Revisiting 35mm Film Scanners

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I wrote above, I've now figured out how to focus correctly with the Leitz BEOON copy stand. Here is a photo digitalized with the M9/DR Summicron — I'll now have to figure in detil out detail whether, for Tri-X, it makes any visible difference to digitalize with the MM vs M9; so far, I doubt it.

 

Gary - Still nor perfect, however: I found that, in the lower-left corner, there is an long, narrow, empty triangle, which I have to crop out. Someone suggested that it could be the film not being completely flat, but I simply don't see that when I set up the scan...

 

 

M6 | Summilux-35 FLE | Tri-X @ ISO 400 | Stand development for 1 hour in Rodinal 1:100, gentle inversion after 30 minutes.

Chiang Mai

[pop]

 

I found that, in the lower-left corner, there is an long, narrow, empty triangle, which I have to crop out. Someone suggested that it could be the film not being completely flat, but I simply don't see that when I set up the scan..

Mine does this as well. I can clearly see that it's due to the camera not quite well aligned with the mask that frames the slide being copied.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest]

Thanks. If that is the reason, it would confirm that the BEOON is best to use with a camera with live view.

 

I found that, while the BEOON I bought looks prefect, there is slight play when the camera is mounted — the tiniest amount of movement (minuscule rotation) is possible clockwise and counter-clockwise. However, when I took two pictures at the extremes of this play, the cutoff triangle got larger in one direction of rotation, but it still remained, smaller, at the other direction of rotation. 

 

I wonder whether there is any solution to this? I'm beginning to like the BEOON, but am not likely to keep on using it if I always have to crop because of this cutoff.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Guest

[cliveruss]

I had a Minolta Dimage Pro scanner for a while. It was excellent but I did not want to spend the time with it. Now I use an Epson V850 Pro with LED light source and it works well enough. The Silverfast software is great and solves a lot of problems with color films.

 

I find that making an 8x10 inch print from a 35mm negative is disappointing after seeing a similar sized print from a 4x5 negative. The Epson V850 Pro makes a scan that is about as good as I could get from making a print with an enlarger, up to about a 5x enlargement. Any more enlargement is a compromise.

 

I now mail my color roll film (35mm and 120) to a lab which makes me excellent jpeg scans with about a one week turnaround. If I have a negative that is worth the trouble, I can always get a higher quality scan made. The down side to this workflow is that I like to finish exposing the rolls of film and then have to wait a week for the results. A digital camera is faster than a Polaroid ... and no shipping! However, Kodak Ektar 100 and NC160 are better than ever before ... and how about the excellent new Ilford and Adox B&W films?

 

Here, below, is my version of a BEOON or one of those awful Bowens Illumitran slide copiers. It is a fast method for "digitizing" film. It is a Linhof copy stand which I have mounted on a table. The surface of the table is cut out and replaced with opal glass (dropped into a supporting groove). I use old Omega negative carriers to hold the film above the opal glass. It is easy to tape the carrier to the glass in the right position for copying. I have had a 35mm carrier milled out so that the whole image area shows. 4x5 sheet film is held in a glass carrier. 8x10 film lies flat on the glass when taped on the corners, or the edges covered with rubber strips. Once the carrier is in place, I mask the rest of the glass surface with thin, flexible strips (12 x 6 inches) of rubber roofing material.

 

I place a flash (Dynalite 400) underneath the tabletop (on the board below), linked to the camera with a Microsync transmitter and receiver. A sync cord is cheaper, as is a small camera strobe. The advantage to the Dynalite is the modeling light.

 

I use a digital camera to copy the negatives. Depending on the quality needed, I use an old Canon G9 with its pivoting screen, or Canon DSLR with macro lens ... plus a cable release, or remote, of course ... and a sheet of black paper with a hole for the lens to limit camera reflections on the film stage. The Canons are easier to use than my M9, but I think a mirrorless camera with a Leica 100mm Apo-Macro-Elmarit would probably work well. Everyone should have one of those.

 

Copying the negatives is very fast using this system ... but converting color negatives in PhotoShop is tedious.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

I no longer use any of this stuff. It was once so useful. Now it is expensive clutter.

 

I use an M9 or Mono digital cameras. If the scene/object is worth it, I use a 4x5 camera for its movements (aligning the image plane focus). If a B&W negative was made, a silver contact print looks great. If color, and worth the trouble, I can make a scan myself on the Epson V850 Pro, or send it out to have a higher quality scan made. Most images are quite good enough made with an M9. Anything more is real work and no fun! Well, okay, a 4x5 camera is still fun to use.

Edited April 28, 2016 by cliveruss

[Guest]

Mine does this as well. I can clearly see that it's due to the camera not quite well aligned with the mask that frames the slide being copied.

 

 

Could there be a more sinister scenario? Today, I digitalized the same negatives on the BEOON with the MM and the M9. The scans made with the MM all have the "triangle" offset in the lower-left corner, while the ones made with the M9 are virtually spot-on full-frame. Could it be that the problem is not with the BEOON but with the position of the sensor in the MM? Ot could it be some difference in the lens mount in the two cameras?

[pop]

Could there be a more sinister scenario? Today, I digitalized the same negatives on the BEOON with the MM and the M9. The scans made with the MM all have the "triangle" offset in the lower-left corner, while the ones made with the M9 are virtually spot-on full-frame. Could it be that the problem is not with the BEOON but with the position of the sensor in the MM? Ot could it be some difference in the lens mount in the two cameras?

I couldn't tell without measuring some things and I don't have access to any M niners.

[chrism]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Much as I'm enjoying learning from you, it seems this thread has moved from revisiting 35mm film scanners to avoiding them! A film scanner does not have to be expensive to be useful, and I say that as someone who has spent far more than can be justified on film scanners. At my scanning station I currently have a Hasselblad X1, a Nikon 9000 (for backup) and an Epson V850 (for 10x8) connected to a dedicated iMac. All scans are stored on a drive attached to a networked headless MacMini (which backs up sequentially to five other drives). I then copy them to my personal Mac and import them into LightRoom. Admittedly, this is an unusual way of doing things and represents some paranoia on my part (it only takes one unexpected hard drive death to make you paranoid—how far will you go to save all the photographs you have taken in the last twenty years?)

But, and this is the point, on the shelves next to my scanning station, I have a KM 5400 Elite, a KM 5400 Elite II and a couple of very cheap Pacific Image scanners waiting to be used when I feel like it. The best of the rest, a Pacific Image Prime Film 3650u is no longer sold, but still works on OS X 10.11. It really isn't bad at all, and makes decent scans for next to nothing compared to the X1. More than good enough for the web (and more than good enough for most websites to display). I might choose to use an excessively clever and expensive scanner for reasons that suit me, but the very cheapest scanner will be just as good when it comes to web posting.

Now, I can see why using a digital camera as an alternative to a film scanner appeals. If you already have a suitable camera and a suitable macro lens, it is cheaper to get some form of copying stand and then you are all set. But if you don't have a suitable camera or lens, a cheap film scanner will give better results for less money. Given my (unusual—now living on savings) circumstances, were my X1 to die and be unrepairable tomorrow, I would work my way down the food-chain of scanners I own. I wouldn't consider buying anything new until the cheapest Pacific Image scanner I own no longer worked.

The upshot is this—if you have a digicam suitable for copying, go for it. If not, consider a cheap film scanner. You can't go wrong either way, but you might save some money!

 

Chris

[Guest]

Chris - not helpful for the problem I'm facing in wanting to try to return to film after ten years of digital. Briefly, in Bangkok I have an Imacon Flextight Precision III that scans the trailing edge of the 35mm frame out of focus, and has slippage of the film in the holder — apparently it needs replacement of the drive belts, maybe. Actually, the slippage problem started only a few months after I bought the scanner some 15 years ago, only I didn't know the cause. It appears that this type of scanner, with regular use, may need service of this type every six months or so. In any case, I don't want to make a career of the care and feeding of this scanner and therefore will dump it — I cannot honestly sell it, given my experience with it.

 

The other problem I have is that I'm a nomad, moving annually between North America, Europe and Asia. The BEOON looked like a good solution in that the "scan" quality is good and it is light in weight and I could bring it with me; but now I've had to spend a huge amount of tike on this as well. Unless I can find a reasonable solution, I'll have to give up on returning to film.

[gbealnz]

I woner if your wedge in the corner is in fact the chip not aligned perfectly with the cut out of the neg?

In my case, and bearing in mind I was using APS via an adapter, I found I had to make an adjustment or two to get the chip edge aligned with the neg edge. A rotational adjustment, of the adapter.

Gary

[Guest]

Gary - by "chip" do you mean the sensor? If so, that is what I think with respect to my MM: see post #85, which states that the wedge is there with my MM but not with my M9. And I wonder whether that indicates that my MM sensor could be misaligned. The MM had a sensor replacement in Wetzlar in March, but I haven't had a chance to shoot with it because I was shooting film with my M6. I'll try to find out how to test the sensor alignment in the MM — or whether I'm talking nonsense.

[gbealnz]

Yes, chip/sensor, meaning the alignment of the edge of the sensor to the edge of the mask/opening on the BEOON base. I'd be surprised if they were that far out, but who knows.

Strange that the M9 is fine, whereas the MM is not?

Gary

[MartinEB]

I bought a Nikon several years ago and now use it occasionally.  My issue was with the Nikon software which I wanted to continue using but which is unsupported and ceased to work with my iMac at Mountain Lion.  I did not want to buy third party software (at significant cost) and so bought an inexpensive used iMac with Snow Leopard installed and I keep it as a stand-alone system just for running the scanner.  This may not be a very elegant solution, but it works.  And incidentally I recently found that I could access some old Photo CDs (bought when I had film processed - several "makes") that were unreadable on my main system!

 

Martin

[CSG123]

I have an Epson V700.  I've done a little slide and negative copying with it but it works better for simply copying and digitizing a photo print.  I've recently started digitizing my 35mm slide keepers using a Nikon D90 DSLR, 85mm macro lens, tripod with a Manfrotto ball head, and small (4x5) light box.  It works fabulously and it's fast.  I see no reason why this wouldn't work well for negatives other than the hassle of converting the negs into positives via software.

 

While this has nothing to do with Leica cameras, here is an example of a 35mm slide taken with a Minolta 7sII rangefinder in Maui in 1978 and digitized using the above set-up.  To me, it's more than acceptable.

 

Maui 1978 by CSG_Photography, on Flickr

[Guest]

....Also try (if you can access one) a decent enlarging lens as well, they are what should work best in it.

Gary

 

 

I'm pretty much settled on the BEOON solution using the M9 or MM with the DR Summicron lens: the scans are substantially better in resolution and dynamic range than 4800dpi scans I've had made with the Epson 800/850; compared to the Imacon Precision III the dynamic range of the BEOON scans lens look similar and, while the resolution (5800dpi?) is a bit less than the 6300dpi maximum of the Imacon, this difference is not compelling — and the scans are fast, compared to the 5 minutes of the Imacon at this resolution. Also, the BEOON is light enough for me to take with me in carryon luggage when I go annually between Asia, Europe and North America. 

 

Now, someone on the Rangefinder forum suggested to spend a little money and and "do it right" with a Leitz Focotar II 50mm lens. I've just ordered the Focotar from Japan. But it turns out the issue will be which spacer rings to use: using the DR Summicron, focused at infinity, one gets 1:1 on the full 24x36mm BEOON frame with the BEOON A + D rings. However, the Focotar is a fixed-focus enlarger lens (not focused at infinity), which means that a different spacer width has to be used.

 

The guy on RFF wrote that I may have to use the Leitz DOORX which, he claims is 25mm wide — 24.5mm of the B + C rings should be close enough for that — but a web search shows that the DOORX is 14.5mm, so this may be incorrect information. Anyone know how one can get the 1:1 on the BEOON 24x36mm frame with the Focotar II?

 

As I "neither a buyer nor seller" like to be, I hope I won't simple have to sell the Focotar if I can't get it to work at 1:1.

[gbealnz]

I've been scanning quite happily for a few months now, using a nice used Plustek I bought from the aforementioned RFF. scans are great, simple to use, and as silly as it sounds, I am actually enjoying the process.

 

I dug out a batch of older "library slides" ones that had been returned when the photo library closed it doors. Many were 35mm, but as many were medium format, mostly either 6x6 or 6x4.5. "Ha, no problem, get the BEOON out". I had fabricated a nice cedar storage case for the BEOON, and proudly I dug it out, fitted the Summicron V3 I had purchased a while back and started. Hmmmm, not flash. Tried the Apo Rodagon as well, similar. I was getting a bit of "bleed" from bright areas, into the dark areas, and nothing looked crisp and contrasty, like the naked eye look at the slide. Sure, the scans were "OK", but not like the naked eye, pop out colours, and sharp details. I was using the only real digital mirrorless I own, a Fuji X-E1, a camera which I was happy using when I first started using the BEOON.

 

In the end, I did the M/F shots I wanted, returned the BEOON to it's nice cedar case, and went back to the Plustek. Moral? Nope, not really one, but I am happy with the output from my Plustek, and just hope I don't get the GAS to buy into a M/F camera again. I'm offsetting this possible GAS by buying Leica lenses, it serves a dual purpose now, keeps me poor so I can't buy M/F.  YMMV.

 

In the case of your Focotar, I'd get it, and try it, and you might find you need to acquire a couple of spacer rings, simple M39 tubes, simply to get the correct back focus spacing close. Don't give in too easy, I reckon it will be better than the Summicron. At worst, it will be an interesting comparison.

Gary

[Guest]

I've started a new thread on my conclusions on camera scanning with the BEOON, not to divert this discussion from scanners:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/261511-camera-scanning-using-leitz-beoon-copy-stand/

 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[philipus]

I guess the highlighted part refers to Silverfast? Vuescan is not very expensive and works very well with the Coolscans. Just thought I should make the point. It's certainly not a perfect piece of software but imho it is more user-friendly than Nikon Scan. That being said, Nikon Scan has some functions that I find work better than Vuescan, such as the analog gain function that its useful for certain frames on transparency film.

 

I bought a Nikon several years ago and now use it occasionally.  My issue was with the Nikon software which I wanted to continue using but which is unsupported and ceased to work with my iMac at Mountain Lion.  I did not want to buy third party software (at significant cost) and so bought an inexpensive used iMac with Snow Leopard installed and I keep it as a stand-alone system just for running the scanner.  This may not be a very elegant solution, but it works.  And incidentally I recently found that I could access some old Photo CDs (bought when I had film processed - several "makes") that were unreadable on my main system!

 

Martin

[250swb]

Time to remind people that Vuescan only costs $49 for life without updates, or $99 for life (any scanner, for ever) with updates. Buying an iMac just to scan with seems extreme.

[chrism]

I don't see Flextight scanners getting much cheaper as they have to be large and heavy for the design to work. The bending of the negative holder into a curve on the 'virtual drum' takes up a lot of space, and the belt drive mechanism is delicate (actually, it's the biggest weakness as the holder positioning is sometimes not sensed properly, and the mechanism is very easily damaged when it tries to move the holder beyond allowed positions—you hear a nasty clicking noise and then small parts come flying out of the machine. I have see it happen twice.) They have to be tall for proper focusing onto the CCD at the top. Finally, the delicate mechanism in the base, and the lens assembly which slides up and down inside the casing require a very rigid and heavy housing if very high quality scans are to be obtained. All in all, I don't think a smaller, lighter or cheaper model is on the cards with a re-design. However, the current Flextight range is a mature design, and an argument could be made that a lower price point might actually mean more sales as soon as the price is within reach of dedicated amateurs, who would be willing to pay more than Plustek prices for better quality. This would give Hasselblad a one-time windfall as a small percentage of remaining film photographers bought one. It would also mean that their steady long term business of supplying museums that need to digitise would then also be paying less for their machines. I daresay Hasselblad has studied this and opted for the strategy felt to offer the best returns.

 

The Nikon 9000 is very nearly as good, but is noisy and slow, and it doesn't do 4x5" negatives which matters to me. I believe it can be serviced for the moment, anyway. The Konica Minolta 5400 series scanners are excellent if you can find one that works and are happy with 35mm only. They cannot be serviced and there are no spare parts left. Putting the 5400 MkII back in production would be a winner for them, and would be easily good enough for most film users!

 

Chris

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[EoinC]

I suspect the actual volumes of sales are low across the board in film scanners, Chris. The market may seem larger than it really is, simply because those still using film tend to be enthusiastic and vocal, but that does not necessarily equate to viable economies of scale.

 

I've resisted GAS for quite some time, but finally have bought a Plustek 120, after a fair bit of experimenting in digitising (which has been fun, and took me back to the 1990's, when I used to digitise using 3 shots with a B&W security camera and red, green, and blue filters (Thank you, Digipaint).

 

Your Flextight scans are beautiful, and never fail to impress. I suspect, though, that most of us are (semi-)content with something that gives us a reasonable representation of what we see in the negative or transparency in a format for sharing on the interwebby.

 

Were the market sufficiently robust, Nikon would have been in a good position to continue production of their well-proven and accepted Coolscan series, with no further need for R&D or tooling upgrades. The numbers of Coolscans still being used is testament to the quality of the product (printers seem to have a much shorter lifespan), but they were built to a short-lived, strong market, when film was still more prolific than digital for image capture, but digital image-sharing was just taking off.

 

I can see a potential for a future scanning solution based on a high-quality CCD or CMOS sensor, and a nano-step motor with combined focus-stacking and panoramic stitching, and a sub-macro lens, but again the market would be very small. I've been playing with using up to 5X magnification (EF MP-E 65 lens) and a Stackshot nano-focus rail, and what I see is impressive, but it needs focus-stacking to handle the minute DOF, and panorama's need greater precision than moving the negative around by hand. Files also get very big, very quickly. All of the tools exist (hardware plus focus-stack / panorama / HDR software), but it's solving a problem that barely exists, so has no commercial value.

 

Cheers, and keep those Flextight scans flowing onto the "I love film..." thread - They are inspiring.