Film Scanner Suggestions?
-
I turn to the code project lounge for opionions on what they suggest for scanning film, primarily 35mm negatives, although I've some 35mm slides and 80mm x 80mm negatives and transparencies, too. The latter format may be left out of the mix when opining. Have you: Specific experience. Rumor. Inuendo. Recommendations based upon any of the above.
Decisions that I'm mulling over include:
a pure film-scanner vs. a flat-bed that can do really high quality photo scans, as well.
lcd vs cold cathode for light source
is 4800 dpi enough resolution? Do it right the first time seems like a good idea.
stuff I haven't thought of, yet.Since this is not a career-change move, the really expensive high end scanners are out.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol -
I turn to the code project lounge for opionions on what they suggest for scanning film, primarily 35mm negatives, although I've some 35mm slides and 80mm x 80mm negatives and transparencies, too. The latter format may be left out of the mix when opining. Have you: Specific experience. Rumor. Inuendo. Recommendations based upon any of the above.
Decisions that I'm mulling over include:
a pure film-scanner vs. a flat-bed that can do really high quality photo scans, as well.
lcd vs cold cathode for light source
is 4800 dpi enough resolution? Do it right the first time seems like a good idea.
stuff I haven't thought of, yet.Since this is not a career-change move, the really expensive high end scanners are out.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadolYou get what you pay for. I've had a CanoScan FS4000 film scanner for years and it does a good job, albeit slow. At 4000 dpi the film grain is fairly prominent. I use NeatImage Pro for cleaning images that really need it. I don't scan at 4000 dpi unless I'm blowing something up significantly. For archival stuff I do 2000 dpi (about 5+ megapixel equivalent for a 35mm frame), save 'em as uncompressed TIFF as well as JPEG (I use VueScan Pro for the scanning). Inexpensive flatbed scanners will never do a great job of film. If you are really serious about film, get something that can do a wet scan, like the Epson Perfection V750-M Pro. Wet scanning reduces grain, scratches, dust and they look freakin' spectacular (yes, there are software solutions for these things as well, but they don't come close to what a wet scan can do). If you're really, really serious, get a drum scanner (which scan wet). There's a tradeoff between doing it right the first time and actually being able to get it done. Scanning everything at 4000 dpi is going to take a very long time. Hope this helps, Drew.
-
I turn to the code project lounge for opionions on what they suggest for scanning film, primarily 35mm negatives, although I've some 35mm slides and 80mm x 80mm negatives and transparencies, too. The latter format may be left out of the mix when opining. Have you: Specific experience. Rumor. Inuendo. Recommendations based upon any of the above.
Decisions that I'm mulling over include:
a pure film-scanner vs. a flat-bed that can do really high quality photo scans, as well.
lcd vs cold cathode for light source
is 4800 dpi enough resolution? Do it right the first time seems like a good idea.
stuff I haven't thought of, yet.Since this is not a career-change move, the really expensive high end scanners are out.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol -
You get what you pay for. I've had a CanoScan FS4000 film scanner for years and it does a good job, albeit slow. At 4000 dpi the film grain is fairly prominent. I use NeatImage Pro for cleaning images that really need it. I don't scan at 4000 dpi unless I'm blowing something up significantly. For archival stuff I do 2000 dpi (about 5+ megapixel equivalent for a 35mm frame), save 'em as uncompressed TIFF as well as JPEG (I use VueScan Pro for the scanning). Inexpensive flatbed scanners will never do a great job of film. If you are really serious about film, get something that can do a wet scan, like the Epson Perfection V750-M Pro. Wet scanning reduces grain, scratches, dust and they look freakin' spectacular (yes, there are software solutions for these things as well, but they don't come close to what a wet scan can do). If you're really, really serious, get a drum scanner (which scan wet). There's a tradeoff between doing it right the first time and actually being able to get it done. Scanning everything at 4000 dpi is going to take a very long time. Hope this helps, Drew.
First I've heard of wet-scanning. Conceptually, matching the index-of-refraction of the film with a liquid would eliminate scratches perfectly (unless they damaged the dyes). Contact with the scanner surface would also improve. I'm frighted to consider the price and time involved in doing it quite as right as this. I looked anyway. It's nearly 4x the cost of what I expected to spend on this. Thanks for the thought and knowledge.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol -
First I've heard of wet-scanning. Conceptually, matching the index-of-refraction of the film with a liquid would eliminate scratches perfectly (unless they damaged the dyes). Contact with the scanner surface would also improve. I'm frighted to consider the price and time involved in doing it quite as right as this. I looked anyway. It's nearly 4x the cost of what I expected to spend on this. Thanks for the thought and knowledge.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadolYa, it can be pricey. Deciding what's best in terms of bang-for-buck and time considerations is tough. I finally decided on 2000 dpi, dry scan with my FS4000 which works pretty well. I've just recently ordered some scratch filling liquid for a bunch of scratched up negatives I have. I'm going to try that with the film scanner to see how well it works. Ultimately, nothing beats cleaning your negatives with a good quality film cleaner prior to scanning. Most of the film cleaners are anti-static as well. You'll find out quickly that dust is not your friend :) . Good luck with whatever you decide. Oh, final suggestion - get yourself some lint-free cotton gloves. Fingerprints on negatives are worse than scratches and dust put together! Cheers, Drew.
-
Ya, it can be pricey. Deciding what's best in terms of bang-for-buck and time considerations is tough. I finally decided on 2000 dpi, dry scan with my FS4000 which works pretty well. I've just recently ordered some scratch filling liquid for a bunch of scratched up negatives I have. I'm going to try that with the film scanner to see how well it works. Ultimately, nothing beats cleaning your negatives with a good quality film cleaner prior to scanning. Most of the film cleaners are anti-static as well. You'll find out quickly that dust is not your friend :) . Good luck with whatever you decide. Oh, final suggestion - get yourself some lint-free cotton gloves. Fingerprints on negatives are worse than scratches and dust put together! Cheers, Drew.
Drew Stainton wrote:
scratch filling liquid
Back in the photo class I took they said to use "nose grease"; I still use it for CDs and DVDs and such.
-
I turn to the code project lounge for opionions on what they suggest for scanning film, primarily 35mm negatives, although I've some 35mm slides and 80mm x 80mm negatives and transparencies, too. The latter format may be left out of the mix when opining. Have you: Specific experience. Rumor. Inuendo. Recommendations based upon any of the above.
Decisions that I'm mulling over include:
a pure film-scanner vs. a flat-bed that can do really high quality photo scans, as well.
lcd vs cold cathode for light source
is 4800 dpi enough resolution? Do it right the first time seems like a good idea.
stuff I haven't thought of, yet.Since this is not a career-change move, the really expensive high end scanners are out.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadolMy sister used her Epson flatbed scanner (V10 or V100, forget which - it was an entry-level model, though) to scan some 35mm slides from the late 60s/early 70s - the results were very good. I'd be tempted to use something like that and see the results before splashing cash on something more expensive. I seem to remember her scanner would also scan negatives.
-
I turn to the code project lounge for opionions on what they suggest for scanning film, primarily 35mm negatives, although I've some 35mm slides and 80mm x 80mm negatives and transparencies, too. The latter format may be left out of the mix when opining. Have you: Specific experience. Rumor. Inuendo. Recommendations based upon any of the above.
Decisions that I'm mulling over include:
a pure film-scanner vs. a flat-bed that can do really high quality photo scans, as well.
lcd vs cold cathode for light source
is 4800 dpi enough resolution? Do it right the first time seems like a good idea.
stuff I haven't thought of, yet.Since this is not a career-change move, the really expensive high end scanners are out.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadolCanon CanoScan 8800F Based upon my price range, CodeProj comments, a bunch of sites describing what's what from a scanner-independant point of view, and owner ratings at a lot of sites. I was really considering the PlusTek group - dedicated purely to film/negatives, but the one-by-one manual feed was (upon reflection) going to make the project too burdensome. The investment in labor is a serious consideration when creating an archive (viz-a-viz, a handful of special items). If anyone wants a report on the results, let me know. To everyone, thanks. Live opinions make a difference.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol -
Canon CanoScan 8800F Based upon my price range, CodeProj comments, a bunch of sites describing what's what from a scanner-independant point of view, and owner ratings at a lot of sites. I was really considering the PlusTek group - dedicated purely to film/negatives, but the one-by-one manual feed was (upon reflection) going to make the project too burdensome. The investment in labor is a serious consideration when creating an archive (viz-a-viz, a handful of special items). If anyone wants a report on the results, let me know. To everyone, thanks. Live opinions make a difference.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol -
I do! :) I know it was a couple of years ago but I'm about to embark on the same project as you did also for prints.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
So, here's what I bought: Epson V500 Here's how it works: I only use it at 3200 dpi (it can easily do twice that). This converts a 35mm negative to ca. 12 MP. The sharpness still impresses me - nearly 7000 negatives later. A very valuable feature is "Digital Ice" - a dust removal technology that fixes tiny errors. Look it up if you need the details. Suffice it to say that I'm happy to spend ca. 3.5 min/negative with digital ice rather than 1 minute without it. Final size (jpg, 16x compression) is roughly 2 MP/each. You'll get quite good at color, brightness, and contrast correction (if you're not already proficient). Actually, the digital scans are usually better than the prints sent back from the original processing (and even the actual image captured). It look how you saw it - artifacts of time (usually blue-shifted postives) and original color temperatures and lighting - can be corrected. This is not philosophically bad: the idea of the photo is to record what you saw. Since I'm storing so many, I worked out a nice system: Images are scanned to a folder labeled with yyyymmdd . The scanner scans to a specified prefix and then appends nnn. The prefix I use is yyyymmdd_ . The negatives are stored with yyyymmdd on the storage envelope. Negative numbering starts w/the same numbers as on the film, etc. Any negative can then be easily re-found, should that become necessary. Now, as I noted above, the scanning take a while. Most negatives were cut into strips of four, and so I do two of these at at time. During the 30+ minutes, I create (in the same folder) yyyymmdd.txt and fill it full of information about the digital images (very brief, but for every one of them). I've done a few B&W's, and other formats, but cannot give you any good info because they were all special cases. The B&W, for example, was sheet-film shots with very different optical properties than normal negatives. I did my first few slides, yesterday: they didn't need any color correction (Ektachrome 1980). The projects nearly done - my wife's still losing patience with the semi-permanent setup - but loves to look at the pictures. Good thing I'm mostly done. If you come up with any clever innovations, even for a different scanner, don't be ashamed to share. . . . and Good luck.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know