State of the art scanner for 35 and 6x6 ?

Good Day,

I am sure this question has been asked many times: what are the state of the art yet affordable scanners for 35 and 6x6 format? Main purpose is to archive older 35 mm slides and negatives as well as 6x6 b&w negatives for sharing. A nice plus would be sufficiently good quality so that the 6x6 scans could be used to produce digitally enlarged negative. Many thanks in advance.

muskedear said:

Good Day,

I am sure this question has been asked many times: what are the state of the art yet affordable scanners for 35 and 6x6 format? Main purpose is to archive older 35 mm slides and negatives as well as 6x6 b&w negatives for sharing. A nice plus would be sufficiently good quality so that the 6x6 scans could be used to produce digitally enlarged negative. Many thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

I would encourage you to use the Search function. We have had several lengthy threads about your question, much of which has been recent.

Most people seem to agree that the Nikon 9000 is the top choice for a dedicated film scanner, but are expensive and difficult to locate.

The Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro is also a top choice though are out of production.

The Nikon 8000, Microtec/Polaroid 120 are also possible options.

Finally the Epson V700/750 are also possible suspects.

Don Bryant

Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED is very tough to beat since it combines a lot of very desireable elements:

• 4000dpi for 35mm and 120/220. For example, a lot of other "dual format" scanners are limited to a much lower resolution when scanning the larger format
• Very sophisticated ICE that can be used without concern (colour films).
• The world's only scanner whose ICE works on Kodachrome.
• Nikon Scan. A very very good app for efficient batch operations. It is also very easy to get to the configurations you need. Miles and miles ahead of the horrible interfaces of Vuescan and Silverfast (note, those other programs aren't bad but their interfaces certainly are).
• Occupies a very sweet performance spot. The cheaper scanners are clearly inferior in scan quality. The better scanners are either ten times the price or ancient and hard to maintain. Additionally, most of the "better" choices lack real productivity features like good ICE and good software.
• Contrary to Nikon's official literature, it is my experience that Nikon Scan 4.0.2 works just fine on the latest version of Snow Leopard.

Here are the main weaknesses as I see them:
• There seems to be no way to specify exact scan area for 120 film if the frame detection fails. You can do some limited "fine tuning" but if (for example) you want to scan negative film as positive then the frame detection will fail utterly. Unfortunately, Vuescan doesn't seem to have an alternative way to do this either.
• This is not the fastest scanner in the world for 35mm. Pretty good speed for 120, though.
• It is a little large.
• If you want to do other formats you need to buy other holders and they are expensive.
• It seems a little more prone to flare in extreme cases (slide film with near white elements bordering near black elements and enough detail-free space around that area to notice it) than some other scanners. This may be to do with the slide film holders, three of the five positions seem to have a gloss finish on the bottom rather than matte. I haven't experimented yet, however.
• It will spoil you for other scanners.

Sam

glhs116 said:

...
• Nikon Scan. A very very good app for efficient batch operations. It is also very easy to get to the configurations you need. Miles and miles ahead of the horrible interfaces of Vuescan and Silverfast (note, those other programs aren't bad but their interfaces certainly are)
...

Click to expand...

I don't understand what's so difficult / cumbersome with Vuescan or Silverfast? If you know something about scanning then they're both equally usable. (To me, the only significant feature of Silverfast was the NegaFix profiles. I currently use VueScan Pro, with "all of my scanners", "in every operating systems that I run"...)

OTOH, I've found this:
"...The use of Nikon Scan software with Windows 7 (any version), or Mac OS 10.5.x or later, or any 64- bit operating system (including 64-bit, 32-bit or Compatibility mode) is not supported. We suggest trying a third party software option such as Vuescan from Hamrick.com or Silverfast software..." (Emphasis mine.)

Which I (personally) find incredibly significant & important.

Regards,
Loris.

Gee, I am so unstate of the art. Here I limp along with a really very old Leafscan 45, 1994, and an old Scitex Eversmart Pro produced a few years later in 1997.

And Vuescan and Silverfast won't work with either of them.

Poor, poor me. So sad.

Sandy

sanking said:

Gee, I am so unstate of the art. Here I limp along with a really very old Leafscan 45, 1994, and an old Scitex Eversmart Pro produced a few years later in 1997.

Click to expand...

Unstate with high-end scanners? No no no no... I see a self-perception problem there.

sanking said:

And Vuescan and Silverfast won't work with either of them.

Poor, poor me. So sad.

Click to expand...

No big deal if you have other ways of running them (also which makes you happy with the results), no?

BTW, I'm not saying Vuescan or Silverfast is the only way to go, OK? I just don't understand the criticism...

Regards,
Loris.

Again, I have nothing against the programs. Vuescan and Silverfast are great. I've certainly at times gotten great results from them. However, the interface is a train wreck. I mean, just look at the recommended Vuescan negative scan sequence:

1. Preview
2. Select an area of clear emulsion.
3. Preview
4. Tick the "Lock film base colour" box
5. Preview
6. Tick the "Lock exposure" box

In contrast, Nikon scan just looks at the clear emulsion bits between frames and does all this for you without interaction.

How about choosing frames?

In Vuescan you type the number or numbers (separated by spaces or commas) in a box. In Nikon Scan you can generate thumbnails (a very quick process that takes a couple of seconds) and then Command-Click the frames you want by clicking on the appropriate thumbnail images.

Again. You can use either software to get good results. My experience, though, is that you need to set (and keep track of) a lot more settings in Vuescan and that gives you more opportunity for user error which ultimately wastes time. Though I haven't used Silverfast as much (I own a Vuescan license, I've only used trial copies of Silverfast) its interface is very similar to Vuescan's.

That, specifically, is what I was talking about.

glhs116 said:

In contrast, Nikon scan just looks at the clear emulsion bits between frames and does all this for you without interaction.

Click to expand...

Can one fluid mount with Nikon 9000. If so, how easy is it to do so?


Sandy King

There are glass mounts available (at a high price) from Nikon for the scanner. There are also several third parties offering glass insets to use with the standard holders.

As for fluid mounting, I'll let others chime in who may have tried this. I have not.

Sam

I understand where you're coming from. OTOH, I don't remember using the lock film base or lock exposure settings even once. I just try to capture as much as data from the scan and do the adjustments in the image processing program myself...

I don't scan in batches too. To me, it takes a pretty good (and lucky) photographer in order to manage to get more than one "worth to scan" ("worth to print" is a whole other issue, BTW) image in a single strip of film!!! I know I'm not one...

Regards,
Loris.

glhs116 said:

Again, I have nothing against the programs. Vuescan and Silverfast are great. I've certainly at times gotten great results from them. However, the interface is a train wreck. I mean, just look at the recommended Vuescan negative scan sequence:

1. Preview
2. Select an area of clear emulsion.
3. Preview
4. Tick the "Lock film base colour" box
5. Preview
6. Tick the "Lock exposure" box

In contrast, Nikon scan just looks at the clear emulsion bits between frames and does all this for you without interaction.

How about choosing frames?

In Vuescan you type the number or numbers (separated by spaces or commas) in a box. In Nikon Scan you can generate thumbnails (a very quick process that takes a couple of seconds) and then Command-Click the frames you want by clicking on the appropriate thumbnail images.

Again. You can use either software to get good results. My experience, though, is that you need to set (and keep track of) a lot more settings in Vuescan and that gives you more opportunity for user error which ultimately wastes time. Though I haven't used Silverfast as much (I own a Vuescan license, I've only used trial copies of Silverfast) its interface is very similar to Vuescan's.

That, specifically, is what I was talking about.

Click to expand...

If you can afford the 9000 it really is the way to go I think. I have only personally used the 8000, but I am sure the 9000 is a step up again. Best bang for buck.

Loris Medici said:

I don't scan in batches too. To me, it takes a pretty good (and lucky) photographer in order to manage to get more than one "worth to scan" ("worth to print" is a whole other issue, BTW) image in a single strip of film!!! I know I'm not one...

Regards,
Loris.

Click to expand...

Loris, if that is the case, you might consider trying LF once. Ever since I went into LF, my "hit-rate" has gone up considerably... Not necessarily because I have become a "better" photographer (although I do think I have made positive development in the past 5 years or so), but mainly because I now think twice before hitting the release button.

This also has translated itself to the way I do 35mm photography... Although I am perfectly aware that if your main stay is street or reportage style photography, all I wrote above is probably both irrelevant and impractical, and one just has to live with a plethora of "imperfect" images, with the occasional gem in between. But quite often, when looking back a few years later, they may not be as bad as thought back then

Marco

Dear Muskdear

I find myself in agreement with what sam has said

but for 35mm I don't think that the 9000 has a strip feeder. Instead you have to load the film into a tray.

Its interesting that even doing this the Nikon still fails so miserably to scan negative as positive. its clearly doing the inversions internally then doing the edge detection. Quite annoying for shots with lots of darkness in them too...

glhs116 said:

Here are the main weaknesses as I see them:
There seems to be no way to specify exact scan area for 120 film if the frame detection fails. You can do some limited "fine tuning" but if (for example) you want to scan negative film as positive then the frame detection will fail utterly. Unfortunately, Vuescan doesn't seem to have an alternative way to do this either.

Click to expand...

Personally I have had no problems at all with neg as pos for 35mm. There is a dedicated tray for 35mm that takes two strips of six frames. It has physical dividers between the frames. No edge detection necessary for 35mm.

The bundled 120 tray, however, is just one long window. This tray relies on software edge detection to find frames. Hence, I have no difficulties doing neg as pos for 35mm on the 9000 and I have several posted pics that have gone through this process. The problem is only with 120 with the bundled tray. I see that the glass rotating tray comes with coded masks for different film sizes. I would not expect this issue with the "GR" holder and 120/220 film.

glhs116 said:

Personally I have had no problems at all with neg as pos for 35mm. There is a dedicated tray for 35mm that takes two strips of six frames. It has physical dividers between the frames. No edge detection necessary for 35mm.

Click to expand...

ok ... I misundertsood its certainly a problem on the 4000 and 5000 with their SA-21 feeder ... I thought since you were saying there is problems it pertained to that too.

Hmmm !

Thanks everyone, for your replies and suggestions. The Nikon 9000 sounds like the kind of scanner I would like to have, but there is no way I will spend anywhere near $2000 for it. I am more in the $300-500 price range.

state of the art yet affordable scanners
"state-of-the-art" and "affordable" don't usually keep close company. You will need to judge whether the quality you get at $300-$500 is sufficient for your needs.

pschwart said:

state of the art yet affordable scanners
"state-of-the-art" and "affordable" don't usually keep close company. You will need to judge whether the quality you get at $300-$500 is sufficient for your needs.

Click to expand...

I guess this just shows my ignorance of what is going on in the digital world...

muskedear said:

Thanks everyone, for your replies and suggestions. The Nikon 9000 sounds like the kind of scanner I would like to have, but there is no way I will spend anywhere near $2000 for it. I am more in the $300-500 price range.

Click to expand...

get an Epson 4990 refurb then

The Epson V700 gives a true resolution about 2300 dpi which corresponds to 45 line-pairs per millimeter.Human vision typically sees 6 lppm on a print, so the V700 gets a 45/6 = 7.5 times enlargement.
With 35mm film curl across the width makes the betterscanning.com ANR glass a good addition to Epson's film holder IMO.