Flat bed Scanner for Negatives

[alexw]

The Nikon Coolscan 5000 has an adapter that will take a roll of 35mm film. This isn't available for the Coolscan V.

 

[nomed]

Saras, I have also been looking for a good quality scanner and have been considering two Epson models - the 2450 and the 3200. Can you tell me what options are available in terms of third-party holders for medium format? I have been using a Minolta Scan Dual III for 35mm and results have been good - even though the process is very slow. Thanks. Rob

 

[spluff]

Hi Rob,

I've come across a number of systems that may be helpful.

For negatives this looks the best - although I haven't used it myself.

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Edougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html

Then there is a German system recommended by Silvfast:

http://www.diacover.de/

However, this system seems geared for slides and relies on using their slide mounts.

And then there is the DIY option!! I mainly scan mounted slides and found that I could adapt a Kenro product. It's a card about 0.5 cm thick and A4 size whicxh has 6 slots for 6x4.5 slides. You can slide the slide into these slots - they are a firm fit and hold the slide steady and at an acceptable height about the scanning glass (ie. I haven't had any problems with unfocused slides). The card cost me about £6 - which is not a lot compared to the other systems - and of course it is usable and durable. Now, what Kenro product is it? Unfortunatly, I don't have the reference number to hand - but if you are interested, I'll dig it out for you. Please note I am not refering to the black masks they make - I tried using them but couldn't get it to work.

Hope that has been of some help.

Cheers, Saras

PS To all that use flat-bed scanners - do not discount the problem of dust - using a dedicated film scanner is a lot easier in that respective!!

 

[raj]

There are two models of Pacific Image Electronic which does a full roll at a time Primefilm 3650u Pro and one for mounted slides PowerSlide 3600.

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/product.php

 

[rfranca]

Hi,
I have been using a canon fs4000 film scanner for over a year now, scanning raw files with vuescan and then editing the developed image in photoshop.
having recently compared a 35mm slide scan with that of an epson 4870 i must say that i was fairly disapointed: the epson does deliver a bigger file but detail and sharpness is much lower than that of the canon.
I would only buy it for scanning prints or medium and large format.
I haven't compared my scanner with the minolta 5400 nor the nikon 5000, but i'm sure these newer models will be faster and deliver less shadow noise than the canon...
I had a minolta scan dual and the canon was a big stepup from that... The recent version should be the choice for low budgets, though.
Regards,
Ricardo

 

[aader]

The optics on film scanners are optimized for a
much smaller area than is the case for a flatbed.
So if quality is paramount, I would opt for the first- if cost and versatility matter more, a flatbed is the way to go (especially for medium format).

Regards

Andrei

 

[coyot]

I'm about to purchase an Epson 4870 flatbed scanner for medium format scans. Any comments? Is it worth the extra 200 bucks for the pro version with the ICE software? Can anybody recommend a better scanner for less dollars?

Thanks in advance.

Michael.

 

[fotografz]

Hi Michael.

The Epson 4870 Photo (not Pro) comes with ICE. The difference is the other so called "Pro" software, which is grossly over-priced. Just get the regular one and spend the difference on film or View-Scan.

Note that the 4870 has a D-Max of 3.8, and the new 4990 has a 4.0 D-Max, for not much more $. Check it out at the Epson site www.epson.com (where I think they are running a sale right now!)

I've been using the 4870 for a year now and the Hassey shots scan wonderfully.

 

[coyot]

> Marc,

Great info.

Thanks,

Michael.

 

[med007]

> Don't be influenced by the reported Optical Density capabilities of > any consumer, prosumer or even most professional scanners. The figures > are deceiving and silly. They merely represent the theoretical > capability based on the factory specs of the A to D convertors the > happen to use! Generally speaking, the D Max is more likely to be 3.2 or so. If it were indeed 4.0 it would be worth 4,000 and would carry a spec sheet and certification traceable to the National bureau of standards like other finely calibrated supersensitive instruments.

Still you should read the reviews on the scanners and they are good.

See photo-i.co.uk

asher