Best Dedicated Film Scanner?

[tedwhite]

I've been reading, in this department, a number of discussions regarding how to develop B/W film so it scans well, but most of these conversations revolve around using flatbed scanners. I believe scanning 35mm negs with a flatbed scanner produces an inferior product (image). Actually, I think it a waste of time.

Having said that, it would seem to me that the best way to scan B/W negs is with a dedicated film scanner. Theoretically one would get far superior results.

Which film scanner, then, might be best for B/W negs?

I'm asking the question because I haven't a clue, and if I'm going to purchase one I would very much like to get the right one the first time around.

Ted

[dmr]

Originally Posted by tedwhite

Having said that, it would seem to me that the best way to scan B/W negs is with a dedicated film scanner. Theoretically one would get far superior results.

Which film scanner, then, might be best for B/W negs?

Well, if you mostly want to do silver based B&W, the ICE feature (which some swear by and others swear at) will not do you any good, so I might suggest you consider the units that don't have it, which are generally cheaper.

If you do 35 only, the one I've been using for the past month or so is the Konica-Minolta Scan Dual IV, again some swear by it, others swear at it. The Nikon Coolscan also seems to have its fans here.

If you do MF or large, I don't have a clue as to which ones to suggest.

[jaypolaski]

I absolutely love my Plustek OptiFilm 7200! It has a max optical resolution of 7200 DPI, which generates a file somewhere in the ballpark of 150 Mb. I did some pretty intensive research into film scanners (as to me, it's a sizeable purchase) and found that this one was receiving much better reviews pretty much across the board in Europe... and I tend to trust Europes magazines more than the US who tends to hype stuff to try and sell it to you (come to think of it, I've NEVER seen a US magazine say something is garbage...but I HAVE seen it in the UK)

just my $0.02

If you're interested, they're going for $189 at tigerdirect.com

As for how well it works with film, I use mostly HP5, developed at home followng manufacturer directions, and the results are PHENOMINAL. Check my website in my signature for some examples of the work it puts out. Anything in B&W was scanned with the scanner. I usually scan at 3600 DPI (the max for the Milolta IV) and it gives me a 50 Mb .Tiff file where the detail is so fine, you can just about see each grain in the emulsion.

Hope I helped!

[tedwhite]

dmr436:

How do you "swear by it?" The KM Scan Dual IV, that is. Is that KM's newest model?

Thanks for the insight re: Ice.,

Ted

[ray_g]

I have the KM Scan Dual IV as well, Ted. I have been very satisfied with it. It delivers a lot for the price. As pointed out, the drawback would be that you are limited to 35mm.

[peter_n]

I have that scanner too Ted. Mine is currently broken, but I am still very happy with it! Excellent scanner (when it works ).

[tedwhite]

Jay, thanks. You b/w stuff looks pretty good. How does it print out? I don't know what kind of printer you've got, but if you sell prints on your website it's probably a fairly good one.

I'll read up on the Plustek.

That's a very good price compared to the Nikon, Canon, and KM products.

Ted

[dmr]

Originally Posted by tedwhite

How do you "swear by it?" The KM Scan Dual IV, that is. Is that KM's newest model?

Well, I don't really swear by it, I used the terms to mean that it seems to have its share of devoted fans as well as its share of disappointed detractors. It's really the only film scanner I've ever used, so I can't compare, but it does what I want quite well, so far at least.

[kaiyen]

If you aren't going to scan slides or c-41 print film...ever, then there really isn't a point to a scanner with ICE. I agree. Personally, though, I'd rather spend the couple hundred bucks extra to get ICE (comparing the Dimage Dual IV with the Nikon V is a difference of a few hundred, I think). Sure, that's the difference between $250 and $500.

The other thing to consider about scanning black and white is that the Minolta dimage 5400 uses a slightly more diffuse light source than the higly collimated source in the Nikons and, I think, the Dual IV. This helps a bit with reducing grain. But then you're paying for a lot of other features, too - 5400 dpi, ICE, etc.

Personally, I think a lot more is software and technique. You need the software to enable all the tools you'll need, and technique to use those tools properly.

allan

[tedwhite]

Just read some stuff about the Plustek Optifilm 7200 and I'm intrigued. They are going new for under $200. Apparently there's a newer version out, the 7200i, but I can't find much on it.

I will be scanning mostly b/w negs (have a 30k inventory) but also c41 color negs (never shoot slide film). As I have frequently in use a number of rf and slr film cameras and love the glass I am reluctant to chuck such fine performers and go digital, which of course would obviate the need for a film scanner. Actually, I find digital cameras somewhat intimidating. They lend new meaning to the oft-used term "bells and whistles."

[Beniliam]

Ted I have too the KM DS IV. For the priced Im happy. I only use for B/W. I tested the scan with color and slide films. I dont like the grain that generate for color and slide. In B/W the scanner is correct. I use the scanner for put the photos in internet or preview the negative in the computer. With C41 B/W films I use a few the scanner, but generate again more grain ... than B/W classic films. Its a good scan, I dont know much about techniques for scan very good the photos, I only use the program of Minolta, and then in PS I adjust the levels... I try use silverfast, and the other program that I dont remember... both the most popular in the world of the scans.

One advice, when I see the prints of my negatives, prints make with the traditional mode, nothing of scaning, I see that the quality of the prints are better that I saw in the monitor of my computer. When you scan, lose quality, the porcetage depends of the person that make the scan...

Good Luck

[tedwhite]

Thank you Beniliam. Can you put some of these b/w scans in your gallery?

Also, what country do you live in? It is always a pleasure to see photographs from other countries.

It is reassuring to know that, at least from your experience, scans with the KM DS IV of films such as Tri-X and Ilford come out satisfactorily.

Ted

[kaiyen]

Originally Posted by tedwhite

I will be scanning mostly b/w negs (have a 30k inventory)

If you think digital is intimidating, wait until you start figuring out how long it'll take to scan that many negatives :-).

if you're going to scan color, I still highly recommend ICE. The time you save with color makes up for the time you spend spotting and cleaning B&W. I have ICE on my Nikon IV and do mostly B&W, but the time savings on color is big for me.

allan

[JoeFriday]

I agree with allan.. I wasn't sure how much difference ICE would make.. but it only takes a couple scans with C-41 negs or color slides to make a believer out of you

[dmr]

Originally Posted by kaiyen

If you think digital is intimidating, wait until you start figuring out how long it'll take to scan that many negatives :-).

This is the main reason I'm not planning on giving up the DO/CD either at the mini-labs or the pro lab. I'm using the scanner only on those I want a good hi-res print of, or those that I don't have an electronic image of.

[StuartR]

Well you guys, I thought we were talking about the best dedicated film scanner, not the best one that people can afford! Seriously though, the top of the line consumer film scanner is probably the Imacon 949, which retails at a cool 19,995. The advantage of this sort of scanner is not just that it will scan every normal format at a true 8000 dpi, but it will do so very very fast and without really needing much image correction at all. I don't really know if it is much better than other things in its price point (let's just say over 10 grand), but I suppose you get what you pay for........

For my part, I bought a used minolta scan multi pro and think it does a great job for everything I have tried on it from 35mm to 6x9. I only wish it were quieter and faster......and did a better job with shadow detail and true color accuracy. Sadly, I think these are the things that your extra 19 grand buys you.....

[dmr]

Originally Posted by StuartR

Seriously though, the top of the line consumer film scanner is probably the Imacon 949, which retails at a cool 19,995.

That's a CONSUMER grade device?????

I guess some consumers have a much fatter pocketbook, huh?

Jeez, you can get a decent new car for that! Checking on the web there's one firm that will rent you one for $200 per day. I hate to think of spending that much on something that will become obsolete in a few years ... well, I guess cars do that, huh? Oh well ...

[StuartR]

Believe it or not, I think it is considered a consumer grade device! It is marketed at pro photographers and small businesses. It is a virtual drum scanner. The real drum scanners can be even more expensive, and are the realm of professional labs and so on. Then there are also the large multi-task machines like the fuji frontier system or some of the agfa and noritsu stuff. Obviously the 20000 dollar imacon is not marketed at the prosumer or amateur consumer market, but it is marketed to individual pros and small businesses, which is what I guest I meant by consumer grade....i.e. not industrial.

[Roman]

Well Stuart, but pro photographers and small businesses are PROFESSIONALS (like all BUSINESSES), and therefore the term CONSUMER grade does not really apply - sure, they consume stuff, but 'consumer grade' usually means non-business, non-professional, not inteded to be used as a tool to make money with, but as the end-of-the line in the chain of handing money over to other people - purely amateur stuff...
Yeah, I know, I'm nitpicking...

Roman

Oh, and BTW, my vote also goes to the KM DS IV - though I only know the results from the prevoius 'III' myself. The reviews that I read about the Plustek scanner here in Europe were not that positive, but I never saw any results from that one.

[StuartR]

Roman -- I guess I used the term incorrectly then. I just meant that it was marketed at individuals, not at industry or big labs.

[jaypolaski]

The plustek comes with it's own version of ICE, which seems to work rather well, and you can calibrate the sensitivity of it (I'm not sure if ICE does that...). The 7200 DPI will give me poster sized results that I have no compliants ablout, I print 8x12's frequently at a lab from the scan, and you can't tell the difference between them, and something directly from the film, so again, I can't complain. One other thing I like about it is the film profiles. You just dial up what film you're using, and it gives you custom tailored results. There is also a simple version that let's you do quick scans for email-ables and quick results...

Thanks for the compliment on my B&W....btw...

[DougK]

Nice work, Jay, well done!

Those are definitely some high-quality scans from the Plustek, I might have to look into one to replace my flatbed. I'm curious... on average, how much tweaking do you usually have to do with the scanner output other than for creative effect?

[jaypolaski]

In B&W, none, and if I'm the least bit curious, the scanner has it's own digital densitometer, so I can check whether parts are thinner or denser than I thought. The only tweaking I had to do was with a roll of Kodak Ultra Color 400. I couldn't find the profile for it in the menu, so I used Royal Gold 400, and tweaked saturation in Photoshop.

I've done Ilford HP5, FP4, Kodak Tri-X 400, and T-Max 400 with no tweaking. I can't wait to see hwat happens with a roll of Delta 3200...

[DougK]

Thanks Jay, I appreciate the feedback.

[jaypolaski]

Any time