WHAT SCANNER SHOULD I PURCHASE? DECISIONS, DECISIONS, DECISIONS

[W6PJJ]

Greetings:

I began shooting again in MF and I'm strongly considering buying a film scanner to archive images in digital format. There is much to choose from as with anything, it's always how much do you wish to spend? For what purposes do you wish to use it? and on and on it goes. Well, I pretty much know the technical details I'm interested in but there are still a handful of film scanners to choose from. To cut to the quick I'm interested in your feedback on a film scanner you use that works very well and provides high dpi resolution. The money is not a major issue, I want a scanner that will scan 35mm/120 and possibly 4X5. The latter is a pipe dream at this point but nonetheless a consideration. At least 4000 dpi will be necessary in order to satisfy my requirement for high resolution.... High quality, and durability are major requirements I hold in very high esteem. I'm not certain if there are models other than Nikon that have tray feeding mechanisms versus the flat-bed style. I have and use at work, a High-End Epson flatbed and it sucks to say the least. So Guys, Gals and Kids fire away I'm all ears. Remember, I'm looking for unbiased feedback and not a personal brand endorsement. The subjective opinions are not going to help me, the Objective ones will lead to a decision much quicker and make me a Happy Camper.
__________________
Ciao,

Sil

 

[MikeSeb]

Based on your stated parameters you want a Nikon 8000 or preferably a 9000. It'll do up to 6x9 cm images on 120/220 film.

If you want to scan 4x5, you're looking at an Imacon/Hasselblad scanner. It won't, however, scan 4x5 at 4000ppi--more like 2400 or so; but you'll have more than enough dynamic range and resolution from a 4x5 image scanned on an Imacon to do just about anything you want with the resulting file.

In my experience with the 8000 and 9000 scanners, 4000ppi is a bit dicey. I think their sweet spot is more like 3200ppi. Above that I think you get more noise but the increase in useful resolution seems marginal. That's an informed opinion, not stated as fact, and I'm sure Nikon would argue with me.

I've been very satisfied with my 8000 and 9000. The 9000 is considerably faster and produces a noticeably smoother image, IMO.

 

[Marco B]

I agree with most of what Michael says. If you really need to do high end scanning up to 4x5 and have the money for it, go for an Imacon. The 848, 949 and X2 models are amazingly fast as well, can make 80(!) MP scans in maybe 5-10 minutes, if connected to a fast computer.

However, at a price tag of maybe 10.000 dollar, that may be a bit stretching the concept of an affordable scanner.

The alternative might be an Epson V700/750 used exclusively for the upcoming 4x5 stuff, and a Nikon Coolscan for all of the 35 and 120 stuff.

As Michael also said, you don't need 4000 ppi in 4x5, 2000 or 2400 is enough and will already give you huge files (especially if scanned in 48bit) that will allow you to do anything you like. An Epson flatbed can do that. 4000 ppi in 4x5 is overkill and may prove even unworkable during post-scan adjustments in Photoshop.

Also, Michael stated 3200 ppi is the sweet spot of the coolscans, but I think it would be better to state this is the sweet spot of most low ISO films, as I think for most films, there just isn't much more detail to extract beyond 3200 ppi.

 

[sanking]

If you have the space you might want to consider drum scanner or high end flatbed. You could buy used either a Howtek 4500 drum or an EverSmart Supreme for less than an Imacon, and both would give superior performance IMO.

Or, you might want to divide duties. An Epson V750 will do ok for LF negatives with modest enlargement, and a Nikon LS-9000 should satify your needs for 35mm and MF. Much cheaper option than the Imacon.

Sandy King

 

[clay]

FWIW, I ran into a great deal on a Howtek HR8000 drum scanner, and I haven't looked back. I paid roughly 1/3 the price (all in, including software) of a new Imacon, and the scans I am getting are worlds better than I got from some previously outsourced Imacon scans. It takes up some room in the office, isn't particularly speedy, but it sure delivers. I see a lot of these used high end drums scanners and flatbeds popping up for sale, and they can represent great bargains.

If you have the space you might want to consider drum scanner or high end flatbed. You could buy used either a Howtek 4500 drum or an EverSmart Supreme for less than an Imacon, and both would give superior performance IMO.

Or, you might want to divide duties. An Epson V750 will do ok for LF negatives with modest enlargement, and a Nikon LS-9000 should satify your needs for 35mm and MF. Much cheaper option than the Imacon.

Sandy King

 

[W6PJJ]

Hello Folks:

Hey! thanks for the nice responses. I appreciate the information on models etc. It's sorta a toss up of wants and desires, and the result is facing the realities of what is available on the market today. I have read much on the Epson V750 and also on the Nikon 8000 and 9000. It appears that the Epson will do most everything I desire. The results are now in question. I need some feedback from users of the V750. I think the Nikon series are fine but do not allow me to scan a 4x5. I must consider all the aspects and will probably have to make some trade-offs. TNX AGN..

Ciao,

Sil

 

[Moopheus]

I've got a V750, and I like it. I would have preferred a dedicated film scanner, but like you, wanted the ability to do 4x5, and also prints, and there was a personal space/budget restriction. I haven't done a huge amount with it, and am just now getting around to the doing the whole calibration thing, but so far results have been pretty good. I would definitely recommend getting the Betterscanning mounting frame. A big weakness of the Epson is the holders. The Betterscanning holder allows much more precise focus and holds the film flatter. The scans are so much better with it, it's easily worth the price. Apparently it's even better if you wet mount, but I don't want to deal with the chemicals.

 

[W6PJJ]

Hello Moopheus:

Thanks for the reply. I especially appreciate the advice on the Betterscanning holder. I will surely look into that. We have a Epson at work with cheap flimsy negative frames. For a few more dollars they could have used aluminum frames and they would have made all the difference in the world. TNX AGN..

Ciao,

Sil

 

[pschwart]

Epson sometimes has refurbished V-series scanners on their web site at a good price. I consider the Betterscanning holders with AN glass a must-have. This combo is capable of excellent results scanning medium format for modest enlargements. A big plus is the Epson can scan an 8x10 image area and so makes great contact sheets from PrintFile pages. I would keep it for this even if I used it for nothing else.

 

[lenny]

Greetings:

The money is not a major issue, I want a scanner that will scan 35mm/120 and possibly 4X5. The latter is a pipe dream at this point but nonetheless a consideration. At least 4000 dpi will be necessary in order to satisfy my requirement for high resolution.... High quality, and durability are major requirements I hold in very high esteem. I'm not certain if there are models other than Nikon that have tray feeding mechanisms versus the flat-bed style. I have and use at work, a High-End Epson flatbed and it sucks to say the least. So Guys, Gals and Kids fire away I'm all ears. Remember, I'm looking for unbiased feedback and not a personal brand endorsement. The subjective opinions are not going to help me, the Objective ones will lead to a decision much quicker and make me a Happy Camper.
__________________
Ciao,

If money is not a concern, you might consider the Aztek Premier that just went up on EBay for about 11-12K. Don't think it sold yet - you'll have to look. There are a number of HR 8000's that have been going on sale recently for 1.5-8K. These are also serviced by Aztek.

That's what I would do - especially for the small film. It's nice to be able to do 8,000 dpi at a very high resolution so you have enough pixels to make a larger print from the 35/120 that's sharp as a tack.

Lenny
EigerStudios

 

[toyotadesigner]

You've stated 'possibly 4x5'. That means to me that most of scans you'll do are 35mm and MF until you'll upgrade in size. **If** you'll ever do that step.

So IMHO the Nikon LS 9000 is the best solution, and should you ever get a 4x5 the Epson V7xx is little money.

As the other posters said 2.400 for a 4x5 is sufficient. When I scan a 6x9 slide @ 4.000 ppi @ 48 bit I get a file of almost 700 MB which is a problem to post process even on a very new and very fast Mac with 4 GB RAM.

So I scan @ 2.400 ppi and if I need larger output I send the slides to a subcontractor for drumscanning and printing on a Lightjet or Lambda because I can use my time in better ways than sitting in front of the computer and wait for eternity...

It might turn out that you won't see a reason to step up to 4x5 after you've seen the scans from MF on a Nikon LS 9000, who knows.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I found this thread while browsing just after I posted my question on a similar topic ...

... 'possibly 4x5'. That means to me that most of scans you'll do are 35mm and MF until you'll upgrade in size. **If** you'll ever do that step.

So IMHO the Nikon LS 9000 is the best solution, and should you ever get a 4x5 the Epson V7xx is little money.

Jens, you answer makes sence, but I'd ask what you'd say if I said that in my situation I really do use 4x5 and 120 is more or less my Bessar RF and the 6x12 roll back for my 4x5.

As the other posters said 2.400 for a 4x5 is sufficient. When I scan a 6x9 slide @ 4.000 ppi @ 48 bit I get a file of almost 700 MB which is a problem to post process even on a very new and very fast Mac with 4 GB RAM.

So I scan @ 2.400 ppi and if I need larger output I send the slides to a subcontractor for drumscanning

makes sence ... do you have a 9000? do you have an Epson? if so, feel that your 9000 makes better ICE dust removal scans of negative than does the Epson?

 

[toyotadesigner]

Hi Pellicle,

my thought was about 35mm and MF. If you use more 4x5 and rarely MF or 35mm, an Epson would be better, or even an Imacon.

Yes, I do have a LS 9000. It's a fantastic scanner and delivers lots of detail in shadow areas of my slides (2 samples, multi exposure and 'light' ICE to remove the dust with VueScan). No, I don't have an Epson, but I had a flatbed scanner which I sold after 2 weeks to move to the Nikon. There are worlds between a flatbed and a dedicated film scanner.

For me the decision was simple: I already had the Fujis GW and GSW 690 III as well as a Plaubel 69W ProShift and the Nikon scanner. So I purchased an Arca Swiss 6x9 including a nice set of Rodenstock lenses from 45mm to 210mm because my 'workflow' hat been optimized for 6x9. The 4x5 Arca was just a tad more expensive, but I didn't like the idea to use single sheets for shooting (not to speak about the availability for this material in my country), and I didn't want to burn my funds on an Imacon which I would have needed for such a format. After my experience with a flatbed I knew nothing else would serve my needs for perfection

So I am glad I decided to stick to the 6x9 path (except for the 35mm equipments) because roll film is almost anywhere available and no matter which camera I use I always have the same film format to deal with (and emulsion, because I always use the Fuji Provia 100F).

 

[pellicle]

Hi Jens

thanks for your replies ... there is something in there for me, so if you don't mind me further asking ...

If you use more 4x5 and rarely MF or 35mm, an Epson would be better

sure, for 4x5 the 9000 nikon will not do it ... but 6x9 and 6x12 on the other hand it will. I begin to wonder if I benefit from sheets assuming that I can get satisfactory results with the 6x12 back (must say I prefer working with the bigger glass area of 4x5 than the masked down bit of the screen with the 6x12)

However if I'll see better results from the scans of the 120 from the LS9000 then I'd be sorely tempted to get one and leave my 4x5 sheets (mainly black and white anyway) on the flatbed.

shooting (not to speak about the availability for this material in my country),

I'm in Finland now, and will return to Australia in around a year I guess ... 4x5 is not simple (or cheap) there either

After my experience with a flatbed I knew nothing else would serve my needs for perfection

clearly only I (and some tests) will be able to give me a satisfactory answer to this, but I wonder if my LF lenses are sharp enough to warrant the extra grunt from the 9000 ... I've found out lots about the Epsons in my years of use and have a pretty good understanding of their limits and how to get the most out of them (often more than others).


Thanks for your thoughts

 

[toyotadesigner]

Hi Pellicle,

but I wonder if my LF lenses are sharp enough to warrant the extra grunt from the 9000 ...

The lenses for my 6x9 Arca Swiss are LF lenses. Though they are 'old' (between 10 and 20 years, but already MultiCoated), the are tack sharp. Almost as sharp as the EBC Fujinon lenses, but IMHO the Fujis are from a different world (a large part counts for the built-in rangefinder so if the patch matches the object the focus is 100% on target and not a tad off like with the focussing on the ground glass of the Arca).

I don't give too much about the lens comparison tests - I've checked all lenses I had purchased for the Arca, especially the Nikon 5.6/135mm which was said to have too few lines/mm resolution in the corners. I couldn't spot a difference between the Nikon and Rodenstock lenses (ok, I didn't shoot test charts, just architecture). IMHO lots of this 'guru talk' is hot air to justify the money spent on super-hyper-high-class lens variations. My eyes are still perfect, that means I can see the single pixels on my 1920x1200 monitor, so I know I definitely would be able to spot unsharp parts with a 10x loupe in a slide or in a 4.000 ppi scan.

To scan the 6x12 slides you have just to use 10 mm overlap and you can stitch them in any image editor.

You might check following images, shot with a Rodenstock Grandagon 6.5/65mm:
http://www.sacalobra.com/samples/m1.jpg = the 12.900x8.600 image
http://www.sacalobra.com/samples/m2.jpg = a 100% crop from almost the center of the first image.
The leaves are not sharp because we had lots of wind that day.

So much for the 'bad, old' LF lenses

 

[ssloansjca]

Unfortunately money is an object for me. I already have a Coolscan V for 35mm and the Epson will have to do for MF and 4x5. I can't part with over twenty Benjamins for a freakin film scanner.

~Steve Sloan

 

[pellicle]

Hi there

The lenses for my 6x9 Arca Swiss are LF lenses. Though they are 'old' (between 10 and 20 years, but already MultiCoated), the are tack sharp.

I've got a pair of Fujinon's for my LF (90mm and 180) I wonder about the 90 off and on but the 180 is simply wonderful

Almost as sharp as the EBC Fujinon lenses, but IMHO the Fujis are from a different world (a large part counts for the built-in rangefinder so if the patch

Ok ... so you know and perhaps like the Fujinons ... mine howver are not multi coated (only single)

You might check following images, shot with a Rodenstock Grandagon 6.5/65mm:
http://www.sacalobra.com/samples/m1.jpg = the 12.900x8.600 image
http://www.sacalobra.com/samples/m2.jpg = a 100% crop from almost the center of the first image.
The leaves are not sharp because we had lots of wind that day.

So much for the 'bad, old' LF lenses

indeed ... anyway ... its a tough call. I'm weighing an LS-9000 (and selling my LS-IV and probably 10D and a few of the lenses to fund it) thinking that my compact digital is quite acceptable for what it is and film will do the rest for me nicely.

It certainly helps to not suffer from camera diarrhea if you have to scan film (well, heck even if you have to convert and inspect RAW or assemble HDRI from them) but I'm especially conscious of the added time in operating my LS-IV in comparison to an Epson.



BTW ssloansjca ... just what are Benjamins? I guess its a note denomination in the USA world but which one?

 

[ssloansjca]

Benjamin Franklin is the dead US President on a $100 bill. Twenty Benjamins is $2,000 US.



~Steve

 

[pellicle]

Hi

thanks ...

Benjamin Franklin is the dead US President on a $100 bill. Twenty Benjamins is $2,000 US.



~Steve

I knew he was a president, I've even read his "autobiography" (although its more of a journal + notes and thoughts), just never knew what note he was on (or that he was on one).