Any "full frame" 8x10 film flatbed scanners exist?

[JM Woo]

I have an interest in scanning 8x10 black and white film, and recently I had the opportunity to testdrive the Microtek i900 scanner. I only had a few hours with it, and although I found the scan quality to be quite good with the stock options, I found it frustrating that the scan head just about covered 8x10. And when you place the film on the glass tray, you're forced to use the peel-of vinyl tabs to keep the film flat. In the end, you wind up with a practical maximum film scan size of somewhere closer to 7.75 x 10. This is worse if your film has any signficiant curl, because in those cases you'll have to place vinyl tabs at multiple corners, further encroaching on the live image.

Before making a purchase decision, I'm hoping someone on this forum knows of a scanner with comparable specs to the Microtek that allows for a "full frame" 8x10 scan.The ideal scanner would have a scan head that reached 8x11 or more, which would give you ample space to lay the negative flat and crop the preview scan to the final 8x10 film dimension (i.e. all the way to the border). Any help s greatly appreciated. Happy holidays!

[Lars Åke Vinberg]

JM, I have used a Microtek 1800f for the last year to scan 8x10. This is my procedure to get decent scans:

- Replace the glass in the glass tray with antireflex-coated glass from a framing store. This will minimize the appearance of newton rings.

- Use 1/2" black tape to mask off an area on the glass so the 8x10 sheet will just fit. I got "photographic tape" at an art supplies store in the U.S.

- use 1/4" black tape to tape the edges of the sheet down, to keep the film flat.

Following this procedure I get consistently decent results. There is still a problem with noise in dark areas - tha 1800f is supposed to have a cooling device but I doubt it. For dark scans I simply remove the top of the scanner casing and let it sit for half an hour to cool off, then scan in an otherwise dark room. This will of course void the warraty of the scanner but these CCD flatbeds have so much heat-generated dark current noise that I find all flatbed I have tried to be unusable for dark images unless something is done to dissipate the heat.

[giancatarina]

it appears that the new epson perfection 4990 should be fine ... for only 600$.

[CP Goerz]

Agfa Duoscan T1200 has an 8 1/4 X 10 1/4 transparency drawer as well as a standard scanner bed, cost about $300 or less in good shape.

CP Goerz

[fishfish]

I have a Microtek ScanMaker 8700, and it will scan 8"x10" with the rebate without any issues. I frequently scan both 4x5 and 8x10 in this way, and the only issue is sometimes the exposure changes when you increase the scan-size to include the rebate - using VueScan makes this less of an issue (I found the Microtec scanning software pretty frustrating).

[George Stewart]

Epson 10000XL.

[Ted Harris]

I hae been using the Microtek i900 for the past 4 months to scan 4x5 and 8x10. Theh i900, like the 1800f is a dual bed scanner meaning that there is no glass between the transparancy and the scanning optics/light source. For 8x10s the negative or transparancy does rest on a glass tray for support .. support only.

[CXC]

Do all you 8x10 scanners print incredibly large, like 50x60? Otherwise, I repeat my question of earlier threads, why scan 8x10 at all? The advantages of sticking with 4x5 seem overwhelming, IMHO, unless one prefers the experience of shooting with the larger camera, or one chooses to contact print. Plenty of resolution for reasonably sized prints, say up to 16x20, plus you get to use ReadyLoads.

[tim atherton]

"Do all you 8x10 scanners print incredibly large, like 50x60? Otherwise, I
repeat my question of earlier threads, why scan 8x10 at all? The
advantages of sticking with 4x5 seem overwhelming, IMHO, unless one
prefers the experience of shooting with the larger camera, or one chooses
to contact print. Plenty of resolution for reasonably sized prints, say
up to 16x20, plus you get to use ReadyLoads."

CXC

I'll repeat the answer you were given by others - there is a noticable difference from prints from 4x5 and 8x10 even at 16x20 and certainly by the time you get to 20x24

It's just a different look (not all down to the negative size, but mostly so), but the difference is there.

(and yes, I also make decent sized pritns at times - 50" or 60")

[Christian Olivet]

CXC There are lots of people that work on 8x10 for the fun of it. Bigger ground glass is incredibly better for framing and focusing and you get 8x10 negatives you can contact print. By scanning you add a whole new world of possibilities that you already know, like making larger prints or larger digital negatives for contact printing. I think that is reaseon enough to want to shoot 8x10.
When I photograph, I never think of convenience and even if 4x5 if enough for large prints, I enjoy the pleasure of working with my 8x10.

[JM Woo]

Thanks for your responses. I had a second run with the i900, and it's been enough to convince me that it's the scanner that I want to buy. The forthcoming Epson 4990 sems nice on paper, but I think I will prefer i900's glassless scanning underneath the reflective bed (logic says less dust). I've compared some 4x5 i900 scans to ones that I've done with my 3200 and the i900 scans look much better to my eye.

As for the related thread up above started by CXC-- I stick with 8x10 because I enjoy contact printing. But since I've move over to a dry inkjet darkroom for 35mm and 4x5, I'd also like the option of creating prints from 8x10 negs without having to head over to the wet lab each time. I imagine that this is probably the case with many other people who scan 8x10.

[CXC]

Well, all those reasons sound pretty reasonable, I must say. Happy scanning, all.

[Lars Åke Vinberg]

CXC,

If you haven't, I hope you get a chance to look at a good 8x10 chrome on the light table some day. It can be quite mesmerizing. Whether it is worth the substatial overhead in cost and effort is of course subjective.

[CXC]

Lars,

I only shoot b&w. I find that with my limited talent and vision a larger camera buys me nothing: though it is fun to use the bigger ground glass, the final print is no different or better. I bought an 8x10 thinking it would be big enough for contact prints (or Polaroids), but while others excell at that scale, my stuff needs to be bigger. Consequently the 8x10 has been sitting on the shelf for a while... I'm fishing for reasons to give it another try.

I sincerely doubt that I could tell the difference between two 11x14 prints from scans of similar 4x5 & 8x10 b&w negatives. And even if I could, I probably wouldn't be sufficiently enthusiastic about it to be bothered to use the 8x10. If I ever discover differently, I'll buy an 8x10 scanner in a minute. If they still make them by then...

[jonathan smith]

OK, this is another question, but I've checked specs on all the scanners mentioned, and it looks like the Microtek 1800 is the only one made to scan 8x10 film.

The i900 specs say it goes up to 6x9.

Is this true, or are they just referring to included masks that you can remove? Can you do the glassless, backlit scanning of an 8x10 neg?

Thanks, the i900 looks otherwise like a perfect scanner

[Ole Tjugen]

I know that the AGFA Duoscan T1200 takes 8x10", since that is what I use. It has glassless carriers for 35mm, 120 and 4x5"; other sizes are scanned on glass - backlit.

[Donald Qualls]

Another in the Agfa line (obsolete, but likely still available in good working condition if you shop around) is the Arcus 1200. I have one; this scanner scans 8x10 on the glass with a transparency mask, 4x5 and smaller with a glassless insert that replaces the glass. Newton rings can be a problem on the glass, but at 2400 ppi (interpolated from 1200 ppi on the narrow dimension) and 16 bits per channel, it's very hard to beat the performance at the kind of price you'll pay; mine cost me under $150 shipped, including purchase of a SCSI card and cable to connect it to my computer. In addition to the glass and glassless carrier, and 8x10 transparency mask, that price included the drivers for the scanner, scanning software for both direct and TWAIN operation, and an OEM copy of Photoshop (version 5, I think).

I've made simple adapters for the 4x5 scan opening, and can now scan my 9x12 cm and Minolta 16 negatives glassless, as well as all formats of 120 and standard 35 mm film or 2x2 mounted slides in the supplied carriers.

At 2400 ppi, a 9x12 cm negative creates an 88 megapixel file.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have a relatively high res scan of an 8x10" neg from the Agfa Duoscan linked to this page--


http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/imviaduct.htm (http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/imviaduct.htm)

The original scan was 1000 dpi, 16 bit. The images posted are 8 bit JPEG's, and the largest version posted is downsized to 500 dpi.

[Lars Wildmarker]

I have a Epson 4990 Photo who I uses to scan my 4x5 negatives and slides.
I have a few enlargements in the size 100x70 cm that holds up pretty good.
I´m however looking for a glassless scanner with the Optical resolution of about 3200 or more and the Dmax 4,0 or greater.
I have plans of buying a 8x10 camera for my landscape shots.
I really want users opinions before I buy anything.

I do think for a scanner that coast over or near $1000 I want better holders than that comes with this scanner.

Do anyone in this forum have such a scanner who delivers high quality scans and is easy to use with good build quality.

I am only going to use the scanner for sheet film 4x5 now and later on for 8x10.

[locutus]

Epson V800/V850 is the step up, after that it gets esoteric quick.

[koraks]

Glassless and 8x10? Not sure if that exists.

[Leigh]

I use an Epson V750 with great success.

All of the Epsons in that series V700..V800 will do full 8x10 at high resolution (4800 or higher).
The nominal scan area is 8.5"x11.7".

- Leigh

[Jim Andrada]

I don't think you'll get anything like a true 4800 optical from the Epson 700/750. I certainly couldn't get it from mine.

[Jim Andrada]

I don't think you'll get anything like a true 4800 optical from the Epson 700/750. I certainly couldn't get it from mine. That said, the Epsons will give nice results unless you're into billboards.

[Lars Wildmarker]

It says that my Epson perfection 4990 Photo has 4800 Optical resolution but when I use the silverfast program it interpolates (sorry for my spelling) already at 3200 so I think regarding to what you said it´s 2400 Optical resolution at least with the 4990. Do any of you have a high resolution scan to share. Well I´m into billboards or at least meter enlargements around 55-56 inch scans. This is a 100% crop from one of these scans.159718

[Oren Grad]

Read the reviews here before you get carried away with the manufacturers' specifications:

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html

And an archive link in case the site goes down:

http://web.archive.org/web/20161220085104/http://filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html