Recommendation on negative scanner

[dimm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, drwatson1234 said:

As a ‘general’ rule, Flatbed scanners are not ideal for 35mm. I know many people use the Epson scanners with success, but overall, I have seen mixed results - the best of which required wet mounting, and it always seemed like a hassle to me. 
 

I have used the Canon Canoscan 9000 (flatbed), Nikon Coolscan 4000 (35mm only), Kodak Pakon 135+ (35mm only), and now a Noritsu LS-600.  The Noritsu is lab quality scanning, and is the only acceptable option to me today. 
 

Canoscan 9000 was poor resolution and image quality. Coolscan was great, but SLOW. Pakon was amazing, and fast (uncut roll in ~6 minutes without touching it). Colors were excellent. But resolution was 2000x3000 max and it couldn’t scan E-6 (in my experience, someone else may have figured it out). 
 

The Noritsu is like the Pakon, but can scan all film types (slides, CN, and B&W), and the resolution is 4000x6000. 
 

The prices of the Noritsu have shot up. But, I just thought I’d share my experiences. The Pakon might be a good fit for your goals. Not cheap, but, it will make you want to shoot more film with the ease of use. I can’t say the same for the Coolscan, simply because of the slow speed of scanning. 

 

Thank you for sharing your experience. I understand that both Pakon and Noritsu are old scanners and there is trouble to connect them to modern computers. I even saw on eBay someone sells Pakon with Sony laptop and soft installed

[plasticman]

I honestly cannot understand anyone saying that the only "acceptable" scanning solution nowadays is buying a Noritsu. These scanners are almost impossible to buy secondhand, run on obsolete Operating Systems, are difficult/impossible to maintain, and can come with faults that require a total overhaul - see Hamish's problems here:

https://www.35mmc.com/11/03/2017/early-experiences-noritsu-ls-1100/

If I was looking for a scanner now, I'd try to find a Coolscan 5000 (if only 35mm), or Coolscan 9000 (this is the scanner I have - it's great), or a Coolscan 8000 if I needed to save money.

The Plustek 120 would be my next choice, and after that are some others that seem ok - like some of the Reflecta models.

If none of these appealed, then I'd buy a digital camera - possibly one with sensor-shifting for super-high resolution - and a copy-stand (Kaiser make excellent models - no need for so-called 'BEOON scans' that are just a Leica-owner affectation).

I'm sure the scanner you've chosen will be fine. My impression is that the quality of a scan is often more dependent on the operator (you) than the scanner.

[frame-it]

i actually tested scanning 6x6 today, with :

GFX50R

Leica APO Summicron 90mm ASPH

Leica Macro Adapter M

Ipad

6x6 film holder

the result was very nice

[plaidshirts]

I use a Nikon Coolscan IV ED that I got for $200. The resolution is good enough and it works well with Vuescan.

Before that I tried using digital cameras but post processing was too much.

I could probably get better images by using my camera, but the Coolscan is the best compromise between IQ and convenience IMO.

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 January 24, 2020 by plaidshirts
Changed comment and added photo

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I have used a Nikon 4000, mostly for slides, I now have an Epson 700 which is OK for smaller reproductions. I have wondered about the Nikon 9000, have heard nothing but good things about the scanner, but isn't it still a firewire interface? The last computer I had firewire on was a Dell Studio desktop bought in 2005, so I wonder about hooking them to modern computers, Windows 10 or the latest Mac computers. 

I started experimenting using an old slide duplicator, has a great lens on it, capturing with my CL right now, but thinking of getting a higher res camera. For negatives color and b&w the workflow is a little tedious but still faster than the Epson can scan.

[plasticman]

12 minutes ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

I have wondered about the Nikon 9000, have heard nothing but good things about the scanner, but isn't it still a firewire interface? The last computer I had firewire on was a Dell Studio desktop bought in 2005, so I wonder about hooking them to modern computers, Windows 10 or the latest Mac computers.

No problems at all with a simple Apple adapter on the latest laptops - a lot of video studio equipment still uses FireWire. 

I know there were supposed problems with some raw materials in the production of these scanners, but maybe  if Nikon hadn’t stopped producing them, they wouldn’t be so far up sh1t creek as they are today, producing digital cameras no-one wants to buy...

[Stealth3kpl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 1/16/2020 at 6:39 AM, dimm said:

Bought 8200 I AI

That was a great decision. I have the 8100 and I think it's a wonderful thing. I use it with Vuescan when scanning B+W.

Pete

[drwatson1234]

15 hours ago, dimm said:

 

Thank you for sharing your experience. I understand that both Pakon and Noritsu are old scanners and there is trouble to connect them to modern computers. I even saw on eBay someone sells Pakon with Sony laptop and soft installed

Yes. The Pakon must be run on Windows XP. There is an active Facebook group detailing the required steps, but most people choose to run it through a VM software on either a PC or a Mac. Both options work to my knowledge. 
 

The Noritsu can be run natively on Windows 7. I now have a PC dedicated to both work related matters and the Noritsu, that I am personally choosing not to upgrade to Windows 10. I have read of others who have installed the required software to Windows 10 with success. I just have not yet tested because of the above decision. 
 

Best Regards!

DMR

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[drwatson1234]

14 hours ago, plasticman said:

I honestly cannot understand anyone saying that the only "acceptable" scanning solution nowadays is buying a Noritsu. These scanners are almost impossible to buy secondhand, run on obsolete Operating Systems, are difficult/impossible to maintain, and can come with faults that require a total overhaul - see Hamish's problems here:

https://www.35mmc.com/11/03/2017/early-experiences-noritsu-ls-1100/

If I was looking for a scanner now, I'd try to find a Coolscan 5000 (if only 35mm), or Coolscan 9000 (this is the scanner I have - it's great), or a Coolscan 8000 if I needed to save money.

The Plustek 120 would be my next choice, and after that are some others that seem ok - like some of the Reflecta models.

If none of these appealed, then I'd buy a digital camera - possibly one with sensor-shifting for super-high resolution - and a copy-stand (Kaiser make excellent models - no need for so-called 'BEOON scans' that are just a Leica-owner affectation).

I'm sure the scanner you've chosen will be fine. My impression is that the quality of a scan is often more dependent on the operator (you) than the scanner.

Apologies for a mis-statement. I should have phrased it by saying - the Noritsu is the only acceptable scanner for (not to) me today. The speed of use, the quality of scans, color reproduction, and highlight retention all make it my scanner of choice. I also have an Imacon scanner I did not refer to. I use it for MF. It technically has more resolution than the Noritsu for 35mm film, but it’s both slower to use, not automatic feeding for scanning a full roll at once (4 frames in a batch max), and the highlight retention is inferior to the Noritsu. I believe that’s the basis for many professional labs choosing to scan with the Noritsu or Frontier scanners. 
 

But, no, I was not advocating it is the only option for scanning. 
 

I have a Nikon Coolscan 4000ED that I have used with Vuescan. I still have the scanner. It’s just slower in use, so I choose the alternative for that reason. But, I didn’t mean to say it’s the only option. 
 

Best Regards,

DMR 

[frame-it]

TRI-X 400, mamiya C330s, sekor 80mm

GFX50R + Leica APO Summicron 90mm ASPH + Leica Macro Adapter M + Ipad + 6x6 film holder

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!

[Landiah]

3 hours ago, frame-it said:

TRI-X 400, mamiya C330s, sekor 80mm

GFX50R + Leica APO Summicron 90mm ASPH + Leica Macro Adapter M + Ipad + 6x6 film holder

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!

Is there anything you do to mask the Screen of the ipad in order to avoid pixels showing through? 

[drwatson1234]

4 hours ago, frame-it said:

TRI-X 400, mamiya C330s, sekor 80mm

GFX50R + Leica APO Summicron 90mm ASPH + Leica Macro Adapter M + Ipad + 6x6 film holder

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!

As you adjust the brightness of the iPad screen, do you have the ability to add contrast to the overall image by brightening the highlights? It’s being viewed over web based resolution, but it looks great. 

[frame-it]

1 hour ago, Landiah said:

Is there anything you do to mask the Screen of the ipad in order to avoid pixels showing through? 

just need to raise the film by half a centimeter

[frame-it]

49 minutes ago, drwatson1234 said:

As you adjust the brightness of the iPad screen, do you have the ability to add contrast to the overall image by brightening the highlights? It’s being viewed over web based resolution, but it looks great. 

i kept the ipad at max brightness, iso 100, i think f4 or f5.6 on the summicron.the raw file has a LOT of data

[Mark II]

It is also worth looking at the Kaiser light tables. These are effectively an LCD backlight without the LCD, and they give even lighting without pixelation or concerns about colour.

I currently scan using an Olympus camera and 60mm macro lens. In hires mode this gives a theoretical 80mp image, but in reality the image quality is limited by film/lens flatness (lack of) and some slight softness from the macro lens itself in the extreme corners. However, the results are signifantly better than I have managed to get with either flatbed (v850) or a dedicated scanner (plustek 8200i) - and as a bonus the camera raw files are a lot smaller than the tiffs produced by scanners.

The 35mm scan quality from the inexpensive plustek units is extremely good. The downside is that the scanning process is much slower and laborious than with a DSLR/mirrorless camera. The opticfilm 120 should on paper be far better, automating the scanning to some extent. But it is expensive and early units had a reputation for unreliability. I have no idea if this has been fixed.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[dimm]

9 hours ago, Stealth3kpl said:

That was a great decision. I have the 8100 and I think it's a wonderful thing. I use it with Vuescan when scanning B+W.

Pete

Vuescan is the generic software that supports many scanners, right? Why is it better than software that  supplied with this scanner?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Stealth3kpl]

9 hours ago, Stealth3kpl said:

That was a great decision. I have the 8100 and I think it's a wonderful thing. I use it with Vuescan when scanning B+W.

Pete

I'll add  that for  colour c41 film I use a Pakon. It scans 36 frames in very little time. I got mine before the rush and wouldn't be comfortable with the current pricing. I run it on an old XP pro laptop.

Pete

[Stealth3kpl]

2 minutes ago, dimm said:

Vuescan is the generic software that supports many scanners, right? Why is it better than software that  supplied with this scanner?

One day I sat down to learn Silverfast and I got great results. The other day I found I couldn't stop my highlights being clipped. It was possibly user error, but I went back to using Vuescan which gave me better control.

There's a good video here about using Silverfast. It was made with the Epson scanners in mind but most of it applies to any scanner.

Pete

[M9reno]

17 hours ago, plaidshirts said:

I use a Nikon Coolscan IV ED that I got for $200. The resolution is good enough and it works well with Vuescan.

Before that I tried using digital cameras but post processing was too much.

I could probably get better images by using my camera, but the Coolscan is the best compromise between IQ and convenience IMO.

 

I’ve had a Coolscan IV bought new since 2002.  It’s a wonderful machine with more than enough resolution at 2900 Dpi, and it has been used heavily for many years, most recently scanning a collection of thousands of archaeology slides that I ‘inherited’ two years ago.  I’ve never had a single problem with it (aside from the time I stupidly fed a single negative into the batch feeder and it got stuck - an obvious no-no, but I took the scanner apart and extracted the piece of film in less than ten minutes).

The old Nikon software is long obsolete, but the scanner runs beautifully on VueScan, an elegantly simple and well-updated piece of software, endorsed by no less a guru than Donald Knuth.

Considering the current price of these machines, getting one is a no-brainer, and as long it has been properly looked after, it should provide many more years of excellent service.  Whether one is in good condition or not should be apparent in the first twenty minutes of using it - if it’s not, then just return it.

[frame-it]

1 hour ago, Mark II said:

The 35mm scan quality from the inexpensive plustek units is extremely good. The downside is that the scanning process is much slower and laborious than with a DSLR/mirrorless camera. The opticfilm 120 should on paper be far better, automating the scanning to some extent. But it is expensive and early units had a reputation for unreliability. I have no idea if this has been fixed.

i scan in 48bit DNG for all film stocks with no negafix profile, and all my b&w shots..its super fast