Which Scanner?

[davidmchadderton]

Hi,

I'm looking for a primarily 35mm film scanner ... I'm on a limited
budget, say $300-400 (limited by THE VP OF HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL AFFAIRS
!!!).

Most of my scans will be b/w 35mm, with some colour negs - there will
only rarely be slides.

So, do I go for a dedicated 35mm scanner, or do I choose a flat bed
scanner? I see that the flatbeds have film holders for up to 24 negs
.... does this mean that the software 'picks up' each of the individual
negs and saves them as separate files? Or do I have to do that
manually?

Any advice or recommendations would be most helpful.

Thanks

__
Dave

 

[false_dmitrii]

Hi,

I'm looking for a primarily 35mm film scanner ... I'm on a limited
budget, say $300-400 (limited by THE VP OF HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL AFFAIRS
!!!).

Most of my scans will be b/w 35mm, with some colour negs - there will
only rarely be slides.

So, do I go for a dedicated 35mm scanner, or do I choose a flat bed
scanner? I see that the flatbeds have film holders for up to 24 negs
... does this mean that the software 'picks up' each of the individual
negs and saves them as separate files? Or do I have to do that
manually?

Any advice or recommendations would be most helpful.

Thanks

How about a Minolta Scan Dual IV? $260 at www.newegg.com last time I
looked. 3200dpi and no Digital ICE. My memory says ICE typically
doesn't work with B&W anyway--if I'm right, you'll be fine without it.
Because the scanner's optics are optimized for film, its 3200dpi detail
levels will beat those of any claimed "4800dpi" flatbed (which will
probably cost 30% more even so) and should be more than sufficient for
all but the sharpest images and the largest intended uses.

Flatbeds can typically auto-detect every frame at once, but a film
scanner might or might not have a speed advantage when performing the
final scan. Thus, the flatbed could handle more scans at once at the
potential cost of overall scanning time. In every other area of
concern, including cost, the SD IV should be able to edge out any
consumer flatbed.

false_dmitrii

 

[David J. Littleboy]

So, do I go for a dedicated 35mm scanner, or do I choose a flat bed
scanner?

It's not a 35mm scanner, but here's how the Epson 4870 compares to a 4000
dpi Nikon scanner.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325

I see that the flatbeds have film holders for up to 24 negs
... does this mean that the software 'picks up' each of the individual
negs and saves them as separate files? Or do I have to do that
manually?

The software _should_ automagically identify and isolate the images for you.
At least on my scanner (Nikon 8000) , that doesn't work perfectly and has to
be adjusted occassionally.

Any advice or recommendations would be most helpful.

If you are serious about larger (e.g. 8x10) prints, a dedicated film scanner
is a better idea.

Whichever you get, though, get one with an IR channel and real digital ICE.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Chris Brown]

The software _should_ automagically identify and isolate the images for you.
At least on my scanner (Nikon 8000) , that doesn't work perfectly and has to
be adjusted occassionally.

The 4870 does this, but has the irritating habit of cropping a mm or so
around the border of each frame.

 

[-]

The 4870 does this, but has the irritating habit of cropping a mm or so

around the border of each frame.

You can get around this by manually cropping. Go into Home or Professional
mode, click on the little arrow next to the Preview button, select Normal
instead of Thumbnail. Now you can crop manually and also adjust each image
individually. If you want to set up multiple images for a batch scan using
this method, see my batch scanning tips page at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/batchscanning.html

Doug

 

[Hecate]

You can get around this by manually cropping. Go into Home or Professional
mode, click on the little arrow next to the Preview button, select Normal
instead of Thumbnail. Now you can crop manually and also adjust each image
individually. If you want to set up multiple images for a batch scan using
this method, see my batch scanning tips page at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/batchscanning.html

Which, of course, defeats the whole purpose of being able to scan
multiple files...

 

[-]

Which, of course, defeats the whole purpose of being able to scan

multiple files...

But you can scan multiple files the way I described...

Doug

 

[Hecate]

But you can scan multiple files the way I described...

Yes, you can, but it makes the "put the image holder in the machine
and do multiple scans without any other work" a non-starter. Which, as
I said, defeats the whole purpose because you're having to adjust
*every single image*.