Peter D said:
I am trying to pick the right scanner for scanning photos and slides. I have
1000+ Kodak Ektachrome slides (25-30 years old and still looking great!). I
had read a lot when I was looking last year and kept getting feedback that
most scanners cannot properly scan Kodak Ektachrome slides.
Because technology is constantly evolving, I thought I'd check back and get
updated info.
Either you or the people advising you are probably confused. Few
scanners will have any problems scanning Ektachrome and those which have
will struggle with any film.
There is a problem scanning Kodachrome, which is a different Kodak film
of course, but this is related to an added feature in high end scanners
rather than the scanning itself.
Most good film scanners these days have a feature which detects and
conceals dirt and defects on the film, usually a version of Kodak's ICE
or a similar technology. This uses a 4th channel in the scanner, in
addition to the normal 3 colour channels, which operates in the
infrared. The dyes of Ektachrome, colour negative and some black and
white (the chromogenic type) films are fairly transparent in the
infrared, so the image in that channel is mainly dirt, scratches and
defects on the film surface itself. By comparing the infrared channel
with the other 3 channels, the ICE algorithm can detect where each of
these defects in the scan is and mask it by cloning information from the
surrounding area, effectively repairing the damage automatically. The
process is entirely transparent to the user, who only needs to select
the function on the scanner driver and wait the additional few seconds
for the result to be processed.
The problem with ICE is that it doesn't work with traditional black and
white film because the developed image on such film is formed from
silver oxide suspended in the emulsion and silver oxide, unlike the
colour dyes, is opaque to the infrared wavelengths used in ICE. In
fact, silver oxide is pretty opaque to most wavelengths up to at least
30um, so there really isn't any possibility of a future development of
the ICE technique coming along to work with traditional black and white
film - there is every possibility that an alternative technique could be
developed, but it won't use the process we know of as ICE today.
So why is ICE a problem with Kodachrome? In common with most other
colour films, Kodachrome starts life as three layers of black and white
emulsion separated by colour filter layers. However, the development of
most other colour films includes a bleach bath which completely removes
all of the developed silver oxide leaving only the colour dyes to form
the image. Kodachrome development does not *always* bleach all of
silver oxide away and some of the darkest and deepest colours *can* have
residual silver oxide in the emulsion - which makes those parts of the
image opaque to the infrared channel of an ICE equipped scanner.
Consequently the ICE algorithm finds large areas of the image which are
apparently defective and attempts to conceal them using the parts of the
image that it finds clean - the result is usually and unacceptable mess
and the only solution is to disable ICE and scan Kodachrome
conventionally.
The reason that I have deliberately emphasised certain words in the
previous paragraph like *always* and *can* is because not all Kodachrome
does have residual silver oxide in the developed emulsion. Although it
has always been called Kodachrome, Kodak have had many versions of the
film and the process. Someone posted the numbers here a while ago, and
whilst I don't recall all of the details I think there have been about
15 or so different versions of the Kodachrome process since 1960. Some
of those processes seem to have left none, or very little, silver oxide
in the developed emulsion, and ICE copes perfectly well with films
developed in those processes. That is why some people report that they
have no problem scanning Kodachrome with ICE, whilst others just despair
every time they try.
One thing that I haven't tried (because I have precious few Kodachrome
slides and none that can be sacrificed) is what would happen if
developed Kodachrome slides were dropped into an E6 bleach-fix bath. It
doesn't do Ektachrome any harm to get additional bleaching since it is a
self limiting process - and it can even be returned to this after the
film has been washed and dried if something has gone wrong with the
process. So there is a chance that Kodachrome would be OK too and it
would remove the silver oxide, making the slide scan-able - obviously
after washing, drying and remounting! Somebody with some scrap
Kodachrome slides might want to try that at the end of an E6 kit life -
but keep the temperature down - I doubt that Kodachrome emulsion will
tolerate E6 process temperatures.
Can you please recommend the best scanner/software package for
scanning Kodak Ektachrome slides. If it matters, I'll be using a PC. Price
(unless it goes into the thousands of dollars) is not an issue. I will also
need to scan non-Ektachrome slides, negatives (Kodak, Fuji, other), and
prints. For the prints, something with a hopper/feeder is probably a good
idea (1000+ prints).
There are a couple of flatbed scanners around these days that will do
both reflective (prints) and transmissive (slides and negatives) with
reasonable quality, but the best results for slides and negatives for
the consumer grade still come from a dedicated film scanner. All of the
dedicated film scanners will scan negatives as well as slides. Unless
you intend to spend the rest of your life using Photoshop to spot out
defects on your film scans then a scanner with ICE is essential for
anyone scanning even small numbers of slides or negatives - it is a pity
it doesn't work for traditional B&W and is uncertain on Kodachrome, but
for all other films it is well worth it.
For prints, almost any of the scanners on the market will do a
reasonable job in terms of image quality. There are a couple of the top
end consumer Epson Perfection flatbed scanners that have a version of
ICE that remove defects from prints as well, using a different approach.
Some of the top end consumer grade Epson's also have optional 30-sheet
automatic document feeders for bulk use, such as the 4180 or 3170 - I
expect the 4990 does too, but haven't seen one to check yet. They also
have lower performance (perfectly adequate for prints) but much more
expensive Expression office range which support 100-page feeders
For dedicated film scanners, the models currently at the top of the tree
are the Minolta SE-5400-II and the Nikon LS-5000. The Minolta has
slightly higher resolution and scans at double the sample density of the
Nikon, with 5400ppi as opposed to the Nikon's 4000ppi. The achieved
resolution is actually much closer than the sampling density numbers
suggest, but the Minolta does have a measurable edge - if your images
are sharp enough to exploit it. To justify almost double t cost of the
Minolta, the Nikon is better supported for volume throughput though,
with bulk adapters for slide batches and uncut roll film. It is also
easier, and quicker, to feed cut film into the Nikon's motorised slot
than it is to mount into the Minolta holder - and the Nikon has a
similar manual holder for "difficult" strips, such as single unmounted
frames. If you search the archives of this group you will find details
on turning the default motorised film feed on the LS-5000 into a bulk
uncut film feed, saving the additional cost. If you don't need the bulk
film facilities of the Nikon LS-5000 the next lowest model, the LS-50,
is about half the price - similar to the Minolta. However, you also
lose the multiscanning facility (noise reduction) and get a lower
resolution ADC - so the selection is a little clearer in Minolta's
favour than it is with the top range Nikon model. To be honest, for the
price of the Minolta 5400, I am surprised that Nikon bother to ship the
LS-50 at all!
Best choice for under $1000?
I'd pick up an Epson Perfection 2480 at under $100, add a 30 sheet
B813142 document feeder for $80 to get a scanner for prints and large
format film, then add a separate Minolta SE-5400 for abut $550 for 35mm
and smaller film formats. Spend the remaining $250 to bring you up to
$1000 on a huge, fast, hard disk and more memory! ;-)
Going over the $1000?
Upgrade to the Epson 4990 (just to get ICE on prints) for about $450 and
replace the Minolta film scanner with a Nikon LS-5000 at about $1000
with an SF-210 50 slide automatic feeder for about $450. A simple
modification to the SA-21 film strip feeder included with the LS-5000
saves buying an SA-30 uncut roll film adapter, but if you aren't
comfortable opening and modifying a new unit, the SA-30 will set you
back another $450. All up, about $2000 - $2500 depending on your skill
with a crosshead screwdriver and/or a pair of wire cutters. ;-)
If you have film than larger 35mm and find the Epson doesn't give enough
performance (and it will probably be more than adequate unless you
intend printing murals!) then add a Nikon LS-9000 and a couple of
adapters for about $3000.
The next level up is to spend some money on a yacht, a crate of G&T and
relax in the sun while someone else scans them for you! ;-)
