Getting the highest negative scan quality for under for under 10K

[gupnip]

After reading numerous articles, including Mark's extensive scanner reviews, it appears the best quality that can be achieved for negative scanning with the following criteria:
- Budget of less than $10,000
- Purchasing new, currently available equipment

Is with the following tools/process:
1. Epson V850
2. SilverFast Ai Studio 8
3. Silverfast Advanced Targets (ISO 12641-2 candidate compliant 2017) for Scanner Color Calibration
4. Scanning the negatives sandwiched between the Epson Fluid Mount accessory on the bottom and Museum Glass on top

Please comment with any evidence based articles or reviews that may suggest a better process. A key consideration is how to edge edge to edge sharpness which the the sandwiching technique appears to resolve.

[digitaldog]

You can do a lot better on that budget than an Epson! Look for an Imacon Flextight. Not new but oh so much better quality scanner and software.

[kers]

+1 for the Imacon and
Use a digital camera; best quality for slides and negatives.
With todays camera's and lenses you can get everything out of your film.

[saiguy]

I got a very recent email from LaserSoft Imaging. They are offering some scanner/software bundles that include IT8 targets.

SilverFast 8 Ai, or Archive Suite is the best especially with negatives given all the film profiles they include.

I believe Flextight does not include Inferred technology. Their scanners are discontinued. Not sure if they handle fluid mount.

Fluid mount is considered a superior technique. But it is a lot of work and not all scanners can handle that. Their is a company selling glass mounts for many scanners. Can look up their site if you ask. Negative film is often very cupped and the film holders don't flatten they very well.

If I had to scan a lot of strip film I would use my Epson Expression 11000. I would then place them across the platen taping them in place with light weight tape, and then cover then all with a piece of Museum Glass to hold them flat. Then scan them one frame at a time. I would make SF 8 HDR files and develop them later.

[digitaldog]

An Imacon can handle 'fluid' mounting, there's no need and it's quite messy (as someone who ran drum scanners doing so can attest).The software is excellent at scanning color negs too.
The cost of just the lens in nearly any Flextight would pay for several Epson scanners. 

[smthopr]

After reading numerous articles, including Mark's extensive scanner reviews, it appears the best quality that can be achieved for negative scanning with the following criteria:
- Budget of less than $10,000
- Purchasing new, currently available equipment

Is with the following tools/process:
1. Epson V850
2. SilverFast Ai Studio 8
3. Silverfast Advanced Targets (ISO 12641-2 candidate compliant 2017) for Scanner Color Calibration
4. Scanning the negatives sandwiched between the Epson Fluid Mount accessory on the bottom and Museum Glass on top

Please comment with any evidence based articles or reviews that may suggest a better process. A key consideration is how to edge edge to edge sharpness which the the sandwiching technique appears to resolve.

I don't think scanner "calibration" using IT-8 targets is relevant for scanning negative film, especially color negative film.  It should work for slide film, providing that the IT-8 target is made on similar film stock.

I know you haven't asked about this, but in case you're interested, using a digital camera to photograph film works well, but not so well for color negative films.  The filter array in the camera is not well matched to the dyes in the film and obtaining the best color is not possible.

I think, at your budget, a used Imacon may be the best choice.  You can also find a few old Nikon film scanners for that budget, so that you have spares   The Nikon scanners come pretty close to the quality of the Imacons.  I've been using a Nikon scanner now for close to 20 years with good results.  It is certainly much better than the Epson for scanning film.

But now that I think of it, a crazy thought:  Use a monochrome digital camera and use an RGB light source to make three exposures in Red, Green, and then Blue, of your film.  Then use photoshop to mix the layers and color correct the image.  If you build a good rig, this might be even faster than any older film scanner, but with good results.  Of course, I've never done this myself!

[digitaldog]

I don't think scanner "calibration" using IT-8 targets is relevant for scanning negative film, especially color negative film.  It should work for slide film, providing that the IT-8 target is made on similar film stock.

Yes, exactly.

[gupnip]

Please limit the discussion to what can be purchased today. The Imacon scanners are no longer in production. Are there any other options?

See the pdf at the bottom of this link page below. It's very a very insightful and scientific review of the capabilities of the Epson V850. It is compared to the Nikon 5000, Nikon 9000, and Imacon.
https://luminous-landscape.com/epson-v850-pro-scanner-context/

Even the best dedicated film strip scanners e.g. nikon 5000 when they were being produced had edge/corner sharpness issues because film strip holders are the weak link. Drum / Imacon scanning does wonders to fix this issue because they flex the negative during scanning. But it seems sandwiching the negative has a very similar benefit. Although the best dedicated film strip scanners have ~10% better resolution, they have significant edge to edge sharpness issues. Overall, I think uniformity of sharpness in the focal plane would be better than a marginal increase in resolution which is already close to 2400ppi (p.17) by most of the scanning tools.

So target calibration is not required for negative scanning? Is this really true. Can someone explain this.

In scanning any significant negative collection, fluid mounting each negative would not be practical. Also I don't know if there would be any benefit compared to sandwich approach?

Can someone provide a link for where to purchase the best quality museum glass that would be used to flatten the negative?

[Stephen Ray]

significant negative collection...   ... would not be practical.

Please define “significant negative collection.” Size 110 thru 16x20 negatives? B&W and / or color? Glass negatives? Current condition of films? Different film types? What types, exactly? Qty of negatives? Individuals or rolls? What are your expectations as far as optical resolution? Do you have a particular end use in mind? A particular time frame?

If you don’t already know, realize that still photography negatives were never designed to be scanned in the first place. Their inherent makeup is optimized and matched to particular processes and scanning is not one of those. Therefore, typical consumer or prosumer gear makes it not impossible to achieve good results but, IMO, not really practical for “significant negative collections” and any cost.

However, $10K might get one a professional Fuji Frontier Sp-500 especially made for 35mm color negative film scans and might still be available new, as it still appears at their website. Otherwise, one may look for a used Kodak HR500 with variations up to 4x5. Also, a used Durst Sigma film scanner from APS size thru 4x5. These scanners are designed using both hardware and software optimized for scanning negatives in volume and these new or used options are what is practical for “significant collections” of negatives. A Scitex Supreme can scan (also fluid mount) films up to 12x17. Holding film flat is the easy part. The scan speed and software is as important as anything else and is unique to the units mentioned.

Color negative film scanning technology from the motion picture industry plays a large part here but is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Good luck.

[budjames]

I suggest that you pass on buying the scanner if you have a lot of film and instead send it to ScanCafe for their professional scan service.
 
Regards,
Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

[Rand47]

Well, it isn’t under 10K “all in” but my proposed solution has added value.  I quit scanning my client’s negatives, transparencies and old prints when I bought my Fuji GFX 100, the 120 macro, and an extension tube for “really small” stuff.

For most practical uses; restoration, printing at normal sizes, creating a digital record - the 200+ megapixel, 16 bit files are much easier to deal with than scans.  I created a vertical jig for holding the material, use good quality Solux light, polarized.  Often (crazy as it sounds) a 50+ megapixel jpeg in one of Fuji’s film simulations will get me where I want/need to go in a hurry. 

For me, at least, scanning and its concomitant software tweaking, color management, etc. is a pain in the backsides.  I’m certainly no “scanning expert” as some here genuinely are.  I’m a guy who has some clients who come with specific needs for good quality restored images, from old negatives, slides and physical prints.  I typically deliver prints up to about 16x20, tiff & jpeg files, and even video presentations of the “scanned and restored” materials.  If you’d like to see a sample, PM me and I’ll provide a link.

You also end up with one hell of a camera.

Rand

[Paul_Roark]

I'm now using my Sony a7rii (or iv), with a Canon 100mm L series macro and an enlarger stand & cold light head, to take several shots across a medium format negative, combining them in PS.  The results are equal to what my Nikon 8000 scanner produced.  (The reason I'm not using the Nikon is that the SCSI interface is obsolete and not supported by my current computer.)  If I could access my Nikon, I'd use it, but the bottom line is that I'm getting top quality digital files with equipment I already had and many photographers have or could duplicate. 

I might add that I also use Topaz AI Gigapixel to double the resolution and sharpen the scan, thus exceeding the apparent quality of old Nikon 8000 by itself.  Of course, the Topaz software would also be able to do its magic on the Nikon scans.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[saiguy]

Epson V850 advantage; it has the IR channel which can save you a ton of clean up work in PS. It is said it doesn't work on B&W negatives, but I think it will work on color negs. Disadvantage; It has only fixed focal plane. One for photos at platen, and one for transparency's fixed at the hight of their film holders. One solution is to use glass sandwich holders which have adjustable screws for hight. You can find them here.  <http://betterscanning.com>

Epson Expression 12000XL. Disadvantage; it does not have IR channel. Advantage; it has auto focus and even Pick Auto Focus place. Large platen where you can tape many strip films and place Museum Glass on top to hold them flat. Cost is about 3300 USD and I believe it comes with SilverFast 8 Ai. Think you can upgrade that to Archive Suite for additional $50. I have the 11000XL and like it very much. I scan everything to HDR so I can take my time in doing the scanning software development which takes much more time.

SF8 has numerous profiles for color negs. Some here are recommending to use digital camera for capture. But what to do with the orange mask issues?

Don't use ScanCafe.

For Museum Glass. Call around to find a quality framing shop to see if they have it and will cut a piece for your needs. It must be the real thing, not some fake glass. It is hard to see which side has the special coating. Have them mark that side and place it face up on the film.

[kers]

Epson V850 advantage; it has the IR channel which can save you a ton of clean up work in PS.
...

That is true, but the dust problem is because of the glass negative sandwich; 
The area with collected dust between the glass and the film that is in the sharp area of the scan.

In the case of using a camera or a dedicated filmscanner the dust problem is small and can be made smaller by using an air-blower.
An other problem of the flatbed scanner is flare, reducing contrast, also partly because of the glass in between.

Scanning colour negatives i always found a pain because of the orange mask, that differs slightly with every film.

[digitaldog]

See the pdf at the bottom of this link page below. It's very a very insightful and scientific review of the capabilities of the Epson V850. It is compared to the Nikon 5000, Nikon 9000, and Imacon.
https://luminous-landscape.com/epson-v850-pro-scanner-context/

Indeed:

In our testing the Imacon consistently delivered the best scans

And a good PMT Drum Scanner (ScanMate, Howtek) let alone a Tango would be far better.
But none are current products. But then, getting what was an $18K Imacon for a fraction is the advantage of them no longer being current products.
The Epson is a good little flatbed, I have a V750. Best in class? Hardly. Might be 'good enough' for your needs.
Frankly, IF I had do digitize a lot of film today, and the dozens of scanners I've used over the years expect the Epson are long gone, I'd consider the camera setup describe, certainly one like the Sony that has the capability to capture 'true color' with pixel shifting.

[Lessbones]

Aztek will still sell you a Premier drum scanner "new" but it won't be under 10K.  Plustek had a dedicated film scanner that could do 120 film a couple of years ago which ran on silverfast and USB, but it looks like it was discontinued in 2017 or something, also I have no experience with them.  I don't see the real advantage of having "current" technology-- it's not so difficult to keep an older machine around to scan on if you're doing a lot of scanning, also most of the SCSI scanners are supported by Vuescan and can be run via a SCSI to firewire (to thunderbolt) adapter, although these can be quite expensive and hard to find.

My favorite desktop scanner is the Minolta Scan-Multi Pro, which has firewire and 4800dpi optical resolution.  It is supported by Vuescan, and has IR light for doing digital ICE type cleanup.  I had one that had a lens element literally disintegrate though, so YMMV...

The real problem is that scanner technology has not truly advanced since labs stopped NEEDING to buy drum scanners to make high-res scans, since the parts alone cost more than what anyone is willing to pay for a scanner itself, the R&D budget completely evaporated around the introduction of the first Imacon scanners, and everything from here on out will be piggybacking on digital camera sensor advances.  So essentially if you want the best quality film scans you have to go back in time, or else be content with what you can get off of full-frame capture pixel-shift CMOS sensors.  I've seen some pretty great looking "scans" from the system that Digital Transitions has developed with Phase One-- while not quite as nice as the drum scanners I've got, this is really where the scanning industry is headed, and 99% of customers would be more than happy with the ~200mpx images that come off of these systems.

If you're scanning only 35mm I would get a Minolta Scan Dual IV and Vuescan-- the whole setup can be had for less than $150 and you can scan 3200dpi without glass and with IR cleanup if you want.  With USB and Vuescan support these will be usable with current systems for a long time to come.  Otherwise, you can do a whole lot worse than a Sony A7R IV (Pentax K-1 II, or other pixel-shift capable camera) a lightbox and a macro lens.

[Richard.Wills]

When the remaining firewire port in my Imacon 949 fails, I'll go around the Digital Transistions camera scanning solution.

DT's film holders and stage ($5k), the Kaiser lightbox ($1.2k) they sell, an old Devere enlarger chasis, and whatever camera and macro lens combination can be afforded/ needed ($4-15k) (likely the fuji 100MP with macro and tube).

Shoot direct to capture one or LR. White balance from the film rebate, and build presets for the various film stocks.

This can come in at close to 10k, and one tenth of DT's complete Cultural Heritage solution (which is what all the big boys and gals seem to be using), though without the serious productivity benefits of using a top notch system.

[BobDavid]

A Sony A7r III (pixel shift mode) + Voigtlander 110 f/2.5 Macro Apo Lanthar mounted on a mid-range Kaiser copy stand with a custom backlight and a good assortment of Omega negative carriers does the trick for me.

[Paul_Roark]

A Sony A7r III (pixel shift mode) ...

Do you see a noticeable difference with the pixel shift in a copying setting? 

Thanks,

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[BobDavid]

Do you see a noticeable difference with the pixel shift in a copying setting? 

Thanks,

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

The one-shot captures look better than anything off an Epson V850, d-max is never an issue, it's easy to pump up the light source. The pixel shift captures are excellent--sharpness, color fidelity, etc.