Film Scanner In Today's Market

[RayD28]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Please don't bash me for not posting this in the lengthy Film Scanner thread.  I read through that thread and I'm hoping this new thread will get more attention because I want to make a quick decision.

I now use a V600 and Silverfast for 35mm B&W film, so far Ilford HP 5 or FP 4.  I turn off unsharp mask, adjust for highlights and blacks, and then export at about 3200 PPI in tiff.  I then import into Lightroom, play with the sliders and usually export for the internet at about 2mb.  If I want prints I'll send 10mb files to Walgreens.  Although I've not done this, if I want analog prints I'd send to a reputable shop.  

I believe I'm not getting enough detail/resolution so I'm strongly considering a scanner upgrade.  I'll either use the V600 for quick review and then run the keepers through the new scanner, or I might give the V600 away to a college or high school.  Right now I'm leaning towards an Epson V850 or a Plustek 8200.  The Plustek 120 Pro is an option but I'd have to see the how the extra cost is justified.  

I sent a roll of HP 5 to Ilford USA for developing a month a go  because I wanted sharp scans (didn't even ask for prints) and indicated I want large tiff files to work with.  They gave 25mb JPEGs that were the grainiest and poorest scans I've ever worked with .  I scanned the film with the V600 and got better files to work with.  

I'm not a fan of spending a lot of time in PP.  To me HP 5 shots at box speed (using DDX and using the Massive Development suggested times) should be normally less contrasty than some other 400 ISO films.  However, I believe fine detail such as strands of hair should be comparable without a lot PP.  Is this a fair assumption?  

Has anyone A/B'd the V850 or the 8200, and if so do you have a recommendation?

Has anyone A/B'd either of the two mentioned with the 120 PRO?  If so, is the difference worth the price?

If you have suggestions that I should try before ditching the V600 then I'm all ears.

Finally, I've considered a darkroom for wet prints but I'd have to do some remodeling in the basement and I'm not crazy about the idea.  There would be a steep learning curve since I've used a darkroom but and that was 40 years ago and never had to maintain one.  

All comments and suggestions welcome.  

[Ouroboros]

I have no experience with Plustek scanners but if you are sticking with 35mm film you will almost certainly have considerably better files with a Plustek 35mm scanner than you will with an Epson flatbed scanner.  If you plan on moving up to medium format, I would seriously consider the 120 Pro although you will have better results from your Epson flatbed with medium format originals.  That said, you will never really see the full potential of any format from an Epson flatbed for all the reasons that are covered elsewhere on the forum.

I would keep the flatbed for making 'contact sheets' and scanning documents and get a dedicated film scanner for your film scanning. 

[250swb]

2 hours ago, RayD28 said:

 

I now use a V600 and Silverfast for 35mm B&W film, so far Ilford HP 5 or FP 4.  I turn off unsharp mask, adjust for highlights and blacks, and then export at about 3200 PPI in tiff.

All good so far, but I hope you are doing enough Unsharp Mask in post processing? OK, the V600 isn't going to win prizes scanning 35mm, and yes you don't want to use the scanner sharpening filter. But there is a vast difference between what you'd expect sharpening levels to be with a digital image and a scanned film image. It can be big. So an unsharpened digital image may need (as an example) something like 90 Amount and 0.9 Radius for a large 24 or 47mp file give or take.  But an unsharpened 35mm file may need 250 Amount (or more) and 1.8 Radius. I'm not quoting any specific figures because each photo is different as is the film resolution, but the USM needed is a quantum leap up the scale. A Plustek 35mm scanner would do far better for overall scanning although the sharpening will still be way up there compared with digital.

Edited November 22, 2020 by 250swb

[Steve Ricoh]

I run the Plustek 8200Ai and sometimes a digital camera to take a picture of the negative (LED light panel and a BEOON / M240).

Plustek returns more than adequate scan detail, but relatively slow (approx 2 minutes for each B&W, and longer if using the IR Chanel for scratch removal on colour negatives).

 Camera ‘scanning’ is relatively quick and I can ‘scan’ a 36 roll in 10 to 15 minutes.

[jwr50]

3 hours ago, RayD28 said:

Has anyone A/B'd the V850 or the 8200, and if so do you have a recommendation?

Has anyone A/B'd either of the two mentioned with the 120 PRO?  If so, is the difference worth the price?

These, "Is the difference worth the price?" questions are always difficult to answer -- depends on what you need.  I have been using an Epson V850 to scan both 35mm and 120 film, and a couple of months ago I picked up a Plustek 120 Pro.  I have scanned both 35mm and 120 film with the Plustek 120  Pro, and I think there is a clear difference in the higher resolution scans of 35mm from the 120 Pro compared to the V850 scans of the same images.  The difference seems less apparent between the V850 and the 120 Pro on MF film,  although you definitely get larger files for the hi res scan on the 120 Pro.

I tried to attached an A/B comparison of a V850 scan vs. a Plustek 120 Pro scan of some MF film, but even the jpeg files are way too large to attach here.  I used Silverfast Ai Studio with the same settings for both sets of scans.  I would say that to my eye, the 120 Pro scans are slightly better than the V850 scans of the 120 film -- but the file sizes are twice the size of the V850 scans.  The V850 scans of 120 film are just fine for any prints I would expect to do (I rarely print any larger than 16x20), so I'm not sure the cost of the Plustek 120 Pro is "worth it" for medium format scans alone.  And the V850 is clearly faster than the 120 Pro in the scanning process.

However, the Plustek 120 Pro does do better on hi res scans of 35mm compared to the V850.  It's easier to get a quality print from a high res scan of a 35mm image on the 120 Pro than on the V850.  I haven't used the Plustek 8200i, but I would assume that you can get similar image quality from the 8200i that you can get from the 120, but the 8200i (while much less expensive) is limited to 35mm.

Frankly, for me the V850 works just fine for higher volume "production" scanning, and I'm not hesitant to print from the scans I get from the V850 (especially the MF scans).  But when I have a "keeper" that I'd like to use for a larger print, I have found the scans from the Plustek 120 Pro are even better -- especially for 35mm.

[RayD28]

3 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

I have no experience with Plustek scanners but if you are sticking with 35mm film you will almost certainly have considerably better files with a Plustek 35mm scanner than you will with an Epson flatbed scanner.  If you plan on moving up to medium format, I would seriously consider the 120 Pro although you will have better results from your Epson flatbed with medium format originals.  That said, you will never really see the full potential of any format from an Epson flatbed for all the reasons that are covered elsewhere on the forum.

I would keep the flatbed for making 'contact sheets' and scanning documents and get a dedicated film scanner for your film scanning. 

I hear the V600 does a good job with MF slides.  I might dabble in MF.  On think about the V600 is contacts sheets take little waiting.  

52 minutes ago, 250swb said:

All good so far, but I hope you are doing enough Unsharp Mask in post processing? OK, the V600 isn't going to win prizes scanning 35mm, and yes you don't want to use the scanner sharpening filter. But there is a vast difference between what you'd expect sharpening levels to be with a digital image and a scanned film image. It can be big. So an unsharpened digital image may need (as an example) something like 90 Amount and 0.9 Radius for a large 24 or 47mp file give or take.  But an unsharpened 35mm file may need 250 Amount (or more) and 1.8 Radius. I'm not quoting any specific figures because each photo is different as is the film resolution, but the USM needed is a quantum leap up the scale. A Plustek 35mm scanner would do far better for overall scanning although the sharpening will still be way up there compared with digital.

Please forgive my ignorance, when you say "something like 90 Amount and 0.9 Radius" are you referring to Lightroom settings or in the scanner software?  

30 minutes ago, Steve Ricoh said:

I run the Plustek 8200Ai and sometimes a digital camera to take a picture of the negative (LED light panel and a BEOON / M240).

Plustek returns more than adequate scan detail, but relatively slow (approx 2 minutes for each B&W, and longer if using the IR Chanel for scratch removal on colour negatives).

 Camera ‘scanning’ is relatively quick and I can ‘scan’ a 36 roll in 10 to 15 minutes.

I tried using a Nikon D800 (36MP) and a Nikon 105 Macro (1:1: with light board and tripod) but i think I'd need a copy stand perhaps other gadgets.  It's good to know you like the results.

6 minutes ago, jwr50 said:

These, "Is the difference worth the price?" questions are always difficult to answer -- depends on what you need.  I have been using an Epson V850 to scan both 35mm and 120 film, and a couple of months ago I picked up a Plustek 120 Pro.  I have scanned both 35mm and 120 film with the Plustek 120  Pro, and I think there is a clear difference in the higher resolution scans of 35mm from the 120 Pro compared to the V850 scans of the same images.  The difference seems less apparent between the V850 and the 120 Pro on MF film,  although you definitely get larger files for the hi res scan on the 120 Pro.

I tried to attached an A/B comparison of a V850 scan vs. a Plustek 120 Pro scan of some MF film, but even the jpeg files are way too large to attach here.  I used Silverfast Ai Studio with the same settings for both sets of scans.  I would say that to my eye, the 120 Pro scans are slightly better than the V850 scans of the 120 film -- but the file sizes are twice the size of the V850 scans.  The V850 scans of 120 film are just fine for any prints I would expect to do (I rarely print any larger than 16x20), so I'm not sure the cost of the Plustek 120 Pro is "worth it" for medium format scans alone.  And the V850 is clearly faster than the 120 Pro in the scanning process.

However, the Plustek 120 Pro does do better on hi res scans of 35mm compared to the V850.  It's easier to get a quality print from a high res scan of a 35mm image on the 120 Pro than on the V850.  I haven't used the Plustek 8200i, but I would assume that you can get similar image quality from the 8200i that you can get from the 120, but the 8200i (while much less expensive) is limited to 35mm.

Frankly, for me the V850 works just fine for higher volume "production" scanning, and I'm not hesitant to print from the scans I get from the V850 (especially the MF scans).  But when I have a "keeper" that I'd like to use for a larger print, I have found the scans from the Plustek 120 Pro are even better -- especially for 35mm.

JWR, I should always preface the question "Is the difference worth the price?" with "Given your unique circumstances, usage and desired results".  Thanks answering the question. 

Your kind response makes me think I can use the V600 for contact sheets and MF and an 8200 for 35mm high res scans.  

Thanks to all of you for your input.  

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, RayD28 said:

 

Please forgive my ignorance, when you say "something like 90 Amount and 0.9 Radius" are you referring to Lightroom settings or in the scanner software?  

 

I already said don't use the scanner software so no, not that. Typically the Unsharp Mask settings are expressed as 'Amount' and 'Radius' and variations on simple USM sharpening may use different names but the effect is the same. So if Lightroom uses a different nomenclature you need to find out and understand it. My point was that after scanning you need a good sharpening regime, whatever you choose to use, and typically with a large scanned file the figures you use will be  far, far higher than for a typical digital file that is straight from the camera.

[chrism]

I'd say any dedicated film scanner will outperform any consumer flatbed. I've had two Pacific Image 35mm scanners (stretching my memory, I think an 1800 and a 3650) that did decent jobs. I eventually went, via KonicaMinolta 5400 I and 5400 II, to a Nikon 9000, the Flextight 848 and X1. I still have a V850 and can compare with it. Apart from the speed of batch scans, I'd still use the Pacific Image over it for 35mm.

[adan]

On 11/22/2020 at 2:42 PM, 250swb said:

But an unsharpened 35mm file may need 250 Amount (or more) and 1.8 Radius.

Actually I use 500% Amount and a small Radius (0.3-0.6) for my film scans. Minimizes halos while pulling out the small details. And with a Threshold of 3-6 if the grain starts to get excessive.

But as you say, everyone can experiment and find their own "recipe."

And in any case you are certainly correct that an image through a second lens (the scanner's) always needs more sharpening than one captured "from life" on digital.

________________

On the OP's question, I just haven't found flatbed scanners adequate for 35mm originals. Doesn't matter how many scan-lines or dpi they deliver - the lenses just aren't sharp enough to capture everything in a good 35mm negative. 35mm needs a dedicated film scanner, and I have had good results with the Nikon EDs of all types - and seen good results from Minolta and Flextight, of course. But can't comment on Plustek, since I haven't scanned 35mm film regularly since the Leica M8 came out (I have an old 5000ED I pull out for legacy 35mm scans).

[RayD28]

I've taken all of your input and decided to get a Plustek 8000 series model.  A model comparison on BH's website indicates the 8100 has the same specs as the 8200i Ai and is $100 cheaper.  This didn't make sense so I went to the Plustek site and the comparison there indicates the 8100 lacks: iSRD, HDRi, Auto IT8 Calibration, Expert Mode, B&W Histogram, and 48/16 Bit Images, which I assume means jpegs, but both models provide 48/16 bit RAW data. 

I have no plans to develop color film at home and if/when I shoot color film or slides I'll send them to a lab and request tiff scans. I believe I can live without everything except a histogram.  Is it correct an 8100 does not feature a histogram?  If it actually does have a histogram

Here is a link to the model comparison.  

https://plustek.com/us/products/index.php?products=film-photo-scanners

Any and all input appreciated.  

[250swb]

Just like scanner sharpening if you want the best scans you wouldn't use iSRD, HDRi, B&W Histogram etc anyway. Dust removal degrades the image and adds to scanning time and even mild dust can be cloned out by hand in post processing faster than the scanner does it. I suspect the lack of B&W Histogram in the Silverfast software is simply a Greyscale thing. 

In fact I wouldn't even use the Silverfast software, although it needs loading to load the drivers. Use Vuescan (it's cheap and the best), scan for a final output as a TIFF file, or a JPEG if doing a contact sheet, although your V600 is probably good enough and faster for that job. I had a 4000 series Plustek and that didn't have all the extra stuff either, and using Vuescan you can definitely get a histogram. 

[RayD28]

S

3 hours ago, 250swb said:

Just like scanner sharpening if you want the best scans you wouldn't use iSRD, HDRi, B&W Histogram etc anyway. Dust removal degrades the image and adds to scanning time and even mild dust can be cloned out by hand in post processing faster than the scanner does it. I suspect the lack of B&W Histogram in the Silverfast software is simply a Greyscale thing. 

In fact I wouldn't even use the Silverfast software, although it needs loading to load the drivers. Use Vuescan (it's cheap and the best), scan for a final output as a TIFF file, or a JPEG if doing a contact sheet, although your V600 is probably good enough and faster for that job. I had a 4000 series Plustek and that didn't have all the extra stuff either, and using Vuescan you can definitely get a histogram. 

Steve, thanks for sharing your experience and knowledge.  Order placed.  

[Mr.Prime]

FWIW my experience was v similar and started last Christmas with my first ever Leica, a iiif with mint Elmar f3.5. Added an M3 in the New Year with new Elmar 50/2.8.

Dived in with HP5+ and FP4+. Tried the scans from the film developing service provider - atrocious, simply incredible in this day and age that they could be so poor - I just laughed it off as a funny experience.

Bought an Epson flatbed. I found the negative strip holder awkward. The scanner was not dancing too well with my computer either. Results almost made me give up on my return to film. Returned the scanner to Epson as fast as I could.

 

Bought the Plustek. Was immediately rewarded by an easier to use scanner, good results from my scans. The Silverfast software is fine for me although haven’t tried colour yet. Never looked back!

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Mr.Prime

[giannis]

On 11/22/2020 at 7:59 PM, RayD28 said:

Has anyone A/B'd the V850 or the 8200, and if so do you have a recommendation?

 

Yes, the V850 has roughly half the resolution in terms of megapixels, when talking about resolving power with a target. Of course the way system resolution works, the finer grained the film (and finer resolving, which does not always go hand in hand with fine grain), the more you notice the discrepancy. As a comparison, the v600 has roughly one quarter the resolution (in MP) of the Plustek, and the V850 roughly half. In terms of dpi the true, tested, system resolutions go like this: V600:~1800dpi, V850:~2400dpi, 8100:~3600-3800dpi.

The thing to remember with scanners is, that the detail you get on the final image is the system resolution. System resolution depends on the sensor and lens (of the scanner) and stepping motor quality and focus quality/calibration. The formula is 1/(system resolution)=1/(component A resolution) +1/(component B resolution)+1/(component C resolution)+ ... etc. . However manufacturers only quote sensor resolution, because it's the easiest spec to bump up and market. This tells only half of the picture, if not less. The biggest culprit is usually lens quality, if you disassemble an Epson, a Plustek and a Nikon Coolscan, you'll see some for instance the lens assembly for the Epson vs the Nikon is like comparing a single use camera lens vs a full sized SLR lens. The second culprit is usually focus quality/calibration. Most current scanners (all?) don't have any focusing capabilities, focus is fixed at the factory. If for whatever reason (manufacturing tolerances, shipping damage, or just extensive use) the focus drifts, it is what it is and there isn't much that can be done. Last culprit is the stepper motor and transport system that moves the sensor line across the scanning area. Many times, it's not of high enough quality, to be able to consistently move the scanner in tiny enough steps, to provide the advertised resolution. Think about it, if the transport system makes "longer" steps, it's the equivalent of having less pixel density across the direction it travels, i.e. less resolution. Mind you, I'm not even touching upon interpolated resolutions, which are pure bs. All the above applies to optical resolution, i.e. when the manufacturer isn't outright lying, just not revealing the whole picture.

Long story short, the only way to get proper resolving power figures, is through testing with a target. Filmscanner.info is a great resource for that (skip to the "tested resolution" section). Practically speaking, here's a rough estimate: a Plustek 8100 will resolve clearly the grain of any film, maybe except some technical films (copex rapid, tech pan etc.). A V600 will not resolve clearly the grain of any film. A V850 will resolve the grain for some films, but not very clearly.

There's no reason to go for a flatbed in 35mm. I'm not a pixel peeper, but flatbeds just aren't good enough for most use cases other than small sized online pics. I have one for medium format, and that's only because dedicated scanners for medium format are 5-10x the price of flatbeds. I get roughly the same resolution with a flatbed and 6x6 that I get with a Plustek and 35mm. If you have a flatbed already and you're not satisfied, a better (consumer) flatbed will not satisfy you. Much less of a jump than going to a dedicated scanners. There is a subtle point to be made for professional/industrial flatbeds (say Heidelberg Linoscan 1800, or Fuji Lanovia), but those are 30kg+ machines used by prepress companies, long discontinued and using legacy interfaces (SCSI) and legacy OSes. Those are better than most dedicated scanners even, but I'm guessing nobody refers to those when talking about "flatbeds".

Edited December 21, 2020 by giannis
typos

[RayD28]

3 hours ago, giannis said:

Yes, the V850 has roughly half the resolution in terms of megapixels, when talking about resolving power with a target. Of course the way system resolution works, the finer grained the film (and finer resolving, which does not always go hand in hand with fine grain), the more you notice the discrepancy. As a comparison, the v600 has roughly one quarter the resolution (in MP) of the Plustek, and the V850 roughly half. In terms of dpi the true, tested, system resolutions go like this: V600:~1800dpi, V850:~2400dpi, 8100:~3600-3800dpi.

The thing to remember with scanners is, that the detail you get on the final image is the system resolution. System resolution depends on the sensor and lens (of the scanner) and stepping motor quality and focus quality/calibration. The formula is 1/(system resolution)=1/(component A resolution) +1/(component B resolution)+1/(component C resolution)+ ... etc. . However manufacturers only quote sensor resolution, because it's the easiest spec to bump up and market. This tells only half of the picture, if not less. The biggest culprit is usually lens quality, if you disassemble an Epson, a Plustek and a Nikon Coolscan, you'll see some for instance the lens assembly for the Epson vs the Nikon is like comparing a single use camera lens vs a full sized SLR lens. The second culprit is usually focus quality/calibration. Most current scanners (all?) don't have any focusing capabilities, focus is fixed at the factory. If for whatever reason (manufacturing tolerances, shipping damage, or just extensive use) the focus drifts, it is what it is and there isn't much that can be done. Last culprit is the stepper motor and transport system that moves the sensor line across the scanning area. Many times, it's not of high enough quality, to be able to consistently move the scanner in tiny enough steps, to provide the advertised resolution. Think about it, if the transport system makes "longer" steps, it's the equivalent of having less pixel density across the direction it travels, i.e. less resolution. Mind you, I'm not even touching upon interpolated resolutions, which are pure bs. All the above applies to optical resolution, i.e. when the manufacturer isn't outright lying, just not revealing the whole picture.

Long story short, the only way to get proper resolving power figures, is through testing with a target. Filmscanner.info is a great resource for that (skip to the "tested resolution" section). Practically speaking, here's a rough estimate: a Plustek 8100 will resolve clearly the grain of any film, maybe except some technical films (copex rapid, tech pan etc.). A V600 will not resolve clearly the grain of any film. A V850 will resolve the grain for some films, but not very clearly.

There's no reason to go for a flatbed in 35mm. I'm not a pixel peeper, but flatbeds just aren't good enough for most use cases other than small sized online pics. I have one for medium format, and that's only because dedicated scanners for medium format are 5-10x the price of flatbeds. I get roughly the same resolution with a flatbed and 6x6 that I get with a Plustek and 35mm. If you have a flatbed already and you're not satisfied, a better (consumer) flatbed will not satisfy you. Much less of a jump than going to a dedicated scanners. There is a subtle point to be made for professional/industrial flatbeds (say Heidelberg Linoscan 1800, or Fuji Lanovia), but those are 30kg+ machines used by prepress companies, long discontinued and using legacy interfaces (SCSI) and legacy OSes. Those are better than most dedicated scanners even, but I'm guessing nobody refers to those when talking about "flatbeds".

Giannis, thanks for taking the time to provide all this information.  You brought up points I never considered.  I bought the 8100 and it's much better than the V600 I use.  I'm keeping the V600 for quick proofs and using the 8100 for final scans.  I might try MF someday so the V600 might be useful for that as well.  

It's knowledgeable and generous folks like you that make me grateful for this forum.

[Mr.Prime]

I’m coming to the conclusion that for an occasional foray away from 35mm and into 6x6, my best option is to use a digital camera with a macro lens even if it costs the same $ compared with a flatbed.But if I already had a flatbed, it should be fine too.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Mr.Prime

[Martin B]

I am using both, the Plustek 8200 Ai and the Epson V850. If your negatives are not sharp enough with your V600, it is likely due to the factory setting for best scanner sharpness which varies from model to model. On my V850, best sharpness can be achieved about 2.5 mm above the glass surface which corresponds to the middle foot location with the height-adjustable negative holders. The V600 doesn't have holders with height adjustment if I remember correctly. In this case, you need to cut some thicker paper and put it underneath the holders and run scans to figure out best sharpness. When people say that the V-series scanner is not sharp enough, this is in most cases the issue. Unfortunately Epson does not document it well how to optimize for scanner sharpness. 

The Plustek 8200 Ai is my preferred choice for 35 mm negatives, they are a tiny bit sharper than even when optimized in sharpness with my V850. The V850 is fantastic for larger format negatives than 35 mm. This was the main reason why I bought it. Main con of the 8200 Ai is that the focus can't be adjusted which I ran into issues with when trying to scan framed slides. My frames were a bit thicker than the reference slide which comes with the scanner unit. The images ware unsharp - I had to remove the slide from the frame and put it into the negative holder instead, then the image was very sharp. For framed slides again the V850 is much better since I can place the slide inside the holder and use the height adjustment to allow a crisp scan.