Film scanner question

[Barry Watzman]

I have a project that involves scanning a large number of 35mm negatives
(high hundreds to perhaps as many as several thousand).

One of the things I'm considering is buying a film scanner. The plan
would be to buy it, do the job, and resell it on E-Bay. Effectively
"renting" it for the difference between what I pay and what I get for it.

I looked at the Nikon 5000, but I'm put off by the price ($900 to $1,100).

To those of you who are knowledgeable about this subject, what about the
Nikon LS-50? This is half the cost of the 5000. What are the relative
benefits and drawbacks?

Also, anyone know anything about "ScanCafe"? They apparently do
scanning for 19 cents per slide, 4000 dpi, digital ICE and you only have
to actually buy the "good" images after looking at previews online.
However, turnaround is 6 weeks.

[FWIW, Sam's Club does them for 18 cents, but the resolution is low
(1800 x 1200, about 2 megapixels) and they don't have digital ICE or any
other enhancement ... it's a bare-bones straight scan. But the quality
is not bad within those limitations (although 2MP is a pretty severe
limitation), the turnaround is fast (24 hours for 100 images) and the
original media is never more than an hour from my home).]

Comments welcome.

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

What is the current state of the negatives (strips of 36, strips of 5 or 6,
something else)?

You REALLY want a scanner that will do however many negs are are
physically together without manual intervention.

What is your desired end result quality? Pixel dimensions? bit depth?

 

[-]

Since you have so many images to scan, the 5000 may be worth the cost over
the Nikon V since the 5000 can accept things like the bulk slide adapter. I
believe the 5000 also scans a bit faster than the V (double check that).
Your time is worth something so the extra cost of the V might pay for itself
in terms of time.

Doug

 

[Barry Watzman]

Unfortunately, the negatives are cut into strips of from two to six
images each (mostly 4 and 5 images).

The desired result is about 6 megapixels, 24 bit (or greater) color depth.

What is the current state of the negatives (strips of 36, strips of 5 or 6,
something else)?

You REALLY want a scanner that will do however many negs are are
physically together without manual intervention.

What is your desired end result quality? Pixel dimensions? bit depth?

I have a project that involves scanning a large number of 35mm negatives (high hundreds to perhaps as many as several thousand).

One of the things I'm considering is buying a film scanner. The plan would be to buy it, do the job, and resell it on E-Bay.
Effectively "renting" it for the difference between what I pay and what I get for it.

I looked at the Nikon 5000, but I'm put off by the price ($900 to $1,100).

To those of you who are knowledgeable about this subject, what about the Nikon LS-50? This is half the cost of the 5000. What
are the relative benefits and drawbacks?

Also, anyone know anything about "ScanCafe"? They apparently do scanning for 19 cents per slide, 4000 dpi, digital ICE and you
only have to actually buy the "good" images after looking at previews online. However, turnaround is 6 weeks.

[FWIW, Sam's Club does them for 18 cents, but the resolution is low (1800 x 1200, about 2 megapixels) and they don't have digital
ICE or any other enhancement ... it's a bare-bones straight scan. But the quality is not bad within those limitations (although
2MP is a pretty severe limitation), the turnaround is fast (24 hours for 100 images) and the original media is never more than an
hour from my home).]

Comments welcome.

 

[Barry Watzman]

I'm not convinced that a scanner that scans a few seconds (even 10-20
seconds) faster will really impact the total job time. Unfortunately,
the negatives are unmounted and in small strips (2 to 6 images, but
mostly 4 and 5 images per strip), so there will be significant handling
time ... handling and setup time will probably exceed the actual
scanning time.

 

[Talker]

I have a project that involves scanning a large number of 35mm negatives
(high hundreds to perhaps as many as several thousand).

One of the things I'm considering is buying a film scanner. The plan
would be to buy it, do the job, and resell it on E-Bay. Effectively
"renting" it for the difference between what I pay and what I get for it.

I looked at the Nikon 5000, but I'm put off by the price ($900 to $1,100).

To those of you who are knowledgeable about this subject, what about the
Nikon LS-50? This is half the cost of the 5000. What are the relative
benefits and drawbacks?

Also, anyone know anything about "ScanCafe"? They apparently do
scanning for 19 cents per slide, 4000 dpi, digital ICE and you only have
to actually buy the "good" images after looking at previews online.
However, turnaround is 6 weeks.

[FWIW, Sam's Club does them for 18 cents, but the resolution is low
(1800 x 1200, about 2 megapixels) and they don't have digital ICE or any
other enhancement ... it's a bare-bones straight scan. But the quality
is not bad within those limitations (although 2MP is a pretty severe
limitation), the turnaround is fast (24 hours for 100 images) and the
original media is never more than an hour from my home).]

Comments welcome.

What are you planning to do with the scans, print them out or
make a slideshow? If you are going to print them out, what size were
you figuring on printing them at?
If you want to go the cheap and dirty route, there's the Pacific
Image 3610AFL model that's on sale right now at Adorama (
http://www.adorama.com/IPIPF3610.html?emailprice=t&sid=11808295141877799
This model doesn't have a great dynamic range, so it may not suit
your needs.
If you are hoping to squeeze the most quality you can from the
negatives, with the hopes of printing the best possible 8x10 prints,
you should stay with the top of the line models. The Nikon 5000 has a
dynamic range of 4.8, which is excellent. The Pacific Image only has
a dynamic range of 3.2, so again, it depends on what you will be doing
with the scans.

Talker

 

[Happy Traveler]

No scanner (with the possible exception of ultra-expensive drum types) comes
anywhere near Dmax of 4.8 ( 64,000:1). At least not in any conventional
sense of defining this number. The 4.8 that you see for the LS-5000 is
simply another way of stating that its A/D has 16 bits (4.8=16*log2). There
is a long way from the number of bits coming out of the A/D to actual
dynamic range. This ignores the limitations of the optics, light source,
sensor, etc, etc. Even ignores the effective resolution of the A/D itself,
which would always be less than the number of bits... The issue has been
discussed at length back in the time when scanning film was the primary
method of obtaining good quality digital images.
To Nikon's credit, this misleading method has been adapted by most
manufacturers. Don't know about Pacific Image, but took at look at the specs
for their 16-bit 3650 model, and it claims Dmax of 3.8. So apparently their
method is somewhat more honest, making direct comparison impossible. Of
course, there is a lot more to a scanner than dynamic range...

As for the O/P's question of the LS-5000 vs. the LS-V (guess that's what he
meant by LS-50), these are quite similar. Some claimed that it's the same
instrument, with the LS-V intentionally de-featured in firmware. The main
differences:
* 16 bits A/D vs. 14 (not sure how meaningful this actually is; probably not
much)
* Ability to perform multiple scans and average the result. This will reduce
noise in dark areas, effectively increasing dynamic range at the cost of
significantly slowing down the process. That's probably what those stated 16
bits are really for. To take full advantage you need to scan 16 times,
perhaps making a lunch break out of scanning a single frame. A 4x scan is
more practical and will provide up to a factor of 2 improvement (Dmax
advantage of 0.3). I have the LS-5000 and rarely use this mode, except for
Kodachrome or attempting to save dense (overexposed) negatives.
* Double-line scanning. Improves speed. The actual advantage is less than
two and depends on a lot of other factors, including the computer
performance.

 

[Alan Browne]

I have a project that involves scanning a large number of 35mm negatives
(high hundreds to perhaps as many as several thousand).

One of the things I'm considering is buying a film scanner. The plan
would be to buy it, do the job, and resell it on E-Bay. Effectively
"renting" it for the difference between what I pay and what I get for it.

I looked at the Nikon 5000, but I'm put off by the price ($900 to $1,100).

To those of you who are knowledgeable about this subject, what about the
Nikon LS-50? This is half the cost of the 5000. What are the relative
benefits and drawbacks?

The only real drawback is a slightly lower dynamic range which might
result in slightly less shaddow detail. Probably not enough to notice.

OTOH, 35mm scanners are in the market used, so you could find one quite
easily:

For your modest resolution demands, an older Minolta Scan Dual (and II,
III , IV) would be more than enough... up to the Minolta Scan Elite
5400... (But not the II version which is reputably fragile). I sold my
5400 for about 1/2 of what I paid for after 3 years and 5000+ scans
(slides and negatives).

Like you say, I "rented" it.

A Nikon Coolscan V is another good choice. (not sure if it is = LS-50).

Avoid early gen Canon film scanners as they had power supply noise
issues which caused lines on the scans).

Also, anyone know anything about "ScanCafe"? They apparently do
scanning for 19 cents per slide, 4000 dpi, digital ICE and you only have
to actually buy the "good" images after looking at previews online.
However, turnaround is 6 weeks.

If you're scanning a 1000 slides, 6 weeks will go by very fast. I've
done marathons of about 200 slides (mounted, easy to handle) over a
weekend, but spent too little time in PS working the images.

$190 for 1000 4000 dpi images (about 21 MB per 35mm frame) is very
tempting indeed (I assume that's to 14 - 16 bits per color in depth).

It's hard to say, however, how good a job they will do slide by slide at
getting the most out of each scan.

Cheers,
Alan

 

[Alan Browne]

* 16 bits A/D vs. 14 (not sure how meaningful this actually is; probably not
much)

Typically, throw 1.5 bits to analog noise, so the dmax are:

16 bit 14 bit

log(2^14.5) v. log(2^12.5)

= =

Dmax 4.36 3.76

As slide film "holds" up to 4.0 in Dmax, then 16 bits is the way to go
to get it all, but 14 bits is not far behind.

Cheers,
Alan.

 

[Barry Watzman]

What use(s) may be made of the images by me and my descendants over the
next century is not known at this time. The point is general purpose
conversion of an entire collection of photographs from film media to
electronic. Any reasonable future use should be supported.

I have a project that involves scanning a large number of 35mm negatives
(high hundreds to perhaps as many as several thousand).

One of the things I'm considering is buying a film scanner. The plan
would be to buy it, do the job, and resell it on E-Bay. Effectively
"renting" it for the difference between what I pay and what I get for it.

I looked at the Nikon 5000, but I'm put off by the price ($900 to $1,100).

To those of you who are knowledgeable about this subject, what about the
Nikon LS-50? This is half the cost of the 5000. What are the relative
benefits and drawbacks?

Also, anyone know anything about "ScanCafe"? They apparently do
scanning for 19 cents per slide, 4000 dpi, digital ICE and you only have
to actually buy the "good" images after looking at previews online.
However, turnaround is 6 weeks.

[FWIW, Sam's Club does them for 18 cents, but the resolution is low
(1800 x 1200, about 2 megapixels) and they don't have digital ICE or any
other enhancement ... it's a bare-bones straight scan. But the quality
is not bad within those limitations (although 2MP is a pretty severe
limitation), the turnaround is fast (24 hours for 100 images) and the
original media is never more than an hour from my home).]

Comments welcome.

What are you planning to do with the scans, print them out or
make a slideshow? If you are going to print them out, what size were
you figuring on printing them at?
If you want to go the cheap and dirty route, there's the Pacific
Image 3610AFL model that's on sale right now at Adorama (
http://www.adorama.com/IPIPF3610.html?emailprice=t&sid=11808295141877799
This model doesn't have a great dynamic range, so it may not suit
your needs.
If you are hoping to squeeze the most quality you can from the
negatives, with the hopes of printing the best possible 8x10 prints,
you should stay with the top of the line models. The Nikon 5000 has a
dynamic range of 4.8, which is excellent. The Pacific Image only has
a dynamic range of 3.2, so again, it depends on what you will be doing
with the scans.

Talker

 

[Happy Traveler]

I hate to reopen that old can of worms, but it's so hard to resist...

Your throwing '1.5 bits to analog noise' may be a good guess for the quality
of the A/D, though some new designs are doing better these days. In general,
without knowing the specific component and how it's used, one cannot really
tell. Bits are chip, good performance is not, goes the saying... But you are
taking this too far, assuming that the A/D is the limiting component. I
don't know enough about scanner design to tell that. Seems to me that CCD
noise is a major, if not the dominant factor. That's why fancy drum scanners
still use photomultiplier sensors. And there are many other noise sources to
consider, especially if one is looking for high performance.

A simple way of reducing noise, useful for slide film, is to average
multiple passes. The LS-5000 can do it directly, and programs like Vuescan
can pull this trick out of scanners that don't provide the feature, with
success depending on the mechanical repeatability of the instrument design.
Ideally, dynamic range will improve by the square root of the number of
passes, so you get a Dmax improvement of 0.3 for four passes, 0.45 for eight
passes, etc. Ultimately other factors (like pattern noise, nonlinearity,
stability over time, etc) take over, so more than 16 is not practical.

----- Original Message -----

 

[Happy Traveler]

Bits are cheap, not chip... Just wanted to correct this typo, before the
spelling police get me.

....

Bits are chip, good performance is not, goes the saying... But you are

....

 

[Alan Browne]

I hate to reopen that old can of worms, but it's so hard to resist...


Your throwing '1.5 bits to analog noise' may be a good guess for the quality
of the A/D, though some new designs are doing better these days. In general,
without knowing the specific component and how it's used, one cannot really
tell. Bits are chip, good performance is not, goes the saying... But you are
taking this too far, assuming that the A/D is the limiting component. I
don't know enough about scanner design to tell that. Seems to me that CCD
noise is a major, if not the dominant factor. That's why fancy drum scanners
still use photomultiplier sensors. And there are many other noise sources to
consider, especially if one is looking for high performance.

Regardless, take 1.5 bits as a starting point. Make it 2, make it 3.
Regardless of what you throw away it is always on the same end so a 16
bit scanner has those two bits in its favour for otherwise similar
machines (5000 v. V).

The point, which flew over your head in your eagerness to top post is
that for slide film you need as much dyncamic range as possible to get
information out of the shaddow areas (or detail out of the light areas
in a negative).

A simple way of reducing noise, useful for slide film, is to average
multiple passes. The LS-5000 can do it directly, and programs like Vuescan
can pull this trick out of scanners that don't provide the feature, with
success depending on the mechanical repeatability of the instrument design.
Ideally, dynamic range will improve by the square root of the number of
passes, so you get a Dmax improvement of 0.3 for four passes, 0.45 for eight
passes, etc. Ultimately other factors (like pattern noise, nonlinearity,
stability over time, etc) take over, so more than 16 is not practical.

Anything beyond 4, maybe 8, is long into the diminishing returns.

Don't top post. It's insufferably rude.

 

[Barry Watzman]

Don't tell other people how to post. It's insufferably ruder. And
contrary to what you might think, you are neither the God nor the Chief
of Police of the Internet.

 

[Happy Traveler]

Looks like you missed my point about the A/D being just one element in the
chain, and not necessarily the critical one. In a way of example, take a
cheap, low quality scanner with an unstable light source, lousy optics and
noisy CCD. Then replace its 10-bit A/D with a 16-bit converter. Do you think
that you will see much improvement?

But hey, it's an old story, almost irrelevant in the days of digital
cameras. Things get a lot more interesting when you have a fraction of a
second instead of minutes to create and digitize an image.

 

[tomm42]

I have a project that involves scanning a large number of 35mm negatives
(high hundreds to perhaps as many as several thousand).

One of the things I'm considering is buying a film scanner. The plan
would be to buy it, do the job, and resell it on E-Bay. Effectively
"renting" it for the difference between what I pay and what I get for it.

I looked at the Nikon 5000, but I'm put off by the price ($900 to $1,100).

To those of you who are knowledgeable about this subject, what about the
Nikon LS-50? This is half the cost of the 5000. What are the relative
benefits and drawbacks?

Also, anyone know anything about "ScanCafe"? They apparently do
scanning for 19 cents per slide, 4000 dpi, digital ICE and you only have
to actually buy the "good" images after looking at previews online.
However, turnaround is 6 weeks.

[FWIW, Sam's Club does them for 18 cents, but the resolution is low
(1800 x 1200, about 2 megapixels) and they don't have digital ICE or any
other enhancement ... it's a bare-bones straight scan. But the quality
is not bad within those limitations (although 2MP is a pretty severe
limitation), the turnaround is fast (24 hours for 100 images) and the
original media is never more than an hour from my home).]

Comments welcome.

Look at the Epson V700, $550, decent sharpness, dynamic range, Digital
Ice, takes 4 strips of negs at a time. Will nominally scan up to
6400ppi but 3200 is the realistic max. This scanner really does
compare favorably to stand alone film scanners, The LS5000 is better,
but at 3X the cost with the bulk slide attachment. The 16bit scanning
is giving me pics that print very well on my Canon iPF5000. Worth a
look.

Tom

 

[Philip Homburg]

What use(s) may be made of the images by me and my descendants over the
next century is not known at this time. The point is general purpose
conversion of an entire collection of photographs from film media to
electronic. Any reasonable future use should be supported.

You sort of have to make a choice between quick and dirty or perfect.

One option is to scan everything at a relatively low quality and then scan
some of the important images at a much higher quality. The downside is that
you have to keep the negatives around in case you need another high quality
scan. The advantage is that you can scan for a clear goal (for example,
presentation on a website).

Making perfect scans of every frame is very tricky. It requires a lot of
experience to be sure that you have perfect scans, it will take a lot time
getting all the scans. And it is possible that frames are simply not worth
scanning at that level of quality. After that, you have to make sure that
can keep the bits safe for ever. Of course, after you have done all that
you can just as well destroy the negatives.

For quick and dirty scans, you want something that works fast. For color
you want ICE.

For high quality scans, you first have to become and expert in scanning,
and then it will probably take a high quality scanner way to long for each
frame to get the perfect scan. So you have to be prepared to invest a lot of
time.

If the negatives are not particularly fragile, it is worth trying the quick and
dirty route first.

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

Given that, there are a bunch of scanners that can scan each strip without intervention
and do a decent job.

But 6 megapiexels isn't much. Amd 16-bits PER COLOR is quite doable. I think you
are saying thatn 8 bits per color is OK. If you are scanning stuff to archive, I encourage
you to use as much resolution as possible in all dimensions.

Unfortunately, the negatives are cut into strips of from two to six images each (mostly 4 and 5 images).

The desired result is about 6 megapixels, 24 bit (or greater) color depth.

What is the current state of the negatives (strips of 36, strips of 5 or 6,
something else)?

You REALLY want a scanner that will do however many negs are are
physically together without manual intervention.

What is your desired end result quality? Pixel dimensions? bit depth?

I have a project that involves scanning a large number of 35mm negatives (high hundreds to perhaps as many as several thousand).

One of the things I'm considering is buying a film scanner. The plan would be to buy it, do the job, and resell it on E-Bay.
Effectively "renting" it for the difference between what I pay and what I get for it.

I looked at the Nikon 5000, but I'm put off by the price ($900 to $1,100).

To those of you who are knowledgeable about this subject, what about the Nikon LS-50? This is half the cost of the 5000. What
are the relative benefits and drawbacks?

Also, anyone know anything about "ScanCafe"? They apparently do scanning for 19 cents per slide, 4000 dpi, digital ICE and you
only have to actually buy the "good" images after looking at previews online. However, turnaround is 6 weeks.

[FWIW, Sam's Club does them for 18 cents, but the resolution is low (1800 x 1200, about 2 megapixels) and they don't have
digital ICE or any other enhancement ... it's a bare-bones straight scan. But the quality is not bad within those limitations
(although 2MP is a pretty severe limitation), the turnaround is fast (24 hours for 100 images) and the original media is never
more than an hour from my home).]

Comments welcome.

 

[Barry Watzman]

FWIW, for better or worse, I bought a Nikon LS-2000 on E-Bay (have not
yet received it). It's not the greatest, but I think it will be
adequate and it didn't cost $1,000 or even $500 (in total, with all the
accessories and shipping, it's going to end up being a bit under $200
.... these have gone for less, but this one has both transports and some
other accessories, and a guarantee that it's working).

I'll post back after I have it.

Anyone have any tips on the LS-2000? It's 2,700 dpi with digital ICE,
but it's not current "state of the art" by any means. I have downloaded
all of the drivers and documentation from the Nikon web site.

 

[Philip Homburg]

FWIW, for better or worse, I bought a Nikon LS-2000 on E-Bay (have not
yet received it). It's not the greatest, but I think it will be
adequate and it didn't cost $1,000 or even $500 (in total, with all the
accessories and shipping, it's going to end up being a bit under $200
... these have gone for less, but this one has both transports and some
other accessories, and a guarantee that it's working).

I'll post back after I have it.

Anyone have any tips on the LS-2000? It's 2,700 dpi with digital ICE,
but it's not current "state of the art" by any means. I have downloaded
all of the drivers and documentation from the Nikon web site.

Make sure that you check if it needs to be cleaned. Scan a slide with a
high contrast transition (from white to black), if the white sort of leaks
into the black you need to clean it. If it is a sharp transition in one or two
pixels, it is fine.

Scans from an LS-2000 should be good enough for 8x12" prints. With ICE, the
LS-2000 tends to be a bit soft, so you have to apply plenty of USM.

On some film, the resolution of the LS-2000 is low enough that you may
experience grain aliasing.