Revisiting 35mm Film Scanners

[S.Rolf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've just reentered the 35mm film world by purchasing an MP.

 

Back when I was shooting film, I was using a Minolta/Dimage 35mm film scanner that yielded some very good results but in the end, I found it to be too slow.  At the time, the Nikon Cool Scan was being phased out and I could not find one to save my life.

 

Now, I would really like to purchase another 35mm film scanner but are finding the choices limited.

In your opinion, what is the very best out there now-days?  I'd love to be able to do batch scanning too.

 

P.S.

This subject was visited in 2009 on this forum (from what I could find in my search) and wanted a fresh look at the subject.

 

Thanks,

[DirkR440]

I recently bought a Reflecta RPS 10M... I'm fine with that one, but I don't have any experience with other models.

 

This page: http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html gives you a good overview

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[S.Rolf]

I'd like to fine-tune my OP and mention that I plan on using this as my final output for my mounted color positive film.

The flow would be:  Slide > Scanner > Mac > Printer.

[Guest]

I am also interested in this for 35mm film. Reading various threads here and on RFF, I get the impression that, apart from the Hasselblad FlexTight X1 and X5 (US$13,400 and US$20,700), the best scanner currently available is the Plustek Opticfilm 120 (US$1,965) in that it allows relatively fast batch scanning and has good resolution and dMax (which is important for large prints). The Plustek 120 scans both 35mm and medium format film (which I'm not interested in). There are much cheaper Plustek scanners (US$300-500?) for only 35mm film but they apparently have neither the speed/automation of the Plustek 120 nor its scan quality.

 

I'd also be interested in hearing from people who have experience with these scanners, or whether there are other good alternatives.

 

My own experience is with the Imacon FlexTight Precision III. While the scan quality was excellent there were several problems. First it was slow: at the maximum resolution of 6300dpi (true optical resolution) one frame of 35mm film took about 20 minutes to scan. Also, the flexible film holders, made from two large sheets of some sort of rubberized material, with a 23x35mm cutout, would fairly often slip against each other, so that part of the scanned frame would be cut off and the scan would have to be redone. Incidentally, I was eventually able to get a holder with the "full frame" 24x36mm cutout, but of course the slipping problem remained. I wonder whether the Hasselblad FlexTight scanners also have this slippage problem. Finally, my Imacon had a SCSI interface, which, beside causing the slow scanning speed, made it impossible to use of user Macintosh computers or operating systems. Of course it would have been easy enough to use a dedicated old Mac with an old operating system for the Imacon, but the slowness and slippage problem of the holder made ne get rid of the scanner.

Edited March 6, 2016 by not_a_hero

[S.Rolf]

I am also interested in this for 35mm film. Reading various threads here and on RFF, I get the impression that, apart from the Hasselblad FlexTight X1 and X5 (US$13,400 and US$20,700), the best scanner currently available is the Plustek Opticfilm 120 (US$1,965) in that it allows relatively fast batch scanning and has good resolution and dMax (which is important for large prints). The Plustek 120 scans both 35mm and medium format film (which I'm not interested in). There are much cheaper Plustek scanners (US$300-500?) for only 35mm film but they apparently have neither the speed/automation of the Plustek 120 nor its scan quality.

 

I'd also be interested in hearing from people who have experience with these scanners, or whether there are other good alternatives.

 

My own experience is with the Imacon FlexTight Precision III. While the scan quality was excellent there were several problems. First it was slow: at the maximum resolution of 6300dpi (true optical resolution) one frame of 35mm film took about 20 minutes to scan. Also, the flexible film holders, made from two large sheets of some sort of rubberized material, with a 23x35mm cutout, would fairly often slip against each other, so that part of the scanned frame would be cut off and the scan would have to be redone. Incidentally, I was eventually able to get a holder with the "full frame" 24x36mm cutout, but of course the slipping problem remained. I wonder whether the Hasselblad FlexTight scanners also have this slippage problem. Finally, my Imacon had a SCSI interface, which, beside causing the slow scanning speed, made it impossible to use of user Macintosh computers or operating systems. Of course it would have been easy enough to use a dedicated old Mac with an old operating system for the Imacon, but the slowness and slippage problem of the holder made ne get rid of the scanner.

 

 

Yes, I'd be interested in a comparison between thePlustek Opticfilm 120 and the Nikon CoolScan V LS-50 ED.

[ramarren]

For 35mm film, I mostly use a Nikon Coolscan V ED. I bought this one about four-five years ago, an upgrade from a Coolscan IV ED. It wasn't that much money, but it wasn't cheap either. I also occasionally use a Spiratone Vario-Duplicator

 

I have a Super Coolscan 9000 ED as well; I bought it for use with 120 format film; it does a terrific job with 35mm negatives as well. However, I've used it less than I'd planned because I can make 16Mpixel captures of Hasselblad negatives using a BEOON and either the M-P or SL very easily, and that's a lot faster. 

[S.Rolf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For 35mm film, I mostly use a Nikon Coolscan V ED. I bought this one about four-five years ago, an upgrade from a Coolscan IV ED. It wasn't that much money, but it wasn't cheap either. I also occasionally use a Spiratone Vario-Duplicator

 

I have a Super Coolscan 9000 ED as well; I bought it for use with 120 format film; it does a terrific job with 35mm negatives as well. However, I've used it less than I'd planned because I can make 16Mpixel captures of Hasselblad negatives using a BEOON and either the M-P or SL very easily, and that's a lot faster. 

 

 

I've noticed that none of the Nikons are in production any more.  There are still some out there but the question of whether or not I could get one serviced is cause for concern.  Now I'm looking at current production scanners only.  Bummer Nikon is out of that business.

[Guest]

I agree with you — and wouldn't buy a used Nikon scanner, as service could be difficult considering that they have been out of production for some time and, as I understand, are not being serviced by Nikon any longer. Therefore, I think that the Nikon scanners are only interesting as a reference point for performance comparisons.

Edited March 7, 2016 by not_a_hero

[wattsy]

Are you sure that Nikon scanners are unserviceable? In the UK, I believe that Fixation (a well known London professional repair/rental house authorised to repair Nikon products including latest DSLRs, etc.) still service Nikon scanners. I'd be surprised if other service businesses around the world didn't also have that capability. Has anyone asked around or is there an assumption that Nikon and the authorised service centres won't touch the scanners?

Edited March 7, 2016 by wattsy

[wattsy]

Incidentally, if anyone is tempted by a Hasselblad scanner (and who wouldn't like one?), Hasselblad (at least in the UK) have a promotion this month: new X1 for £6,200 (ex VAT). That's a substantial discount and means the X1 is not that far off the new price of a high end 35mm digital body.

[gwpics]

I have a Plustek 8200i which is pretty good and is a reasonable price including Silverfast. Although it comes with Silverfast software my initial trials of the software were not good and I found it complicated. I now use Vuescan, but really should give Silverfast another try. The reality is that there are not many sensibly priced scanners on the market, and I think the Plustek products were the only ones available in the UK when I looked. I bought mine through Amazon.

 

Gerry

[Guest]

Ian - you're right: there is third-party service for Nikon, as I just found out in a web search— I had taken someone's word for it without checking. Also, I found that Amazon.com has a few new Nikon Coolscan 5000s for about US$3,900 (also some for about US$5,000; the FH-3 35MM Film Strip Holder is US$33. Not surprisingly the US$3,900 price is over three times what this scanner cost when production was stopped over 10 (?) years ago. However, I'd be reluctant to pay this much for a machine that has been out of production for so long.

 

The Hasselblad X1 looks like a better deal, but still a huge amount of money. If I were spending that much I'd have to find out whether the holder slippage is still a problem, as it was with the Imacon FlexTight Precision III that I mentioned in post #4. Unless Hasselblad has changed the holder material or the feed mechanism, I would still think holder slippage is still be a problem, although it could be that is dependents on the ambient humidity. 

 

I've just shoot three rolls of film for the first time in 10 years (TRi-X with my M6) and will be considering whether to shift back to my M6 from the M9-P and M-Monochrom. Apart from the look that I can get from film (yet not decided), the scanning solution will be a major consideration that could stop me from shooting with film.

 

I've also read about a bit about scanners on http://www.filmscanner.info. Their scanner reviews are reasonably informative, but they don't always look at each scanner with the same criteria. On the PlusTek 120 they raise issues about the lack of autofocus (can make it necessary to rescan fairly often), dMax (they find it to be only 3.2 and able to reach 4.01 only with Silverfast multi-scanning), and slow (because of the need for multi-scanning, so that a 35mm frame takes about 9 minutes). That makes the Coolscan 5000 look a lot better.

 

All this is not very encouraging: if the best non-prohibitively priced scanner (Plustek 120) is not that good. In my experience with the Imacon Precision III, I learned that dMax is important (particularly if you like shooting into the light and want high contrast with good mid-tones); the other important thing is scanning time, when it gets towards 10 minutes a frame. Of course, if I would make darkroom prints scanning would not be an issue...but I won't do that.

[250swb]

 There are much cheaper Plustek scanners (US$300-500?) for only 35mm film but they apparently have neither the speed/automation of the Plustek 120 nor its scan quality.

 

 

The 35mm Plustek scanners are equal to the scanning ability of the 120 albeit they don't go to the highest scan dpi and don't have the ability to automatically scan a set of 12 negatives, you have to hand feed the 35mm scanner. But to all intents and purposes the scan resolution you are likely to use to get a top quality scan from the 35mm versions is all present and correct. For example I wouldn't scan my 35mm negatives at top resolution on the 120 anyway because the difference become a law of diminishing returns considering the vast file sizes generated at 10,000 dpi. So in terms of the scan quality there is very little in it, except of course that the 120 can scan medium format. The 35mm scanners will give you a file at a much higher resolution and Mb size than a normal lab scan or from certain 'fast' drug store scanners that are now coming onto the second hand market. Be in no doubt, the latest dedicated 35mm Plustek's are the best you can get in new scanners. As for speed, yes you have to hand feed them, but consider this, a low resolution thumbnail takes maybe ten seconds to scan when you get into a rhythm. So even allowing for changing the negative strips over in the carrier it's not going to take forever to do your thumbnail scans. You can then go on to do very high resolution scans of the chosen images and this takes a similar amount of time whether it's on a 35mm Plustek, the 120, or almost any other high end scanner.

 

Onto another matter, the www.filmscanner.info website is deeply flawed. For example they tested a very early Plustek 120 when there was a problem with the choice of plastic for the neg carriers that caused soft OOF images. This was dealt with by Plustek and all early customers issued a new set of carriers, and the problem has never surfaced again, but www.filmscanners have never updated their initial review. In questioning the soft scans they pointed out that with no ability to focus the image the focus could not be corrected. But in reality the 120 and 35m scanners do not go out of focus in the way that older scanners that generate lots of heat from the bulbs do, and the heat produced does require a focusing mechanism to compensate. So the auto focus 'issue' is a red-herring. Additionally the Plustek scanners use a slightly deeper DOF which not only helps keep the image in focus but also scans the depth of grain which in turn makes a more 'film like' scan. This shouldn't be underestimated because older scanners that could genuinely focus to very small tolerances would only scan a single layer of grain, and the gritty looking images they made are not very nice, but back then nobody knew any different to complain. 

 

 

Steve

[Guest]

Thanks, Steve. Very informative. 

 

How about dMax with the 35mm Plustek scanners? Is it really sufficient to handle a high dMax negative? Or is a question of using Silverfast with multi-scan as www.filscanner.info suggests for the Plustek 120 to reach dMax of 4.01— so that one would only do such 9-minute scans for the negatives that need it?

[250swb]

A soon as you start using multi scan the basic scan time is multiplied whether you are using Silverfast or Vuescan, but it does work to bring detail out. If you already have high contrast or dense negatives it is your only option with any scanner. However if you are setting about shooting more film it's just like darkroom practice, you end up developing the film to suit your favourite enlarger, paper, etc. so for scanning you aim for perhaps a flatter negative with all the information easily accessible, and then aim for a flatter scan as well to retain that information. In post processing you then up the contrast to where you wanted it with the better software of Photoshop/Lightroom. So the essential thing is don't plan to test the highest Dmax of the scanner, this and multi scanning is only to get you out the mire, not to rescue the situation on a regular basis. If you've a basic understanding of the Zone System and how you don't aim to make any part of the sequence to the print 'stressed' but all comfortably under control then that is how to think of scanning. Exposure, developing, scanning, post processing, and printing are all working together in harmony towards the end result.

[Guest]

Interesting. So scanner dMax is important only for slides, where you have little control...and which I'm not planning to do.

[philipus]

I accept that the market sets the price etc, but prices like those mentioned are, imho, a rip off. And the "shop" run by the Filmscanner.info folks (scandig.de) is one of several outlets perpetuating this insane mark-up for old scanners. 

 

Better use well-known dealers that set prices at reasonable levels, such as Ffordes (which currently has both LS-5000 and several LS-8000 for sub-1000 GBP) and Leicashop (I bought my Coolscan 9000 from the latter for a very good price with all film holders included). I know for a fact (having spoken with Ffordes) that they do send their Nikons for service before sale, should that be required, so servicing is possible (but given that the scanners are old spare parts may be a problem, of course).

 

Anything can break, and the risk is evidently greater with used equipment. But buying from competent sources which offer warranty and return privilege is the safest one can be if one is willing to buy second-hand.

 

br

Philip

 

 

Amazon.com has a few new Nikon Coolscan 5000s for about US$3,900 (also some for about US$5,000; the FH-3 35MM Film Strip Holder is US$33. Not surprisingly the US$3,900 price is over three times what this scanner cost when production was stopped over 10 (?) years ago. 

[Matlock]

Have used Ffordes for many years. They used to be located in Essex, not far from me. Highly recommended.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Matlock

[Mijo]

I recently started using an Epson V850 Pro to scan in 135 color negatives.  The scanner and associated software seem fine to me, I've never scanned with anything else though.  The only compliant I have is that it takes a long time, about an hour for a roll (36) but this as at second to highest resolution setting.  I may end up purchasing this set up myself so that I can do the scanning at home b/c of how long it takes. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Mark Pope]

I have a Plustek 8200i which is pretty good and is a reasonable price including Silverfast. Although it comes with Silverfast software my initial trials of the software were not good and I found it complicated. I now use Vuescan, but really should give Silverfast another try. The reality is that there are not many sensibly priced scanners on the market, and I think the Plustek products were the only ones available in the UK when I looked. I bought mine through Amazon.

 

Gerry

 

+1 for the Plustek.  Personally I get on quite well with the Silverfast software that comes bundled with the scanner.  I did try Vuescan with my aged Minolta scanner, but overall, I prefer Silverfast.