Best Flatbed Scanner For 35mm film???

D

denis

I have an Epson 3200 Perfection Photo scanner and I believe this model
is 3/4 years old. I am using it to scan my archive of 35mm negatives
and would like to upgrade it to achieve better results: reading reviews
of this scanner it sems it is highly rated for medium format negative
film upwards and this appears to be the case generally with flatbed
scanners.

I prefer not to incur the expense of a dedicated scanner - can anyone
recommend a flatbed which at the moment is as good as it gets for 35mm
negative film please - would the CanoScan 9950F or Epson Perfection
4490 Photo scanners come into this category.

Denis Boisclair
Cheshire, UK.
 
N

Noons

I prefer not to incur the expense of a dedicated scanner - can anyone
recommend a flatbed which at the moment is as good as it gets for 35mm
negative film please - would the CanoScan 9950F or Epson Perfection
4490 Photo scanners come into this category.

Epson V750. The best out there at the moment for a reasonable price.
If you want to spend moolah, you can get one of the new Kodak
flatbed scanners, can't remember the models but check their site.
The specs are out of this world, particularly the rez and DMax. But
they are expen$ive...
 
D

David J. Littleboy

Noons said:
Epson V750. The best out there at the moment for a reasonable price.
If you want to spend moolah, you can get one of the new Kodak
flatbed scanners, can't remember the models but check their site.
The specs are out of this world, particularly the rez and DMax. But
they are expen$ive...

Is the Nikon Coolscan V really all that much more expensive than the V750???

(This is a serious question. The prices of the Epsons are sneaking up
there.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
N

Noons

David said:
Is the Nikon Coolscan V really all that much more expensive than the V750???

(This is a serious question. The prices of the Epsons are sneaking up
there.)

Don't think the Coolscan V is that much better than the V750,
but that may just be me. Last time I checked the CoolscanV
was nearly 200 bucks more than the V750. New prices, of course.

Given the OP asked for flatbeds, I didn't think it'd be relevant
to mention dedicated 35mm scanners. But given the vagaries
of price changes, it's probably a good idea to do so.

Agreed, Epson has certainly been edging up on $$$. To
the point where I'm seriously considering staying with
the 4990 for 6X7 and investing in a Coolscan 5K for 35mm.
If only the local agency would decide to stock it...
 
B

Bob_R

David J. Littleboy said:
Is the Nikon Coolscan V really all that much more expensive than the
V750???

(This is a serious question. The prices of the Epsons are sneaking up
there.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
David,
I just checked B&H.
Epson V750 for US$759.95, Nikon Coolscan 5ED for US$549.95 and Coolscan
5000ED for US$979.95.
Bob
 
N

nathantw

Bob_R said:
David,
I just checked B&H.
Epson V750 for US$759.95, Nikon Coolscan 5ED for US$549.95 and Coolscan
5000ED for US$979.95.

Those Nikons are perfect for scanning those 6x6 slides and negatives I have.
;-) In all seriousness though, I think the V750 is a great all-round
scanner. It definitely does 35mm really, really well (once you apply USM
through Photoshop, otherwise it's a piece of crap).
 
A

AAvK

Those Nikons are perfect for scanning those 6x6 slides and negatives I have.
;-) In all seriousness though, I think the V750 is a great all-round
scanner. It definitely does 35mm really, really well (once you apply USM
through Photoshop, otherwise it's a piece of crap).
LOL!
AAvK
 
T

tomm42

LOL!
AAvK

I wouldn't until you use one, I'd put the V700 up against the lower end
Nikon any day. The one I have has put a Nikon LS2000 on the shelf. The
LS2000 was refurbished by Nikon a year and a half ago, so it is in good
shape. The V700 just has more dynamic range and is just about as sharp.
If you want better quality you'd have to go to tthe LS5000 or an
LS9000. One nice thing about the V700 is the speed of scanning, I can
have 12 high res slides on my desk top in less than a half hour
including set up. The scannner will do "16bit" which edit very well. I
really think Epson has come close to producing a flat bed slide scanner
that competes with lower end dedicated slide scanners. If you are going
to print large get a dedicated slide scanner, if you are scanning for
8x10, 11x14 or mostly to be viewed on the screen, the Epsons are fine.

Tom
 
W

Wolf Faust

I wouldn't until you use one, I'd put the V700 up against the lower end
Nikon any day. The one I have has put a Nikon LS2000 on the shelf.

Especialy when it comes to real resolution, the V700 is definitly no
match to the current Nikon scanners based on the resolution tests made
by a german magazine Ct. If you intend to do a large print of the
scan, the difference will become visible rather quickly.

Another rather important issue (especialy with slide films) is color
resolution. At least the older flatbed scanner had problems especialy
with the higher densities. There was hardly any color resolution left
once the film reaches densities >2 (slide films can reach densities
arround 3.5-4). I am currently testing a number of scanners on this
issue ( see http://www.testdata.coloraid.de ). However, so far no user
of a V700/V900 scanner did offer scanning the test slides so far.

Maybe someone here with a V750 is willing to scan the test images on
http://www.testdata.coloraid.de ? At least when it comes to color,
Nikon LS 50 test scans made of the test slides were top performers.
Even with tricky colors the scanner had very low fault levels after
profiling.
 
D

denis

Many thanks to everybody for their replies - these have given me the
information I need to do some more research of reviews.

Denis Boisclair
Cheshire, UK.
 
T

tomm42

Wolf said:
Especialy when it comes to real resolution, the V700 is definitly no
match to the current Nikon scanners based on the resolution tests made
by a german magazine Ct. If you intend to do a large print of the
scan, the difference will become visible rather quickly.

Another rather important issue (especialy with slide films) is color
resolution. At least the older flatbed scanner had problems especialy
with the higher densities. There was hardly any color resolution left
once the film reaches densities >2 (slide films can reach densities
arround 3.5-4). I am currently testing a number of scanners on this
issue ( see http://www.testdata.coloraid.de ). However, so far no user
of a V700/V900 scanner did offer scanning the test slides so far.

Maybe someone here with a V750 is willing to scan the test images on
http://www.testdata.coloraid.de ? At least when it comes to color,
Nikon LS 50 test scans made of the test slides were top performers.
Even with tricky colors the scanner had very low fault levels after
profiling.
 
T

tomm42

Wolf said:
Especialy when it comes to real resolution, the V700 is definitly no
match to the current Nikon scanners based on the resolution tests made
by a german magazine Ct. If you intend to do a large print of the
scan, the difference will become visible rather quickly.

Another rather important issue (especialy with slide films) is color
resolution. At least the older flatbed scanner had problems especialy
with the higher densities. There was hardly any color resolution left
once the film reaches densities >2 (slide films can reach densities
arround 3.5-4). I am currently testing a number of scanners on this
issue ( see http://www.testdata.coloraid.de ). However, so far no user
of a V700/V900 scanner did offer scanning the test slides so far.

Maybe someone here with a V750 is willing to scan the test images on
http://www.testdata.coloraid.de ? At least when it comes to color,
Nikon LS 50 test scans made of the test slides were top performers.
Even with tricky colors the scanner had very low fault levels after
profiling.

Wolf,
Sounds interesting, how are you producing the slides or do you have a
standard set. Not a great idea to have everyone produce the slides as
every film recorder is different, and there is as many problems there
as in scanning.
Film densities top out at about 3.6 for Kodachrome 25 while Ektachromes
are in the 3.2-3.4 range for D-Max. This is after running a few E6
lines and having read many test strips.
I also noticed you used the Epson 3170 which in this country is a $120
scanner, no where near the top of the line. To do your testing you
should have a set of slides made from a standard film recorder,
preferably a high end one so it matches you files as closely as
possible. Could do it here but my Agfa PCRII+ just bit the dust, not
enough business to pay a couple of grand to get it repaired.
So if you have a set of slides for me to scan on an Epson V700 I'd be
willing to do it.

Tom
 
M

M. Zwierzycki

I have an Epson 3200 Perfection Photo scanner and I believe this model
is 3/4 years old. I am using it to scan my archive of 35mm negatives
and would like to upgrade it to achieve better results: reading reviews
of this scanner it sems it is highly rated for medium format negative
film upwards and this appears to be the case generally with flatbed
scanners.

I prefer not to incur the expense of a dedicated scanner - can anyone
recommend a flatbed which at the moment is as good as it gets for 35mm
negative film please - would the CanoScan 9950F or Epson Perfection
4490 Photo scanners come into this category.

Dennis, I do not know what the prices in UK are and whether you are dead
set on buying brand new stuff. I have recently bought second hand, but on
warranty, Epson V700 on german ebay for 440 Euro. Minolta Scan Elite 5400
(original, first version) can be had for somewhat less from the same
source.

I have recently compared those two scanners and Minolta comes out better
by far both in terms of a resolution and ability to see into the shadows.
Choosing between the two for 35mm scanning I would certainly go with
Minolta. I worked only with slides so can not comment wrt negatives.
I have no experience with Nikons scanner but they are probably, in the
same class, comparable with Minolta's.

To put it in some perspective, it is my estimate that you will not see
much difference on the A4 prints (assuming 300dpi printout resolution and
using the full frame) for a real world photo, that is not the test
patterns. It will depend of course on the motive and how much are you
prone to nitpicking. :)

In the end I decided to sell Minolta, but only because I wanted to be able
to scan MF slides.

Unless your budget absolutely excludes it I'd think seriousely about
dedicated scanner if your needs are limited to 35mm.

Regards
MZ
 
N

Norm Dresner

|I have an Epson 3200 Perfection Photo scanner and I believe this model
| is 3/4 years old. I am using it to scan my archive of 35mm negatives
| and would like to upgrade it to achieve better results: reading reviews
| of this scanner it sems it is highly rated for medium format negative
| film upwards and this appears to be the case generally with flatbed
| scanners.
|
| I prefer not to incur the expense of a dedicated scanner - can anyone
| recommend a flatbed which at the moment is as good as it gets for 35mm
| negative film please - would the CanoScan 9950F or Epson Perfection
| 4490 Photo scanners come into this category.
|
| Denis Boisclair
| Cheshire, UK.
|
I don't know about the Epson, but the Canon 9950F that I have does a nice
job on both 35mm and 6x6 cm slides and negatives. I haven't tried it on
sheet film yet (it goes up to 4x5in), but the 4800 PPI resolution is nice.
However, the whole machine is slow, even for scanning prints at 300 PPI. It
was my choice because of the size issues up to 3-1/4" x 4-1/4" negatives I
have, but for 35mm only, I think I'd go the extra money for a Nikon film
scanner.
Norm
 
W

Wolf Faust

Wolf,
Sounds interesting, how are you producing the slides or do you have a
standard set. Not a great idea to have everyone produce the slides as
every film recorder is different, and there is as many problems there
as in scanning.

The slides were produced using one of my film recorders here. The
recorder was setup to give maximum gamut/density range, but the test
slides do not provide the maximum gamut because of various limiting
reasons. But they are fairly close to the maximum density possible.
The slides were than individually measured as you can see from the
measured files available on the test site

Difference between film recorders surely do exist and for instance the
mentioned Agfa PCRII+ is not able in my oppion to produce such test
slides without major hardware changes. But otherwise it really doesn't
matter what film recorder did produce the test slides as long as the
output gamut is close to the maximum possible and the produced films
are than measured.
Film densities top out at about 3.6 for Kodachrome 25 while Ektachromes
are in the 3.2-3.4 range for D-Max. This is after running a few E6
lines and having read many test strips.

Yes. My experience: The density ranges for most films are provided by
the film manufacturer in their film specs. I am afraid they hardly
provide any data about the color gamut. I usualy find the listed
density values to be fairly correct with my practical experience. The
DMax/DMin value you reach can be a bit better or worse depending on
your lab developing the film. A lab not reaching decent DMin/DMax
values is usualy a good indication for a bad process control (or
worse) and I would avoid the lab for developing any film.

Based on test I made with various labs, Ektachrome can reach a DMax
arround 3.6 in practice. Looking at the old and new Fuji Velvia, these
Films easily reach values >3.6. I even measured values above 4 on a
Velvia 100F. Very impressive new stuff.
I also noticed you used the Epson 3170 which in this country is a $120

I did not use this scanner :) One of the first user willing to scan
the test slides had a 3170 ;-) Of course I also welcome a V700 and
other scanners users. I am afraid the drumscans provided so far
always had to be deleted because of obvious faults in the scans. But I
just got some more drum and other scans and should make them available
online within the next days. After all, we should not forget that the
slides were mainly made for testing color profiling software under
practical conditions. Popular low end scanners might be far more
demanding for profilers than a drum scanner. A good profiler should
handle both well...
So if you have a set of slides for me to scan on an Epson V700 I'd be
willing to do it.

Yes, of course... Please email me your address and I will shipp you a
reflective and slide test set as soon as one becomes available.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top