Scanner Options & Comparisons

[neb]

I'm sure similar questions have been asked numerous times before, but always worth rehashing an important problem. Typically I use a Flextight X1 in a co-op where I pay an hourly rate to scan, however because of the pandemic I cannot use it and have not been able to for sometime. I'm sitting on a larger library of negs now and I really like to be able to see and edit them at this point. So here come the options and alternative questions. looking to scan 120mm and 4x5 film.

Obviously, the X5 is a better scanner than any Epson flatbed. The X1 does not stand out quite as far above, but still offers many advantage, especially at the 120mm level. No option is as good as a high quality drum scan done well, but I DO NOT have the budget for that whatsoever, sadly. I did find a Tango on sale for $1000, but also have nowhere to keep the behemoth and it broke my heart to see it go. This leaves the question what can I use at home that is budget friendly and will give me satisfactory results. I'm looking to post content to my site, while retaining the ability to make medium-large prints from my files.

I can purchase a refurb Epson V850 for $700 which sits comfortably in what I can afford. I've used these before and they're definitely not bad, but I have never made prints from their scans. Would it be worth my time looking at a Creo Eversmart, or Screen Cezanne at all? I don't know much about them or their respective price tags. They are older equipment and I therefore wonder about tech issues and compatibility with my Windows 10 comp.

Finally of course, there's the option of digital camera scans. Normally, I wouldn't see the value of using something with less resolving power to capture a MF or LF neg, like my Sony A7RII, however with stitching techniques I figure its possible to achieve very high MP images using this process. One possibility I've been wondering about is suing the Pixelshift feature for the Fuji GFX 100/100s. Has anyone seen, or heard of this being used for negative scans? Theoretically, if done right, it could yield better results than any scanner (outside of drum perhaps) at 400 megapixel output. I've been considering waiting for a good use GFX 100s to come up. If I could use it both as a working camera and high quality scanning solution that would certainly justify the price.

I'd love to hear your thoughts Thanks!

[smthopr]

I'm sure similar questions have been asked numerous times before, but always worth rehashing an important problem. Typically I use a Flextight X1 in a co-op where I pay an hourly rate to scan, however because of the pandemic I cannot use it and have not been able to for sometime. I'm sitting on a larger library of negs now and I really like to be able to see and edit them at this point. So here come the options and alternative questions.

Obviously, the X5 is a better scanner than any Epson flatbed. The X1 does not stand out quite as far above, but still offers many advantage, especially at the 120mm level. No option is as good as a high quality drum scan done well, but I DO NOT have the budget for that whatsoever, sadly. I did find a Tango on sale for $1000, but also have nowhere to keep the behemoth and it broke my heart to see it go. This leaves the question what can I use at home that is budget friendly and will give me satisfactory results. I'm looking to post content to my site, while retaining the ability to make medium-large prints from my files.

I can purchase a refurb Epson V850 for $700 which sits comfortably in what I can afford. I've used these before and they're definitely not bad, but I have never made prints from their scans. Would it be worth my time looking at a Creo Eversmart, or Screen Cezanne at all? I don't know much about them or their respective price tags. They are older equipment and I therefore wonder about tech issues and compatibility with my Windows 10 comp.

Finally of course, there's the option of digital camera scans. Normally, I wouldn't see the value of using something with less resolving power to capture a MF or LF neg, like my Sony A7RII, however with stitching techniques I figure its possible to achieve very high MP images using this process. One possibility I've been wondering about is suing the Pixelshift feature for the Fuji GFX 100/100s. Has anyone seen, or heard of this being used for negative scans? Theoretically, if done right, it could yield better results than any scanner (outside of drum perhaps) at 400 megapixel output. I've been considering waiting for a good use GFX 100s to come up. If I could use it both as a working camera and high quality scanning solution that would certainly justify the price.

I'd love to hear your thoughts Thanks!

I would consider a used Nikon LS-8000 or 9000.

There is a very active Facebook group for these. “ Nikon Coolscan Users” were you can much information.

[Paul_Roark]

I have used a Nikon Coolscan 8000 for years to scan medium format negatives.  Sadly, my latest computer only has USB connections that are not compatible with the scanner.  (Adapters didn't work.)  Although I was initially skeptical, I found that a Sony a7rii mated to a Canon 100mm L series macro, mounted on an enlarger, with a color head (sitting on the enlarger easel) as a light source produced equally good digital files.  I have the Macro close enough to the negative that the long dimension of the Sony frame covers just slightly more than the width of the 2 1/4 negative.  As such, I take one frame in the middle of the neg, and one of each of the edges that were cut off in the first frame.  They are easy to combine in Photoshop.  In short, a top quality macro lens on a modern digital camera can replace the Nikon 8000 scanner for medium format (and probably other) film digitizing.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[John Nollendorfs]

The  main problem with all those dinasaur scanners is repair and maintenance. The V700/750 is pretty good, I've been using one for 10-12 years. But I  think you would find doing the stitching with a camera setup much more convenient and quicker. Even doing a one  shot instead of stitching might work for you. You should experiment and see. You can always rez up the file when converting it from RAW, or use the new High Rez option in Photoshop if you really need a bigger file.

Remember even though you can achieve bigger file sizes with scanners than using the camera technique, doesn't mean your end result will be any better. That's why I suggested up rezing in Camera RAW especially using the new AI version,m if you are making really large prints.

[neb]

The  main problem with all those dinasaur scanners is repair and maintenance. The V700/750 is pretty good, I've been using one for 10-12 years. But I  think you would find doing the stitching with a camera setup much more convenient and quicker. Even doing a one  shot instead of stitching might work for you. You should experiment and see. You can always rez up the file when converting it from RAW, or use the new High Rez option in Photoshop if you really need a bigger file.

Remember even though you can achieve bigger file sizes with scanners than using the camera technique, doesn't mean your end result will be any better. That's why I suggested up rezing in Camera RAW especially using the new AI version,m if you are making really large prints.

I'd love to see some examples from that set up if could! I assume I would need to invest in a copy stand & high quality light table to use the digital camera technique. What I wonder about is the sharpness in comparison to a Creo or even V850.

[MichaelEzra]

So far my attempts in digitizing 6x7 negatives with Z7 and Nikon 60mm macro 2.8G and 645z+120mmF4 showed significantly worse results compared to Coolscan 8000 scan with Vuescan, even while stitching multiple Z7/645z frames.

The problem I see is in the alignment of film and the camera. Perhaps this can be solved via use of an adapter similar to Nikon ES-2, but for 120mm film. Otherwise, the degree of sharpness and the uniformity of sharpness of the film scannner is very hard to beat.

[Daverich]

I've been in kind of the same situation as you for some time. I regularly used an Imacon at work for many years but lost that access when I retired. I didn't worry much about it as I switched to digital around 2005 but got to the point where I wanted to archive some of my film photography. I bought an Epson 750 when they came out but soon discovered that it wasn't capable of doing a quality scan of 35mm & 120 due to a lack of sharpness. I put some effort into correcting that problem including using the aftermarket Better Scanning holders but never came up with a solution. I did find that wet mounting 4x5's on the platen gave pretty decent results, and as I print on an Epson P5000 which limits me to 17", good enough for my use. I've looked into buying a used Imacon or some of the other scanners you've named but agree with the others that have already pointed out to you the the lack of parts & support as well as the requirement to use older computers and OS versions is really limiting. About a year ago I bought a Plustek OpticFilm 8100 to fool around with and was surprised at how good the results were. Maybe not imacon level but night and day above my Epson 750. However, I finally got to the point where I really wanted to be able to scan 120 film as I shot so much of it during my film days. I ended up buying a new in the box, Plustek OpticFilm 120 Pro on eBay that just got here last week. It came with a one year warranty and the full version of SilverFast Studio Ai. It's not clear to me if the scanner is still being manufactured. It only came out about two years ago but I couldn't find any retail places selling it. Plustek just updated the drivers for it a month ago though, so it's still being supported. The connection to my Mac is USB 3 so no futzing around with adapters and it works fine with Big Sur. I'm not a huge fan of SilverFast but it also works well with VueScan which I already had. I hope I'm not looking at my purchase through rose colored glasses as the reviews/comments about it online were split pretty evenly between "greatest thing since sliced bread" and "worst piece of junk ever, stay away". My experience over the last couple of days has been very positive though and if it stays in one piece is exactly what I was hoping for. My two cents.

[Paul_Roark]

So far my attempts in digitizing 6x7 negatives with Z7 and Nikon 60mm macro 2.8G and 645z+120mmF4 showed significantly worse results compared to Coolscan 8000 scan with Vuescan, even while stitching multiple Z7/645z frames.

The problem I see is in the alignment of film and the camera. Perhaps this can be solved via use of an adapter similar to Nikon ES-2, but for 120mm film. Otherwise, the degree of sharpness and the uniformity of sharpness of the film scannner is very hard to beat.

The use of a relatively long lens helps with alignment.  For the "35mm" Sony, a 100mm macro worked well.

Aside from levels to help get things as close to level and vertical as possible, one key is to then use a mirror on the light source.  Then in the camera finder, center the reflection of the lens.

Good luck.  It can work well.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com