A convenient list of scanners capable of scanning 4x5?

[barnacle]

My search skills are obviously lacking, but I cannot locate such a list of scanners, either here on the forum or on the interwebs at large.

My ancient and increasingly unreliable Epson Photo Perfection 2450 (for some values of perfection) has finally given up the ghost and no longer even communicates with the computer, so time for a new (i.e. something off the bay, in all likelihood) scanner. Trying to find even something as simple as the size of slides/negatives which can be scanned is remarkably difficult; tedious to say the least.

I should stress that I'm *not* looking for a discussion on resolution, Dmax, accutance and the rest; at present I just want a reference list of scanners with the physical ability to scan 4x5 negatives.

Here's my start, from research yesterday:

Epson:

• 1600/1680
• 2450
• 3200
• 4870
• 4990
• 10000/11000XL
• V700
• V750
• V800
• V850

Canon:

• Canoscan 9950F

HP:

• Scanjet G4050

Please feel free to add... I should add also that TWAIN compatibility is important; I use Linux, not windows.

Neil

[drew.saunders]

The Epson Perfection 3200 Photo will also scan 4x5, and was provided with a 4x5 holder, as well as 35mm and medium format. You could go through each scanner here and figure out which ones could scan 4x5 film if you have the time: https://epson.com/Support/Scanners/P...Series/sh/s210

[Alan9940]

Are we talking scanners available today or any scanner?

Epson 1600/1680 Pro, Epson 10000/11000XL.

Then, of course, you have a couple high end flatbed scanners, drum scanners, and, I think, one of the Hasselblad units (X5, maybe) will handle 4x5. But, all these options are way out of my budget.

[barnacle]

Thanks guys, updated to include.

I think it's worth listing anything, though in practical terms I think anything that has a reasonable resolution - over 1200dpi as native resolution - and is vaguely affordable. I can't afford to buy a drum scanner The main thing is to create a reference so that someone looking at a possibility on the bay can quickly check.

Neil

[Alan9940]

I can't afford to buy a drum scanner The main thing is to create a reference so that someone looking at a possibility on the bay can quickly check.

You might be surprised at the cost of a used drum scanner. I recently passed on a turn-key Howtek D4000 setup for $750!

[Jim Andrada]

I think Linux may rule out most high-end scanners. So are you looking to build a comprehensive list of scanners or a comprehensive list of Linux scanners?

[Two23]

If you are starting over, I'd suggest looking into using a high MP DSLR to take several shots of a 4x5 neg and then stitching them in CC. I have an Epson v700 and am seriously looking into that. There have been some threads here about doing that.


Kent in SD

[Corran]

This test done by members of the LF community is quite old, but is a good reference for many scanners that are available outside of the realm of "new production:"
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

Many of us are running old scanners and of course these have not been eclipsed by newer offerings whatsoever.

If you are looking to make a comprehensive list of scanners that can do LF film as a reference, you should consider adding in all possible scanners, and perhaps make a spreadsheet for various data points such as: max scanning area, type of scanner (flatbed, drum, etc.), usable OS (Windows XP/7/10, Mac OS9/OSX, etc.), software available, and whatever else. This will be useful to the community at large, not just for your search.

Might I suggest a Google Docs spreadsheet that can be editable by approved users. You could add people willing to add pertinent info to the document. For instance I would be happy to add data for the Screen Cezanne, Microtek M1, and Agfa T2500 - the 3 LF-capable scanners I have owned and used over the years. I would recommend Pali for some good data points on various drum scanners and high end flatbeds.

This isn't a suggestion to redo that scanner test - just basic data points on capability and such. Looking back at legacy scanners, there is a huge number available, sometimes very inexpensively, if you are willing to work within the limitations (SCSI, OS, etc.). For instance the Agfa I mentioned above was a really good scanner, better than an Epson I think in some respects, and cost me $50.

[xkaes]

The4se

This test done by members of the LF community is quite old, but is a good reference for many scanners that are available outside of the realm of "new production:"
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

Many of us are running old scanners and of course these have not been eclipsed by newer offerings whatsoever.

If you are looking to make a comprehensive list of scanners that can do LF film as a reference, you should consider adding in all possible scanners, and perhaps make a spreadsheet for various data points such as: max scanning area, type of scanner (flatbed, drum, etc.), usable OS (Windows XP/7/10, Mac OS9/OSX, etc.), software available, and whatever else. This will be useful to the community at large, not just for your search.

Might I suggest a Google Docs spreadsheet that can be editable by approved users. You could add people willing to add pertinent info to the document. For instance I would be happy to add data for the Screen Cezanne, Microtek M1, and Agfa T2500 - the 3 LF-capable scanners I have owned and used over the years. I would recommend Pali for some good data points on various drum scanners and high end flatbeds.

This isn't a suggestion to redo that scanner test - just basic data points on capability and such. Looking back at legacy scanners, there is a huge number available, sometimes very inexpensively, if you are willing to work within the limitations (SCSI, OS, etc.). For instance the Agfa I mentioned above was a really good scanner, better than an Epson I think in some respects, and cost me $50.

These are great points. A simple list is next to worthless. It sounds like the perfect project for that starving graduate student we are constantly looking for.

[barnacle]

I think the original intent is to gather data here before we decide whether to make a more polished document, Bryan.

While some here are able to spend drum-scanner money on their hobby (or profession) I think there's also interest at the lower end (and often second hand). It does seem that scanning large negatives/slides is even more of a niche industry than making the things in the first place

Neil