Can you reccomend a film scanner?

Bandit959

Hey Folks;
I was cleaning out a closet today and came across my old film negatives. Remember those things?

I don't have prints of all these negatives, so I was thinking about pucking up a film scanner. So I did a quick search and there's a bunch of posts that have been helpful.

But my quetsions that I couldn't answer are:
Do I need a 3600 dpi scanner to do simple 35 mm negavitves or is this overkill? Doing the math it seems that these will be pretty large images.

Is the extra bump up in quality to got 4000 dpi worth the price?
Thanks for your thoughts....

ian408

Bandit959 wrote:

Hey Folks;
I was cleaning out a closet today and came across my old film negatives. Remember those things?

I don't have prints of all these negatives, so I was thinking about pucking up a film scanner. So I did a quick search and there's a bunch of posts that have been helpful.

But my quetsions that I couldn't answer are:
Do I need a 3600 dpi scanner to do simple 35 mm negavitves or is this overkill? Doing the math it seems that these will be pretty large images.

Is the extra bump up in quality to got 4000 dpi worth the price?
Thanks for your thoughts....

Couple of questions. Once you're done, what will you use the scanner for?
That will drive whether you get a flatbed with a negative carrier or a
dedicated film/slide scanner. Second, how many negative do you realisticly
want to scan? Answer that and then do some arithmetic on the cost of
having them scanned and that should tell you whether you should buy a
scanner.

As a general comment, higher resolution will be better. Whether it's worth
the extra cost depends on what your budget is.

Ian

pathfinder

Bandit - I do not know your level of expertise in scanning, color theory and Photoshop usage - But if you want great scans there is a bit of a learning curve.
If you just want a low resolution scan that is not really color corrected ( B&W negs can be more difficult than color in some ways ) the easiest is to have your local Photo shop do it for you.
A flat bed scanner will probably do a good job at a reaasonable price. But if you want publishable quality scans, a film scanner will be much better - slower, but better. Figure 5 -10 minutes a scan when you get good at at. More time to start.
What is your budget, and goal for your images?

Bandit959

Thanks for the responses folks.

My goal is to take the 250 choice negatives that I've collected over the years and "save" them. I may want to publish them in teh future, but I'm not planning on that at the moment. But you're point is well taken. I might want to plan for that.

Because some are 20 years old, they're not in the best shape. I didn't take good care of the negatives when I was younger. Go figure. I don't have any good prints that I could scan in on my flatbed scanner.

I suppose that I could have them printed in their current shape, then scan the prints at hi-res and clean them up that way. I'm not a PS expert, but I'd say that I'm at intermediate level. So working in PS is not a problem.

As for budget, I'm fairly flexible. If the right solution means that I take them to a place that will do the scanning and give me a digital file to work with, then I'm all for it.

I can afford the $230+/- for the Konica/Milnolta that was reccomended in some of the other posts, but I want to keep it under $500.

For me, it isn't about getting the "toy", but getting the pictures back. So I think I'll check out the local places and see if they can scan them for me and see what the cost will be. (I hadn't thought of that option) If it's neutral, I just might let them do it.

Thanks for the ideas!

ChrisJ

Bandit959 wrote:

Thanks for the responses folks.

My goal is to take the 250 choice negatives that I've collected over the years and "save" them. I may want to publish them in teh future, but I'm not planning on that at the moment. But you're point is well taken. I might want to plan for that.
...
I can afford the $230+/- for the Konica/Milnolta that was reccomended in some of the other posts, but I want to keep it under $500.

You're not going to be able to get a true film scanner for under $500. I would suggest taking your slides to a professional scanning shop and having them done. I've had this done for about $1 a slide in the past. That will save you $250 in cash, plus the time it takes to scan them all. You will still want to re-touch them in software, but you'd have to do that anyway.

If you really want a hardware solution, I have been happy with my Epson Perfection 4870 Photo. This model has been replaced with the 4990 Photo. It is a high resolution (though not really as high as claimed) flatbed scanner with film scanning attachments and Digital ICE scanning software. Here's a sample photo. Original Size. It has been touched up in Photoshop.

But if you really want the best quality, have them professionally done.

colourbox

Bandit959 wrote:

I suppose that I could have them printed in their current shape, then scan the prints at hi-res and clean them up that way. I'm not a PS expert, but I'd say that I'm at intermediate level. So working in PS is not a problem.

If a lab will clean them up economically, go with the lab. If not, scan them yourself using a scanner that can fix many of the defects itself. Today's film scanners work wonders.

I see the Nikon Coolscan V is just over $600. That scanner supports Digital ICE, ROC, GEM, and DEE:

Digital ICE4 Advanced™ automatic correction function
Digital ICE™ (Image Correction & Enhancement) removes dust, scratches and fingerprints from scanned images
Digital ROC™ (Reconstruction Of Color) recreates and restores faded color values for vivid, faithfully rendered images
Digital GEM™ (Grain Equalization & Management) equalizes image grain for sharp, clear images with no clumping or graininess
Digital DEE™ (Dynamic Exposure Extender) helps reveal details lost in shadows and highlights

These features can save literally hours of work on faded, beat-up old film. My old Nikon scanner only has Digital ICE, and even just that is a lifesaver. I would not want to clean up scans of prints made from damaged film.

Bandit959

Thanks folks....
I think you convinced me to have a place scan them for me. The advantage is I don't have to do it all at once. $20 here and there is easier to do than $500. Hmmmm... well, maybe I'll just have to go buy a new lens.

Seriously, thanks for all your thoughts.

Robt

If you look in the various sites for used, you can find some really good deals on Nikon Coolscan 4000 for the $500 budget. What I've read says that it is not quite as good as their 5000 but the price point makes it worth the wee bit less quality.Good Luck

bham

Coming from experience I have thousands of negatives left to be scanned. I purchased a Minolta DiMage Scan Dual IV this fall and have been extremely pleased with the purchase. To date I have scanned a little over 1700 images and am still going. Its scans at up to 3200 dpi (14 Megapixel output) and I have printed 24x36 posters from those images that came out fantastic. I am not close to being done by a long shot. It will probably take me a few years to scan everything I have (not a priority).

Yes doing it yourself can take time, but what I usually do is when I am at the computer working on something I also am scanning a few images. I switch back and forth. This way while it is scanning I am either being productive or doing something else, like posting here at Dgrin.

Bandit959

Well, I just may have to go for the used market. From the posts, lots of folks seem to like the Minolta Scanner. But I've seen reports on some color shifting problems as recent as Dec 05. It kind of seems that you either love and it works great or you have all sorts of problems and you hate it. Go figure.

But since a couple of the photo places thet I went to want to charge 2 bucks a negative, even with the relative high volume, I'm starting to consider purchasing again. Funny how that works.

swintonphoto

I have used a number of flatbed and dedicated film scanners. Of all the ones I have used, the Epson flatbeds are by far my favorite. They were much more reliable and easier to use than the dedicated film scanners, and the price is much better. I compared images scanned with a number of the top notch dedicated scanners, and the flatbed gave me scans as good as any. The price is much better, and frankly, these Epsons hold up and are VERY reliable. Go with an Epson. You will pay up the wall for a lab to do it.
I use the Epson 3200 the most. If you are only scanning 35mm negs then you can get a great scanner for $100-$200:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=160&mnp=0.0&mxp=0.0&shs=&ci=1152&ac=&Submit.x=10&Submit.y=10&Submit=Go
3200 DPI is sufficient.

SCS_Photo

Great information here: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15076153?hilite=coolscan

Art Scott

swintonphoto wrote:

3200 DPI is sufficient.

Sufficient for what size printing at what dpi?
At 3200dpi what is the printing limitations?

juliejules

I have always wanted a film scanner for the tons of 35mm slides I have.

I want the Konica Minolta DiMage Scan Elite 5400 II. It scans at a resolution of 5400 and you can get it at Staples for $599.98. It only scans 35mm slides or negative film.

But then again, I have no experience with it, so I can only say it looks good on paper. The reviews I've read are all very positive.

One of these days I'll get one, but I need a new camera first.

pathfinder

Mereimage uses that scanner and likes it a lot. The scans are very nice and have high resolution.