View Full Version : starting my quest for a slide scanner
JoeFriday
08-17-2005, 11:36
now that I finally got some slides developed that were taken with my Contax, I'm suddenly very interested in slide scanners (gee, who'd a thought)
I'd like to find a good mid-to-upper level scanner in the $200-500 price range
I don't care about the software enhancements, as long as it has OSX drivers.. any significant clean-up or manipulation will be done manually in PS
are there any affordable firewire scanners out there? or is USB going to be adequate on my Powerbook?
suggestions/comments/donations are all welcome
I like my Nikon coolscan IV. It's "only" 2900 dpi, but that's fine for me up to 11x14 for most images (esp. slides) and it can be gotten used for pretty cheap now ($300?). It has ICE, too. I know you said you don't care about enhancements, but, trust me, you'll want ICE.
I think the Nikon V is about $500, isn't it?
allan
JoeFriday
08-17-2005, 11:58
yeah, that's about the pricing I'm seeing online, more or less
the other contender is the Minolta Dual Scan IV, which is only $230
what does ICE do?
I have had a minolta dual scan IV for about a year, and am very pleased with the output with both slides and negatives. It has a maximum resolution of 3200 dpi. I am not familiar with digital ICE, except I believe that it is incorporated in many/most newer scanners. The dual scan IV is ICE-free.
I believe that ICE cleans up dust .... I think that the Minolta Duel Scan IV has something similar but i am not sure
If you dig a bit, there is a good discussion of scanners on www.kenrockwell.com
Start here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scanner.htm
Digital Ice is a technology for removing dust specks and scratches from your scanned images. Originally it came with Nikon film scanners (Canon film scanners now have a similar technology, but with a different name). Digital Ice works with color films, not black and white.
ICE is a hardware based infrared system that can detect dust and scratches and eliminate them while it scans. This works only for slides (other than Kodachrome) and chromogenic emulsions (ie - not traditional silver-based B&W).
It isn't perfect, but putting it even on "light" settign in Vuescan eliminates about 75% of the spotting that I need to do with my scans. This means that I can spend about 5 minutes on a scan of a color neg or slide to get it into a "this is what it'll probably look like in the end" phase, where as I might spend 20-30 dealing with just the big dust spots on a b&w scan. Over time, this is a major time savings.
Note that ICE requires hardware - the Minolta Dual has a software based Dust Eliminator or Reducer or something. It isn't as good, and tends to really soften the image (IMHO).
I strongly recommend getting a scanner with ICE. I didn't think I needed it when I was first looking. I now realize I would never consider getting one without it.
allan
JoeFriday
08-17-2005, 12:28
I just read an article at Macworld online that sorta explained why ICE is so nice.. I guess it uses logarithms to determine what is missing in dust spots and scratches rather than just cloning in the pixels around it
Issy, I'll check out Rockwell's thoughts, but I have to admit that I disagree with many things he says.. he seems to think that most people are incapable of telling the difference between 'ok' and 'good', and he errs to the side of recommending 'ok' stuff
JoeFriday
08-17-2005, 12:30
I strongly recommend getting a scanner with ICE. I didn't think I needed it when I was first looking. I now realize I would never consider getting one without it.
allan
based on your comments, I think that's the direction I'm leaning now, allan.. thanks for the input
The one I just got (it's not really all mine, but I can use it as if it were -- long story) is the Konica-Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV. So far I've been happy with it. It has the "Auto Dust Brush" which gives a marginal improvement, but I find that a real dust brush and a blast of canned air is much more effective on reasonably good negatives and slides. For old grungy negatives, the Auto Dust Brush is a placebo at best. :( Most of my real old ones are B&W, so Digital Ice would not help me at all.
This one scans to the point that it resolves film grain quite well, even on Kodachrome. The image I'm currently using as a avatar is a very small portion of this image: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/4964/medium/dmr021.jpg rescanned at max resolution and blown up almost to the point of absurdity. You can see the detail of the film grain quite clearly. It was actually reduced a bit to fit the avatar size limitations.
I don't plan to replace the lab CD with this, as scanning is quite tedious, actually, but I'll use it for the stuff I want real sharp hi-res copies of. A scan at max res, 16 bit deoth, and 2x sampling seems to take almost a minute at times. It seems to vary quite a bit, with very dense negatves seeming to take longer. A full frame scan, 3200dpi, 16 bit, will be 80-some megabytes in .tif format. OUCH!
But overall, for the price, the performance is great. :) A true 300dpi image file printed on the old HP 720 printer comes out very nice, actually. :)
titrisol
08-17-2005, 13:02
I was going to suggest that one.
ICE is some sort of dust removal. Turn it off for scanning real silver negatives (Black and white)
yeah, that's about the pricing I'm seeing online, more or less
the other contender is the Minolta Dual Scan IV, which is only $230
what does ICE do?
suggestions/comments/donations are all welcome
Rockwell identifies the various options to consider. My 4870 (now the 4990) works for me. Does a great job with 35mm at 8x10, more than adequate for MF up to 20x25 + and is nice to have when scanning old stuff.
I've been thinking about the Minolta IV but can't convince myself it will be that much better or as good as the 4870 in all respects.
Wouldn't a new Coolscan be nice. :D
Decisions, decisions. :) :angel:
Just remembered this but if you decide on the Minolta check out buy.com they have an instant $15 cupon and freeshipping which makes the Duel Scan $202 when all is said and done
I've got a Minolta DiMage dual scan II for some years now and it has pleased me all the time.
Now I feel that it's time to upgrade soon and I'm looking at the Minolta DiMage Elite 5400 II. Mostly for it's speed. Minolta claims that it scans one picture in full resolution in 25 sec. All ICE and stuff turn off though. The 5400 II gets more out of a slide/neg, specially in the shadows.
If the price doesn't scare you, I think you'll be happy with this one for many years.
JoeFriday
08-17-2005, 13:48
torhan, I can't remember where I saw it, but I read a review (or maybe a personal comment) today where the 5400II didn't fare very well
chaser, thanks for the tip about buy.com.. I'll keep that in mind
Stephanie Brim
08-17-2005, 13:51
If I get a few certifications, a guy I know is thinking of giving me a job building, fixing, and networking computers. If this happens, I'm thinking of going with a Canon Canoscan 9950F flatbed scanner. I'm into medium format a bit now in addition to negatives and slides and it would just be a hell of a lot more economical for me to go with a flatbed than to try and afford one of those overly expensive 'professional' scanners. If I'm going to be low on money again, which I'm hoping not, I'll most likely end up with the 8400F. Budget constraints suck, but I do have to think about buying a car soon.
JoeFriday
08-17-2005, 14:03
hmm... Rockwell raves about how great the Epson 4990 is.. it does MF (actually, up to 8x10 film), has ICE, and firewire (which is a huge improvement over USB)
Stephanie Brim
08-17-2005, 14:04
I'll ponder that one too, methinks...but I don't shoot color all that much anymore so ICE may not really be something I desperately need.
The 4990 is a nice scanner. But it, like all flatbeds, isn't up to par on 35mm scans. You will get better sharpness and detail out of a dedicated film scanner, even after sharpening. See http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204990/Page%201.htm for a very in-depth review.
Having said that, I would absolutely buy the 4990 for MF and large format. In fact, I will be getting it soon, as a _complement_ to my Nikon film scanner. Not a replacement.
The 5400 II is supposedly _really_ slow when you turn on the ICE and whatnot. I have heard about it taking more than 10 minutes, but that information may be out of date. One thing that is nice about the 5400 is that it uses a slightly more diffuse lighting source - you will get a bit less dust and whatnot from it than a Nikon. But I'm not sure it's that much better - once I clean the neg pretty well, it's not too bad. Again, this is only applicable with b&w film, since ICE works with color film and slides.
One other thing to consider is which scanners allow you to do multi-sampling or multiple passes. You will reduce noise and potentially capture a bit more shadow detail when you do multiple passes. Technically, this is a software thing - Vuescan, for instance, allows you to do multiple passes with any scanner, and it'll handle the processing of those samples. My suggestion would be to get a scanner _and_ get Vuescan. It's a great combination.
Remember that as you go up in resolution, you will be deailng with bigger and bigger files At "only" 2900, in 16-bit, I am working with 70MB files from 35mm. Since I do 4 passes and have ICE on, it takes about 5 minutes per frame. If you go to 5400 dpi, you're looking at some giant-sized files. Make sure your computer can handle them.
allan
hmm... Rockwell raves about how great the Epson 4990 is.. it does MF (actually, up to 8x10 film), has ICE, and firewire (which is a huge improvement over USB)
I have the Canon 9950F and didn't find out until I got it home that it only does firewire with the Mac--not a PC. Still, I like the result I'm getting with it.
Stephanie Brim
08-17-2005, 14:57
Mmm...I love being a Mac user. :D
Mmm...I love being a Mac user. :D
If you don't mind buying new software every time they introduce a new maching up change the OS it's great. Used a Mac at work for a long time but finally shifted to PC because of the constant changes and the expense. Mac would be dead now if it wasn't for the IPOD
Joe, here's a slide that I took on AgfaChrome more than 20 years ago when I was in England. I scanned it at 2400 dpi on my Epson 4180 and reduced it to 100 dpi. It's something to compare.
Walker
JoeFriday
08-17-2005, 19:17
ok, now that I'm back home from an emergency my dad was having with Windows XP.. had to reinstall all the printers/scanner/etc.. funny how I never have to do anything like that with my Mac ;)
very nice scan, Walker.. at this point I'm pretty sure I'll order an Epson 4990 flatbed.. totally not what I was originally planning, but I can scan just about anything on it.. and if I want to get a better scan from film or slides, my brother has a dedicated slide scanner.. this way we'll have all the bases covered (especially MF)
...at this point I'm pretty sure I'll order an Epson 4990 flatbed.. totally not what I was originally planning, but I can scan just about anything on it.. and if I want to get a better scan from film or slides, my brother has a dedicated slide scanner.. this way we'll have all the bases covered (especially MF)
Joe, that sounds like a good choice and still well below your maximum limit. I see some more GAS in your future! :D
Walker
I have the Dual Scan IV and 9950 F and am satisfied with both. The 9950 F is an excellent scanner but the software bundle that comes with it is on the thin side. This is how I came to buy the 9950 F. I have a 40 something year old Rollei Magic with a Xenar f 3.5 80 mm lens. The focusing lens is completely out of kilter and the shutter only works at 1/500th of a second due to some damage many years ago. I hadn't used it in about 40 years. I decided to take some pictures using the 4.5 x 6 mask (an advantage in that is really dual format) of some scenes of Warrensburg from the same locations of some historic shots taken ca. 1890. I was under the impression that the taking lens could be used with good results using scale focusing. Having taken the shots I wanted, I shot shot the remaining frame, a street with beautiful large trees on both sides. I had the film (Fuji Reala 100) developed and printed by Kodak Perfect Touch. I noticed that at the left hand side of the last shot there was a small billboard that I would have eliminated had I noticed it when taking the shot. On the print from Kodak I could not read the billboard. Checking the negative the billboard was legible. Perfect Touch my a**. In a huff I went out and bought the 9950 F. It was easy to set up and I scanned the aforementioned negative at the maximum resolution of 4800 ppi. On my computer screen the billboard was perfectly legible, an advert for some local acreage. Glossy paper should yield a clearer image than a computer screen. I recommend the 9950 F for MF, I haven't tried it with 35mm although I have heard that is is OK. I read somewhere that it was equally good at 3200 ppi and that the much cheaper CanoScan 8200 was just as good scanning film at its limit of 3200 ppi.
Good luck with whatever you buy.
Kurt M.
I briefly owned two (in a row) 5400II Minoltas. The initial one actually worked for a few scans.
The only positive thing I can say is that mine really did produce 4 fine scans before it failed totally...with Ice each scan took approx 2.5 minutes. I don't recall but that was probably maximum fine, nominal 5400ppi. My Nikon V produced equally good scans from the same film at 4000ppi, printed to 11"...one online test reported Minolta's 5400ppi resolved identically to Nikon's 4000ppi.
Speaking purely dispassionately and technically, the Minolta is stinking trash (look inside...ecch) and I'd never buy anything with the Konica or Minolta brand on it again. My Nikon V is a Nikon...it works exactly the way you'd want.
JoeFriday
08-25-2005, 07:22
having read many reviews online, I've come to that same general conclusion.. looks like there will be a Nikon scanner being delivered to Sheboygan in the near future
Incidentally, I've never heard it said that Firewire was superior to USB2. Certainly USB 2 is very fast and troublefree.
Note that G5 is reportedly having trouble with CS2, some scanners, and some printers. This is reportedly the reason Mac is going to Intel chips, not counting on its patches. I gather G4 is reliable by comparison. < schadenfreude from a PC user :cool:
having read many reviews online, I've come to that same general conclusion.. looks like there will be a Nikon scanner being delivered to Sheboygan in the near future
I've been very happy with my Minolta (now Konica-Minolta) Scan Elite II - I've lusted after a Nikon 8000/9000 series but I haven't been shooting much MF as of late; and.... I've been lucky enough to rent/use the Imacon 828 Flextight scanner and now, I've been spoiled... I can't go back.. I WON'T go back ;)
Cheers
Dave
JoeFriday
08-25-2005, 08:14
considering it takes about the same amount of time for firewire to transfer all my songs to my iPod (20gb) as it takes my USB reader to transfer 512mb of digital photos.. yeah, firewire is MUCH faster
considering it takes about the same amount of time for firewire to transfer all my songs to my iPod (20gb) as it takes my USB reader to transfer 512mb of digital photos.. yeah, firewire is MUCH faster
http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm
Comparison shows that FireWire is faster than USB 2.0 (FireWire 800 is even "more faster" - nice English huh.. - than USB 2.0)
Cheers
Dave
I just thought I would throw this into the mix.
Food for thought (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14061&highlight=plustek+scanner)
edit: sorry I missed the osx part of the post, Ill go to bed now.
yeah, that's about the pricing I'm seeing online, more or less
the other contender is the Minolta Dual Scan IV, which is only $230
what does ICE do?
Stay away from this one! If it works perfectly it produces very good results, but 90% of the time it makes nasty stripes to the images. Minoltas own software is totally useless --- you would need to buy Vuescan software too. The scanner is everything but rugged in every possible way - I had my scanner repaired only about 2 weeks after I bought it (new) and the meachanism that moves the filmholder has giving me trouble all the time I've had that...It freezess and makes a helluva noise and the only thing that helps in that situation is to take the powersupply cord off. And day before warranty expired - it freezed totally, nothing works! Luckily I did manage to get it to the dealer in time and it will be reapaired within warranty.
My next scanner will be a Nikon film scanner or some "better" flatbed. No Konica Minolta for me anymore.
Nikon Bob
08-29-2005, 06:39
The only dedicated film scanner that I have experience with is the original Minolta 5400 and the only drawback is the long scan times with ICE etc on. As has been said before, if you go for one of these high rez scanners be sure your PC is up to it. You will be creating 16 bit colour file sizes in the 220 MB area. Seems lots of RAM is important to keep things moving along.
Bob
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.