scanning 120

magicbastarder

am getting a bit cheesed off with the performance of my (admittedly cheap) canonscan 8400f (and the software which comes with it).
just wondering what hardware other people use to scan 120; i don't think a nikon super coolscan 9000 is within budget, so does anyone else have comments or output from some of the more expensive flatbeds?

DaireQuinlan

They all apparently have much the same problems. Those high end epsons are meant to be ok, but I wouldn't say you'd see a noticeable quality improvement until you went upmarket. With regards to software, I've been exclusively using Vuescan for the last 4 or 5 years. It's $80 for the pro version with upgrades for life.

jpb1974

Are you scanning for web only or do you intend to print?

As per our previous correspondence I use an Epson V500 (€215 Pixmania). I usually only use this to scan for the web but the 2400 dpi scans would make a print good print I reckon... never tried it though.

I know a number of people who use the Epson V700 (€489 Pixmania) and speak highly of it.

The 35mm and 120 film holders that come with these scanners do the job but they aren't the best... very flimsy.

jpb1974

BTW - What sort of performance issues are you experiencing?

stcstc

I have a v750 pro, and use silverfast Ai , which allows me to do multiple pass scans, this is great when scanning things like velvia, where most scanners cant capture it correctly in a single pass, silverfast allows you to do a kind of hdr scan of it instead. although i dont do that much of it

the main issues with most flatbed is actually the cheap ass plastic holders they give you to hold the film

there is a company called someting like betterscanning.com in the states who sell upgraded film holders for scanners and also sell anti newtons rings glass

from all accounts it does make a huge difference

magicbastarder

jpb1974 wrote: »

BTW - What sort of performance issues are you experiencing?

lack of sharpness, but my main issue is that it simply cannot deal with the colours in a good slide. it's just depressing comparing the original with the scan.

daire - i'd been looking at getting vuescan, because unless i'm missing something, you've no way of switching off the auto-exposure on the software which came with the scanner. so a frame with a lot of black usually comes out overexposed.

Heebie

OOH! I'd never even thought about the idea of getting Silverfast for my Epson V500! It actually looks well worth getting for serious work. (although.. getting some targets for calibration is also a VERY good idea!) The software + targets is actually more than the scanner. =O

stcstc wrote: »

I have a v750 pro, and use silverfast Ai , which allows me to do multiple pass scans, this is great when scanning things like velvia, where most scanners cant capture it correctly in a single pass, silverfast allows you to do a kind of hdr scan of it instead. although i dont do that much of it

the main issues with most flatbed is actually the cheap ass plastic holders they give you to hold the film

there is a company called someting like betterscanning.com in the states who sell upgraded film holders for scanners and also sell anti newtons rings glass

from all accounts it does make a huge difference

Effects

I have a 4400F and I find sharpness is pretty bad. I also only scan black and white with it cause it handles colours so badly. Upgrading to something decent in September that can handle 120 too.

Simplicius

Epson 750 Pro is an excellent machine .... I have never had an issue getting my 120 properly scanned. I haven't figured out any of the software, I let it run on auto but I am sure I am only tipping the top of the iceberg with it's capabilities ....

If you can afford one , get it ....

Heebie

Can't turn off the auto-exposure? That's SO SO SO SO SO crap! =O (seriously..that's an amazing deficiency in the software!)

I'm scanning some stuff from 35mm velvia, 120 6x6 Reala 100 and some B&W (Not sure what film yet.. probably Pan-F 50) on my Epson V500.. I'm scanning at 3200dpi, which is enough that you can see the scanner's resolution is probably outstripping the film.. I'll include insets from that, along with much, much smaller versions of the overall scans I think.. it should give you an idea what it can do.
The 750 is probably better still I would think.

I'll post those when they're ready.

magicbastarder wrote: »

daire - i'd been looking at getting vuescan, because unless i'm missing something, you've no way of switching off the auto-exposure on the software which came with the scanner. so a frame with a lot of black usually comes out overexposed.

magicbastarder

cheers, much appreciated.

DaireQuinlan

I'd be wary about the resolution claims for any of the consumer flatbeds though. Generally accepted true optical resolution is between 1/4 and 1/2 what's claimed on the box. I've scanned the same neg on my canonscan at it's claimed 4800 and on my Nikon Coolscan at 4000 and the coolscan scan has blown the socks off the canonscan one. And yeah, the flatbeds also tend to be bad getting through dense slides, the dedicated scanners are far better. I reckon the flatbeds are grand for medium format C-41 and B&W, but no good for 35mm or for slide in either format.

I've posted up my scanning workflow here before, but basically Vuescan allows you to save out a raw scan from the scanner. I save out 64bit RGBIs from the coolscan and then work on them from there. Once I've done the initial ICE pass, inversion and removal of the colour mask (if C-41) to get a first cut I save off as a TIFF and delete the RAW. Then I work on the TIFF to get whatever colour corrected JPG out of it for upload or print or whatever.

magicbastarder

i'm still on the coolscan III; one reason why i haven't moved to windows 7 yet.

democrates

Lattitude is a big element, few scanners do justice to high quality slides.

If you're interested read this scanner spec mythbusting piece from Ken Rockwell : http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scantek.htm
TL;DR: try before you buy if possible but at least find trustworthy competent reviews

Heebie

I've posted a set of scans from my Epson, some 120, and some 35mm, some color & some black & white.. including a series of scans of a small section of a shot on Ilford Pan-F 50 that's pretty sharp, at resolutions of 2400, 3600, 4800, 6400*, 9600, and 12800 dpi. (*rated optical resolution.)

http://pix.ie/heebie/album/381455

Take a peek & make some comments. The Reala shots are the only ones saved with lossy compression, although I used the minimum compression possible to get the image down to a size pix.ie would accept.

-

As for the opinions above on Nikon Coolscan kit.. I have to agree.. it's awesome. I used to use a Super Coolscan 8000ED at work years ago.. and I've never seen anything less than a drum scanner costing many times as much do a better job. I just can't justify the expense for one of those..where the €199.95 I spent on my Epson was a good investment from my perspective. (I'm thinking of getting a higher-ish Silverfast, or maybe checking out the other one mentioned in this thread that I can't remember the name of right now to see if the improvement in quality is as high as Silverfast claims.)

magicbastarder

thanks for that; plenty to chew over. i wonder what the difference is between the 700 and 750 is; just model age? the 600 is quite affordable too.

stcstc

its more than that


the 750 has better glass and optics, and comes with proper colour managed software etc

Heebie

I checked out a demo of Silverfast.. and I really wasn't impressed with it. It has some nice features.. but I wasn't able to get a single scan that looked as good from Silverfast, as scans of the same negatives done with the native Epson software.

Silverfast does look like it would be better for a fully color-managed workflow.. but that could be done with the Epson as well, as it supports color profiling. (although you might have to cob the profiles into the software to get them working... there's no way to manage color profiling from within the Epson scan software... you just have to drop the color profile into the directory of profiles, and then select it.)

Heebie wrote: »

OOH! I'd never even thought about the idea of getting Silverfast for my Epson V500! It actually looks well worth getting for serious work. (although.. getting some targets for calibration is also a VERY good idea!) The software + targets is actually more than the scanner. =O