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/Perfection-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.

[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

[Tobias Key]

I have a HP G4050, but recently I have gone down the DSLR route. If you already have a DSLR it's pretty cost effective and I get better scans in terms of sharpness, tonality and Dmax than I ever got with my flatbed. I don't have a fancy system, just a Canon 6d, a tripod, a light panel and a 50 2.5 macro. Easy to set up but being good with a spirit level is pretty much essential to make things run smoothly. I shoot 8 fine jpegs and stitch them together, I found shooting raw to be very slow, YMMV. Best thing about it is that everything you need is dual use, and easily available and upgradable, and if you shoot digitally you probably have the expensive parts of the scanner already. I only had to buy the macro lens (second hand) and the light panel so total set up cost was less than £200.

[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]

Apologies, I thought I answered this a couple of days ago...

A more nuanced list would certainly be helpful but to be honest I'd rather keep it here than in an external store (just my biases).

I've just purchased, from the great auction site in the sky, two of the units on the list - the epson 4870 and the HP G4050. I'll see which I prefer (I think the 4870 may require the glass replacing) and then the other might find its way back onto the bay. It'll be interesting to compare the two - apart from anything else, the 4870 is 16 bit and the 4050 only 8 bit. Which is not to say that the one is better than the other, but there are sound signal processing reasons to have as many bits as possible on the input stage, even if the final display is only going to be eight bits deep. But that's perhaps another thread.

Neil

[coisasdavida]

two of the units on the list - the epson 4870 and the HP G4050

Recently I took apart a 4870 and after a good clean had the oportunity to test it. Inside it looks just like a V700. Comparing scans of the same negative (4x5 color negative), using Epson Scan for both, they are very similar in performance, the 4870 being a bit better on the focus issue.

[Pere Casals]

Recently I took apart a 4870 and after a good clean had the oportunity to test it. Inside it looks just like a V700. Comparing scans of the same negative (4x5 color negative), using Epson Scan for both, they are very similar in performance, the 4870 being a bit better on the focus issue.

Focus can be corrected by adjusting holder height.

V700 should deliver slightly better performance capability for vertical bars, as it has 6400dpi (hardware) vs 4800 dpi of the 4870, delivering slightly better practical resolving performance, IMHO not much, at all.

Practical max performance values are between 2300 and 2800 optical dpi, depending on x or y axis an on other factors like microcontrast, flat negative, etc.

This is around what a good LF lens can resolve if workig in a very good shooting situation, so at the end it is not much a limiting factor, but close of it, IMHO.

Those flatbeds are less ideal for 35mm film, where a fraction of the shots may outresolve the scanner capability.

[Pere Casals]

and the 4050 only 8 bit.


Not at all, it can deliver 16 bits per channel, and 6 weird channels per pixel, total weird 96 bits per channel.

[barnacle]

Ah, my mistake reading a spec somewhere.

They haven't arrived yet, anyway...

Mathematically (from a signal processing point of view) one should use the default resolution of the sensor element, rather than allowing the interpolated/decimated output from the machine. There is no anti-aliasing optical filter in the system other than the limited resolution of the film/lens combination, but sample rate conversion is *not* as simple as replicating or discarding samples, or even averaging them.

[If you really want to know: first find common divisors of the input and output sample rate. If the default is (say) 2400 ppi and you want 2000 ppi, these ratios are 6 and 5. Expand the input signal by the output ratio, inserting four zero samples between each actual sample - now the signal has five times as many effective samples.

Low pass filter the result to the Nyquist limit of the input sample rate; in this case under 1200ppi (probably 1100-1150ppi to make a usable filter).

Now decimate the filtered result by discarding five out of every six samples - reducing the sample rate to the desired 2000ppi and filter again to the Nyquist limit of the output - nominally 1000ppi but more likely 900-950ppi. You now have a mathematically accurate, and if you used the right filter, a phase correct output at the lower pixel rate. The critical thing is that you don't want any frequencies in the output signal which were not there in the original, or in the case of reducing the sample rate, that would otherwise alias in the output.]

Neil

[Jim Andrada]

https://www.amazon.com/Signals-Systems-Dummies-Mark-Wickert/dp/111847581X

[jamesaz]

I have a microtek i900. It serves my purposes. It cost around 80$ off Craigslist.

[barnacle]

First observation: the HP G4050 covers up to 'about' 8x10 on the transparency unit (with holders for all the usual suspects: 35mm strip, a guide to locate 51mm square (mounted slides?) and 120 strip and 4x5).

Normal (print) use looks fine, but... there is apparently no TPU driver for linux, so no negative scanning. And I have been unsuccessful in installing the HP software in the W7 image running in VirtualBox. So not a lot of use for me, so far... possibly Vuescan, but while I can make the unregistered version do a flat scan, it silently fails when I try and do a transparency scan. No idea why. In the windows VM, Vuescan fails to see the scanner at all.

Neil

[coisasdavida]

but while I can make the unregistered version do a flat scan, it silently fails when I try and do a transparency scan

This happens in OSX too: 10.6 and newer won't work, but older OSs work fine for this scanner.
I have read somewhere the language used to write the driver for the TPU was no longer supported.