Scanner for 35mm

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Nowhereman said:

As I didn't want to make the care and feeding of this Imacon scanner into a profession, I gave up on it. I should add that the problem may be aggravated by a hot and humid climate, which is the condition under which I used the Imacon, first in Washington, DC (hot and humid in June-August) and then in Bangkok. Also, some people told me that they felt that, because of this reason, as well as other maintenance problems, the Imacon scanners were more suitable for a professional lab, which is what Stuart is doing in Iceland.

At least for me, this has not been a major issue. I have not serviced my X5 since about 2011, and it is working just fine, but that is a newer scanner. I would agree, however, that the Imacon/Hasselblad are not the solution they once were and not for people who are doing it casually. There is a learning curve, and they still cost leaps and bounds above most others. The versions you would want are the newer ones with firewire, as they can still connect easily to thunderbolt 1, 2 and 3, but those are also the most expensive versions. Avoid SCSI for compatibility reasons. The scanners still work very well, but the software is 32bit and Hasselblad will not update it, nor allow it to be added to ViewScan or Silverfast, despite community efforts to find a solution. The accountants win, as is always the case with Hasselblad, it seems. So if you want to use them, the latest Mac you can use is one with Mojave.

As for the digital camera for digizing, I would go so far as to recommend AGAINST a DSLR for this kind of work. The mirror slap is much more likely to cause problems for you than to help, so a mirrorless camera has a lot of advantages in this kind of work, especially with an E-shutter. One of the hardest variables to solve in copy work is vibration, and if you have no shutter or mirror movement, you are much better off... As for resolution, while 24mp will do fine with a 1 to 1 macro to get most detail from 35mm, but I think you are better served by a higher resolution camera, particularly if you want to enlarge or you cannot crop in so the film completely fills the frame.

Anyway, don't want to overwhelm Brian with all this. I think camera based negative scanning is something that is very easy to do well enough to present on the web or in small prints, but if you want it to replace a high end scanner, that is when things like stability, camera and lens choice and light source quality get critical. The bigger the film, the harder it is (to get everything out of it...not to get it up on the web or in small prints).

At least in my experience, most film has about 5000dpi of information in it...much beyond that and you are just making files bigger. 3200 is plenty for 98% of cases, but in testing the Hasselblad at 3200dpi (its max for 120 film), scans from an Eversmart Supreme at 5000dpi yielded more detail. I have not seen film show much detail beyond 5000dpi, but I am sure in isolated cases it can, such as with technical films. Btw, these are true dpi...done with scanners that have an optical system capable of rendering sharp detail at those resolutions...Epson cannot really do that with their V850, though it is not a bad scanner.

Edited September 15, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[250swb]

1 hour ago, chrism said:

Out of curiosity I have tried the LiveView digitizing function, but I must be doing something wrong - the images are blurred (no problem if I just shoot RAW either through the viewfinder or via LiveView, just as long as I don't use the built-in film digitizing). To add insult to injury, the JPEGs from the built-in digitizing are larger than the NEF files! I'll play with that further just to sort it out, but I'd rather be using ColorPerfect for the inversion than the in-camera version so I would probably stick with copying as raw files.

You may well be doing everything right, it's just that Nikon mention the D850 in regard to the over priced piece of plastic called the ES-2. I would rather use the cheaper ColorPerfect over the newer Negmaster for inverting negatives, it just seems to work without any phaffing about. I think it's also worth saying ColorPerfect, or Negmaster, are also valid for inverting B&W negatives, they aren't just for colour.

[Advertisement]

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

[250swb]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think camera based negative scanning is something that is very easy to do well enough to present on the web or in small prints, but if you want it to replace a high end scanner, that is when things like stability, camera and lens choice and light source quality get critical. The bigger the film, the harder it is (to get everything out of it...not to get it up on the web or in small prints)

I agree getting something good enough for a small print is very easy, but it's also very easy to drop into an elitist mindset, high pixel cameras fill the gap between the usual high end scanners, Nikon 9000 etc. and something like a Hasselblad. So they are now very close for every purpose a professional would need, and of course like a drum scanner a camera doesn't introduce digital noise. Regarding stability how hard is it to sit still for 1/4 second during the exposure(?), and a macro lens or enlarger lens is already corrected for distortion.

Edited September 15, 2021 by 250swb

[Stuart Richardson]

Yes, I would agree...I would even go further, that the highest end of all is now occupied by camera based capture (things like Capture One's film scanning setup for museums and institutions). I was not trying to be elitist, just saying that it is easy to get good, usable negatives from camera scanning, but to get images that match high end scans, it is very demanding and requires good gear and technique. I used camera based scanning with the DMR and 100mm Macro back in 2006 when living in Japan, and it worked quite well for the web even then. Trying to make a 4x5 capture with a digital camera that can out-resolve the Epson V850 or X5 is considerably more difficult, but not impossible. Making something like a 17x22" print (40x60cm) should not be too difficult with a decent camera and lens.

My apologies if my experience is warping things a bit. I print exhibitions and scan etc as part of my work, so I am generally doing things a lot bigger and more finicky than what most people want or expect. Getting something up on the wall and looking good is not too demanding with either a decent camera based system or a decent scanner.

 

Edited September 15, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[bdolzani]

On 9/15/2021 at 1:15 PM, a.noctilux said:

Brian, you can 'scan' with your M240, using liveview.

With Beoon + 50mm lens if you can find one.

Or with sort of slide holder of your choice in front of your Micro-Nikkor 55mm + 1:1 ring, F to M adapter with lighting as flash or even LED flashlight.

I must admit a bit monstrous comparing to Beoon.

With my slide copier Pentax, I can use cut film also.

Something like this, just in place of Pentax SLR, it's Leica M + adapter.

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!

Thank you, it's embarrassing to admit but I didn't realize you can adapt lenses to the 240 (I'm clearly not a digital guy). I had kept my X Pro 1 around for adaptive options....this is pretty cool! Though live view only...

This could be a silly question: Why not just use a tripod facing down? Why a formal copy stand?

I think I'm leaning towards just considering the Plustek. If I had and liked a DSLR already I would just use that. But to get one for mostly scanning seems unnecessary/much more expensive (plus light box, stand...)

[Stuart Richardson]

You can use a tripod. It is just finicky to move up and down, and the legs can get in the way. It is also harder to keep everything completely square and parallel. A copy stand is just easier, but it is absolutely not required.

In reading your responses here, it does sound to me like your best choice is another scanner. Did you see this: http://gear.vogelius.se/-editorials/scan-comparison/index.html

It is a helpful comparison. The Plustek looks better than the V550, but not night and day. To be honest, the Frontier scans look best to me in that comparison, though they are lower resolution, but I think the author is using a lot of sharpening. I wish I had one here, and I could do a 35mm comparison between the X5, V850 and the plustek for you, just so you can see how they differ. Sadly no!

[bdolzani]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

You can use a tripod. It is just finicky to move up and down, and the legs can get in the way. It is also harder to keep everything completely square and parallel. A copy stand is just easier, but it is absolutely not required.

In reading your responses here, it does sound to me like your best choice is another scanner. Did you see this: http://gear.vogelius.se/-editorials/scan-comparison/index.html

It is a helpful comparison. The Plustek looks better than the V550, but not night and day. To be honest, the Frontier scans look best to me in that comparison, though they are lower resolution, but I think the author is using a lot of sharpening. I wish I had one here, and I could do a 35mm comparison between the X5, V850 and the plustek for you, just so you can see how they differ. Sadly no!

Ah good article indeed, I will check it out. I've seen his site before, I've enjoyed it. 

[250swb]

44 minutes ago, bdolzani said:

 

This could be a silly question: Why not just use a tripod facing down? Why a formal copy stand?

 

Because for the height you need when using a sensible macro/enlarger lens (50mm - 60mm) a small copy stand will fit on your desk and not need a bigger table to accommodate the wider spread of tripod legs, even if your tripod will go down that low. You can get such a copy stand on eBay for maybe £40, you screw your camera to it (you may need to experiment with washers to make it perfect), and then to centre it up square load a free bubble level app onto your iPhone and lay it onto the rear LCD. Don't be put off by criticisms of the stability of a cheap copy stand because it's a non-issue, yes they are rubbish if you want to be overblown about the deficits of them, but you use delayed release on your camera and don't tap your fingers on the desk during the 1/4 second exposure. So it becomes possible to sit at your PC and and scan all your best negs (but still do your contact sheets at lower resolution on your Epson).

[jackbaty]

If using a dedicated scanner is still an option, the Pacific Image XAs might be worth looking at. I don't see them talked about much. Mine arrived yesterday. I plugged it in, fired up Silverfast (it comes with a free copy), fed an uncut roll of HP5 into it and hit "Batch Scan" just to see what would happen. It scanned the entire roll without further intervention and the results looked surprisingly good. I've seen complaints about frame finding, though, so maybe I just got lucky. There are a few reviews online, most are quite positive. Anyway, it might be worth a look. I found digital camera scanning to be more hassle than it was worth, so I'm using this XAs for 35mm and an Epson v750 for larger formats.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1434257-REG/pacific_image_primefilm_xas_scanner.html

[bdolzani]

On 9/15/2021 at 2:57 AM, Ouroboros said:

For speed, particularly with b/w film, I use a Nikon D810 with a Nikkor 60mm micro lens and ES-2 film holder. I can copy a whole 36 exposure film in just a few minutes and work on the RAW files in PS. If I decide I want a better quality scan of selected individual frames, I scan these with my Imacon  scanner which gives me 6300dpi scans but takes considerably longer per scan.  

 

ETA: "I do not wish to do digital camera scans..." 

I dismissed the idea of scanning 35mm negs with a dslr for a long time but  already have a Nikon D810 and 60mm micro-nikkor that I use for work.  When Nikon announced the ES-2 adapter, I decided to try it out.  I was pleasantly surprised by the files.  The speed advantage of digitising 35mm film this way is a compelling argument in favour of dslr scanning. 

Other things to consider are the 'scan' quality from a 24mp+ dslr and a macro lens will give you far better quality files than scanning 35mm film with a consumer level Epson flatbed scanner and there will never be any connectivity or software update issues with a dslr, either! 

Hi @Ouroboros and everyone, I'm finally pulling the trigger on this setup, at least halfway. I finally tried scanning with my X-Pro1 and my 55 Micro Nikon, which I realize is only 1:2. And my ipad mini as the light using a tripod on a table (though you could see the ipad pixels, so not perfect). The process was very easy and inspired me to go a little further. I already have Neg Lab Pro too. I'm picking up a Kaiser light and better Nikon 60mm AF macro (1:1) today, as well as an M to Nikon F adapter to try using my M240. 

I've been diving deep into whether to get either a Nikon DSLR or a Fuji X-T3 to up the pixel count, but then realized maybe the M240 might be just as good (I don't really need/want another expensive digital camera for stills, however I'm looking to upgrade my digital video setup too, so that's a factor on getting a new digital with modern video...)

Is there any reason the M240 wouldn't be as good as a Nikon or Fuji with 24mp just for scanning??

thanks again

Edited October 6, 2021 by bdolzani

[a.noctilux]

For me M240 with 24Mpix is not limiting factor for 'scanning' even slow/fine grain 135 films.

I have 'scans' of Kodachrome slides with 24Mpix camera that show 'grain', so as good as can be.

Just try and see by yourself 😉.

[bdolzani]

18 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

For me M240 with 24Mpix is not limiting factor for 'scanning' even slow/fine grain 135 films.

I have 'scans' of Kodachrome slides with 24Mpix camera that show 'grain', so as good as can be.

Just try and see by yourself 😉.

I will be trying it in a few hours after a drive to B&H :-). I was thrilled they had all 3 things in stock. 

It's just that most of what you see people talking about is scanning with DSLR's or other mirrorless, not necessarily Leica digitals...

[chrism]

I've said before that I have had a couple of Pacific Image/Prime Film scanners (1850 and 3650u) before I fell deep into the scanning rabbit hole. I found them really better than expected. Didn't care overmuch for the CyberViewX app, but they both worked with Vuescan. The XA looks like they have advanced quite a bit, with the batch scanning of the whole film. If my Nikon 9000 dies I expect it would work well enough for my purposes for 35mm, and I could do MF and LF on the V850.

[frame-it]

On 10/6/2021 at 10:16 PM, bdolzani said:

Hi @Ouroboros and everyone, I'm finally pulling the trigger on this setup, at least halfway. I finally tried scanning with my X-Pro1 and my 55 Micro Nikon, which I realize is only 1:2. And my ipad mini as the light using a tripod on a table (though you could see the ipad pixels, so not perfect). The process was very easy and inspired me to go a little further. I already have Neg Lab Pro too. I'm picking up a Kaiser light and better Nikon 60mm AF macro (1:1) today, as well as an M to Nikon F adapter to try using my M240. 

I've been diving deep into whether to get either a Nikon DSLR or a Fuji X-T3 to up the pixel count, but then realized maybe the M240 might be just as good (I don't really need/want another expensive digital camera for stills, however I'm looking to upgrade my digital video setup too, so that's a factor on getting a new digital with modern video...)

Is there any reason the M240 wouldn't be as good as a Nikon or Fuji with 24mp just for scanning??

thanks again

i wouldn't go with an x-trans sensor for scanning off a lightpad.

 

[bdolzani]

12 hours ago, frame-it said:

i wouldn't go with an x-trans sensor for scanning off a lightpad.

 

I don't technically know the difference between X-trans and CMOS (though I like my Pro 1 output), but why do you say this? Definitely needs a thought completion.

Here is my first setup, so far so good it seems. I've upgraded my colored paper to cardboard for blocking the stray light.

And I just ordered a copy stand. This tripod is solid but I think I'd appreciate a dedicated stand. 

 

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 October 8, 2021 by bdolzani

[chrism]

When I saw the top of that photo as I scrolled down, my first thought was that I was looking at an engine with some new-to-me carburetor on it! That neck strap looks just like pressure hose!

[bdolzani]

31 minutes ago, chrism said:

When I saw the top of that photo as I scrolled down, my first thought was that I was looking at an engine with some new-to-me carburetor on it! That neck strap looks just like pressure hose!

Ha I know nothing about engines but I can see that...cool! 

[Doug A]

On 10/7/2021 at 8:07 PM, frame-it said:

i wouldn't go with an x-trans sensor for scanning off a lightpad.

 

Why not? At least for scanning B&W negatives the only difference between an X-Trans and Bayer sensor would seem to be the lack of an optical low-pass filter on the X-Trans which some suggest might give the X-Trans a sharpness advantage. I scan my B&W negatives with a Fuji X-T20 on a Logan fluorescent bulb light box with no issues. Looking at a white screen on an iPad with an 8X loupe clearly shows the individual pixels. Obviously it will not work for scanning with the negative in direct contact, regardless of the sensor type. 

Edited October 9, 2021 by Doug A

[Hintsalae]

On 9/15/2021 at 8:15 PM, a.noctilux said:

Brian, you can 'scan' with your M240, using liveview.

With Beoon + 50mm lens if you can find one.

Or with sort of slide holder of your choice in front of your Micro-Nikkor 55mm + 1:1 ring, F to M adapter with lighting as flash or even LED flashlight.

I must admit a bit monstrous comparing to Beoon.

With my slide copier Pentax, I can use cut film also.

Something like this, just in place of Pentax SLR, it's Leica M + adapter.

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 have this exact one as my film scanning option. With el-nikkor 50mm 2.8 and then special extra short fx-m42 adapter from ebay. Extremely fast and easy.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[George Stoichev]

On 9/15/2021 at 12:22 AM, Michael Hiles said:

Very nice indeed.

I scan my film (almost always XP2 Super) with a Canoscan 8800. It does very well, and suits my needs. These scanners get little mention and less respect, but I find mine fine and more than adequate. I recently scanned a negative on highest resolution, made adjustments in Photoshop Elements and Silver f-ex, and had a 20x30 inch print made by Ilford in the UK. The result was outstanding. It was sharp, fine grained and the tones were exactly as I saw on my screen. 100% perfect result.

For smaller prints I revert to my darkroom.

Hi,

I avoid shooting B&W because scanners can’t remove the dust on B&W film.

I thing to try XP2 (C—41), is everything OK with the infrared dust removal?

Do you like the result of using this film?