Film Scanners.

[ndjambrose]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now I was just thinking about that this morning - it would be easy to put a 35mm negative strip into the MF glass carrier and then just crop down to the frame desired. I don't know if it would be worth the effort as a 35mm neg holds fairly flat in the supplied carrier, being so much smaller than 120 film. I'll have to give it a try and find out.

 

Chris

 

The format mask for xpan fits well, and allows you to scan two frames at a time. But I don't use it like that myself. The 35mm holder is very good and keeps the film perfectly flat in my experience - can't really improve on it with a glass holder, and the slower throughput isn't really worth it.

[ianman]

Hello,

 

Have any of you Epson V700/750 users tried one of these ? I'm thinking of getting one of the Epsons but having read this thread I am now having second thoughts.

 

Ian

[cocker]

Hello,

 

Have any of you Epson V700/750 users tried one of these ? I'm thinking of getting one of the Epsons but having read this thread I am now having second thoughts.

 

Ian

 

Yes - they improve the results with the V750. But I would not buy an Epson for 35mm.

[Julian Thompson]

The interesting thing here, to me, is that it is so easy to get carried away with that old chestnut, resolution. We do it with megapixels on digital cameras and it creeps in corrosively every time we discuss scanners. I am, myself, guilty as charged!

 

But, it was about the time when my V750 was about to become displaced by a Hasselblad X1 and a hole in the wallet that I sat down and tried to understand what it was that I was really displeased with in my scanning. I fairly quickly discovered that it was colours, noise and midtone representation in b&w - as opposed to the actual outright resolution or size of the output.

 

I proceeded to allow scanning to almost take over my life as I learned to get the most from the V750 'files' - if you, as a film enthusiast, will pardon the expression. I have bored forum readers before with my findings and hesitate to do it again but suffice to say that until you have exhausted every last drop from your current scanner (v750 or otherwise) it is unlikely that just a straight dollar (or pound in my case!) transaction will be enough to cure your desire for better performance, and, like almost everything in photography you will instead have to walk the long and somtimes painful road to the acquisition of scanning mastery.

[mgreernz]

This has been a very helpful thread - because I too, have been looking around for a film scanner.

 

Primarily I've been waiting to get a glimpse of the Canon CS9000F, due here in NZ around early/mid August. To date, it seems to be getting good reviews Scanner Review: CanoScan 9000F.

 

But this week, the opportunity of a secondhand, mint condition, rarely used, all original packaging, docs etc, Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED has also emerged. My hesitation is that the 4000 model is getting on in years now (it was first released 2001). It would need to co-exist happily with me and an Intel Mac using OS10.6.4.

 

Any words of wisdom out there on this model? Because as sure as God made little apples, I can't contemplate writing a cheque for a new Nikon LS9000 ED!

[pauledell]

Is that the V ED? If so check out the Vuescan site, or partition your drive and install XP or whatever you have drivers for.

 

 

Rob,

 

Thanks a lot. I did as you suggested and I am now up and running. I like the Vuescan software better than what I had from Nikon.

 

Paul

[ndjambrose]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...the opportunity of a secondhand, mint condition, rarely used, all original packaging, docs etc, Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED has also emerged. My hesitation is that the 4000 model is getting on in years now (it was first released 2001). It would need to co-exist happily with me and an Intel Mac using OS10.6.4. ...

 

One word: VueScan.

 

It's fully versatile, rich in features and has drivers for almost all models of scanner, especially older ones. Works perfectly on OSX, and I'm using it myself on Snow Leopard so can confirm there are no problems with co-existence.

[cocker]

Coolscan 4000 (and 9000) will run fine on Snow Leopard with Silverfast and Nikonscan as well.

[dicko101]

My Coolscan 5000 works fine on Snow Leopard with the Nikon Scan software - most of the time. It does crash occasionally when I'm using the film strip feeder, but 90% of the time, it's pretty good.

[dickgrafixstop]

I vote for the Epson. It produces scans everybit as good as my 5000 and is easier to

use. Save the money, buy Siverfast if you like that software and get going.

Nikon's interest in scanners is fading, the damn things are tempermental and there is

no good repair service (even Nikon's own) in the greater Los Angeles area. The

700 - or the newer 750 - are excellent scanners with far wider uses than the dedicated

film scanner and the scans allow me to routinely make high quality 30X40" prints without

customer complaint.

Good luck

[chrism]

Back to the Plustek again, I understand only the 7600 works with Macs. Quite a few choices, and it's important! A slide holds packs about 20 megapixels worth of information into its 24 x 36mm frame but some scans can only extract a third of that.

 

New review of the 7600.

 

Chris

[sfage]

I have just started using Vuescan... only 2 shots. I am happy already.

[noah_addis]

I'm using an LS 9000 with a modified glass carrier. I've compared it with an old imacon at a local shop, an Epson 4990 which I own and an Epson V700 which I have ready access to.

 

I don't see a close comparison between the Epsons and the Nikon. In terms of sharpness and tonal range the Nikon blows the flatbeds out of the water. It's also better than the old Imacon (I think it was the original flextight photo) but I didn't do those scans myself so operator skill could be an issue.

 

Perhaps I'll give the V700 another shot. But when I've used it in the past the results, while good, don't match up with the dedicated film scanners. I would say it's good for a 4-6x enlargement if you're very critical.

 

I'm using Vuescan. As for the carrier, I bought the glass filmstrip carrier and removed the bottom piece of glass. In its place I have several machined metal masks to hold various film sizes flat against the AN glass. But the glass is between the light and the film. There is no glass between the film and the scanning lens, so I have few problems with dust but at the same time the film stays extremely flat.

 

I feel very confident printing my 6x7cm. negs at 40x50in. with the LS 9000.

 

For smaller formats with the Nikon scanners, the limiting factor is the film grain, not the scan quality. Out of curiosity I tried some 50in. wide prints from 35mm negs (portra 160 and tri-x). They were grainy, but the grain was resolved with sharpness and the print had a very nice tonality.

[rob_x2004]

I'm using an LS 9000 with a modified glass carrier ... I have several machined metal masks to hold various film sizes.

 

How did you/who did you go to about that? Can we see a happy snap of your purpose builts?

[erl]

I have adapted my LS9000 to improve film ftatness by using the film holder FH-869M which is designed for scanning mounted slides/film. As shown in the pic below, it will take a single slide mount (6x6cm) or a 6x9cm mount.

 

What I have done is remove the film masks from an enlarger film carrier and inserted that in the 6x9 position. This permits me to mount a film strip (I use 6x6cm) between the masks and the film is held as well as it ever is in the enlarger. It is glassless so no 'extra' dust and the film, I believe, is held perfectly flat by the masks. For my low production of this type it is perfectly adequate with respect to handling time (a bit fiddly), but then using MF film was never meant to be fast.

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!

[sfage]

You know, if for some reason I could never shoot digital again, "oh well".

 

1974 Leicaflex SL2, 'cron 50, Fuji Reala:

 

bikerearfender.jpg picture by sfage - Photobucket

[mgreernz]

A success story to report: I took the plunge last weekend and purchased an ex-estate Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED. Given that it's a model from a couple of generations back, I knew it was a bit of a gamble.

 

But to my delight it has arrived on my doorstep in pristine condition, complete with all original packaging, documentation and in perfect working order. Obviously there's more than me around with the DNA of a squirrel.

 

I just wanted to say thanks to those who pointed me in the direction of VueScan - it's turned out to be a perfect match to the hardware (given that in a Mac workflow, Nikon Scan is no longer a reliable option). The first set of Delta 100 scans are as good as I could have possibly expected. Although SilverFast might have offered me a few more bells and whistles, unfortunately its price became a bit of a deal-breaker.

 

Thanks for the help.

 

But I'd be greatly assisted if there's anyone who can point me in the direction of more detailed profile settings when scanning Delta 100 and 400 (neither of which are listed in the ScanVue profiles). At this stage, I've opted for Kodak TMax100 with TMax CI=.80

[erl]

Michael, you have kicked a goal in every respect. Well done.

 

The profile you have selected in VueScan is as good as you can do. Maybe slight variations of but otherwise your choices are good. I use CL=0.7 because I prefer my scan to be 'flat' to capture more detail. I then adjust Black & white points in PS to restore my preferred contrast.

[andym911]

Just to put a slightly alternative view.

 

I have both the Coolscan and a flatbed Epson 4990.

 

For printing up to 30x40 cm prints I get good results from the flatbed, assuming I take care of film flatness and cleanliness.

Speed and usability are also very good.

For the money I paid, about Euro 500 I think it is tremendous value.

 

When I look back to the 80's and 90's when I was selling Drum scanners for up to 250,000 Euro things have certainly changed:D

Here an example of a scan from yesterday (minilux and Delta 100)

 

Best

Andy

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[erl]

Andym911, I intend no disrespect whatever, but your posted image reduced to web quality is totally counter intuitive to your intended point. It is not possible to make any qualitative conclusion from what is displayed.

 

As far as flat bed V's dedicated film scanner is concerned, I see it this way. Consider the resolving power of the scanner spread over the surface area it is designed to scan and then calculate what percentage of that is used to reproduce a 35mm area of film. It seems to me that the flatbed scanner is wasting a large proportion of its scanning power. Now when it comes to scanning a large print that utilizes close to the scanners full area, that is another matter.