- This topic is empty.
Film Scanner
-
Hello
Anyone own the Agfa Film Scanner? I have seen it in the Argos catalogue. I was looking to buy the Nikon Cool Scan but just wondering if anyone has tried this one, and is it any good? To save some money to purchase other equipment. :)
Lovelife
Yes, those Coolscan’s are pricey and only getting worse now that they have been discontinued.
To be honest, there’s no free lunch when it comes to scanners and you generally get what you pay for. I have not tried the Agfa, but based on what I’ve seen written about it on the web, I can’t recommend it.
Entry level for any sort of mediocre quality is a flatbed scanner, that will also scan film, such as the Epson and Canon models. These will give you decent web-size images of approx. 2- 3 megapixels. I currently use a Canon 8800F for this purpose, but would not recommend it for more than web scans from 35mm. For medium format, the bigger negative saves the day, and you should get nicely detailed scans to make moderate size prints from. Max. print size from 35mm negatives is smaller and generally good for no more than 7×5, if you are particular re: quality. This is due to the low’ish true resolutions of these scanners, and also the softer nature of flatbed scans (compared to dedicated negative scanners).
If you move up to a dedicated film scanner, the Plustek models have gotten decent reviews and will get you a much more detailed scan in the region of 9- 10 megapixels.
The main thing to remember is that most flatbeds, and many of the lower end negative scanners all exaggerate their true resolution. While all claim anything from 4800- 9600 dpi, most flatbeds are really just in the range from 1600- 2300 dpi, and most lower end negative scanners being in the range of 2800- 3500 dpi.
A good site to check out for reviews is http://www.filmscanner.info/en/” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false; who give comprehensive reviews for many of the contenders.
Good luck out there, all of the best price/ performance mid-range models have unfortunately been discontinued, leaving only the lower and higher end models left out there in current production.
Thanks for the information Damien, ill be steering clear of Agfa, ill take a look at the other ones you mentioned.
Thanks,
LovelifePixels aren’t the only (nor most important) factor. Look at contrast handling: Read up on what DMax means and then decide.
Otherwise you end up with perhaps sharp, but washed out image files that no Photoshop can improve. That’s where ALL cheap scanners fail miserably.Some good points to bear in mind also. DMax gauges how well a scanner penetrates the density of a negative/ slide, to capture the full dynamic range of your film image. Unfortunately these figures are often exaggerated a little by manufacturers, although not as much as the resolution/ dpi stats. Good scanner reviews will measure the true DMax of a scanner, and let you judge if it will be sufficient for your needs. Inadequate DMax in a scanner will mean poor/ blown highlights in negatives, or poor shadow detail in slides, as the scanner simply can’t penetrate the darkest area of your film to pull out the detail.
I find my own Canon flatbed relatively poor on the sharpness & resolution front, but it does surprise me with the ability to extract a lot of detail from dense negatives, and have not found it lacking even with the densest of negatives I have used it to scan. Each scanner needs to be judged on it’s own merits though, and good reviews are invaluable.
Re: resolution, once you reach 2400dpi, you will be getting scans of approx. 3300 x 2200 pixels from a 35mm negative or slide, with that quadrupling to approx. 6600 x 4400 pixels scans at 4800 dpi, so you can probably make your mind up on whats an acceptable true dpi in a scanner for your needs.
Also worth mentioning should you be scanning colour film/ slides is the ability of a scanner to correct for any dust or scratches in the negatives. Cheaper scanners try to achieve this with the software, but this is usually a poor mans solution, with the better scanners providing functionality within the hardware to do this, going under the guise of Digital ICE (or FARE for Canon’s offering).
Thanks for the information. Im still looking around for one that will do me for a good few years to come but will also do justice to the photos themselves.
Just get a used Nikon Coolscan (any model produced after those dreaded SCSI-only connectivity models will make it easier to set up) and get it over and done with. Best out there (relatively speaking); can’t go wrong with any of them; if your slides are worth it, go for one.
Background: I started using Coolscans (LS-1000) in 1996 and have done probably 15.000+ slides with with that one alone, for publication (e.g. the book “Corals of The World”) and a scientific database. Even though the LS-1000 was slow and I wasn’t a great fan of the TWAIN interface, the results were/are top-notch by any standard.
Other good, but expensive scanners used: Imacon 848, Coolscan 8000, Epson V700 (and an 10000XL, which wasn’t that great for film, but very good for print copies).Thanks for the answer The Fine Print. I came across a scanner lately that does negatives. The Canon 9000F i have seen the scans it has done on negatives and they have turned out fantastically accurate. It has also got great reviews, the chap i buy all my equipment off has one in store and though its dear enough for a scanner when i only just purchased a canon printer come scanner i may just have a look :)
I have used a USB plug in special slide scanner (€95) which was very poor. Slides are in good nick but you wouldn’t know that from the scanned version. I bought a lens mounted slide copier (Opteca). I used to own a slide copier inclusive of the lens which gave clear image on SLR camera and worked really well. But the current copier is a plastic extention which is screwed into the lens. So far, I am only getting poor image results. The resoultion is determined by my SLR camera rather than a scanning device but the image isn’t great. Many practical problems here – I am using bright daylight clouds to back light the slide so not so flexible as regards when I can use it; also lens is maxed out at 80 and that’s not enough to get in close to crop the slide or even see if I am fully focused; and lastly, I find the slides captured on my camera don’t produce a very lively image on my computer. The same equipment is able to capture negative strips but it’s hard to feed in the plastic slips into the narrow space. And I am not impressed with the colour that is recovered from negative film. I wonder if there’s someone who has better route to digitalising these old images. Thanks.
I am in the process of scanning my dad’s collection of Kodachromes. Initially I used a light box to light the slides and photographing them with a macro lens (mirror lock up and remote release). Results were acceptable, but the process was painful.
I have since switched to a Plustek 7600i (35mm film scanner). Initially I turned on all the settings, which promised greater dynamic range and less noise. However through trial and error I have found the regular scan, along with the IR scan to remove dust etc. gets the best results, in the shortest time. For the odd poorly exposer slide or ones with high contrast I sometimes use the extra settings.The other option is to send the slides off to be scanned, which considering the time and effort involved is probably more than worth it.
Finally if you are near Tallaght, check out http://www.ruared.ie/” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false; They apparently have a Hasselblad slide scanner that you can hire time on.Briangoulding wrote:
I wonder if there’s someone who has better route to digitalising these old images. Thanks.
Brian,
I posed this question, amide my own research a while back, and you may find something of value in the links I posted in this thread. Best option with a Nikon dslr seemed to be a pair of bellows, and an enlarger lens. I haven’t really explored it anymore, and to be honest am content using my Canon 8800F for web scanning. When I feel like using my negative scans for more than web usage, I will likely buy one of the many old Minolta Dual Scans that seem to abound. There’s a seller on the German version of ebay, who seems to have functional Minoltas on a somewhat regular basis.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
