Decent Film Scanners? Not Flatbed.

[slacker]

Well, the only reason I said 'not flatbed' in the subject is because
from my brief readings on the internet, film scanners do a better job
on old negative strips than flatbed, although, of course, flatbeds can
scan more than just film.

Please feel fee to correct me on any or all of that as I've never owned
a scanner before and so its a new topic for me.

But basically, I want to be able to take our old negatives (most if not
all are 35mm), and scan them so I can have them on the computer. I'm
resolving myself from the get go, that the scans won't be of digital
quality, some negatives are very old (10+ years), others newer. But if
I can get a decent scan of these onto the computer, I'd be happy.

So, if you could lead me on the right path to finding a not to
incredibly expensive film scanner that will work in Windows 2000 SP4,
much appreciated. 4 digits I'm not looking to spend.
Thanks for any and all help.

Nelson

 

[Maris V. Lidaka Sr.]

Check out the lower-end Nikon and Minolta (Sony now?) filmscanners - you
should be able to get one for <$1,000 with Digital ICE, which is of
immeasurable valuable in dealing with the dust and scratches on (especially)
old color negatives as well as slides, excepting Kodachrome. Check on eBay
as well - you could perhaps pick up a refurb at a very reasonble price, or a
refurb directly from Nikon or Minolta.

Maris

 

[tomm42]

Check out the Epson V700, very close to a film scanner, though a
flatbed. I paid $549 for mine. Compares favorably to my Nikon LS2000.

Tom

 

[Dave]

Well, the only reason I said 'not flatbed' in the subject is because
from my brief readings on the internet, film scanners do a better job
on old negative strips than flatbed, although, of course, flatbeds can
scan more than just film.

Please feel fee to correct me on any or all of that as I've never owned
a scanner before and so its a new topic for me.

But basically, I want to be able to take our old negatives (most if not
all are 35mm), and scan them so I can have them on the computer. I'm
resolving myself from the get go, that the scans won't be of digital
quality, some negatives are very old (10+ years), others newer. But if
I can get a decent scan of these onto the computer, I'd be happy.

So, if you could lead me on the right path to finding a not to
incredibly expensive film scanner that will work in Windows 2000 SP4,
much appreciated. 4 digits I'm not looking to spend.
Thanks for any and all help.

Nelson

Hi Nelson,

I think you have a few options here.

1) You could buy the lower priced Nikon film scanner for about $500
(good for your 35mm stuff)

2) You could buy the Nikon and the Canon 8400F for about $126 (at
NewEgg) and have great 35mm, very good Med. format and really good flat
bed scanner. (I used to have the 8400F)

3) You could buy the Canon 8400F and the Minolta ScanDual 3 film scanner
for around $350 total and have a descent 35mm scanner and a very good
flat bed which can also scan Med format. (This is what I had until my
current set-up)

4) You could buy the new Epson V700 (my current set up) and have an
exceptionally good (IMHO) flat bed scanner that is capable of very good
35mm through 8x10 (yes, 8x10) film scans.

I have an old (1974 Kodachrome slide of a bumble bee close up that I use
as a test for scanners that just blew my socks off scanned on the V700.
This is a really good test for scanners as the slide has a pretty wide
range with very deep shadows. I scanned it at 4800 PPI (the V700 goes up
to 6400) and the result was way better than any film scan I have ever done.

Disclaimer: No, I don't work for Epson and second, the above is JMHO,
but it did get me to dump my Minolta and my Canon in favor of the Epson.

Hope this helps,
Dave

 

[Dave]

Hi Nelson,

I think you have a few options here.

1) You could buy the lower priced Nikon film scanner for about $500
(good for your 35mm stuff)

2) You could buy the Nikon and the Canon 8400F for about $126 (at
NewEgg) and have great 35mm, very good Med. format and really good flat
bed scanner. (I used to have the 8400F)

3) You could buy the Canon 8400F and the Minolta ScanDual 3 film scanner
for around $350 total and have a descent 35mm scanner and a very good
flat bed which can also scan Med format. (This is what I had until my
current set-up)

4) You could buy the new Epson V700 (my current set up) and have an
exceptionally good (IMHO) flat bed scanner that is capable of very good
35mm through 8x10 (yes, 8x10) film scans.

I have an old (1974 Kodachrome slide of a bumble bee close up that I use
as a test for scanners that just blew my socks off scanned on the V700.
This is a really good test for scanners as the slide has a pretty wide
range with very deep shadows. I scanned it at 4800 PPI (the V700 goes up
to 6400) and the result was way better than any film scan I have ever done.

Disclaimer: No, I don't work for Epson and second, the above is JMHO,
but it did get me to dump my Minolta and my Canon in favor of the Epson.

Hope this helps,
Dave

The Minolta was a ScanDual IV not 3. caffeine level must be getting low.

 

[slacker]

The Minolta was a ScanDual IV not 3. caffeine level must be getting low.



Thanks all, for all of your helpful suggestions.

It seems I have some specs printing to do at Epson (v700), Canon, and
Minolta.
The Nikon stuff at close to $1000 is a bit pricey, ICE or not. :-(

Nelson

 

[Randy Howard]

slacker wrote
(in article

Thanks all, for all of your helpful suggestions.

It seems I have some specs printing to do at Epson (v700), Canon, and
Minolta.
The Nikon stuff at close to $1000 is a bit pricey, ICE or not. :-(

But Nikon seems to be the only company with scan software worth
installing. In retrospect, it would have been worth it.

 

[Dave]

Thanks all, for all of your helpful suggestions.

It seems I have some specs printing to do at Epson (v700), Canon, and
Minolta.
The Nikon stuff at close to $1000 is a bit pricey, ICE or not. :-(

Nelson

Nelson,

The Nikon I was referring to is the Coolscan V which sells for $549.00
at B&H photo. (see link below) They are out of stock right now, but you
can sign up for E-Mail notification and they'll let you know when they
get more stock.

You may also be able to find that model elsewhere if you look around a bit.

LINK : (long URL, be sure to copy all)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...476&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Hope this helps,
Dave

 

[tomm42]

slacker wrote
(in article


But Nikon seems to be the only company with scan software worth
installing. In retrospect, it would have been worth it.

The Pro section of the Epson-Scan software is not bad. Has all the
settings you need.

Tom

 

[Randy Howard]

tomm42 wrote
(in article

The Pro section of the Epson-Scan software is not bad. Has all the
settings you need.

Hardly. I have a 9950F here, and the software sucks rocks. The
developers involved with that product are grossly incompetent.

 

[tomm42]

tomm42 wrote
(in article


Hardly. I have a 9950F here, and the software sucks rocks. The
developers involved with that product are grossly incompetent.

I agree that the "regular" settings suck, but the "professional"
setting gives me all the controls I need. Results from the V700 are far
beyond any flatbed I have ever seen. Had an Epson Expression 1600
before and the 35mm scans were only suitable for PowerPoint. So soft
you didn't even need Digital Ice. Very different experience with the
V700.

Tom

 

[Randy Howard]

tomm42 wrote
(in article

I agree that the "regular" settings suck, but the "professional"
setting gives me all the controls I need.

I've never used the "regular" settings. I'm not talking about
the number of features, but the overall quality and usability of
the software.

Results from the V700 are far beyond any flatbed I have ever seen.

And the 9950 makes great scans too, for what it is, but that's
completely besides the point.

 

[tomm42]

As I said the Professional section of the Epson software has all the
tool I need to make good scans. The auto and home versions of Epson
software truly due suck.
Is your 9950 an Epson or a Canon?

Tom

 

[Randy Howard]

tomm42 wrote
(in article

Is your 9950 an Epson or a Canon?

*slaps self*

I have no idea why I thought we were talking apples to apples
here. Sorry about that. I guess the Epson printer sitting next
to the Canon scanner shorted out somewhere in my thinking.

 

[Roger]

Thanks all, for all of your helpful suggestions.

It seems I have some specs printing to do at Epson (v700), Canon, and
Minolta.
The Nikon stuff at close to $1000 is a bit pricey, ICE or not. :-(

However after more than 30,000 slides and negatives I can say I
believe it's worth it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen]

A 9950F made by Epson?


RH> tomm42 wrote
RH> (in article

RH> Hardly. I have a 9950F here, and the software sucks rocks. The
RH> developers involved with that product are grossly incompetent.


RH> --
RH> Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
RH> "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
RH> who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

[David Dyer-Bennet]

The Nikon stuff at close to $1000 is a bit pricey, ICE or not. :-(

Look at the Nikon Coolscan V; that's about $500 at B&H. Specs aren't
as good as for the 5000 ED, but it's half the price, and the specs are
pretty good for $500.