1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Scanner choices?

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by KierFX, Mar 4, 2017.

  1. KierFX

    KierFX Well-Known Member

    Hi guys

    I'm looking to invest in a scanner for my negatives. I mostly shoot medium format but I will need to be able to scan 35mm on occasion and sometimes 4x5 too. My budgets around £200 and i'm willing to buy used or new. What would be my best option? Since I need to scan a variety of formats, would a flatbed be my best choice? The Epson Coolscan series look nice, but can only do 35mm and need a SCSI card - I need to be able to scan to my macbook, or direct to a CF card (like the Epson F-2000)

    Thanks guys
    Kier
     
  2. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    I've got a Canon 9000F II, does 35mm and MF.

    Possibly not the best, but it works for me and it's all I can afford anyway.

    S
     
  3. KierFX

    KierFX Well-Known Member

    Are you happy with the results? What DPI do you scan at? Can I be rude and ask what you payed for it?

    Kier
     
  4. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    1] I have to be, all I can afford. But yes, it's fine for me. Have a look in the Relic challenge for some scans.

    2] 4800 if I'm not doing much until next Christmas, usually 2400.

    3] I used to be a psy nurse - rudeness is when someone is hitting me. Can't remember what I paid, Park Cameras have them for £179.

    S
     
  5. KierFX

    KierFX Well-Known Member

    2400 seems to be what most people scan with. At college a few weeks ago I was scanning with their epson v750, stupid me assumed more is better so I scanned at 9600dpi - no wonder it took all morning.

    I'll take a look at the relic challenge now.

    Kier
     
  6. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    2400 is fine, even for 35mm, you are not going to see any marked improvement at a higher figure, in reality you could find it worse, grain is a limiting factor. I have scanned a few 645 negatives using an Epson V500, it does a good enough job, but I use a Nikon Coolscan IV for 35mm. A friend has a Nikon Coolscan 8000 which handles medium format, I have scanned a few 645 transparencies with it, it is stunning, but a reasonable flatbed is good enough for mono.
     
  7. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    Epsom Perfection 4990 Photo A4 flatbed. Usually scan at 2400 which is good enough for me. Can't remember what I paid for it - too long ago.
     
  8. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    If you select a model which scans 120 you can cover a 4x5 in two passes and stitch. Not the most convenient for sure, but 4x5 scanners can be a lot more expensive than even a decent 120 scanner.
     
  9. Doug Fisher

    Doug Fisher Member

    A used Epson V750 is probably the best compromise given your budget and all the formats you want to scan.

    Doug
     
  10. Malcolm_Stewart

    Malcolm_Stewart Well-Known Member

    Sorry for the late response...
    I've been using an Epson Perfection 4870 PHOTO for many years - it uses the USB port. I bought it when I was shooting some 4x5 and it will do two 4x5s at the same time, as well as having frames for 4 x 6 expos 35mm film strips, 8 2x2 slides, and 3 120 film strips. Epson has updated the drivers and mine works OK on a Win10 desktop. (As well as under Vuescan.) No longer available new, but I've seen them offered on ebay - make sure you get the frames.
    I'm impressed that the plastic frames, even the most used are still working OK after many thousands of openings and closings.
     
  11. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Grain is certainly NOT a limiting factor when increasing scanning resolution, that's a myth developed from the so-called "pepper grain" effect on some Fuji films especially Velvia, where a grain-like pattern appeared when scanning at higher resolutions - it was actually particles in the film base that scattered light and could be reduced by the use of a diffuser. Quite the opposite with most films, though; grain aliasing (which is the real issue) is reduced by scanning at a higher resolution. I can't speak for the scanner in question, but my Minolta Multi Pro extracts significantly more info from 35mm by scanning at 4800 samples per inch than at 2400.
     
  12. Beverley

    Beverley Member

    Hello All,

    Just reading this forum for the first time. I am responsible for the marketing of VueScan ( and am in the UK). If you have any questions about scanners or scanning in general I am happy to talk with Ed Hamrick (developer of VueScan) and see if we can help. We are always being asked for advice on what scanner to buy etc. Many thanks,
     
  13. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    Hi Beverley, praise for your product - it works with Ubuntu! :)
     
    Beverley likes this.
  14. Beverley

    Beverley Member

    Thanks - also works with over 3200 scanners!! A lot of customers in the UK as well.
     
  15. swanseadave

    swanseadave Well-Known Member

    Welcome Beverly from one satisfied customer.Vuescan is a brilliant piece of software.
     
    Beverley likes this.
  16. Beverley

    Beverley Member

    Thank you. I am here in the UK - so if you have any requests / feedback let me know. We release regular updates - and they are either adding on new scanners to support or customer requests for certain features. Very interested in improving VueScan for mass photo scanning at the moment - worked on some new features but any commens would be appreciated.
     
  17. Benchmark

    Benchmark Well-Known Member

    Sorry to be late to the party, but:

    We have two legacy film scanners; a Minolta Dimage 5400 Mk II, and a Nikon LS 9000 ED.

    The problem with both of these is that software support stopped some time ago, and it was impossible to get either to work reliably on my current x64 machines.

    I did try Vuescan, and also Silverfast, but for reasons that I cannot recall decided against them. (I seem to remember the Minolta wasn't properly supported, or required a second subscription). It was also difficult to assess the quality of scanned images from the trial software owing to the intense watermarks!

    (If Beverley is listening, a time limited trial would be much better in my view.)

    Anyhow, to cut a log story short we decided the best option was to use a legacy computer for scanning. A Mac would have been ideal, but it was difficult to find one of the correct age and with the correct OS installed. Any update to the OS would render the exercise pointless. However, I had a spare Small Form Factor PC that would happily run Windows 7 32 bit and could be fitted with a Firewire card to run the Nikon.

    This has a small (128 GB) SSD fitted for speed, and 8 GB of RAM (only 4 GB is seen), but other than Kaspersky has no other software installed.

    Rather than fitting expensive graphics cards and using separate keyboards and mice, etc. we have this set up as a 'Remote Desktop' machine. That way we can access the scanning machine from any of the PCs' on our small network, and it can be left to get on with the slow process of scanning whilst doing other things. *.NEF files from the Nikon are copied onto the network server or local machines so they can easily be edited in PS.

    If you have an older scanner and a spare PC this is a good use for them.
     
  18. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Vuescan never needs another subscription for different scanners, unlike Silverfast, and certainly supports my Minolta Multi Pro perfectly well on my 64 bit Windows system. Given the file sizes, I wouldn't want to use a 32 bit system to scan with, to be honest - my scanning machine has 16 GB, which makes a difference!
     
    Benchmark likes this.
  19. Benchmark

    Benchmark Well-Known Member

    Hi Nick,
    By choice I would far rather have used a 64 bit system, but the original software was written for 32 bit, and actually works a lot better than I expected!

    Scanning 645 and 6 x 7 transparencies at 4,000 dpi has not created any problems so far, even though the files are huge.

    I haven't ruled out trying Vuescan again (Silverfast is far too expensive), but it was a case of doing what we could with what we had at the time.

    I see Vuescan now fully supports the Dimage 5400 II scanner on Windows, but I don't think it did when we set this up.
     
  20. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    It would be very hard to find a scanner that Vuescan does not support.
    It even supports my old Minolta dualscan ll. and would even support my original Dualscan which had a scsi connection, If I still had it. What i Find interesting is that it does a better job now than when the scanner was new.
    What I like about Vuescan pro is that all upgrades are free. Unlike many other programs that keep coming back to bite you. and it does not matter what medium you want to scan it can do it, and almost always better and faster than the native software. I don't even bother loading native drivers now.
     
    Benchmark likes this.

Share This Page