Scanning Medium Format

[miklosphoto]

I know that this is a mainly all-analog forum but I still hope that many users might have experience with scanning medium format film and can provide me with some advise to make a decision.
My dilemma is whether I should buy the expesive film scanner (Nikon Coolscan 9000) or I can live with the cheaper flatbad (Epson Perfection V750-M PRO).
To give some background, I am using 645 format, basically all film types (B&W, color negative and positive). Currently I am using the Nikon Coolscan V ED for 35 mm, so I know what it takes to do quality scanning.
I am printing on Epson R2400 so my max print size ir 13x19.
If the budget was not a problem I would go with the Coolscan 9000 but at $1800 plus the glass film holder at $230 it is expensive.
What I am really interested to know how has a good scanning experience with the Epson flatbad; is it comparable to the Coolscan quality; is that through that using the flatbad for MF I still want to keep the Coolscan V ED for 35mm?
ANy advise, sharing experience is appreciated.
thanks a lot,
Miklos

 

[Pinholemaster]

Miklos

I own the Epson V750 and the older Nikon 8000 scanner with the glass medium format film holder.

I use the V750 for 4x5 and larger film. I use the Nikon for 35mm & medium format. The quality of the V750 is better than past flatbed scanners, but I still prefer the Nikon for anything smaller than 4x5.

Hope that helps.

 

[sanfrancisconudes]

There's no question that a dedicated film scanner will give better results than even the newer hybrid flatbeds. But you really can pull a pretty decent scan off of medium format with the newer flatbeds. Only you can decide what you're willing to live with but chances are you'll be happy enough.

 

[jd callow]

If you're scanning colour negs and or b/w negs with a normal density (as you'd use for most b/w papers) a good flatbed will probably be fine at 13x19 max. If you are scanning tranies or very dense negs you may not be as happy.

 

[sanking]

If you're scanning colour negs and or b/w negs with a normal density (as you'd use for most b/w papers) a good flatbed will probably be fine at 13x19 max. If you are scanning tranies or very dense negs you may not be as happy.

I think JD pretty much nailed it. The top of the line Epson flatbeds (4990, V700, V750) are capable of real resolution on the order of 30-35 lppm. 13X19" is pushing it for these scanners, but with appropriate sharpening good results are possible.

How much more you can get from medium format depends on your equipment. Most camera/lens combinations won't deliver more than 50-60 lppm in optimum conditions, and for best results you will max out at about 16"X 26" (3X magnification) with a 6X9 cm negative, less with 6X7 and 4.5X6.

This assumes a critical viewing distance of abou 10", and that this kind of detail matters to you.


Sandy King

 

[toadhall]

I know that this is a mainly all-analog forum but I still hope that many users might have experience with scanning medium format film and can provide me with some advise to make a decision.
My dilemma is whether I should buy the expesive film scanner (Nikon Coolscan 9000) or I can live with the cheaper flatbad (Epson Perfection V750-M PRO).
To give some background, I am using 645 format, basically all film types (B&W, color negative and positive). Currently I am using the Nikon Coolscan V ED for 35 mm, so I know what it takes to do quality scanning.
I am printing on Epson R2400 so my max print size ir 13x19.
If the budget was not a problem I would go with the Coolscan 9000 but at $1800 plus the glass film holder at $230 it is expensive.
What I am really interested to know how has a good scanning experience with the Epson flatbad; is it comparable to the Coolscan quality; is that through that using the flatbad for MF I still want to keep the Coolscan V ED for 35mm?
ANy advise, sharing experience is appreciated.
thanks a lot,
Miklos

I can't compare the Epson to the Nikon, but will offer my opinion on the Nikon. I own the 8000 model, which I bought as a demo. If you can find an 8000, I believe it offers virtually every feature the 9000 does. I initially found the medium format holders a real pain, but discovered a post on the internet regarding making your own glass holder. You have to remove the hinged holders, and get a piece of thin, lightly frosted glass, to lay into the channel on top of the film. No, it doesn't scratch the negs, and I've never had any sign of newton rings or other effects of diffraction. And it certainly holds the film flat! I don't use the Nikon software, but use VueScan instead. Vuescan has some minor annoyances on the Nikon (particularly with 6 x 7) but has always given me great images (or as great as it can considering what I'm feeding it .... )

 

[lenny]

If the budget was not a problem I would go with the Coolscan 9000 but at $1800 plus the glass film holder at $230 it is expensive.
What I am really interested to know how has a good scanning experience with the Epson flatbad; is it comparable to the Coolscan quality; is that through that using the flatbad for MF I still want to keep the Coolscan V ED for 35mm?
ANy advise, sharing experience is appreciated.
thanks a lot,
Miklos

I don't think, this is expensive, given the difference in quality. I don't like the Epson at all. They are both flatbeds, but you have a good camera with sharp lenses, why settle for the Epson?