Help choosing Flatbed for occasional 120 scanning

[nickb23]

Hey guys,
recently got myself a Holga MF camera, and I am looking to get a scanner so that I can scan the neg myself. As this is still an experiment I dont want to spend big bucks just yet. i am looking to spend around £150, and I like the look of the Epson V500 scanner or the Canon 9000f. What are peoples experiences with these scanners? Are there any other models people can recommend? 
I also want to be able to scan the whole neg including the border, so that it shows ilford, kodak etc... I think I will be able to achieve this if I get one of the lomographys Digitaliza film holders too -unless anyone knows a DIY way of doing this.....

I also have a technical newbie question regarding scanners too...... Please let me know if I am totally wrong.
Supposedly the 9000f native resolution is 9600dpi. does this mean that at native resolution, i can scan a 6x6 neg at (6cm =2.36inch) 22656x22656? IF I then printed this at 300dpi I could print an image at 75inx75in?? This is purely hypothetical, but i am looking to print up to A3 or A2 if the image is good enough (Portraits of kids), which I know is a much lower resolution, and I will never scan at 9600dpi due to hardware imitations!!
Thanks in advance....
Nick

[Doug Fisher]

Optically, they perform about the same.  Real-world/true optical resolution is much lower than those marketing numbers you quote.  I prefer the V500 because they have a higher film suspension height which means less chance of Newton Rings and I prefer EpsonScan in professional mode more than the Canon ScanGear software.

Doug

[Edalongthepacific]

There is a good article in "Shutter Bug" (February 2011) about the new Canon 9000F & SilverFast that might interest you.

[Jonathan Ratzlaff]

A holga camera is more noted for its quirky image characteristics rather than outright quality.  Do you have any equipment that will photograph the negative like a macro lens or close focussing lens.  I have done that with 35mm and it wouldn't be a stretch to do the same with a medium format negative especially if you are shooting black and white film with it.

[BradSmith]

Sadly, I really don't think there is much valuable info in the Shutterbug reviews by David Brooks regarding the SCANNER.  Or any other scanner he reviews.  This scanner review, along with most of the scanner reviews he writes, such as the Sep '10 issue where he reviewed the Plustek 7600i scanner and the Oct '10 issue where he reviewed the Epson 600,  really becomes a review of LaserSoft scanning software.  Many technical details about the software, almost nothing regarding the scanner itself.  In the current article, he points out he used the "....SilverFast Archive Suite of scanner Silverfast SE or Ai6 and HDR Studio...." software. Whatever that means.  The price of these two (or 3 ?) pieces of software on LaserSoft's site is SE version $299 and Ai6 version $509.  I can't tell from their site if HDR Studio is a part of the Suite or has to be purchased separately.   My point about this review, and his recent reviews about the Epson 600 and PlusTek just seems to be about the software. 

I don't have a problem with detailed reviews of scanning software.  But if these reviews are supposed to be about relatively inexpensive film scanners, then really highlight $500 software without mentioning the price, it seems like a poor review to me.  And why isn't other 3rd party software, such as VueScan (Pro Edition is $80, free lifetime upgrades) ever mentioned, tried or compared?
 
And I happened to notice a full page SilverFast ad in this Shutterbug issue and Brooks and his reviews mentioned prominently along with what look like Shutterbug ads on the SilverFast web site.   

Hmmmmmm   
Brad

There is a good article in "Shutter Bug" (February 2011) about the new Canon 9000F & SilverFast that might interest you.

[dmerger]

Brad, I agree completely. The review seems more like an advertisement for Silverfast than a scanner review or even a software review.
 
Except for a few hardware adjustments, all the adjustments in Silverfast or any other scanning software just adjust the pixel data derived from the scanner’s CCD.  Such adjustments, i.e. image editing, can be done in the scanning software or Photoshop, Adobe Camera Raw, Lightroom or other image editing software.  So if the reviewer wanted to do an impartial review of Silverfast, a comparison of Silverfast to other image editing software would seem appropriate.

[Alan Klein]

I'm using the Epson  V600 for 120 film.  It's a few dollars (pounds) more than the V500 but allows you to scan three 120 pictures compared to one for the V500.  It also does ICE on prints as well as film compared to ICE only on film with the V500.  I'd disregard all these claims to 6400, 9600 etc in resolution that all the scanner manufacturers make.    Never going to happen.  I scan at 2400 resolution.   I also use the Epson furnished software.  But I do PP with Elements and don't change the settings beforehand. I haven't really tried it but you should get reasonable prints on A3 with 120 film if you're not cropping.

The thing that limits resolution is accuracy that's effected by noise, sensitivity of the sensor -and other variables.  People always confuse the two terms.  For example, let's say you have a digital thermometer in your oven.  The thermometer has one degree display.  That's resolution.  However, the accuracy of the instrument is 10 degrees.  That means that even though you it reads 253 degrees, the temperature will actually be anywhere from 243-253 degrees.  The thermometer has the resolution capability but it really cannot see the temperature that finely.  Same with the scanner.  They're giving you more pixels, but the scanner is not distinguishing each area of the scanned picture that finely.  Adjacent pixels are really the same.  All you wind up doing is creating larger files for no purpose.  

You can see some of the V600 results in my gallery. Can't help you with the other scanner as I don't know anything about it.  Good luck in whatever you choose.   Alan