Film Scanners?

[OBie]

I can't figure out where this should go - so move it if need be.

Wondering about film scanners (negative scanners?). Heck, I don't even know what they're properly called. But I have thousands of negatives and have recently thought about being able to scan them (not all of them mind you) into my computer.

Can someone point me in the direction to get information about them - and give me a ballpark figure of $$ needed? Yeah, there's a huge range of prices, I'm sure. Obviously I won't be investing in a camera lab-level scanner. Just for home use that does a good job.

Thanks.

[another view]

Depends on a lot of things. If need to scan 35mm for good quality 8x10 prints, you'll really need a dedicated film scanner - a flat bed will probably not give you the results you want. Resolution is only one part of the story...

Nikon's Coolscan V and Konica Minolta's 5400 are really good scanners and I think in about the $600 range. If you want to spend less than that, you might find a good deal on a used Nikon Coolscan IV or LS2000. Just make sure that the driver software is available for your operating system.

I would highly recommend a scanner with Digital ICE if you're working with color (doesn't work with B&W, or Kodachrome if memory serves). I have an Acer 2720S which has given me good 8x10 prints at 2700dpi but without Digital ICE, I spend a lot of time spotting out dust in Photoshop. There is a learning curve to getting good results too...

[EastCoastHucker]

you should check the Canon 8600F

More reviews I read about that scanner more I want to buy one.

[yogestee]

OBie,,,there are heaps of Neg/Flatbed scanners on the market,,,most do a good job...Its the rule of "you get what you pay for"..

I have an Epson Perfection Neg/Flatbed scanner which I'm very happy with..What is important is you check out the resolution you can scan at...My Epson can scan to 4200dpi..

Check out the image attached which was scanned off Fuji Superia 200 colour print film..The negative was scanned at 600dpi originally then reduced for these forums..IMHO quality isn't too bad..

Jurgen
Australia

[OBie]

Wow. Thanks everyone. I can see a project coming on - and I think that my husband would become obsessed with it, which could only help me! $600 is very do-able. Sounds like the cost of an enlarger and darkroom startup!

Jurgen, that image looks fantastic to me.

I'm going to have to visit the local photo stores to see, touch, and play with what they might have in stock. Flatbed scanner for a negative? Sounds strange. All I can picture in my head is my current flatbed scanner/printer combo.

I'm going to have to find something MAC compatible, since I've fallen in love with my MAC desktop.

Ooooh this is going to be fun!

[yogestee]

OBie,,,,flatbed/neg scanners combos what you have is a slot under the lid of the scanner where your neg strip slides in...Usually you have to remove the white pressure plate that holds your prints flat...Behind the plate is where you will find the slot...

Remember to keep your negs in strips of 4 or 6 for the easiest results..

600 big ones should get you a topshelf unit..

Jurgen

[EastCoastHucker]

http://syndicate.tentoe.com/Syndicat...e=FP3FUC-15645 flatbed.. think again..

[mdmc]

Obie, heres a link that sold me on both my Epson 4870 scanner and R800 printer. I think the worst you could do is get a 4990(which replaced 4870) for 409$ at B+H.
the latest epson offerings V700 V750 are much better. The 4990 should be adequate for 8x10's. other brands such as microtec and cannon may be a better choice, check the web for reviews.


http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/scanners_page.htm

Heres my fav scan from the 4870. fuji 100 consumer slide film, samsung p s camera, from about 1993.
approx size 6.5x10.5 at 380 dpi. and 100% crop.
I have no idea of how much this has been manipulated, I do know that I made an 8.5x 11 print I am happy with.
Happy hunting,
Mark.

[another view]

If you're only doing 35mm film, I think you'll be better off with a 35mm film scanner like one of the two I mentioned. Some of the better flatbeds will scan larger film like medium and large format - but the better flatbeds are large, like maybe 14"x18". That's a lot of desk space, and a 35mm film scanner will probably take up about 2"x8".

The space is one thing, but really it's the quality of the scan that matters. It's not all shown by the numbers, even comparing more than resolution (Dmax, for one). Just like lenses, you can't tell much about image quality from the specs.

[OBie]

Jurgen - Thanks for the description. I just couldn't imagine what they looked like!

EastCoastHucker - Great link - thanks. Good little presentation that I need to show my husband.

mdmc - Appreciate your pointing me to reviews as I was having no luck on my own!

AnotherView - Space is always a premium! Most likely I'll be sticking with 35mm. I don't have a huge inventory of slides, just a couple rolls.

Thank you EVERYONE for your input. I really appreciate it!

[mdmc]

obie, If you have thousands of negs to scan and need the highest quality, or are still shooting 35mm film, then a dedicated film scanner would make sense to me.
If you just have a few rolls of film to scan then pay a lab to scan them.
Just about any new flatbed scanner can scan prints effectively, but a high end flatbed can do it all. Plus they're plug and play you can put it away untill you need to use it.
To sum up my thoghts on this:
I wouldn't buy a dedicated scanner unless I were still shooting film, Or had a huge amount of slide-negs to scan.

I wouldn't buy a high end flatbed scanner if i had only a few rolls of 35mm film to scan, and I didn't shoot medium or large format film.

I would buy an all in one scanner, printer, fax to scan prints.


I hope this makes sense to you.
Mark.

[OBie]

Mark - yes, it makes perfect sense. I need to figure out exactly what we're going to scan. I have 20+ years of negs (family snaps, mostly) sitting in storage. Translates to 20+ photo albums full of pictures. Am I going to scan each one? I doubt it - unless I decide that digital storage is the way to go for permanence.

I'm going to read the reviews, talk to reliable people at local photo stores, figure out what direction we're going to go with this, and then come up with what we need. In fact, we may decide that we also need a good quality print scanner, as we have possession of very old family photos dating back to early 1900. Who knows.

And again, I certainly appreciate all of the help given here. I feel as if I have a good head start.

[freygr]

Just remember to make sure, you get the resolution that you will need down the road. Spend the extra money for the resolution up front it will cost you less in the long run.

[mdmc]

Heres a review from 2001 of an earlier best flatbed scanner. The newer ones are much much better now.
just trying to add to your perspective.
Mark.
http://shutterbug.com/equipmentrevie.../0501sb_epson/

[OBie]

Thanks, freygr - makes sense. Don't want to have to "re-purchase" after deciding that I would like to print some 8 x 10s, or do some major cropping.

mdmc - thanks for that-every bit of info helps.

[freygr]

Heres a review from 2001 of an earlier best flatbed scanner. The newer ones are much much better now.
just trying to add to your perspective.
Mark.
http://shutterbug.com/equipmentrevie.../0501sb_epson/

I have the Epson 1200U photo. I've scanned anything bigger than 35mm film with it and have been very happy with it. For 35mm film I have an Nikon Coolscan IV and I have been happy with it also.

[GB1]

I have the Nikon Coolscan 9000. It's a great scanner, not only because of it's 4000 dpi and 120mm film scanning capability, but also because of all its dust eliminating and exposure recovery enhancement features.

Unfortunately you may have to get a second mortgage - it's ~ $1900.

[freygr]

I have the Nikon Coolscan 9000. It's a great scanner, not only because of it's 4000 dpi and 120mm film scanning capability, but also because of all its dust eliminating and exposure recovery enhancement features.

Unfortunately you may have to get a second mortgage - it's ~ $1900.

To bad you are not closer as I do need some of my film scanned at 4000dpi......

[GB1]

To bad you are not closer as I do need some of my film scanned at 4000dpi......

know what ya mean... sometimes you dont need to buy the thing, just use it for a weekend. I wonder if any place up there rents them? It uses firewire btw - the one knock on the unit. I guess it was already through design phase when USB 2.0 came out.

[another view]

sometimes you dont need to buy the thing, just use it for a weekend

Agreed - but there is a learning curve to using any new piece of gear, especially a scanner. If I had access to a really good scanner I'd probably use it but the other option (that I haven't done myself) is a high-end lab like Calypso Imaging.

I have a shot on Velvia that I thought about having done by them, but it's not exactly what I wanted. I got the horizon a little crooked (sunrise on a beach happens fast!) and next time I try it will be with digital capture...

[OBie]

It uses firewire btw - the one knock on the unit. I guess it was already through design phase when USB 2.0 came out.

See, now, this is one of my problems with technology. It moves too fast. I thought firewire was fastest? I was advised last fall that I should get an external HD with a firewire connection rather than USB. But I'm not sure if they were referring to USB 2.0.

[GB1]

See, now, this is one of my problems with technology. It moves too fast. I thought firewire was fastest? I was advised last fall that I should get an external HD with a firewire connection rather than USB. But I'm not sure if they were referring to USB 2.0.

It's pretty close.

From http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm:
---
Question: Which is faster Hi-Speed USB 2.0 or FireWire?
Answer: In sustained throughput FireWire is faster than USB 2.0.

Question: If Hi-Speed USB 2.0 is a 480 Mbps interface and FireWire is a 400 Mbps interface, how can FireWire be faster?
Answer: Differences in the architecture of the two interfaces have a huge impact on the sustained throughput.

FireWire, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer

Hi-Speed USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower data flow control)

Question: So which products should I choose FireWire or Hi-Speed USB 2.0?
Answer: Often the choice will be made for you by the product itself. Some types of products are only available with the FireWire interface and some only with USB.

For all out sustained throughput, as shown above a FireWire external hard drive will provide the best performance. But for convenience and compatibility between multiple computers a USB 2.0 external hard drive would probably be the better choice (since practically every computer has a USB port).

---

I believe that USB 2.0 (which is 7-8 times faster than USB 1.0) requires a computer to arbitrate, so in theory, Firewire can be used in situations where there is no computer - e.g., directly from a device like camera to a printer. But there are ways of doing this with USB too, I believe. I think even Apple, who developed Firewire, is moving towards USB instead. You can see this on their new iPods.

[GB1]

Agreed - but there is a learning curve to using any new piece of gear, especially a scanner. If I had access to a really good scanner I'd probably use it but the other option (that I haven't done myself) is a high-end lab like Calypso Imaging.

I have a shot on Velvia that I thought about having done by them, but it's not exactly what I wanted. I got the horizon a little crooked (sunrise on a beach happens fast!) and next time I try it will be with digital capture...

Some of those labs will straighten the image for you if you request it - give them a call and ask.