Film Scanners

[fsprow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had access to a commercial lab a few years ago and my preference for scanning (looking at resolution primarily) was 

 

Best:

Hasselblad X1 (category by itself).  VERY expensive.

Nikon 5000 (35mm) or 9000 (MF).  Hard to get parts for, though.

Canoscan

Plustek (needed frequent maintenance but may have been a fluke).

 

For what it's worth,

Frank

[digbyhp]

I've used a Nikon Coolscan 9000 for several years to do 135 & 120. As per comments above for the 5000, it is out of support so finding parts for servicing will be an issue if it ever breaks down. I guess the used prices would be horrendous. The output is terrific, though the 120 film holder is difficult when dealing with curled film. 

 

I've also acquired an Epson V850 (basically the V750) as a back-up to the 9000,plus to do scans of old prints, and have found that excellent. It gets some criticism on the web, but here is where you have to ask yourself what is the intended output - if for web viewing then I can't see any deficiency unless you're a dedicated pixel-peeper. If you're scanning in order to print large and need the highest quality, then go to the expense of a drum-scan for that infrequent image that deserves that.

 

I use both these two with Vuescan. Again, this comes in for some criticism as a scanning software, but I have found it very easy.

 

Given that scanning technology is pretty mature, and also given modern manufacturing technologies like additive printing for low volume products, you would think that producing a really high-quality scanner in the $2-$5k range would be do-able, but I suppose not if you're Nikon and are already in a financial hole.

[Advertisement]

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

[michaelwj]

Good enough...

 

For me, good enough means that I get a scan that allows me to print a nice 8x10 and captures the highlights and shadows. My basic Plustek does this. 

While it's not perfect, it is cheap, small (I can put it away between sessions), and easy. The last thing I want to do is spend too long fiddling with scans - either before, during, or after scanning. From the Plustek (using Vuescan) I get a scan that just needs a few tweaks in LR and then I'm done.

 

Talking about comparisons, just before I got my own scanner I had a few frames professionally scan with a a drum scanner. When I got my own scanner I rescanned the frames to see what I could get. There was a difference on screen at full resolution, but it didn't show in the 8x10 print.

 

Saying all that, I'd like a ~$2k scanner that was good quality and allowed batch scanning of 6 frame strips. I suppose the Plustek 120 is this? Might need to start saving...

[jim0266]

+1 Everything NoWhereMan said. Using a BEOON with a Sony A7 and an APO Rodagon 50/2.8 enlarging lens with the B,C,D tubes. The cat's meow. Fast, no alignment issues and compact. As good or better than the scans I did years ago out of my MicroTek ArtixScan 4000tf, C-41 aside, which I still cannot find a good way to convert, but that's not the BEOON's fault. Actually have another BEOON with the A+D tubes, the magnifier and the 35 mask purchased from SF Leica Store. PM me if interested. I found another BEOON on Ebay mis-marked as a microscope adapter that had the other tubes I needed.

 

Also tried a Fuji X-E2 but it was harder to focus compared to the Sony.  

 

A few K-64's from Eastern Europe in 1991.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by jim0266

[250swb]

 

 The Plustek scanners have a maximum dMax of 3.6, and to get an effective resolution of 3,250ppi as well as the maximum dMax requires multi-scanning, which takes about 8 minutes per frame. In another thread a Plustek user reported that the fixed focus of the Plustek was a problem in scanning slides because transparency film is thicker than negative film and, consequently, he experienced softer focus in scanning slides. 

 

 

 

Yeah, one day some stuff happened, then somebody said something.

[plasticman]

Yeah, one day some stuff happened, then somebody said something.

I agree with you Steve that there's way too much of this sort of thing in the discussions. 

 

Just to underline that I really try not to have an axe to grind myself, over a year ago I initiated what I hoped was going to be a constructive discussion over on RFF:

 

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154469

 

titled: "Constructing the definitive DSLR scanning setup. Communal effort!" * where I said "I'm hoping we can all aim to keep it constructive, and make an attempt to come up with a sort of 'model' or 'ideal' setup for a reasonable price that present and future forum members can use as a reference for creating their own home 'scanners'." 

 

In any case, I'm very disappointed by the lack of substance behind the claims made for the BEOON recently. I've hardly seen any 100% crops or impartial side-by-side comparisons with decent dedicated film scanners. Just a lot of the usual "my equipment is better than your equipment"-type hot air that we've seen a million times here and elsewhere. 

 

 

* Typically for the topic, one of the moderators on RFF got into a weird fight with me almost straight away in the above thread, and apparently embarrassed by what he himself had said, and my and other people's responses, he waited a couple days then went through the entire thread and silently purged it of all the posts (both his own and everyone else's) that had even tangentially touched on his negative contribution, making what was left a confusing and incomplete mishmash of posts. During that time, my ability to Direct message on that forum was disabled, and afterwards I felt there was no point in continuing the discussion.

Edited September 6, 2017 by plasticman

[paulsydaus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting info. I make A3 prints and have typically had the lab do batch scanning rolls followed by flextight on selects. Looking to move more of the process in house but not sure if I can achieve the desired results with my budget as a new X1 is way out of my league and I am skeptical of the cheaper scanners though have not tried them...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[honcho]

............

 Further research showed that Imacon scanners require periodic maintenance fairly often. After some hours of searching the web, I found out that the cause of the sharpness loss is slippage of the belts that drive the holder mechanism. I had to replace these belts and some springs. Although, apparently, I can buy the belts and springs in the US or the UK at about US$5–10 each, I gave up because these scanners often require belt replacement every six months or so. The belt problem also makes the film frame shift in the holder as it goes into the scanner, so that a small portion of the scan is often cut off. I now remember from ten years ago that I often had this problem, but didn't know there was a solution. By the way, there is no batch feed solution for this scanner — and one full res (6300 ppi) 35mm scan takes 12–15 minutes. 

 

As I didn't want to make a career out of the care and feeding of this Imacon scanner, I decided to dump it. I couldn't sell it with a good conscience. Basically, even if I was prepared spent $14,000 on a new Hasselblad X1 — same 6300dpi resolution as my Imacon but twice the speed — I don’t think it would make sense because I don’t think the drive mechanism on the new scanners has changed. That means, in my view, that these Hasselblad scanners only make sense (beyond the price issue) in a photo lab environment, where they can be serviced and maintained regularly.......

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Forums have a lot to answer for when it comes to spreading misinformation and urban myth. I bought an Imacon 646 new in 2005 and one reason I decided on the outlay was because of the spec, especially having a genuine dr that is capable of dealing with Velvia and Hasselblad's commitment to support and service. In the 12 years of almost daily use my scanner has seen, it has never required attention, never needed a lamp replaced and has been serviced only once. Despite what you have 'researched' on forums, Imacons do not need belt replacements every six months.

 

Hasselblad UK have passed servicing to Bodoni Systems (I bought mine from Bodoni in 2005) and unless it obviously needs a service, which consists mainly of lubrication and changing a couple of belts and is easy enough to do at home without paying £375+vat, I shall ignore the service reminders because it simply is not necessary until it is necessary.

 

There's nothing wrong with copying film with a digital camera if you are happy with that as a 'workflow' but it is nothing new. My Imacon is slow when I'm scanning larger formats to 3f files, especially 6x17, but you won't get anywhere near even that speed or file quality in trying to do the same with a camera copying setup.

 

All this internet hysteria about the Beoon reminds of Superdry as a brand. Everyone wants it, but no one is sure why. A Plustek is cheaper and more convenient, imo, but each to their own.

[Guest Nowhereman]

Yeah, one day some stuff happened, then somebody said something.

 

 

Actually, not. I neglected to say who wrote. "In another thread a Plustek user reported that the fixed focus of the Plustek was a problem in scanning slides because transparency film is thicker than negative film and, consequently, he experienced softer focus in scanning slides." It was our Norwegian friend, "borge" (Børge Indergaard), who analyzes things carefully and doesn't make random statements, and who had the Plustek OpticFilm 120.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Nowhereman

[Guest Nowhereman]

Forums have a lot to answer for when it comes to spreading misinformation and urban myth. I bought an Imacon 646 new in 2005 and one reason I decided on the outlay was because of the spec, especially having a genuine dr that is capable of dealing with Velvia and Hasselblad's commitment to support and service. In the 12 years of almost daily use my scanner has seen, it has never required attention, never needed a lamp replaced and has been serviced only once. Despite what you have 'researched' on forums, Imacons do not need belt replacements every six months...

 

All I can say is that my Imacon Precision II (before the software upgrade to III) started occasionally buckling the slide holders within 3 months of when I purchased it new; by 6 months it went in for warranty service — as I recall it was sent back to Denmark by the dealer. After that I moved the machine to Thailand and continued to to have the same feed problems which occurred randomly but fairly frequently. With no local service at that time sending it back to Denmark for paid service was too expensive. Then I stopped shooting film in 2006-16. Getting it running in December 2016, the feed problems were more frequent and, culminated in the problem of losing focus on the trading edge of the frame. I found the solution to that on the excellent Imacon support forum on Yahoo — on which I also found that other people were having the same problem, which required frequent belt and spring replacement. Neither my problems in this respect, nor those of the people on the Yahoo Imacon group were imaginary. 

_________________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Edited September 6, 2017 by Nowhereman

[Martin B]

Best bang for the bucks with 35 mm based negatives is the Plustek 8200i and SilverFast 8 software. The software has the nice Negafix feature which is especially useful to adjust the white balance of selected color negative film. 

[Martin B]

Actually, not. I neglected to say who wrote. "In another thread a Plustek user reported that the fixed focus of the Plustek was a problem in scanning slides because transparency film is thicker than negative film and, consequently, he experienced softer focus in scanning slides." It was our Norwegian friend, "borge" (Børge Indergaard), who analyzes things carefully and doesn't make random statements, and who had the Plustek OpticFilm 120.

 

This was actually me, too confirming this issue with my Plustek scanner. For framed slides which have a different thickness, the scanner has a clear debit here - Chris Livsey first mentioned it in post #19 in my thread which I was able to confirm. Focus can be easily off and leading to unsharp images as shown in my Plustek thread here. 

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267131-plustek-scanners-and-silverfast-8-software/

 

For negative scans or for unframed slides, the scanning works great. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Martin B

[Ko.Fe.]

Well, I don't think were are any film resurgence. Talking from weekly film user perspective, not from internet articles reader. So, scanners are made accordingly to the real market situation. It means, nothing big, nothing new. 

 

Taking negative pictures with digital camera is nothing new, either. I don't have so clean negatives for it. I develop quick and dirty.   And I scan it quick and with crap on it cleaned with nothing but Epson flatbed. They still make them, I guess...

 

I even still use first Plustek they made. 7200 model. Home developed (yesterday) Kodak not so Gold 200. Camera was 5$ P&S.

 

 

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!

Edited September 6, 2017 by Ko.Fe.

[Avatar]

As one of those people who has been spending an inordinate amount of time setting up, digitizing and comparing results with my scanner, the first thing I want to say is I have new found respect for my Epson 850 scanner. It's truly amazing.

 

I just now am casually comparing a medium format scan vs an admittedly quick picture with the Beoon and while the Beoon image looks very good, the scanner image looks much better.

 

I can tweak the digital camera image in LR or PS and i can get an excellent result, there's no doubt.

 

But the more I experiment and compare the more I am resigned to accepting the incredible results I am getting on the Epson.

 

This doesn't mean I've wasted my time, I have a project to digitize or scan a couple of thousand slides. It makes more sense to shoot them quickly on the Beoon set up and for a select few images, I'd scan them.

 

I guess I should add that i do have an excellent enlarger lens coming and with an open mind, I'll give that a chance too. 

 

I'd really like to be wrong. I want the Beoon set up to perform better. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Avatar

[Guest Nowhereman]

I just now am casually comparing a medium format scan vs an admittedly quick picture with the Beoon and while the Beoon image looks very good, the scanner image looks much better...But the more I experiment and compare the more I am resigned to accepting the incredible results I am getting on the Epson...I'd really like to be wrong. I want the Beoon set up to perform better. 

 

Avatar - Don't see the point of comparing a medium format scan on the flatbed Epson to a 35mm camera digitalization. My understanding is that the Epson is indeed good for MF scans, although I don't have direct experience with that.

 

As for your wanting better results from the BEOON + M240 + Rodagon 50mm — not surprising since you've said in another thread that you were having trouble focusing the lens, although I don't know why since you have Live View and focus assist. Could be that your Rodagon is fogged, or another problem with the lens.

_________________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[Avatar]

 

Avatar - Don't see the point of comparing a medium format scan on the flatbed Epson to a 35mm camera digitalization. My understanding is that the Epson is indeed good for MF scans, although I don't have direct experience with that.

 

As for your wanting better results from the BEOON + M240 + Rodagon 50mm — not surprising since you've said in another thread that you were having trouble focusing the lens, although I don't know why since you have Live View and focus assist. Could be that your Rodagon is fogged, or another problem with the lens.

_________________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

 

 

What tube combo would you use for Medium Format?

 

Largely thanks to you, I have been able to achieve excellent focus on 35mm. THe original problem I was having w focus, you remember we finally figured out the Summarit is 1 mm too long but gave excellent results when I flipped over the mask moving the negative closer to the lense.

 

The problem I had with the Rodagon was that I didn't have the best F stop chosen, now that I have found the sweet spot for it, the results are much superiour. 

 

But before I post more of the examples, I will wait for the second lens. 

 

All of the problems I have had up until yesterday were user error. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Avatar

[Guest Nowhereman]

Avatar - No idea what tubes to use on the BEOON for medium format. Actually, I don't even know if it's feasible: I saw something about taking several shots and stitching them together, but that's so much bother that using the Epson should be better. Also, I don't know whether it would be feasible or to use a 35mm lens for medium format — but I'm skeptical because, as you have found, the focus column movement is limited, and designed for a 50mm lens.

_________________

 

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[Avatar]

 

Avatar - No idea what tubes to use on the BEOON for medium format. Actually, I don't even know if it's feasible: I saw something about taking several shots and stitching them together, but that's so much bother that using the Epson should be better. Also, I don't know whether it would be feasible or to use a 35mm lens for medium format — but I'm skeptical because, as you have found, the focus column movement is limited, and designed for a 50mm lens.

_________________

 

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

 

 

I mostly did it as I have a friend who wants to try the same thing and he has a ton of medium format material. I don't have much and as you heard, the Epson does a fine job for that.

 

I was never looking for the Beoon to replace the scanner anyways, although, if it would be better, I'd certainly love that!

 

I put one of the tubes on the M246 and achieved perfect focus. I then masked off around the negative and that worked very well with the 50mm lense.

 

No way would it be worth doing any sort of HDR or stitching!

[plasticman]

Well, I don't think were are any film resurgence. Talking from weekly film user perspective, not from internet articles reader. So, scanners are made accordingly to the real market situation. It means, nothing big, nothing new. 

How about from a 'lots of new films being released' perspective? Or a 'return of Ektachrome' perspective? Or a 'multiply over-subscribed Kickstarter Lab Box' perspective? Or a 'Film Ferrania' perspective? Or a 'rising used film camera prices' perspective? Or a 'crazy frenzy to find a BEOON' perspective? Or even a 'Plustek120' perspective?

 

Obviously your own little weekly use of film gives you a much broader and more accurate perspective than all the above.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[almoore]

Until now, I'd never heard of the BEOON. What makes this of more interest than any well made copy stand?