Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Fog Tripper
Mar 3, 2008

by Smythe
My wife and I have been attempting to put in order, the attic of my Parents. My father passed away last fall and we are trying to make my mom's life a bit less... disorganized.

While beginning to put the attic to rights (this is going to take a good while. Large attic, tons of stuff.) we came across a few rolls of kodachrome, 35mm B&W and medium format B&W from my fathers travels of his tour during the Korean War.

I REALLY don't want to trust this to a Google search. I used to work in prepress, and I imagine a prepress house wih a quality drum scanner might be an option, but want to explore other options as well.

Output is of course a good thing to question, and the only answer I can give is "dunno". I want to get these as high-resolution and quality I can to archive for now.

Bonus points if the business is decent at converting reel movies to digital. (high quality as possible, of course)

What say you, Dorkroom?

Fake edit: would be excited about posting a few once completed.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Genderfluid
Jun 18, 2009

my mom is a slut
Epson Perfection V750

brad industry
May 22, 2004
I think the answer to this question is going to depend on how many things you need scanned. Having a few rolls or frames scanned is different than bulk scanning boxes and boxes of negs.

Fog Tripper
Mar 3, 2008

by Smythe

brad industry posted:

I think the answer to this question is going to depend on how many things you need scanned. Having a few rolls or frames scanned is different than bulk scanning boxes and boxes of negs.

Not boxes and boxes. Probably in the neighborhood of 100-200 all told.

tonelok
Sep 29, 2001

Hanukkah came early this year.
Since it's a mix, you might want to try the Epson V700 (around $530 at Amazon over the V750. The V750 is really only necessary if you are planning on getting into wet/fluid mounting. It sounds like you might be familiar with doing that, but you have to factor in your time and the effort. The V700 is pretty loving nice and is probably the last of the "prosumer" scanners you'll see. Everybody is getting out of the mid-range/prosumer scanning market and sticking to either really cheap/all-in-one or the high-end very expensive. It handles prints as well as a large variety of film/negative/slides/etc.

Here's a couple of really in-depth reviews of the V700:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_1.htm
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/V700/V700.HTM

If you go the V700 route, hit up BetterScanning.com and grab the appropriate film holders. I have a set for an older scanner and they are so much nicer than the ones that come from Epson. Grab the ANR glass as well, for flattening out curled/warped film.

Epson has a V600 that is cheaper (Amazon has it for under $215), but it sounds like you want to do it once at the best quality you can. You can also try and get a used Epson 4990 which is the previous version of the V700.

Whatever you do, check out VueScan - there is a free demo. I've messed with Silverfast plus the default Canon and Epson software and VueScan is a lot better and easier to use.

tonelok fucked around with this message at 23:13 on May 24, 2010

tonelok
Sep 29, 2001

Hanukkah came early this year.
Forgot to mention, if you go with an online service, be so loving careful with it and do a lot of research. I'm trying to find it, but I came across an article that mentioned one vintage photo scanning place sends the photos off to India.

:wtc:

I would not trust these kinds of photos/film to being shipped overseas. I'd be paranoid about any company not willing to insure and track everything there and back just here in the states.

e: If you send them off, I would seriously do them in batches so that if something does go wrong or is lost, you don't lose everything. I'm not trying to scare you, but just be careful. This is stuff that would be really bad to lose.

e2: Some places even advertise that they don't send photos off to India or elsewhere.

tonelok fucked around with this message at 23:15 on May 24, 2010

Fog Tripper
Mar 3, 2008

by Smythe

tonelok posted:

Forgot to mention, if you go with an online service, be so loving careful with it and do a lot of research. I'm trying to find it, but I came across an article that mentioned one vintage photo scanning place sends the

Heh, this thread is the beginning of my research. :)

I cannot see myself needing to scan in the future, so I'd probably have a professional outfit take care of it for me. I know of at least on prepress house that (way back about a decade ago) worked with some high end drum scanners. Since a lot of imaging capture has moved to digital, I am uncertain who/where would do the highest quality scans.

I may dig some of my old contact numbers out of the depths of my "filing" system, and see who is still around doing this type of stuff in the area.

pwn
May 27, 2004

This Christmas get "Shoes"









:pwn: :pwn: :pwn: :pwn: :pwn:
I've used North Coast Photographic Services, they do great work.

TsarAleksi
Nov 24, 2004

What?
Don't forget that the cost of scanners is fairly flat right now, so you could probably buy a used one, even a nice one like a Nikon CoolScan, and just sell it when you are done scanning.

tonelok
Sep 29, 2001

Hanukkah came early this year.
Tempted to start a new thread, but this one will do.

Because I got involved in a side project scanning 35mm film and slides, I ended up picking the Plustek 7600i dedicated film scanner for around $370 or so (Amazon). It's $370 because it doesn't come with the high-end SilverFast software and it doesn't come with an IT-8 calibration target, which the $500+ version of the 7600i has. I have and use VueScan and have no desire to go mucking around with Silverfast software, and I'm not too concerned about calibration of the scanner. Everything else I have is calibrated.

Reviews:
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7600i.html
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/PLTK7600/7600.HTM

When I get it, I'll post pictures, and some sample scans and a review. There's liable to be somebody interested - unless you are willing to spend upwards of $1500 for used dedicated scanners from Nikon or Minolta, Plustek is pretty much it in the affordable price range. Plustek is probably the only company left still making dedicated film scanners for consumers/prosumers, which is kind of a shame.

I was very tempted to pick up a Nikon Coolscan since those things, even used, hold their value big time. I've seen models that cost more used than they did originally new, since they aren't being made anymore.

I went with Plustek because the quality of the film I'm going to be scanning isn't too high to begin with, thanks to it being used in fairly cheap consumer-type cameras and a lot of it was developed in one-hour labs, and the people I'm doing this for don't need anything bigger than 8"x10" Also, the price. I've got an Epson 4990 flatbed, but I've not been too happy with film scanning on it (even with glass inserts) and I like the portability of the 7600i (it even comes with a bag).

In the meantime, here are some images (500+) of the 7600i in action, from people who have posted on flickr (it is flickr and so there is some compression, especially when people don't allow for anything larger than 1024):

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=7600i&w=all

individual samples (pulled at random, some are huge):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44275470@N03/4099875935/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44275470@N03/4236257685/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44275470@N03/4205756626/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregoryniss/4719486360/sizes/o/

evil_bunnY
Apr 2, 2003

You're going to scan all your poo poo with manual advance? You're a better man than I.

tonelok
Sep 29, 2001

Hanukkah came early this year.
It was going to be too expensive to have it commercially done, and the scanner is small enough I can have it sitting near my keyboard, so that's not going to be a problem. In this instance, I'll setup VueScan how I want, hit the scan button, advance a frame, hit the scan button, advance a frame, etc. and it's not a big problem since I can be doing other work at the same time.

I'm also buying a few extra film trays so I can load them while one is in the scanner.

Dr. Fishopolis
Aug 31, 2004

ROBOT

tonelok posted:

Epson has a V600 that is cheaper (Amazon has it for under $215), but it sounds like you want to do it once at the best quality you can. You can also try and get a used Epson 4990 which is the previous version of the V700.

I'm pretty sure the V600 has exactly the same imaging system as the V700 and 750. The big difference is the 700 has a bigger transparancy area, allowing you to scan up to 8x10 negs and do 2 strips of 120 at the same time. Depending on how much you have to scan, the cost difference might be worth the time saved.

For 35mm, you will always get much, much better scans from a dedicated film scanner. My ideal budget scanning setup would be a Plustek for 35 and a V600 for 120 and 4x5. All of this really depends on how big you want to print these things. A V600 is probably more than fine if you only want to print 8x10.

Film to digital telecine is a whole other ball of worms, you'll definitely want to send it out.

tonelok
Sep 29, 2001

Hanukkah came early this year.
I got the Plustek 7600i yesterday afternoon and will post photos of it later, along with samples.

For now, some quick impressions:

Amazon packaged it loving horribly. The box was just slightly too small so when they taped it shut, the top of it was kind of in an arc, and the single strip of tape they used to close the lid had broken on one side because of that. Also, it had some o that paper padding on two sides of the box so basically the box was in contact with the shipping box on four sides of the box and the shipping box was banged up (thanks UPS :haw:). Thankfully Plustek had the actually scanner in foam inserts and it seems to have survived just fine. I wish I had gotten it through NewEgg, but it works.

It comes with a really nice, padded carrying case that holds the scanner, USB cable, power supply, and film/slide trays. The scanner itself is smaller than a loaf of bread length-wise, but otherwise pretty close in size to one.

USB is not as much of a problem as I thought it would be. Having had nothing but Firewire scanners for the past 5 years or so, I thought it might be a problem. Scanning speed is pretty good overall.

Manual feeding is not a problem. I can see where adding automatic feeding would have added drastically to the size/cost/complexity of the device. Speaking of feeding, the negative holder is much better than what I had on my flatbed - much more secure. It feels faster because you're only doing one frame at a time, unlike with my flatbed where it's preview the whole strip, zoom in on one frame, scan, then preview the whole strip again, zoom in on one frame, etc. They seriously need to pack two of each tray in this thing, I'm going to have to definitely order another tray or two.

I hate the fact that the driver is somehow directly bundled into the Silverfast software and you have to install Silverfast to get the driver. Plustek does not make the driver available on their website (nor any OS X driver for any of the scanners in this series). I love Vuescan and have never liked Silverfast and it's annoying to have to install 100MB of software I don't need just to get the driver. Feels like HP :v:

The infrared cleaning is really good, better than my flatbed. Even on the "heavy" setting, it's still relatively fast and looks great.

My only regret is that I didn't pick up one of the Nikons or Minoltas years ago when they were still being made. Because they are no longer in production, used prices are ridiculous, but the quality of this is really good.

tonelok
Sep 29, 2001

Hanukkah came early this year.
I'm behind on this, but here are some test scans I did tonight.

These have obviously been drastically shrunk and compressed so that they aren't huge. This was all done with VueScan, and were only resized in Photoshop - nothing else. There is a lot that could be done in Photoshop to make them better images obviously.

These were made from Kodak Kodachrome 35mm from 1972.

This is without anything turned on - straight up scan:


Click here for the full 1900x1271 image.


This is with Heavy infrared cleaning, sharpening, light grain reduction, and color restoration, and fading restoration:


Click here for the full 1900x1271 image.


This is the infrared layer, so you can get an idea of what it looks like:


Click here for the full 1217x789 image.


The cleaning is a lot better than on my Epson 4990. This could save a lot of time.

As far as manual feed - not a problem. I've got it on my desk sitting next to my displays. If I were doing this on a flatbed scanner, I'd be moving the mouse around to preview, crop, etc. between slides, so the manual thing is not a big deal. No need for zooming in/out, just move the slide tray up one.

e: These were done at 3600dpi and turned out 80MB TIFF files, but you could easily get away with 2400 - some people say that it's not much more than 2400. I was just curious to see how fast and how big the images would be.

tonelok fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Jul 10, 2010

tonelok
Sep 29, 2001

Hanukkah came early this year.
This is another test sample - same deal - Kodak Kodachrome 35mm from 1972

Without anything done:


Click here for the full 1900x1273 image.


Heavy infrared cleaning, Restore colors, Restore fading, Light grain reduction, Sharpening:


Click here for the full 1900x1273 image.

tonelok
Sep 29, 2001

Hanukkah came early this year.
Not the best photos, but here's the scanner front - not much to it:



From the side - iPhone and the slide tray for comparison





It's very light and the carrying case is perfect - holds everything - compartment for USB cable and A/AC adapter, and a special compartment for the slide and film holders. I'll be ordering another one or two each of the holders (probably runs around $25-$30 for a set).

Not that it matters, but in case anybody is curious, this is probably the camera that took the photos I scanned above:


Click here for the full 1518x1050 image.



Click here for the full 1236x1080 image.



Click here for the full 1900x1118 image.


I found it this afternoon when I was going through boxes of photos looking for more slides and negatives, and it was the only one that seemed to match the time frame out of the cameras that were in the boxes (they kept all of their cameras). I immediately guessed that it was also the camera because it was the best out of all of the cameras I found, and from what I was told, was used the longest. The other cameras were of the cheapo instamatic variety and while I'm sure in trained hands they could do wonders, the slides that I came up with just had this quality to them that I don't see happening with an instamatic.

I know nothing about the camera, just that it feels expensive as hell, may have seen an earlier owner, and was made before I was born :haw:

tonelok fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Jul 10, 2010

tonelok
Sep 29, 2001

Hanukkah came early this year.
I know nothing about this one - it's a full-frame slide that was in a batch of slides I picked up off of ebay a while back (and I feel kind of bad because I ended up with a bunch of somebody's wedding, birth, vacation, etc. slides and have no idea who they are). Many of the slides were decent for somebody who probably had a mid-range or low-end camera, or didn't know how to handle an SLR - Many of the slides are poorly composed, or the lighting was off, etc.


Click here for the full 1900x1301 image.


Heavy infrared cleaning, Restore colors, Restore fading, Light grain reduction, Sharpening:


Click here for the full 1900x1301 image.


These others, who knows. I've reduced quality/size even more than above since I don't want to strain waffleimages


Click here for the full 1795x1900 image.


Medium infrared cleaning, Restore colors, Restore fading, Light grain reduction, Sharpening, White Point set to 1:


Click here for the full 1795x1900 image.



Click here for the full 1800x1227 image.


Medium infrared cleaning (should have went heavy - check the sky), Restore colors, Restore fading, Light grain reduction, Sharpening, White Point set to 1:


Click here for the full 1800x1227 image.


I bumped up the white point/brightness values because this was shot under fairly crappy lighting.


Click here for the full 1700x1139 image.


Heavy infrared cleaning, Restore colors, Restore fading, Light grain reduction, Sharpening, tweaking of Brightness/White Point:


Click here for the full 1700x1139 image.


The above is what I feared - a poorly shot photo with heavy infrared cleaning, check the Solarcaine advertisement, around her sunglasses, and the pants of Mr. :smug: - there's some lost detail. On the other hand, it does wonders for cleaning up the sky - compare the with and without. This was a problem slide (along with the people sunbathing a few photos up) because it was dark and I was trying to change things up in VueScan to bring out some the details, but that brings about its own set of problems. I've read some people do a scan with heavy cleaning, and then do it with medium, and basically mask out the sky from the heavy cleaning and copy it into the one with medium cleaning - basically use heavy infrared cleaning where it works best. I'm not sure where the blue lines came from - they are on the slide.

Keep in mind some of these could be great images if you spent 10 minutes on them in Photoshop after scanning them. Whoever took the photos above did a decent job, given that they didn't appear to be working with a high-end camera.

If you're lucky enough to work with some photos shot by somebody who knows what they are doing, you can get excellent results that save you a helluva lot of time - see the dolphin and beach photo a few posts up as an example.

tonelok fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Jul 10, 2010

unleash the unicorn
Dec 23, 2004

If this boat were sinking, I'd give my life to save you. Only because I like you, for reasons and standards of my own. But I couldn't and wouldn't live for you.
This one is neat but kinda expensive

Mannequin
Mar 8, 2003

tonelok posted:



I've had this in my B&H cart for the last couple of days, but haven't bought it yet because I'm still considering how much film I will continue to shoot in the future. Question for you: how do you like it compared to your V750? That's quite a bit more money, does it scan better than the PlusTek? Ultimately I want something that yields the best results, speed isn't really a concern of mine.

Also, let's say I continue shooting film. In the long run I suppose it would be cheaper scanning my own negatives/slides a on per-roll basis as opposed to just getting the lab to do it. Hmm, wondering if I should still go ahead and buy this. I would have to get the one with the software though so it would be quite a bit of money.

tonelok
Sep 29, 2001

Hanukkah came early this year.

Mannequin posted:

I've had this in my B&H cart for the last couple of days, but haven't bought it yet because I'm still considering how much film I will continue to shoot in the future. Question for you: how do you like it compared to your V750? That's quite a bit more money, does it scan better than the PlusTek? Ultimately I want something that yields the best results, speed isn't really a concern of mine.
I have the 4990 which is the previous model of the V700/V750. I've got the SE version of the 7600i which is $378 at Amazon (and it's partially paid for thanks to the side project I'm doing with it). I don't use SilverFast and didn't need a calibration target which is why I skipped the more expensive version of the 7600i. I wish I had bought one of the Nikons or Minoltas a few years back when they were in production, but that's water under the bridge. I was tempted to keep an eye out for used ones, but for what I needed, this works better than expected.

I think the 7600i cleans better on heavier settings than the 4990. There are limits obviously, based on the quality of processing and the skill of the photographer. If you are scanning film that was recently developed, I think it's less of an issue. I picked some worse case scenarios above - these are slides that are 40+ years old in some cases, and were definitely brought out multiple times and shown in projectors, which means they picked up plenty of dust/debris and scratches.

With recently developed film/slides, I think it's less of an issue - in theory you are probably taking better care of your film than the people who had the slides I posted above, and so you have less of a need for the cleaning/restoration. You're probably a better photographer than the guy who took the lower-quality vacation slides (not the dolphin/beach slides, but the ones below those two) and have even less of a need for adjustments. You could probably get by with a flatbed or a cheaper scanner as a result.

I will say that the trays for the 7600i are a lot nicer than the 4990. I don't know about the trays for the V700, but my trays for my Epson 4990 are not as tight/secure, and I think the film holder in the 7600i in particular does a better job at holding it flat.

quote:

Also, let's say I continue shooting film. In the long run I suppose it would be cheaper scanning my own negatives/slides a on per-roll basis as opposed to just getting the lab to do it. Hmm, wondering if I should still go ahead and buy this. I would have to get the one with the software though so it would be quite a bit of money.
I would seriously download a demo of VueScan (fully functioning - http://hamrick.com/). I would say spend your money on the pro version of VueScan and get the cheaper 7600i.

If you can only get one scanner though, grab the V700 and order the third-party holders from here: http://www.betterscanning.com/ Also still pick up VueScan. The Pro version of VueScan gets you free upgrades for life.

This is a crappy time to be getting into scanning if you are looking to buy new - the scanner market has all but collapsed, especially the dedicated film/slide scanners, and so very few companies are left. A lot of people are not putting the better scanners on the used market because there is nothing coming out to replace them, unless you go really high-end.

I'll try to write a more coherent review tonight and post more samples, including some film samples.

Mannequin
Mar 8, 2003
I don't think you need to go crazy with a review (for my sake, at least). I just want to know which gives the best quality, and that's where I will eventually dump my money if I continue shooting film. In the meantime I think I will just get it processed by a proper lab so I don't have to worry about it (or invest too much money upfront).

Demon_Corsair
Mar 22, 2004

Goodbye stealing souls, hello stealing booty.
I would love to get a little dedicated scanner, but I shoot a lot of medium format.

Do any of them take 35mm and 120mm film?

Or am I stuck with getting a flatbed scanner?

e:Also it needs to be new enough that it will work in windows 7.

IOwnCalculus
Apr 2, 2003





tonelok posted:

Amazon packaged it loving horribly.

For the record, Amazon has a packaging feedback feature where you can bitch about this very thing and hopefully prevent it from happening to anyone else.

I recall reading your posts on scanners earlier this year and I recall them playing a lot into our decision to buy an Epson V700, which has kicked rear end so far, so thanks :)

tonelok
Sep 29, 2001

Hanukkah came early this year.

Demon_Corsair posted:

I would love to get a little dedicated scanner, but I shoot a lot of medium format.

Do any of them take 35mm and 120mm film?

Or am I stuck with getting a flatbed scanner?

e:Also it needs to be new enough that it will work in windows 7.
Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED handles 35mm and medium format (and a few of the others), but it's thousands of dollars:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/ProductDetail.page?pid=9237#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs

Comes with:
* FH-835M 35mm Mounted Film Holder
* FH-835S 35mm Strip Film Holder
* FH-869S 120/220 Strip Film Holder

But you can find other film holders that are optional.

You're pretty much out of luck on dedicated scanners handling anything other than 35mm/slides unless you are willing to pay that kind of money. If you are, the Nikon would probably work just fine with Windows 7 - VueScan has its own drivers for it, and Microsoft's website shows at least 32-bit compatibility for Windows 7. It is Firewire though.

If you don't have the budget, the Epson V700 would probably do much of what you want. The V750 is more expensive, but offers a fluid mount, but getting into fluid mount is out of my league.

e: The one good thing about these, is that if you decide or need to sell it down the line, it'll hold most of its value if you take care of it. You might even get more than what you paid, since they aren't making those kinds of scanners in that price range anymore.

If you are on a tight budget (under $300), try these:

CanoScan 8800F: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/CS8800/8800F.HTM
Epson V600: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/V600/V600.HTM

tonelok fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jul 13, 2010

tonelok
Sep 29, 2001

Hanukkah came early this year.

IOwnCalculus posted:

For the record, Amazon has a packaging feedback feature where you can bitch about this very thing and hopefully prevent it from happening to anyone else.
Done, thanks.

quote:

I recall reading your posts on scanners earlier this year and I recall them playing a lot into our decision to buy an Epson V700, which has kicked rear end so far, so thanks :)
Its frustrating that nobody has decided to go past the V700. The V700/V750 were introduced in 2006.

Since Microtek and some of the others have left the North American market, and since HP and Canon have just concentrated on the low-end market, you'd think that anybody introducing a "prosumer" scanner or whatever you want to call it, in the $500 - $600 range would rake in the money at this point.

evil_bunnY
Apr 2, 2003

Not so many people needing scanners anymore when so much of your data is electronic in the first place.

Demon_Corsair
Mar 22, 2004

Goodbye stealing souls, hello stealing booty.

tonelok posted:

Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED handles 35mm and medium format (and a few of the others), but it's thousands of dollars:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/ProductDetail.page?pid=9237#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs

Comes with:
* FH-835M 35mm Mounted Film Holder
* FH-835S 35mm Strip Film Holder
* FH-869S 120/220 Strip Film Holder

But you can find other film holders that are optional.

You're pretty much out of luck on dedicated scanners handling anything other than 35mm/slides unless you are willing to pay that kind of money. If you are, the Nikon would probably work just fine with Windows 7 - VueScan has its own drivers for it, and Microsoft's website shows at least 32-bit compatibility for Windows 7. It is Firewire though.

If you don't have the budget, the Epson V700 would probably do much of what you want. The V750 is more expensive, but offers a fluid mount, but getting into fluid mount is out of my league.

e: The one good thing about these, is that if you decide or need to sell it down the line, it'll hold most of its value if you take care of it. You might even get more than what you paid, since they aren't making those kinds of scanners in that price range anymore.

If you are on a tight budget (under $300), try these:

CanoScan 8800F: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/CS8800/8800F.HTM
Epson V600: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/V600/V600.HTM

Cool, thanks for the info.

I wish I had the $2600 for that coolscan. I realized after that I posted that I do have a few prints to scan, and I will probably be making more soonish. So my dreams of a dedicated scanner are gone.

I ended up grabbing the epson v500 as no one around seems to be selling the v600.

Since I'm not even sure where to start with scanning, it seemed like a good choice. Do I want to grab the inserts from betterscanning, or will I be ok with the default ones?

fartzilla
Dec 30, 2009

how disgusting

Demon_Corsair posted:

Do I want to grab the inserts from betterscanning, or will I be ok with the default ones?

I have a V500 too and I'm using the inserts that came with it. I don't get everyone complaining that they're flimsy, they work fine, although since you shoot medium format you might want to consider the betterscanning insert. I shoot 6x7 and only being able to scan one picture at a time is a gigantic pain in the rear end.

8th-snype
Aug 28, 2005

My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012


Young Orc

Demon_Corsair posted:

Cool, thanks for the info.

I wish I had the $2600 for that coolscan. I realized after that I posted that I do have a few prints to scan, and I will probably be making more soonish. So my dreams of a dedicated scanner are gone.

I ended up grabbing the epson v500 as no one around seems to be selling the v600.

Since I'm not even sure where to start with scanning, it seemed like a good choice. Do I want to grab the inserts from betterscanning, or will I be ok with the default ones?

I have a V600 and the inserts are ok as long the film is flat. If there is and curve at all forget about it. I just ordered a betterscanning holder and built a film flattening rig out of some scrap wood hopefully between the two my problems should go away.

The first thing you should do though is get better scanning software, Epson Scan suuuucks. I went with Silverfast Ai after demoing bith that and Vuescan. Try them both see what works best for you.

some kinda jackal
Feb 25, 2003

 
 
Today I read that the Perfection 3200 focuses 1mm above the glass when scanning transparencies. This isn't a problem when you're using the film holder since it's designed to suspend your film 1mm above the glass, but I opted to get rid of the holder because it is tricky to load without scratching my negatives and is just bulky in general.

Right now I have a system where I have four dimes on the scanner glass, then use them to hold up another sheet of glass. I can then slide my film between the scanner glass and my suspended glass for a relatively flat scan.

Except that now it seems I'm losing a little bit of focus that I could have.

So I'm trying to brainstorm. Where can I find a 1mm sheet of glass about the size of a picture frame? I can't imagine something like this would be easy to ship, but I can't think of a local store that would carry something this specialized. Any suggestions?

Rontalvos
Feb 22, 2006

I posted in the gear thread posted:

In lieu of seriously thinning the herd so I can buy a 5D MkII I think I've decided to try my hand at scanning my 6x6 and 6x9 slides before I abandon all hope and drop $2k+ on a full frame digital setup. I know nothing about scanning but am now in the market for one.

Do I go flatbed, dedicated film scanner, what're the pros and cons? Are there nikon coolscan models (I hear they're great) that would do a 6x9 or are they limited to 6x7?

I'd like to spend $350 or less on a setup if that's possible. If something like the Epson V600 runs $200ish on a place like amazon, I figure that budget is certainly doable. What does spending more on a scanner actually get you, though?

To me the V600 looks like a better piece of kit than the V500, but the 500 costs more? Somebody in the gear thread suggested they'd buy a 500 over the 600 if they could, or they'd save for a 700.

Am I doing myself a serious disservice by limiting myself to around $350 or will I be just fine and I need to just suck it up?

I'm so lost when it comes to scanners.

Dr. Fishopolis
Aug 31, 2004

ROBOT

Rontalvos posted:

To me the V600 looks like a better piece of kit than the V500, but the 500 costs more? Somebody in the gear thread suggested they'd buy a 500 over the 600 if they could, or they'd save for a 700.

Am I doing myself a serious disservice by limiting myself to around $350 or will I be just fine and I need to just suck it up?

I'm so lost when it comes to scanners.

Get the V500 with a betterscanning holder. The only thing the 600 does over the 500 is digital ICE for prints, which is a silly feature.

If you have a *lot* of film to scan, or shoot large format, consider a used 4990 or going up to the V700. It has twice the transparency space.

TsarAleksi
Nov 24, 2004

What?

evil_bunnY posted:

Not so many people needing scanners anymore when so much of your data is electronic in the first place.

Exactly-- the scanner market is going to die, it's just a matter of time. It's like the buggy whip industry. In 1905, no matter how nice, or how well priced the buggy whip you brought onto the market, it was never going to sell more than buggy whips 10 years before.

tonelok
Sep 29, 2001

Hanukkah came early this year.
I don't think it'll die completely - I think what you're seeing with the all-in-one scanner/copier/printers for under $150 is what you'll get, especially now that people are picking up on the "scan your receipts/etc. and ditch the physical copies" stuff.

Ask around your friends and families and you'll find a lot of people with a ton of prints/negatives in the closet somewhere and eventually somebody will digitize it. But time is running out. Epson will probably release one last prosumer scanner or whatever, and that's iffy.

It's unfortunate that Microtek blew it with the ArtixScan F1 and then got out of the US markets. That thing had auto-focus and glass-less scanning - film was mounted in trays that were inserted underneath the flatbed scanner, with no glass between the film and the scanner camera that auto-focused on the film.

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/MicrotekArtixScanF1.html

tonelok
Sep 29, 2001

Hanukkah came early this year.
Scanners the Achilles Heel (from March of this year) - rant about how it would benefit Kodak to release a solid $500 scanner.

Follow-up article about the above article: http://www.michaelsebastian.com/blog/?p=2101

quote:

Stephen Schaub, over at Figital Revolution, has laid down some common sense about film scanners today that I hope Kodak runs with. Check out his audio-blog entry and get it straight from him, if you’re not already following The Figital Revolution in your feed reader. You should be, if you love film and fine-art photography.

But the gist of his post is this: Kodak (he says) has the technology on the shelf to make a simple, high-quality film scanner at the $500 price point; and they should do this if they want to help ensure an ongoing market for their film products. It’s an interesting idea, if Stephen’s information is accurate. His post has prompted me to think more about all this, and how it might work.

quote:

If a color-film lover could buy a high-quality dedicated film scanner at least as good as the Nikon 9000 for $500, it would be a game changer. Spend $500 for a scanner that keeps your Hasselblad or Mamiya 7 from fading to obsolescence? Or drop $8k for the latest rapidly-depreciating Canikosony DSLR body, merely to achieve a result arguably no better than a good scan of a MF film negative made with the gear you already own? Faced with this arithmetic, a lot of FA’s who are on the threshold of pulling the digital ripcord might reconsider film.

People mention in the comments about how many bidders can end up on used Nikon or Minolta film scanners, and I've seen it first-hand.

TsarAleksi
Nov 24, 2004

What?
Man I guess I should sell the old Coolscan IV I have collecting dust...


I think that flatbed scanners are here to stay, I was thinking more of high-end dedicated film scanners. Once all of those people have scanned the film in the closet, then the market is gone, with the exception of the people who are still shooting film here and there (but I'm guessing many of them might not want to digitize their work at all).

some kinda jackal
Feb 25, 2003

 
 
I think you might see the name brand prosumer scanner die out, but there will always be some company waiting in the wings to charge a fortune for an industry-specific device.

Once Epson and the rest stop working on dedicated film scanners I'm sure we'll see a thousand-dollar device made by some small company come in to sweep up the remains.

evil_bunnY
Apr 2, 2003

I'd very, very much like a decent film scanner with auto-advance for 500 bucks. Right now the only solution (if you don't want to cut your reels and change them manually every 10 minutes) Is a good coolscan ($700?) with a reel loader ($200) on top. For an amateur it makes shooting film kinda hopeless (from a financial POV) if you intend to share stuff online, or if you want to archive/print digitally.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

some kinda jackal
Feb 25, 2003

 
 
It just means you have to dedicate like two hours of your day to nothing but scanning.

Which is a pain in the rear end :(

  • Locked thread