bit more.

Think if I were only after 35mm, I'd go for a Kodak Pakon F135. But with 120 as something I'm especially challenged by these days.... more options for the same money are better. But I don't know any of these machines.

Part of what I'm after is E-A-S-Y and K-I-S-S. The two don't necessarily overlap. And I have to say I'm rather impressed the way an Epson can take a strip of 120 and not have to get reloaded or moved in order to scan the strip (if I understand it rightly). Some posts I've seen have mentioned the Nikons as difficult or bothersome in some ways. Dunno. And the Braun... I know absolutely nothing about other than I've read a review and the sales organization that did it basically liked it over the Plustek 120 machine... which they no longer sell because of defects/quality control issues.

My operating environment is Windows 10, so I'd be trying to run these with Vuescan (for the Nikon) which I already own or the native software.

According to http://www.filmscanner.info/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html, the Epson V600 is similar to the V500 and can only actually achieve about 1600ppi of resolution. I've tested the V500 extensively and I found it's actual resolution to be very low.
According to the same website, the Epson V7XX/V8XX are rated to provide better detail capture than the V500/V600. My testing for the V7XX agrees with their results.
Two other medium format scanners are reviewed and look promising but neither of which I have used are: http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm120.html & http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaMF5000.html


I believe you only use b&w so here are a couple of examples from my Coolscan 5000/9000.

Using 35mm TMAX 100

Full res -> http://www.fototime.com/C426B6DD4A9A552/orig.jpg

Using 35mm TMAX400

Full res -> http://www.fototime.com/7012BF5D9DD62F6/orig.jpg

Using TRI-X 400

Full res -> http://www.fototime.com/0C196BB299F029A/orig.jpg

The Plustek 120 is still being sold. I dont know where you are getting this false information from.

If you want convenience/speed for 120, and you aren't planning on making large prints, then a flatbed is the way to go. If you want resolution, you need to buy a dedicated film scanner. If you are looking for a flatbed, I suggest you get the Canon instead of the Epson. Canon is an optics company after all. I've always thought their scanners are better when compared like to like with the Epson. Bang for the buck, the Nikon 8000 is going to deliver, but only if it is working properly and is clean.

Ratty: No, I meant the website that reviews scanners just dropped it because the experience with the quality of the hardware for themselves and their customers was that the machines had short lives.
Patrick: Thanks! That's the message I'm getting. And I am after quality. I have to try DSLR with stitching... but if that doesn't swing it, then we'll move to the Nikon 8000 and some glass film holders. THanks!

Any possibility to rent a Hasselblad scanner close to where you live, and scan yourself?

Good question. Do they rent these things?

I'd pass on the Imacon/Hassy scanners unless you are doing only 35mm. If you are going to spend that much money on a scanner, just break down and buy a drum scanner like an Aztec.

Renting time on an Imacon would be good though, but that isn't really convenient and you never know how well the machine has been maintained. A poorly maintained machine isn't going to produce good scans.

I have an 8000 and use Vuescan to run it on Windows 10. I use it in both an EASY and KISS manner. I do minimal adjustments in Lightroom (for the most part). I mostly upload/share digitally but also print using a service (I have no printer). I do a mix of 120/220 and 35mm. I use the glass carriers for 120 and the dedicated 35mm holder for 35mm.

IMO, using the 8000 in this way is really easy. I'm sure if I spent more time tweaking settings, I could get more from it, but I really don't care to at this point. This setup is really a stop-gap until I can get a semi-permanent dark room set up.

Feel free to check out my images in Flickr acquired in this way using a variety of cameras and film (and digital). I'd be happy to answer more questions if you have them.

Any thoughts of going bigger than 120/220?

Regards,
Rob

Rob: No, no thoughts on larger than 120 at this point. Having enough fun and spending enough dough as it is. Still too much to learn, and as a small fry, MF is about as unportable as I wanna go (I'm shooting a Bronica SQ-A with a monopod mostly). Leica for 35... and it's not getting enough show since I picked up the Bronica. It will... but the challenge of solving MF negs, scans and prints keeps me busy... and my Leica's the portable rig. What file types are you putting out from the Nikon LS-8000 / Vuescan combo? TIFF's ?1

Patrick: Aztec... uh.... maybe down the road... but Nikon LS-8000 may get it all done. I've some of the Kami fluid for wet scanning from Aztec, but the site looks like they only service (but don't sell) Aztecs. But he comment on the Hassy is very helpful. THe older models are hard to find info on... and with a Nikon scanner repair guy around the corner, looks like a decision "made". THanks!

Yeah, I output TIFF's at the highest resolution and a smaller JPG as basically a thumbnail.

Good luck with the SQ-A. I'm sure it will serve you well.

Les: BTW, great scans. I'm also looking at the Epson V850 which with Betterscanning aftermarket holders prices similarly to a Nikon Coolscan 8000 with glass holders.

JWMster said:

Les: BTW, great scans. I'm also looking at the Epson V850 which with Betterscanning aftermarket holders prices similarly to a Nikon Coolscan 8000 with glass holders.

Click to expand...

Thanks but these are examples of the quality of scans that the Nikon Coolscan 5000/9000+Nikonscan can achieve automatically with no pre or post work - except for copyright, using some of those b&w films you may be using.

BTW, I still don't really understand what you were comparing.

BTW, here is what a 4000dpi scan looks like relative to 14.6MP & 36.3MP DSLR scans. For this I shot a 4X4 arrangement of ISO12233 res charts using 35mm Kodak Techpan @ ISO25 processed in Kodak Technidol. I then cropped the center area and provided the 100% crops from the various methods on the left side. On the right side, I optically enlarged the same area 4.5X and you can clearly see there is much more unresolved detail. This is important because you don't want the target to lack resolution then the capture methodology.


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

Clearly 4000pi outresolves 14.6MP DSLR scan and about the same as 36.3MP DSLR scan at least when it comes to 35mm frame.

Hi Skip

I don't own an Epson flatbed but I've seen very good results for 120 film and up with the V7xx scanners. Less so for 35mm film, to be honest. So you could toy with the idea of getting for instance a V750 for medium format and DSLR scanning for 35mm. I've tried digitizing with an EOS 5D2 and the 100mm macros and in my experience digitizing is a very capable method for 35mm film.

If you do want to have one scanner for both 35mm and medium format the FS-120 does seem like a good scanner. I obviously have no experience with it but I've read the Filmscanner.info review which rates it highly and it appears to be better than the Epson flatbeds. That it is a current scanner is appealing, of course.

Personally I upgraded from a Coolscan V ED to a 9000 a few years ago because I added medium format to my camera bag. I usually don't have a problem with buying old tech but respect that not everyone feels the same. I have not been disappointed with this scanner. In use it is very quick and effective.

I use it with Vuescan and find it very easy to use and set up (in case it may be of interest, here's my Dead Link Removed). The quality is, as I understand it, quite similar to the 8000, which I considered seriously. I had however read that some have experienced banding with the 8000, which was why I eventually went for the 9000 when one came up for a reasonable price at a shop (and I also sold my 5D2 to finance the scanner). Actually, though a slight tangent, for 35mm there's not that much of a difference between the V ED and the 9000. As with so much relating to scanning, a properly exposed film frame is key to a good-quality scan.

For 35mm I find the 9000 quick. I can usually scan a roll in an hour using the 12-frame holder. Quality is good. I normally go for 2000 dpi which I think is a sweet spot for file and image size and quality.

For 120 film I've used various holders. The included glass-less holder is not bad but getting slightly curved film flat is a challenge and that irritated me. I bought Focal Point's ANR glass and that doesn't, in my experience, work very well. I keep getting Newton rings but it is likely due to things like humidity etc where I live because other users really like the results. Using the thin non-ANR glass that the ANR glass comes with helps getting the film flat though. But eventually I settled on wet scanning 120 film using an Image Mechanics holder. They're not made any longer and difficult to track down. I wish someone 3D-printed them, should be possible these days. With that holder I get very good results. The drawback is the time it takes to scan a roll.

I realise this isn't all entirely on point but hopefully some of it helps you. For examples my flickr and website contain images scanned with the 9000.

br
Philip

JWMster said:

Re-examining things, I'm wondering about the practical day-to-day use of either a Nikon Coolscan 8000 vs. 9000 vs. Braun FS-120. For that matter, I'm more impressed with the output from Epson flatbeds 500/600/700/800 than I've expected to be. My goal is to have another way to scan an image at top quality... and while I do DSLR scans for speed as a first pass on image content, I recognize it's good to have another option, and having had some commerical scans done on a Hasselblad Imacon, noted the step up in quality - which I liked, but also that the choices the operator made in scanning were his, important... and not really my cup of tea. Control matters when a guy whites out the sunset. Yipes! So I see Epson V600's are about $200 at B&H and that's pretty cheap. Nikon 8000's are around $800... also "not bad". The 9000's are a good bit more.

Think if I were only after 35mm, I'd go for a Kodak Pakon F135. But with 120 as something I'm especially challenged by these days.... more options for the same money are better. But I don't know any of these machines.

Part of what I'm after is E-A-S-Y and K-I-S-S. The two don't necessarily overlap. And I have to say I'm rather impressed the way an Epson can take a strip of 120 and not have to get reloaded or moved in order to scan the strip (if I understand it rightly). Some posts I've seen have mentioned the Nikons as difficult or bothersome in some ways. Dunno. And the Braun... I know absolutely nothing about other than I've read a review and the sales organization that did it basically liked it over the Plustek 120 machine... which they no longer sell because of defects/quality control issues.

My operating environment is Windows 10, so I'd be trying to run these with Vuescan (for the Nikon) which I already own or the native software.

Click to expand...

philipus said:

I don't own an Epson flatbed but I've seen very good results for 120 film and up with the V7xx scanners. Less so for 35mm film, to be honest. So you could toy with the idea of getting for instance a V750 for medium format and DSLR scanning for 35mm. I've tried digitizing with an EOS 5D2 and the 100mm macros and in my experience digitizing is a very capable method for 35mm film.

Click to expand...

I'd agree with this: Fast and pretty doggone good. Maybe not as fast as a Kodak Pakon, but good as a starting point.

philipus" said:

If you do want to have one scanner for both 35mm and medium format the FS-120 does seem like a good scanner. I obviously have no experience with it but I've read the Filmscanner.info review which rates it highly and it appears to be better than the Epson flatbeds. That it is a current scanner is appealing, of course.

Click to expand...

I think one of the big issues with the FS-120 is the negative holders and whether they flatten images. I've found that some 120 really needs a glass holder. Didn't like Acros for that reason... nice as others have found that film. TMAX and HP5/FP4 just lay flatter by build - naturally, and the negatives seem more robust. Stupid perhaps to dis a film just because of the mechanics... but that's where I am at the moment.

philipus said:

Personally I upgraded from a Coolscan V ED to a 9000 a few years ago because I added medium format to my camera bag. I usually don't have a problem with buying old tech but respect that not everyone feels the same. I have not been disappointed with this scanner. In use it is very quick and effective. I use it with Vuescan and find it very easy to use and set up (in case it may be of interest, here's my Dead Link Removed). The quality is, as I understand it, quite similar to the 8000, which I considered seriously. I had however read that some have experienced banding with the 8000, which was why I eventually went for the 9000 when one came up for a reasonable price at a shop (and I also sold my 5D2 to finance the scanner). Actually, though a slight tangent, for 35mm there's not that much of a difference between the V ED and the 9000. As with so much relating to scanning, a properly exposed film frame is key to a good-quality scan. For 35mm I find the 9000 quick. I can usually scan a roll in an hour using the 12-frame holder. Quality is good. I normally go for 2000 dpi which I think is a sweet spot for file and image size and quality.

Click to expand...

So you make a very good argument for the 9000 over the 8000. I'd initially been thinking the 8000 would leave room for funding the film holders - especially the glass ones.

philipus said:

For 120 film I've used various holders. The included glass-less holder is not bad but getting slightly curved film flat is a challenge and that irritated me. I bought Focal Point's ANR glass and that doesn't, in my experience, work very well. I keep getting Newton rings but it is likely due to things like humidity etc where I live because other users really like the results. Using the thin non-ANR glass that the ANR glass comes with helps getting the film flat though. But eventually I settled on wet scanning 120 film using an Image Mechanics holder. They're not made any longer and difficult to track down. I wish someone 3D-printed them, should be possible these days. With that holder I get very good results. The drawback is the time it takes to scan a roll.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I've used some of Focal Point's ANR glass, for DSLR scanning and found Newton rings STILL show up.... especially in large, relatively monotone areas like skies and water. My DSLR set up has an LED light. Above that a glass bed, then the negative and the ANR glass and of course above that some space and then the camera-lens set-up. My last best hope with this for top quality is to pull the regular glass out, use the ANR glass as the negative bed and wet mount the negative with fluid and mylar overtop to hold it down. Sometimes I wonder whether the mylar is necessary, but I imagine bad things will happen to my negative if I tried to wet mount without it... as then I'd be squeegeeing the emulsion. Big no no. Kind of short on time this week, but if I get an evening, this is on my agenda to try and see how we come out. I have a macro lens, but would have to add close-up tube extensions to move the negatives even closer for stitching. I've seen good results with stitching... but in some respects... you gotta wonder. Finding a film holder that really get it done is DEFINITELY not a minor problem and in my estimation, one of the reasons where a lack of 3rd party holders tends to penalize scanners from Pacifica (Reflecta) / Braun (the same scanner according to B&H but the Braun has better reviews according to http://www.filmscanner.info/en/BraunFS120.html) relative to Epson and Nikon. One big trick not to be underestimated is the fact that the Nikon 9000 (maybe the 8000?) can automate (to some extent?) the scan of a strip of negatives. Not sure how this works since the glass holder looks like it only mounts one negative at a time.

Epson using Betterscanning holders can do some automation, too? I guess.

Anyway... this is all VERY good information to have. Thank you. From a BEST point of view, the Nikon seems the winner - if you can get and maintain one in good shape. The 2nd best would be the Braun FS-120 but I'm not sure it has been compared to an Epson 850 using Betterscanner negative holders.

I'm a happy Epson V600 owner, used it for 35 and 120 B&W and color and reflective. It is very easy to use and gives results that are plenty good enough for pictorial work. The pixel-peepers probably can find fault with it, but they can find fault with almost everything

So I didn't waste any time. Contacted my repair guy. Turns out he has plenty of parts for the LS-8000's and fewer for the LS-9000's. Told me the 8000's and 9000's basically operate the same with the same functionality - with a small difference favoring the 9000, but that the 8000 was the bang for the buck favorite. Checked eBay, the difference between the two units is running close to $1000. So I outbid some folks for an LS-8000 and snagged it. So maybe it will be slower, but the only holding me back will be my negatives. I'll keep DSLR scanning and getting better at that, but this gives me an option to scan my top negs after initial review, and a 2nd route to getting the best I can manage. Not gonna be the best and not gonna be the quickest, and certainly not going to be the newest. Might even need a tune up. But it just seemed simpler to not fuss around. So the deal is done. Thank you all for your input and encouragement. Another one of those "I'll nevers" has just fallen, and now I have a solid, 20-year-old (?) mid-grade (non-Drum) scanner. Yahoooo!

Read over the PDF manual for the Nikon LS-8000, and I'm looking at references to "masking sheets" and not expecting any of these to come with the unit. Is this just undeveloped film or exposed dark film or something similar? to cover the unfilled holder space? If you know, please fill me in. Love to know what you recommend be used to do the job.Thanks!

My 9000 came with black plastic sheets of various sizes that could be inserted to cover non-used apertures on the holders. It is possible to buy simple black plastic sheets and cut to fit the holders if you do feel the need to use them.

I have only once felt the need to use the sheets and that was scanning high-contrast images (scenes shot against a bright white/overcast sky) where there would be a light bleed from the edges into the image, which was visible on some C41 medium format films I scanned (the bright sky at the edges of the frame had a slight, very slight, yellow-orange-brown tint. Of the thousands of scans I've done this happened on one C41 roll and, weirdly, not no an E6 roll of the same scene. I have never had anything like this using the 35mm holder (even with such high-contrast frames).

JWMster said:

Read over the PDF manual for the Nikon LS-8000, and I'm looking at references to "masking sheets" and not expecting any of these to come with the unit. Is this just undeveloped film or exposed dark film or something similar? to cover the unfilled holder space? If you know, please fill me in. Love to know what you recommend be used to do the job.Thanks!

Click to expand...

I have some strips of fully exposed, processed paper that I use for masking on my LS-8000. They work, but are not as opaque as the originals.