 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / February 2005Flatbed scanner for MF
I'm considering buying a flatbed scanner for negatives up to 6x9. I caertainly can't afford a real MF filmscanner. My question is whether the quality of the new flatbeds is now good: A couple of years ago the consensus was that flatbed scans (I think it on an Epson 3220) with MF negs didn't reach the quality of 35mm scanned on a good film scanner. That of course makes scanning MF a useless excercise! So advice and opinions please: Are the current crop of flatbeds able to do justice to MF film? Thanks! Chris >I'm considering buying a flatbed scanner for negatives up to 6x9. I >caertainly can't afford a real MF filmscanner. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >So advice and opinions please: Are the current crop of flatbeds able to >do justice to MF film? Justice? Maybe not. But maybe good enough. From all I can tell the Epson 4870/4990 yields somewhere around 2000-2500 "real" lines per inch on film. This is a little bit behind the "best" CCD film scanners from four years ago. It is considerably behind the best current CCD film scanners. The Epson 4870 is a good value, if you consider its limitations. A used or new Nikon LS-8000/9000 will cost a lot more, but will do better "justice" to your film. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com It all depends on your definition of "justice." :) FWIW, there has been a slight increase in performance from the 3200 to the 4870/4990 but not the amount one would expect if you just went by the increase in claimed dpi numbers. Google for some reviews on these scanners. There are plenty around on the net that show comparison images. Decent results can be obtained with flatbeds if you have good scanning and Photoshop skills (especially Unsharp masking skills). Depending on your budget, you could also try to find a used dedicated film scanner that is a generation or so old. Doug  SignatureDoug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format film: http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html > I'm considering buying a flatbed scanner for negatives up to 6x9. I > caertainly can't afford a real MF filmscanner. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Chris I did pick up a factory demo Nikon 8000ED on ebay for $1000. It's a lot, more than the flatbed, not as versatile, but it kick's a.s at scanning medium format film! And, it's really only twice the price of the latest epson flatbed. Just something to think about. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > I'm considering buying a flatbed scanner for negatives up to 6x9. I > caertainly can't afford a real MF filmscanner. What end use do you wish to make of those scans? > My question is whether the quality of the new flatbeds is now good: A > couple of years ago the consensus was that flatbed scans (I think it on > an Epson 3220) with MF negs didn't reach the quality of 35mm scanned on > a good film scanner. That of course makes scanning MF a useless excercise! On some scanners, that may be true. There have been some good flatbed scanners, though the best are more expensive than some of the CCD medium format film scanners on the market (creo iQSmart is one example). Resolution is only one issue, and dynamic range can often be a bigger issue with quality. One problem is that many manufacturers overstate capabilities, and that there is not real one standard to express dynamic range. Software to handle the scanning can also make a huge difference. > So advice and opinions please: Are the current crop of flatbeds able to > do justice to MF film? Some, though careful shopping is in order. There are some things that can greatly help. The current best scanning software on the market is SilverFast Ai, but few scanners come with that, and it is not cheap when purchased separately. Depending upon what you want to do with your final scans, you might get away with the software included with the scanner, or make use of VueScan. Another trick is using drum scanning oil on your flatbed scanner. This can greatly enhance the contrast, colour, and apparent resolution on nearly any flat scanner. The downsides are that it takes a bit longer, and some clean up is involved. When looking for flatbed scanners, it helps to find one that can be manually focused. Scans can often be improved by changing the settings slightly away from what the autofocus suggests. This is also important if you want to try the drum scan oil trick. Please feel free to ask more questions. There are some good used scanners on the market, though it is more important to only buy those when all software and accessories are included. A new scanner gets you a warranty, and maybe some support, so budget carefully. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >> I'm considering buying a flatbed scanner for negatives up to 6x9. I >> caertainly can't afford a real MF filmscanner. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >might get away with the software included with the scanner, or make use of >VueScan. Silverfast? Bah humbug. Been there, done that. I'd hardly posit this as useful criteria for choosing a scanner. Yes, a good scanner driver is important, but Silverfast isn't (IMO) the best example of that. FWIW, I think the Epson flatbeds (eg 4870, 4990) come with Silverfast. >Another trick is using drum scanning oil on your flatbed scanner. This can >greatly enhance the contrast, colour, and apparent resolution on nearly any >flat scanner. The downsides are that it takes a bit longer, and some clean up >is involved. Never seen any evidence of this, particulary not the "apparent resolution" bit. In fact, here's some evidence that it makes very little difference, even on a Tango drum scanner: <http://homepage.mac.com/anton/NikonTango/OilDry.jpg> I believe wet mounting can help with uniformity of focus, so yes, in that regard it might improve sharpness. >When looking for flatbed scanners, it helps to find one that can be manually >focused. Scans can often be improved by changing the settings slightly away >from what the autofocus suggests. This is also important if you want to try >the drum scan oil trick. Manual focus on a flatbed? I've never seen it. Maybe on Scitex, but that's super-high-end stuff. My ArtixScan 2500 used to be very high-end, and it doesn't have manual focus either. I do have manual focus (or auto) on my LS-8000, but it's a dedicated film scanner, not flatbed. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > >> I'm considering buying a flatbed scanner for negatives up to 6x9. I > >> caertainly can't afford a real MF filmscanner. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > is important, but Silverfast isn't (IMO) the best > example of that. I think creo oXYgen scan is the best example, but it only works with their scanners. Where you thinking of something else, or are you a bigger proponent of VueScan? > FWIW, I think the Epson flatbeds > (eg 4870, 4990) come with Silverfast. The Epson Expression series usually come with SilverFast Ai. I think some of the Epson Perfection Photo series come with SilverFast SE, though an upgrade to Ai is not too much more. > >Another trick is using drum scanning oil on your flatbed scanner. This can > >greatly enhance the contrast, colour, and apparent resolution on nearly any [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > <http://homepage.mac.com/anton/NikonTango/OilDry.jpg> Given enough time, almost anyone can find an example to the opposite of anything. Without knowing more background, I have no way to know if this was bad scanning technique, a limitation of this particular scanner, or the limits reached on that particular piece of film. Kai Hamann has written a few articles about scanning, including use of oil, changes in aperture on drum scanners, and other issues in scanning. There was also an article in Reponses Photo barely two years ago about using drum scanning oil in CCD film scanners, and on flat bed scanners. Unfortunately, scanning is a skill, and there is no "magic bullet" that will make all scans reach their maximum potential always. > I believe wet mounting can help with uniformity > of focus, so yes, in that regard it might improve > sharpness. I think "apparent resolution" is a better term than "sharpness", though these might be somewhat interchangeable. My feeling is that anything that helps might be worth the improvement. That does not mean it is an absolute, nor that this should be done with all images, nor all the time. There are benefits to doing things quickly, and printing technique can often dictate more of a limit than the scan. > >When looking for flatbed scanners, it helps to find one that can be manually > >focused. Scans can often be improved by changing the settings slightly away > >from what the autofocus suggests. This is also important if you want to try > >the drum scan oil trick. > > Manual focus on a flatbed? I've never seen it. Some Umax, Heidelberg, Screen Cezanne, and Fuji flatbed scanners. The Epson Expression flatbed scanners also allow manual focus. While this is more common in CCD film scanners, it is a feature that can help some scans. > Maybe on Scitex, but that's super-high-end stuff. > My ArtixScan 2500 used to be very high-end, and > it doesn't have manual focus either. The Epson Expression 1680 is not that high priced, and it allows focusing. The creo (formerly Scitex) scanners are very nice, and a few are showing up on the used market at somewhat reasonable (for a business) prices. > I do have manual focus (or auto) on my LS-8000, > but it's a dedicated film scanner, not flatbed. > > rafe b. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com I think the cost of lower priced consumer scanners might mean adjustable optics just are not going to appear in the majority of choices. Any moving parts, or more complex optics, will just drive up the prices. Also, a fixed focus system should be faster, since it is one less step that the scanner performs. If scanners are purchased with the idea that they will be in service for several years, then I think the ROI (return on investment), should be considered. This can also apply to some used scanners. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >> >> I'm considering buying a flatbed scanner for negatives up to 6x9. I >> >> caertainly can't afford a real MF filmscanner. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >scanners. Where you thinking of something else, or are you a bigger proponent of >VueScan? I had a short go with Silverfast AI, I think it was on my Epson 1640. Glitzy interface but failing in some of the fundamentals. For example, the "densitometer" readings taken in the scan preview didn't come close to matching the final scan. A call to LaserSoft service yielded no joy on this issue and ended the trial. I'm no huge fan of VueScan. The best bundled scan driver I've worked with is NikonScan; the second best is Microtek's ScanWizard. I've seen drivers for drum scanners that are the pits (ColorTrio and ColorQuartet, for the ScanMate.) Epson and Minolta drivers are pretty lame, though maybe they've improved since my 1640 or the Minolta "ScanSpeed" that I briefly owned years ago. >> FWIW, I think the Epson flatbeds >> (eg 4870, 4990) come with Silverfast. > >The Epson Expression series usually come with SilverFast Ai. I think some of the >Epson Perfection Photo series come with SilverFast SE, though an upgrade to Ai is >not too much more. I don't understand where the Epson Expression series fits in, frankly. They are "large format" scanners but hardly optimized for film scanning. Resolutions are pretty low for film scanning (and yet they cost considerably more than the Epson 4870/4990.) The high end Creo/Scitex and Fuji film/flatbed machines are out of my league, pricewise. >> >Another trick is using drum scanning oil on your flatbed scanner. This can >> >greatly enhance the contrast, colour, and apparent resolution on nearly any [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Given enough time, almost anyone can find an example to the opposite of anything. Can you provide any comparable evidence to the contrary -- ie. to show the benefits of oil mounting? I've asked for that on other fora, without success. >Without knowing more background, I have no way to know if this was bad scanning >technique, a limitation of this particular scanner, or the limits reached on that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >skill, and there is no "magic bullet" that will make all scans reach their >maximum potential always. I think there's also a lot of urban mythology involved, and a lot of, "we've always done it this way." Sadly, my ScanMate drum scanner died just as I was about to do my first wet-mounted scans, so I never got to run any tests myself. >I think the cost of lower priced consumer scanners might mean adjustable optics >just are not going to appear in the majority of choices. Any moving parts, or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >years, then I think the ROI (return on investment), should be considered. This >can also apply to some used scanners. The LS-8000 is the *only* scanner I've ever used (either film or flatbed) with any kind of focus adjustment at all. You could make an argument that focus control isn't needed on a flatbed scanner, since there's really no mechanical slop to speak of. The lenses involved have very small apertures, so depth of field/depth is usually adequate for reasonably flat targets. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > I don't understand where the Epson Expression series fits > in, frankly. They are "large format" scanners but hardly > optimized for film scanning. Resolutions are pretty low > for film scanning (and yet they cost considerably more > than the Epson 4870/4990.) Speaking of Epson, here are some crops of the same slide scanned with the 4870 and the Nikon 8000. With work, I think better scans could be produced from both scanners, but these are pretty typical of what we (Chris Brown and I) are seeing. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original The first one is straight from the scanners, the second one is with the Nikon upsampled by 20%. Comments and bricbats appreciated. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > I don't understand where the Epson Expression series fits > > in, frankly. They are "large format" scanners but hardly [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Comments and bricbats appreciated. Needless confusion,...that is my comment :-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> Speaking of Epson, here are some crops of the same slide scanned with the >> 4870 and the Nikon 8000. With work, I think better scans could be produced >> from both scanners, but these are pretty typical of what we (Chris Brown and >> I) are seeing. [snip] >> Comments and bricbats appreciated. > >Needless confusion,...that is my comment :-) Oi! I damned near froze my dangly-bits off shooting the source slides for that (humid British winter's day, Nothing between where I was standing and the polar ice cap, save the curvature of the planet, and a not insignificant breeze blowing). You could at least *pretend* to be interested. :-P > >Needless confusion,...that is my comment :-) > > Oi! I damned near froze my dangly-bits off shooting the source slides for > that (humid British winter's day, Nothing between where I was standing and > the polar ice cap, save the curvature of the planet, and a not insignificant > breeze blowing). You could at least *pretend* to be interested. :-P No "I am interested", it was the links and the way David described the what we are seeing, perhaps its just me :-) As fer your dangly bits keep them to yourself and better hidden and you won't have that problem anymore :-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> I don't understand where the Epson Expression series fits >> in, frankly. They are "large format" scanners but hardly [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >The first one is straight from the scanners, the second one is with the >Nikon upsampled by 20%. Yep, that's pretty consistent with what I've seen so far. Though in fairness the Epson scan would improve dramatically with USM, no? I wonder if Epson's problem is that they're *too* agressive with their anti-aliasing... rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com It corresponds exactly to my own tests/experiences: those flatbed can't hold a candle to a dedicated filmscanner. The fact that an LS-9000 is 4x the price of a 4990 is, to me, perfectly reasoneable, giving the huge quality gain. Thanks for the test, David! Fernando > >> >> I'm considering buying a flatbed scanner for negatives up to 6x9. I > >> >> caertainly can't afford a real MF filmscanner. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > the final scan. A call to LaserSoft service > yielded no joy on this issue and ended the trial. Interesting observation. I will have to put that question to them next time I e-mail them. > I'm no huge fan of VueScan. The best bundled > scan driver I've worked with is NikonScan; the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > since my 1640 or the Minolta "ScanSpeed" > that I briefly owned years ago. So far, the best I have worked with was LinoColor, though that is now discontinued. The learning curve was tough, but the control and results were worth the effort. > >> FWIW, I think the Epson flatbeds > >> (eg 4870, 4990) come with Silverfast. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > for film scanning (and yet they cost considerably more > than the Epson 4870/4990.) When I contact Epson about professional scanners, they send me information on the Expression series, including samples. My take on this is that the true dynamic range is better, even if the resolution is lower than some Perfection Photo series. On the last brochure from Epson, they included a Perfection Pro scanner package as a recommended solution. > The high end Creo/Scitex and Fuji film/flatbed machines > are out of my league, pricewise. Some of the EverSmart series from creo are showing up used at almost reasonable pricing, but they are rare. Used Fuji scanners I see maybe once or twice a year. Shipping is another issue, and can be quite a bit for these heavy machines. The Heidelberg Topaz is another choice, though again rare and heavy. > >> >Another trick is using drum scanning oil on your flatbed scanner. This can > >> >greatly enhance the contrast, colour, and apparent resolution on nearly any [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > oil mounting? I've asked for that on other > fora, without success. I can dig up an article from Reponses Photo, if you would like. Since this is somewhat educational, I could make some copies and mail them to you. This is a French magazine, without English translation. I should still have most of the past issues, since I don't throw out much photo related. They also have a web site, so you might be able to get a back copy from them. > >Without knowing more background, I have no way to know if this was bad scanning > >technique, a limitation of this particular scanner, or the limits reached on that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > about to do my first wet-mounted scans, so I never > got to run any tests myself. My guess is that is might make a difference only on some scanners. I do not know of anyone who has tested this with many scanners. I only have film scanners at the office, but I have used the drum oil in glass mounted transparency holder previously, and it made a noticeable difference. When I need flat scans, I use a place that has a newer creo scanner. > >I think the cost of lower priced consumer scanners might mean adjustable optics > >just are not going to appear in the majority of choices. Any moving parts, or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (either film or flatbed) with any kind of focus > adjustment at all. Some of the Canon and Polaroid film scanners allow manual focus. Since the autofocus seems to be fooled by some films, a great improvement in grain reduction can be made by manually focusing. With less noise from grain, the detail information can appear better. However, this is very small fractions of a millimetre changes. Obviously, this is also slower. > You could make an argument that focus control isn't > needed on a flatbed scanner, since there's really > no mechanical slop to speak of. The lenses involved > have very small apertures, so depth of field/depth > is usually adequate for reasonably flat targets. True enough, though it is interesting that it is there. If more information was available about the lenses and optics, perhaps we might know a true depth of focus for some scanners. This also makes the assumption that they do not drift out of adjustment. Some scanners have moving CCDs, while others have moving mirrors, and a few have moving optics (even fewer with more than one optic). Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >> >> >> I'm considering buying a flatbed scanner for negatives up to 6x9. I >> >> >> caertainly can't afford a real MF filmscanner. [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >Shipping is another issue, and can be quite a bit for these heavy machines. The >Heidelberg Topaz is another choice, though again rare and heavy. True, if you consider $2000 to $3000 reasonable for a 2000 or 3000 dpi scanner. What's interesting to me is that the Creo/Scitex machines seem to hold their value better than most drum scanners. >> >> >Another trick is using drum scanning oil on your flatbed scanner. This can >> >> >greatly enhance the contrast, colour, and apparent resolution on nearly any [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >since I don't throw out much photo related. They also have a web site, so you might >be able to get a back copy from them. That's OK. No need. I still have one way to try this... my ArtixScan 2500 can use a glass tray for 4x5, and I still have some Kami fluid and clear overlay sheets from the ScanMate. I may give that a whirl one of these days if I've nothing better to do. >> >Without knowing more background, I have no way to know if this was bad scanning >> >technique, a limitation of this particular scanner, or the limits reached on that [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >better. However, this is very small fractions of a millimetre changes. Obviously, >this is also slower. Right, the Polaroid 4000 has AF... I know that because initially there was a bug in the AF firmware (or driver end). The SprintScan 35+ (which I owned) had fixed focus. >> You could make an argument that focus control isn't >> needed on a flatbed scanner, since there's really [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >adjustment. Some scanners have moving CCDs, while others have moving mirrors, and a >few have moving optics (even fewer with more than one optic). Typically flatbeds move the whole optical system, including lamp, mirrors, lens and CCD. All of the film scanners I've used move the film. The ArtixScan 2500 is an odd hybrid with dual optical paths; one for film another for reflective media. It's got the most impressive (and huge) mechanical system of any scanner I've seen (except for the ScanMate, of course.) You can hear loud clunking and banging noises as it reconfigures itself between the 1250 dpi and 2500 dpi modes. There are many issues you haven't mentioned. Eg., illumination is important. Cold cathode light sources are ubiquitous, yet every scanner I've used that has cold cathode illumination (ie. all but the Nikon) has banding and streaking artifacts. That could be also because all the ones I've used (except the Nikon) are ultimately Microtek designs. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com Sheesh. You guys need to learn how to trim! > That's OK. No need. I still have one way to > try this... my ArtixScan 2500 can use a glass tray > for 4x5, and I still have some Kami fluid and > clear overlay sheets from the ScanMate. I may > give that a whirl one of these days if I've > nothing better to do. Speaking of Kami fluid, have you considered trying it with the 8000? I have a flaky theory that it may reduce grain aliasing with color negative films. By the way, how toxic, and how stinky, is Kami fluid? My office's ventilation is poor ... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >Sheesh. You guys need to learn how to trim! Yeah, you're right, but I've seen far worse when Neil and Gordon go at it. I think the thread has nearly run its course, not to worry. >> That's OK. No need. I still have one way to >> try this... my ArtixScan 2500 can use a glass tray [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Speaking of Kami fluid, have you considered trying it with the 8000? I have >a flaky theory that it may reduce grain aliasing with color negative films. No glass tray for the Nikon, but I've considered it from time to time. >By the way, how toxic, and how stinky, is Kami fluid? My office's >ventilation is poor ... It's basically lighter fluid, from what I can tell. Smells heavily of naptha. IOW, pretty stinky. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com Recently, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> posted: > That's OK. No need. I still have one way to > try this... my ArtixScan 2500 can use a glass tray > for 4x5, and I still have some Kami fluid and > clear overlay sheets from the ScanMate. I may > give that a whirl one of these days if I've > nothing better to do. I'd be interested to see the results of this. I use my ArtixScan for 4x5 & larger film, and I'm skeptical that oil mounting would produce better results than air mounting unless there is a serious flatness problem requiring the use of glass. The film holders are reasonably well-designed in this series, and I've had no flatness problems so far. Regards, Neil >Recently, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> posted: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >requiring the use of glass. The film holders are reasonably well-designed >in this series, and I've had no flatness problems so far. Oddly enough, I saw the opposite, at least in one case. Same Fuji 4x5 transparency, air mounted on a ScanMate drum, and on the glassless carrier on the ArtixScan. In both cases, there were some regions in perfect focus and other regions that were clearly out of focus. Even so, the whole notion of wet-mounting seems arcane and archaic to me -- not to mention subjecting my precious negatives and chromes to Kami fluid. The biggest problem with the ArtixScan (IMO) is streaking and banding. It would have to be a really huge print before the focusing effects become obvious. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com Recently, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> posted: >> Recently, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> posted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > perfect focus and other regions that were > clearly out of focus. That is odd. I can't say that I've seen that with 4x5 unless the film was mounted incorrectly. Perhaps it was the film type... I typically use Kodak, which may have a slightly heavier substrate? > Even so, the whole notion of wet-mounting > seems arcane and archaic to me -- not to > mention subjecting my precious negatives > and chromes to Kami fluid. It shouldn't hurt the film... but it does add clean-up time to the process. I wouldn't think twice about using it on a drum scanner, since that is such a slow process anyway and the extra quality warrants it. > The biggest problem with the ArtixScan > (IMO) is streaking and banding. It would > have to be a really huge print before the > focusing effects become obvious. The only time I got serious streaking and banding was when I was using a particular version of VueScan. I haven't seen that with ScanWizard. Regards, Neil > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > >> The high end Creo/Scitex and Fuji film/flatbed machines [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to me is that the Creo/Scitex machines seem to hold > their value better than most drum scanners. Actually, that was about the range for an EverSmart Jazz, or similar level. The dpi rating I have seen with Scitex/creo scanners seems to be an accurate true capability, rather unlike some lower priced more modern gear. They have some sort of patent on the optical system in these, so they seem to work differently than other flat scanners. However, buying used one would have to get the software with the scanner, since getting that from creo is expensive. The real value of these high end scanners is the colour ability. The other benefit is with batch scanning of many images, or high volume scanning, since they are fast machines. Use one with 8" by 10" film for some really impressive scans. > . . . . . . . . . . . > >> The LS-8000 is the *only* scanner I've ever used [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > firmware (or driver end). The SprintScan 35+ > (which I owned) had fixed focus. Some of the Canon film scanners allow manual focus, as so some of the Minolta film scanners. > >> You could make an argument that focus control isn't > >> needed on a flatbed scanner, since there's really [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Typically flatbeds move the whole optical system, > including lamp, mirrors, lens and CCD. Yes, very common. A few move mirrors, while keeping the CCD stationary (Heidelberg, creo, UMAX). Some have dual optical systems (AGFA, Microtek). Again, added complexity could mean something that goes out of adjustment, or breaks. > All of the film scanners I've used move the film. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (and huge) mechanical system of any scanner > I've seen (except for the ScanMate, of course.) I think they made some of the older AGFA scanners, though AGFA added some different firmware, and had different software. > You can hear loud clunking and banging noises > as it reconfigures itself between the 1250 dpi [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > rafe b. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com Completely other issue. Very few scanners have serviceable lamps, though a few companies address this issue (creo, Fuji). I recall noticing more cold cathode fluorescent light sources than anything else. There are some newer LED systems. I have never seen much information to preference one type of light source over another, except maybe an issue of service life (seen a few Nikon film scanners die from heavy use, though I would imaging the newer ones are much better). Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >>I'm considering buying a flatbed scanner for negatives up to 6x9. I >>caertainly can't afford a real MF filmscanner. > > What end use do you wish to make of those scans? Printing self A4 (maybe A3 in future). Best shots turned into posters. I would in any case use Silverfast or Vuescan. > Another trick is using drum scanning oil on your flatbed scanner. This can > greatly enhance the contrast, colour, and apparent resolution on nearly any > flat scanner. The downsides are that it takes a bit longer, and some clean up > is involved. ???? Please explain! Thanks, Chris >> I'm considering buying a flatbed scanner for negatives up to 6x9. I >> caertainly can't afford a real MF filmscanner. > > What end use do you wish to make of those scans? Printing self A4 (maybe A3 in future). Best shots turned into posters. Basically, what I want is more quality than a good 35mm scan (not that my 35mm scans are obviously lacking anything)! I would in any case use Silverfast or Vuescan. > Another trick is using drum scanning oil on your flatbed scanner. This can > greatly enhance the contrast, colour, and apparent resolution on nearly any > flat scanner. The downsides are that it takes a bit longer, and some clean up > is involved. ???? Please explain! Thanks, Chris > > Chris Loffredo wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > ???? > Please explain! There are a few ways to do this. The best explanation with images is on the creo website <http://www.creo.com>. Just look for their scanning solutions, and check for the oil mount station. While this is not the way this could work on other scanners, it does give some idea of how to do it. Basically, a small amount of drum scan oil is used, just enough to cover the film. In a CCD film scanner, using a glass mount slide, for 35 mm, or some anti-Newton glass for larger films. On a flatbed scanner, use the oil directly on the glass, or use the film with anti-Newton glass, or try high quality clear acetate sheets to sandwich the film. Be careful how much you use (one drop per side for 35 mm), since you will have to clean it after you scan. I don't think it is worth it to always use this method, just on problem slides, or when you want to get the absolute maximum best scan from a transparency. Balance the trouble against having a professional lab or service bureau do the scan for you, especially before poster reproduction runs. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> I wrote a review and comparison of the Epson 3200 vs the Epson 4870 on my website - if you like, look at it: http://www.gnyman.com - and then look out for the link to that comparison page. I think that 6x9cm is already a good format for the 4870 which delivers very good results, almost as good as the 4000dpi Nikon ED8000, which I have got as well and included a few comparison shots. As soon as I can get hold on the new Epson 4990 scanner, I do the comparison again, but first I need that scanner... rgds George Nyman > I'm considering buying a flatbed scanner for negatives up to 6x9. I > caertainly can't afford a real MF filmscanner. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Chris >I wrote a review and comparison of the Epson 3200 vs the Epson 4870 on >my website - if you like, look at it: http://www.gnyman.com - and then [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >comparison again, but first I need that scanner... >rgds George Nyman The Epson flatbeds are not in the same league as the Nikon filmscanners. By suggesting they are, you lose all credibility. Sorry. From accounts I've seen so far, the 4990 is no improvement on the 4870. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com >From accounts I've seen so far, the >4990 is no improvement on the 4870. Plus, the 4870 seems quite similar to the 4180 I use (same sensor, probably same optics), that shows no improvements on the 2450 (I even compared them using Imatest). I tested the 2450 against my SS120, obtaining, among others, those real-world results: http://gundam.srd.it/PhotoPages/epson_vs_polaroid.html Fernando >I'm considering buying a flatbed scanner for negatives up to 6x9. I >caertainly can't afford a real MF filmscanner. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >So advice and opinions please: Are the current crop of flatbeds able to >do justice to MF film? Chris, I have two flatbeds (Epson 2450 and 4180) and a dedicated MF filmscanner (Polaroid SS120 aka Microtek 120TF). Currently, there are no flatbed scanners that can do justice to a good MF original, at least at a price point that is competitive with dedicated MF filmscanners (you can have good used dedicated MF filmscanner for about $1000, and new ones start at $1500). But, if all you need is A4 prints, PowerPoint slideshow, etc., then something like an Epson 4870/4990 or a Canon 9950 could do a good job; they also have an IR channel for automatic reduction of scratches and dust. Those flatbeds are expecially effective with negative film, since it has way less dynamic range of slide film, and flatbeds struggle with hi-density originals. With good sharpening technique/tools, you can probably get fair A3 prints from negative originals starting at say 6x7. Scans from consumer flatbeds are very soft and have limited dynamic range; but they show little grainness, they look smooth; so for certain subjects/film types you can have decent results if you are not too picky. A dedicated filmscanner is entirely another world, expecially if you have hi-quality, sharp originals on modern slide film. Fernando |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.