Jump to content

Scanner for 35mm


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Happy user of Nikon Coolscan V ED since 2007. Still use two of these. They are slow but suit my need.   One of my first scans of Kodachrome, 2007 here it was a very difficult job, but results were correct after long learning curve   Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! slide from R6, Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R 100, in Mauritius 'jungle'

If it helps, a scanner is a digital camera...it is just one with a single line of pixels that it reads as the sensor is moved, rather than one with many rows of pixels read at more or less the same time. The signal processing in cameras and with programs like Lightroom are much more advanced than any scanning software, and most people already have a DSLR, which is why people tend to gravitate it. There has been almost no development in scanners for 15 or 20 years...the only newer scanners are th

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

Posted Images

1 hour ago, George Stoichev said:

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?

Yes, infrared dust removal works with XP2. I used XP2 until the only two local places that processed C41 films shut down. The delay and expense of sending the film away for processing were too much for me. I switched to conventional B&W film and have not regretted doing so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pop said:

Can't you scan your B/W film as a color negative and discard the color in post?

The issue is not color vs B/W. The issue is dye clouds in C41 films vs.physical silver grain in conventional B/W films. Infrared dust and scratch removal works with the former, not with the latter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Doug A said:

Yes, infrared dust removal works with XP2. I used XP2 until the only two local places that processed C41 films shut down. The delay and expense of sending the film away for processing were too much for me. I switched to conventional B&W film and have not regretted doing so. 

And you can develop XP2 in conventional B&W developers quite easily and successfully...

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, chrism said:

And you can develop XP2 in conventional B&W developers quite easily and successfully...

Yes, but the resulting images are made of physical silver grain, not (monochromatic) dye clouds. So infrared dust and scratch removal does not work.And XP2 costs a _lot_ more than the Foma films I am using these days. 

Edited by Doug A
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, George Stoichev said:

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?

The image in an XP2 negative is made up of dyes (like a C41 colour negative). Since there is no silver in the processed negative, the problem against using dust removal processes is eliminated. Ie. The dust removal process works beautifully with XP2. Just like a colour negative.

On other fronts, the film is very fine grained and very sharp. The separation in the mid tone is excellent, and it is hard to blow out highlights. So, you can expose for rich shadows and the highlights will be also rich in details. The technical results are quite comparable with a 400 ASA 120 film. XP2 is the best film I have used in years. I have had 30x45 inch prints that are terrific by any standards.

Ilford say you can expose at 50 – 800 ASA – in my experience the optimum is 200 ASA (rich shadows that scan and print beautifully). I have seen documentation where Ilford seems also to favour 200 ASA as optimum.

It is also possible to develop this film in B&W chemistry (see CHRISM on this forum). This works well, but I still like the film processed in C41. HC110 is a good choice if you want to use conventional B&W chemistry.

Give a few rolls a try – I think you should be pleased.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Michael Hiles said:

The image in an XP2 negative is made up of dyes (like a C41 colour negative). Since there is no silver in the processed negative, the problem against using dust removal processes is eliminated. Ie. The dust removal process works beautifully with XP2. Just like a colour negative.

On other fronts, the film is very fine grained and very sharp. The separation in the mid tone is excellent, and it is hard to blow out highlights. So, you can expose for rich shadows and the highlights will be also rich in details. The technical results are quite comparable with a 400 ASA 120 film. XP2 is the best film I have used in years. I have had 30x45 inch prints that are terrific by any standards.

Ilford say you can expose at 50 – 800 ASA – in my experience the optimum is 200 ASA (rich shadows that scan and print beautifully). I have seen documentation where Ilford seems also to favour 200 ASA as optimum.

It is also possible to develop this film in B&W chemistry (see CHRISM on this forum). This works well, but I still like the film processed in C41. HC110 is a good choice if you want to use conventional B&W chemistry.

Give a few rolls a try – I think you should be pleased.

Hello Michael,

Just out of curiosity, what do the little boxes on the side of the film cartridge say that the film speed is?
Best Regards,

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys 

I'm considering buying the Plustek 8200i Ai .  Before starting a new thread (considering there are already 2 scanning thread in the first page!) I thought I'd ask here if anyone has one and recommends it .  From what I see so far:

Pros:

  • Price is good (although I have budget for more if results are much better) 
  • Generally people seem very happy with the quality 
  • Small and tidy, specifically designed for 35mm (which is what I will be scanning) 


Cons:

  • No batch scanning 
  • Many more I don't know of, perhaps 

    I'm very new to this - please let me know of any feedback on this model.  I've had a ready through the relevant threads also and see there's a wealth of general info and tutorial videos that have been posted on scanning , so I can get to those in due course  

    I'm looking to use with Vuescan  

thanks 

Edited by grahamc
Link to post
Share on other sites

You might also look at reviews on the Prime Film XA, which is the other 35mm scanner available new. I haven't owned it or a Plustek, so I can't say which is the better choice. For what it's worth, the owners of the Prime Film seem very happy, but owners of Plusteks say that QC is hit and miss and you have to get a good example to see what it can really do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, grahamc said:

Hi Guys 

I'm considering buying the Plustek 8200i Ai .  Before starting a new thread (considering there are already 2 scanning thread in the first page!) I thought I'd ask here if anyone has one and recommends it .  From what I see so far:

Pros:

  • Price is good (although I have budget for more if results are much better) 
  • Generally people seem very happy with the quality 
  • Small and tidy, specifically designed for 35mm (which is what I will be scanning) 


Cons:

  • No batch scanning 
  • Many more I don't know of, perhaps 

    I'm very new to this - please let me know of any feedback on this model.  I've had a ready through the relevant threads also and see there's a wealth of general info and tutorial videos that have been posted on scanning , so I can get to those in due course  

    I'm looking to use with Vuescan  

thanks 

Hey there, yes this has been a helpful thread. I've decided on trying the camera scan approach, and I love it so far. I just bought a copy stand as well to formalize my process. 

From what I gather, the Plustek and XA are both good machines for the dedicated 35mm scanner process. I was just swayed by the fact/thought that cameras are always improving and mp's getting larger, and scanner technology is not something that's quickly improving. I'm still keeping my V550 for my medium format scanning, though I may try camera scanning those negs as well, perhaps stitching...tho that seems cumbersome. 

I have heard, and maybe it's this thread, that those 35mm scanners are incredibly slow. And camera scanning is incredibly fast. 

good luck and hope this thread helps! 

brian 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello Michael,

Just out of curiosity, what do the little boxes on the side of the film cartridge say that the film speed is?
Best Regards,

Michael

Hi Michael,

The codes from 1-6 go WWWBBW which I think means 250 asa. That – if I understand correctly – is what Ilford is telling automatic cameras. My source for my 200 ASA remark is based on an Ilford document in French that I was given a few years ago. I could send it along if you or anyone is interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, grahamc said:

Hi Guys 

I'm considering buying the Plustek 8200i Ai .  Before starting a new thread (considering there are already 2 scanning thread in the first page!) I thought I'd ask here if anyone has one and recommends it .  From what I see so far:

Pros:

  • Price is good (although I have budget for more if results are much better) 
  • Generally people seem very happy with the quality 
  • Small and tidy, specifically designed for 35mm (which is what I will be scanning) 


Cons:

  • No batch scanning 
  • Many more I don't know of, perhaps 

    I'm very new to this - please let me know of any feedback on this model.  I've had a ready through the relevant threads also and see there's a wealth of general info and tutorial videos that have been posted on scanning , so I can get to those in due course  

    I'm looking to use with Vuescan  

thanks 

Hi,

I bought Plustek 8200 Ai (the most expensive version) a year ago.

The quality of the scann is much better than Epson 850V.Honestly this is the best scanner you can buy today brand new!

!!! Don’t buy 8200 Ai version !!!

The price of this version is more expensive because of the higher version of SilverFast software coming with it.I decided not to save money, but to have better version, but few days ago I sent it back to amazon.

Buy cheaper version of Plustek (not Ai), the hardware is absolutely the same + buy Vuescan  !!! The quality of the images I obtain with Vuescan has nothing in common with even higher version of SilverFast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, George Stoichev said:

Hi,

I bought Plustek 8200 Ai (the most expensive version) a year ago.

The quality of the scann is much better than Epson 850V.Honestly this is the best scanner you can buy today brand new!

!!! Don’t buy 8200 Ai version !!!

The price of this version is more expensive because of the higher version of SilverFast software coming with it.I decided not to save money, but to have better version, but few days ago I sent it back to amazon.

Buy cheaper version of Plustek (not Ai), the hardware is absolutely the same + buy Vuescan  !!! The quality of the images I obtain with Vuescan has nothing in common with even higher version of SilverFast.

I do prefer Vuescan with my V550. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, George Stoichev said:

Hi,

I bought Plustek 8200 Ai (the most expensive version) a year ago.

The quality of the scann is much better than Epson 850V.Honestly this is the best scanner you can buy today brand new!

!!! Don’t buy 8200 Ai version !!!

The price of this version is more expensive because of the higher version of SilverFast software coming with it.I decided not to save money, but to have better version, but few days ago I sent it back to amazon.

Buy cheaper version of Plustek (not Ai), the hardware is absolutely the same + buy Vuescan  !!! The quality of the images I obtain with Vuescan has nothing in common with even higher version of SilverFast.

Oh great thanks. Actually my local store only has the standard 8200i anyway so this could work. Actually I thought there was some advantage with regards dust removal in the Ai version - or is that controlled by the software, perhaps ? 
 

I’m new to this so can’t remember exactly just remember something dust related being discussed .  Thanks again! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Hiles said:

Hi Michael,

The codes from 1-6 go WWWBBW which I think means 250 asa. That – if I understand correctly – is what Ilford is telling automatic cameras. My source for my 200 ASA remark is based on an Ilford document in French that I was given a few years ago. I could send it along if you or anyone is interested.

Hello Michael,

The first number (1) is actually always W (White) because it is an electrical connecting point

Like the number (7) below it. Also W (White). This from the numbers 7 thru 12 below 1 thru 6.

With the little "nubbin" sticking out always put to your left.

So the film code for the film speed on the box is the 5 letter code WWBBW which you correctly identified as ISO250/25.

I forgot to ask for the lower line of 7 thru 12 because they are the letters that tell you the actual speed of the film in that individual cartridge & how many exposures are in the roll in that individual cartridge.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

Edited by Michael Geschlecht
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello Michael,

The first number (1) is actually always W (White) because it is an electrical connecting point

Like the number (7) below it. Also W (White). This from the numbers 7 thru 12 below 1 thru 6.

With the little "nubbin" sticking out always put to your left.

So the film code for the film speed on the box is the 5 letter code WWBBW which you correctly identified as ISO250/25.

I forgot to ask for the lower line of 7 thru 12 because they are the letters that tell you the actual speed of the film in that individual cartridge & how many exposures are in the roll in that individual cartridge.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

Hi Michael,

I just realized that I mislead you. I had the cassette up-side-down. The 1-6 code is WBBWWB (I.E. 400ASA).

The lower codes 7-12 is WBBWWW.

Apologies for the confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hiles said:

Hi Michael,

I just realized that I mislead you. I had the cassette up-side-down. The 1-6 code is WBBWWB (I.E. 400ASA).

The lower codes 7-12 is WBBWWW.

Apologies for the confusion.

Hello Michael,

New translation:

1 = electrical contact, always "W".

2 - 6 = BBWWB = "The speed written on the box is ISO400/27"

7 = electrical contact, always " W"

8 - 10 = BBW = "This is a 36 exposure roll"

11 + 12 = WW = "When this film is developed as per instructions for development at the speed written on the box: The actual speed of this film is ISO200/24. It has a latitude of +/- 2 stops.

Best Regards,

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

I certainly do. It is what I have been referring to in the last few days.  I should be precise - I scanned it some years ago, and I have been looking at the PDF file. I have not looked at the paper version in some time.

Edited by Michael Hiles
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...