 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / General Topics / February 2006Recommendation for 35mm scanner
Hi, I have lots of 35mm films to scan. IM looking for a 35 mm scanner but I consider a flat scanner (or an all-in-one printer) that have a support for 35mm films. What I would like to know is : 1)Is there any 35mm scanner that do a good job but that not too expensive (around 200 $, except the Konica - Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV) ? 2)Can I optain good results with a flat scanner or a all-in-one printer (good results and save some time)? (minium resolution of 3200) 3)Anyone who use the Epson Stylus CX7800 (all-in-one printer)? How is the 35 mm film scanning ? (and the printing of photos?) Thank you very much for your help.... I have undreds of films to scan but not enough money to spend. I read many reviews but I cant make my mind Thank you Jonathan > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Jonathan The KM Scan Dual IV is about the best bang for the buck. With flat beds the specs are often inflated and they give disappointing results especially with small films. If you want to get into an Epson 4180 or 4990, Canon, Microtek, and Umax have equivalents, all are better for small films. If you just want to have pics on the web you may get by with a cheaper scanner. Just remember film scanners do film the best. Some Polaroid 35mm scanners were quite good, but they have a SCSI interface and you have no support if there is problems. SCSI scanners can be finicky. Pacific Image had a series of film scanners they had some very cheap ones, their higher priced scanners had a good reputation. Tom > The KM Scan Dual IV is about the best bang for the buck. With flat beds > the specs are often inflated and they give disappointing results [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > some very cheap ones, their higher priced scanners had a good > reputation. Any particular model recomendations on the SCSI Polaroid scanners? I have a slew of SCSI-based systems (not to mention all of the extra controllers and cables laying around), and if a used one could be had inexpensively, that would make me very happy. steve > Any particular model recomendations on the SCSI Polaroid scanners? I > have > a slew of SCSI-based systems (not to mention all of the extra controllers > and cables laying around), and if a used one could be had inexpensively, > that would make me very happy. Polaroid SprintScan Plus was a much-coveted scanner in its day that can be had for under $150 on eBay nowadays. Very comparable to Nikon's LS-2000. Both were rated at 2700 dpi. The SprintScan LE was a cheaper model, which I'd avoid. Moving up the chain a notch, the SprintScan 4000 can probably be had for around $400 or so. But as with any SCSI scanner it may take some skill and patience to get it working with a "modern" PC and OS. For starters, you'll need to download and install the so-called ASPI layer, from Adaptec's website. Drivers for any of these can be downloaded from Polaroid's web site. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com I would recommend getting a dedicated film scanner like a decent Minolta or Nikon. Lets face it, scanning negatives is a boring, laborious task, so believe me, you only want to be doing it once. Better to get the best results first time, so you don't have to do it again in the future. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Jonathan >I would recommend getting a dedicated film scanner like a decent Minolta or >Nikon. I had a Nikon Coolscan but I get better results with an Epson 4180 - except when it intermittently aborts with an 'out of memory' error when I do 12 negatives at once (I have 2GB memory). The Nikon would jam after the little rubber rollers that pulled the strips of 6 negatives in lost their grip. Cotton buds dipped in Platen Clean would temporarily restore the grip. No such problems with the Epson 4180. The results are just as good or better and the dust removal seems to be as good, too. Also important is the fact it cost one quarter of the price, about the same I paid for my handheld two-bit Atari scanner years ago. Dave. 2500 hi-resolution photos especially Edinburgh * No advertisements * http://www.henniker.org.uk * délété david to use email address * Hello Jonathan, I have used Microtek scanners for a few years and I have found thier support/helpline very good when I need support. I would ask them. Tele- 01782 753366 or web site www.microtekeurope.com. The head office is in Newcastle. Hope you find something, thier scanners are not over priced. Best Regards uglyone25. I can definitely recommend against flat-bed scanners if you can help it. The best one I've ever seen is the Visioneer 8920, and it is pretty crummy. It can only do one frame at a time and the results are not so great, very saturated colors and everything is kind of green.. Does anyone know of a film negative scanner that can do both 35mm and 120? This is the major reason I have been messing with flatbeds so far. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Jonathan > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Jonathan I used a PrimeFilm 1800u - cheap and gave adequate results - one frame at a time  SignatureDan Hollands 1120 S Creek Dr Webster NY 14580 585-872-2606 dan.hollands@gmail.com www.QuickScoreRace.com >Hi, > >I have lots of 35mm films to scan. IM looking for a 35 mm scanner but I >consider a flat scanner (or an all-in-one printer) that have a support for >35mm films. Personally, if you have a lot of 35nn images to scan, I would recommend the Nikon LS-5000 with either or both of the SA-30 and SF-210 adapters, depending on the form your film is stored in. If strips, you can save on the adapters entirely as the basic scanner includes a strip adapter and single frame slide adapter. If you don't mind running back to your PC every 10 minutes for the next year that it takes to scan your thousands of frames, then you might also look at the Plustek OpticFilm 7200, which is cheaper and, allegedly, gets as good results as the Nikon. I can't confirm this first hand, but it has had good reviews in the press. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>Hi, >Personally, if you have a lot of 35nn images to scan, I would recommend Wot a coincidence. Just today I was in my local camera emporium and the head honcho there said that until now they were recommending both the high-end Nikon and Minolta scanners, unless you wanted to buy a drum scanner for twenty grand! Now they are going to recommend Nikon only. And of course for me I "need" both the SF-210 and SA-30 adapters. However, I was wondering if the strip scanner that comes with the scanner automatically advances the film frame by frame for batch scanning. >the Nikon LS-5000 with either or both of the SA-30 and SF-210 adapters, >depending on the form your film is stored in. If strips, you can save >on the adapters entirely as the basic scanner includes a strip adapter >and single frame slide adapter. I should add that if I want 8000 line resolution, instead of the 4000 that the Nikon gives me, I can rent this scanner for $55/hour! That's a great argument for going digital! Father Kodak >However, I was wondering >if the strip scanner that comes with the scanner automatically >advances the film frame by frame for batch scanning. Yes it does - up to a maximum of 6 frames per strip as delivered. However, with a minor tweak you can increase that to 40 frames per roll http://groups.google.com/group/comp.periphs.scanners/msg/60b0a25021e222c1 (watch out for line wrap in this URL!) You might want to wait until the warranty is up before making that tweak. ;-) The single frame mounted slide adapter isn't so easily modified for bulk work - it is just a dumb holder without any motorised mechanism. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>However, I was wondering >>if the strip scanner that comes with the scanner automatically [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >(watch out for line wrap in this URL!) No wrap problems. A detail. The real question is: How in heck did you find out about this great hack? I think you just saved me about $450! Any other inspired ideas like this one? >You might want to wait until the warranty is up before making that >tweak. ;-) Yeah, once I'm past "infant mortality" of the electronics, I'll do the hack. >The single frame mounted slide adapter isn't so easily modified for bulk >work - it is just a dumb holder without any motorised mechanism. Too bad. (a very pleased) Father Kodak >>>However, I was wondering >>>if the strip scanner that comes with the scanner automatically [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >How in heck did you find out about this great hack? Comparison of the two adapters after buying an SA-30 adapter myself and then tracing which connector pins the link went to with a meter. > I think you just >saved me about $450! Glad to have helped. >Any other inspired ideas like this one? Yes - make sure you open the aperture at the back of the scanner and have a container to collect the film before feeding a roll into it! ;-) SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>How in heck did you find out about this great hack? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Yes - make sure you open the aperture at the back of the scanner and >have a container to collect the film before feeding a roll into it! ;-) No problem. For the $450 I just saved (in advance) I'm sure that I can think of _something_. Father Kodak Plustek OpticFilm 7200 /7200i (£130 - £250) was tested against Nikon Coolscan LS-5000 by Practical Photography Magazine (UK). http://www.datamind.co.uk/Merchant/pp_apr05_review_7200.pdf Preview time with the Plustek was quicker than the Nikon but the Nikon wins on normal scan speed. However the figure given in this article is for scans at 7200dpi by the Plustek and 4000dpi for the Nikon. At 3600dpi the Plustek scans are as fast (48s) as the Nikon at 4000dpi. The SA-30 adaptor does improve workflow - but at £400 extra is it cost effective? more Plustek OpticFilm 7200/7200i UK magazine reviews: http://www.datamind.co.uk/Merchant/plustek_opticfilm_uk_press.htm Chris Street www.datamind.co.uk > >Hi, > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. > Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) Thank you very much for your answers. I'll go with a 35 mm scanner. |
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.