Dedicated film scanner recommendation?

[mjs1973]

I have often kicked around the idea of getting a dedicated film scanner and the urge has popped up again. Only this time I have a little extra $ that I could part with, an extra computer that I could dedicate just to the scanner, and it would be a business expense. I have always considered the Nikon Coolscan series the "gold standard" for a film scanner, and that is really what I have my eye on. At one point I was set on a KM DiMage scanner, but I can't find them anymore.

I would use it for 35mm only so I'm thinking the Coolscan V or 5000 would be the way to go. There are a few on ebay that I have been watching but I'm still not convinced I want to spend that much $.

Anyone have any other suggestions for a dedicated film scanner? I really don't want a flatbed scanner, but I may consider it. Digital ICE is a must have.

[photophorous]

Hey Mike,

What kind of film do you want to scan and how big do you want to print?

Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of choices these days, if you want a dedicated film scanner. Some of the high end flat-beds are supposedly very good, but not as good as a Nikon. I have a Coolscan V and I'm pretty happy with it. My only complaint is that it seems to slightly exaggerate grain, which is a non-issue if you're shooting very fine grain film, like slide film. I've made nice 12x18s from slide film, but I don't think I'd print a negative that large with out lots of grain reduction processing. That's probably more to do with my own scanning abilities than the scanner, but I can't say for sure. I also use it for B&W which works very well now that I've altered my developing techniques so that my negatives have smoother grain structure. Really gritty B&W grain comes out looking even grittier.

The V has been discontinued and it's probably difficult to find a new one now, but the 5000 is still being made. There's no reason to get the 5000 over the V, purely for image quality, but it is a little faster. It's a lot faster if you also spend another $500 on the roll film adapter. Better upgrade your memory if you do that, because a full size 8- bit scan comes out at about 60-65 MB. (I don't scan at 16-bit because I don't have software to process at 16 bit.)

Minolta stopped making their scanners a year or two ago. The only Minolta scanner I would consider is the 5400, which arguably had better image quality than the Nikons, but supposedly very slow performance. I've also read about a lot of quality issues with those scanners, which is what steered me away from them. I think to get anything better than a Nikon you have to start looking at professional scanners like Imacons, but I don't know much about those.

Good luck.

Paul