Best New Scanners Available?

[neil poulsen]

What are the best scanners for film that are available new?

I'm thinking that the Epson Perfection V850 would be included in this categories. Are there others?

[bob carnie]

What are the best scanners for film that are available new?

I'm thinking that the Epson Perfection V850 would be included in this categories. Are there others?

I just bought this scanner and its great for a lot of my applications, but for larger scale images I use my eversmart or Imocan. I am researching a large sensor back connected to a process lens and backlight system that many here are working with .

[Alan9940]

How much do you want to spend? A Fuji GFX100S mounted on a sturdy copy stand will easily blow away anything any Epson can provide.

[Oren Grad]

If you want to purchase new and are looking for a flatbed that can conveniently handle sheet film with decent quality, the choice is Epson V850 or 12000XL. If you want more than that, the alternative now is a copy setup built around a high-MP digital camera. These are more of a hassle to set up and optimize, but if you can afford to play at the high end (A7RIV, GFX 100S) these are remarkably powerful tools even in single-shot mode. And if you're willing to fuss with multi-shot/stitching/stacking, and you have a workstation that can handle the resulting enormous files without choking, the image fidelity that can be achieved is astonishing.

If money is truly no object there's the Hasselblad H6D-400C 100MP multishot system or the 150MP Phase One back, but assuming an optimized setup and careful technique I'm not sure that these do any better than a GFX 100S in multishot mode.

[bob carnie]

If you want to purchase new and are looking for a flatbed that can conveniently handle sheet film with decent quality, the choice is Epson V850 or 12000XL. If you want more than that, the alternative now is a copy setup built around a high-MP digital camera. These are more of a hassle to set up and optimize, but if you can afford to play at the high end (A7RIV, GFX 100S) these are remarkably powerful tools even in single-shot mode. And if you're willing to fuss with multi-shot/stitching/stacking, and you have a workstation that can handle the resulting enormous files without choking, the image fidelity that can be achieved is astonishing.

I think this is going to be the way we digitize moving forward , I have no doubt about it. The most incredible aspect of this approach is you can capture instantaneously rather than wait for 10 min for the scan to complete, its a game changer for people working with large volume of images.

[Oren Grad]

I think this is going to be the way we digitize moving forward , I have no doubt about it. The most incredible aspect of this approach is you can capture instantaneously rather than wait for 10 min for the scan to complete, its a game changer for people working with large volume of images.

I'm sure you figured this out long ago, but for those who haven't used copy-stand setups: beyond finding a lens optimized for the desired reproduction ratio, the key for high-quality, high-volume production work is dedicating a camera body to it and investing in a robust copy-stand-plus-illuminator-plus-negative-holder setup that can be precisely aligned and then locked rigidly in place so that it doesn't need to be realigned with every capture.

[bob carnie]

I'm sure you figured this out long ago, but for those who haven't used copy-stand setups: beyond finding a lens optimized for the desired reproduction ratio, the key for high-quality, high-volume production work is dedicating a camera body to it and investing in a robust copy-stand-plus-illuminator-plus-negative-holder setup that can be precisely aligned and then locked rigidly in place so that it doesn't need to be realigned with every capture.

You are so right, I have a friend of mine who is pretty good at gathering gear working on the base , neg plane, proper lens and what kind of sensor would be appropriate, in a perfect works I think a 150mb back is what I would be looking for.
getting the right workflow is where its at.
I still use three scanners for different purposes but now am seeing a huge resurgence in film repro and need to up my game.

[Alan9940]

I'm sure you figured this out long ago, but for those who haven't used copy-stand setups: beyond finding a lens optimized for the desired reproduction ratio, the key for high-quality, high-volume production work is dedicating a camera body to it and investing in a robust copy-stand-plus-illuminator-plus-negative-holder setup that can be precisely aligned and then locked rigidly in place so that it doesn't need to be realigned with every capture.

And an electronic remote release. Also, if you're planning on scanning color film the light source should have a high CRI rating--99 is good.

[neil poulsen]

Thank you for all the responses, they're very helpful.

I'm thinking of medium format and 35mm film scanning, and I have a P45+. Can stitching even be considered as an option with digital film scanning? Or lacking a multi-shot system, is single-shot the only viable option? I might enlarge MF to 13x19, or possibly to 16x20? Would a 39MP file be sufficient for decent results?

I think that, in pursuing this film scanning possibility, I'm more interested in cutting down on flare in the shadows that can result from flatbed scanning, versus resolution. Is that reasonable?

I have an MP4 copy camera, onto which I can mount my camera with the digital back attached. What would be good light sources that could work with an MP4? For a lens, I have a Rodenstock 75mm repro lens optimized for 1:1 that was designed for making inter-negatives. I'm thinking that, as a lens, that would be a good start?

What might I be missing?

[willwilson]

Stitching works for me. I don't scan a lot but have done well with a 5dsR and a 100mm Macro. I do 9 shots and stitch in PTgui for 4x5. Focus and alignment are important, but we are photogs we are good at that stuff. I bet your setup would do fine for 35mm. You will probably want to upgrade if you do much scanning though. I know I would want more mp, so I could stitch less, if my volume was higher.

This method blows away normal flatbeds.

[SergeyT]

>> I'm thinking of medium format and 35mm film scanning, and I have a P45+. Can stitching even be considered as an option with digital film scanning? Or lacking a multi-shot system, is single-shot the only viable option? I might enlarge MF to 13x19, or possibly to 16x20? Would a 39MP file be sufficient for decent results?

You have everything to give it a try and have some of the questions answered.

Many things depend on how technically good the original pictures are.
Quality wise-today's "new" usually has less life in them than yesterday's "old"
For personal use my preference would be a high-end flatbed (Eversmart Supreme, IQSmart3) over anything else, including GFX-100(s). All the quality is there and convenience of a workflow is hard to beat.

[bmikiten]

I've spent the last few months on this issue and have an Epson V850 (wet mount), P45+ back, Nikon D800, Eversmart Creo and a Flextight 848. The bottom line is quite simple - it depends on your final enlargement and original negative size and quality. Are you scanning 4x5 images make with a Schneider XL lens or 120 from a Hasselblad or Rollei or an old canon with a 50mm lens. There is a point where you are just polishing the turd.

Are you a low-tech person who just wants to scan and get on with Photoshop edited? An Epson V850 has currently supported hardware and software as do the stitching back solutions. There are at least three different scanning packages that support these methods and are regularly updated. Wet scanning is a bit of a pain but if you adjust focus and wet scan you can get some pretty amazing results.

Are you making large prints and want really fine detail and quality? If so the Eversmart supreme (and other models) will blow your mind. It requires old software and finicky startup until you get it set up but after that, it can be rock solid. For archiving purposes or big "art" prints, this is the way to go.

Digital captures via either 35mm/120mm or other digital methods can work but even with fine quality (flat field) lenses you'll need to control the back light source and be super aware of lens flare and distortions when stitching. This was annoying only at larger print (11x14+) but I could see it. I know this is pretty popular but I didn't find it to be that convenient or of the quality level of a flatbed or (848) scan.

Just FYI

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm sure you figured this out long ago, but for those who haven't used copy-stand setups: beyond finding a lens optimized for the desired reproduction ratio, the key for high-quality, high-volume production work is dedicating a camera body to it and investing in a robust copy-stand-plus-illuminator-plus-negative-holder setup that can be precisely aligned and then locked rigidly in place so that it doesn't need to be realigned with every capture.

All very true. Another option, one the Daniel Moore uses, is to clamp the lens around it's circumference. That way, the body can be removed without messing with alignment.

[bob carnie]

All very true. Another option, one the Daniel Moore uses, is to clamp the lens around it's circumference. That way, the body can be removed without messing with alignment.

Exactly what we a thinking with the setup we are working on , the lens never moves and the back can easily be taken on and off.

[Serge S]

This was the issue with my camera scan set up - the lightable flare was an issue to some degree - something I always needed to watch for even after masking for it. I went back to my epson V800, it's slower, and the quality may not be as good but I like the workflow better - and it still delivers a nice file to work with.
I keep tweaking things and getting better at it also. The ultimate would be to get a creo scanner - as the workflow suits me.


I've spent the last few months on this issue and have an Epson V850 (wet mount), P45+ back, Nikon D800, Eversmart Creo and a Flextight 848. The bottom line is quite simple - it depends on your final enlargement and original negative size and quality. Are you scanning 4x5 images make with a Schneider XL lens or 120 from a Hasselblad or Rollei or an old canon with a 50mm lens. There is a point where you are just polishing the turd.

Are you a low-tech person who just wants to scan and get on with Photoshop edited? An Epson V850 has currently supported hardware and software as do the stitching back solutions. There are at least three different scanning packages that support these methods and are regularly updated. Wet scanning is a bit of a pain but if you adjust focus and wet scan you can get some pretty amazing results.

Are you making large prints and want really fine detail and quality? If so the Eversmart supreme (and other models) will blow your mind. It requires old software and finicky startup until you get it set up but after that, it can be rock solid. For archiving purposes or big "art" prints, this is the way to go.

Digital captures via either 35mm/120mm or other digital methods can work but even with fine quality (flat field) lenses you'll need to control the back light source and be super aware of lens flare and distortions when stitching. This was annoying only at larger print (11x14+) but I could see it. I know this is pretty popular but I didn't find it to be that convenient or of the quality level of a flatbed or (848) scan.

Just FYI

[Daniel Stone]

If the camera and sensor(regardless of the setup, a dslr/mirrorless or a fancy bellows option with a repro lens) can be locked in position, then you can move the film stage, for stitching.
Having a frame with graduated marks allows you to accurately "step" each shot so its overlapping the same amount every shot.

[bmikiten]

If the camera and sensor(regardless of the setup, a dslr/mirrorless or a fancy bellows option with a repro lens) can be locked in position, then you can move the film stage, for stitching.
Having a frame with graduated marks allows you to accurately "step" each shot so its overlapping the same amount every shot.


Agreed. I even used a micro-adjustment stage to keep everything in alignment. The adjustments for lighting were the biggest issue. I tested it using blank film and film exposed with a sensitometer as well as under tested evenly lit conditions and always saw minor fall-off.

Brian

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree that moving the film is often a better choice. That's what my system did...

Minimize cantilevers! If you're doing high magnifications, minimizing vibration becomes a huge thing. I read a report from a photographer in NYCity. He couldn't use his Sony camera in it's pixel shift mode because there were too many vibrations in his building. It lead to artifacts....Ideally you'd clamp the lens to a frame supported by three posts, use a system that doesn't use a mechanical shutter, pay close attention to the floor/area the scanner is on......As you lessen magnification, these things become less important.

[bob carnie]

I notice a lot of people talk about stitching and reassemble, what are the thoughts of 150mb single capture using a phase back? I like this idea but wonder how people feel about this single capture, or would one still stitch even with this kind of back.?

[Peter De Smidt]

Bob, it all depends on the output that you're after. The workflow without stitching is so much faster. If it's good enough for your output needs, then I'd stop there. They only way to know for sure is to test and see.

[Daniel Stone]

I notice a lot of people talk about stitching and reassemble, what are the thoughts of 150mb single capture using a phase back? I like this idea but wonder how people feel about this single capture, or would one still stitch even with this kind of back.?

A friend of mine has the 100mp Phase back and uses it to digitize his film. For MF film, he uses single shot. For 6x17 panoramic shots, he shoots 3 overlapping frames. He built his own frame, which he wet mounts the film inside. He made 3 identical frames. These also work for smaller formats than 6x17(the frames will accommodate (4) 6x6 negatives in a strip at once, wet mounted). He 3d printed the plastic frame, and used a simple sheet of thin glass as the base to mount on, using mylar and Kami fluid like he did on his drum scanner before. MUCH faster, and his results meet his needs without issue.

For 4x5 and 5x7 film, he shoots 3 frames for 4x5, each overlapping one another for a seamless stitch. For 5x7 he shoots 6 shots, 2 columns of 3 frames. He doesn't shoot 8x10, but a 600mp file(roughly sized, smaller once stitched and cropped) is pretty dang big as a start.

In short, for HIS needs(and according to what I see with my eyes in prints), this method is not only faster, but more enjoyable than drum scanning. Having owned my own scanner in the past, the crazing issue with acrylic drums, plus the lack of replacement drums, if needed, dictates that service bureaus abandon drum scanners for another method. I see high MP backs, and/or stitching solutions as a viable method of delivering high quality results.

Personally, my light source planned is a small 4x4 box with two layers of sign white acrylic, mounted into the table flush. The light source being a commonly available halogen source, of approx 150W. It is easy to set a white balance point this way, and there is no issue with output balance shot-to-shot like you'd have with strobes. These bulbs, unlike many of their LED counterparts, also do not flicker, so you have a wider range of shutter speeds if needed, to balance the exposure properly.

[sperdynamite]

You'll make your life a lot easier by picking up a IQSmart 2 or 3 from Micheal Streeter. If I was to go back to cam scanning I'd do something with autofocus and a modern high res sensor. Fiddling around with manual focus on a medium format digital sensor will be a big PITA.

[Peter De Smidt]

Some modern cameras will put out 4k or higher out of their HDMI ports. Hook that to a big TV, and focusing should be easy.

[Oren Grad]

Manually focusing on a 100MP sensor with magnified live view is not especially challenging - *if* the camera and lens are rigidly mounted and the focus mechanism for the lens - whether a bellows or a helical - has adequate finesse. The real challenge is that cobbling together an optimized mounting is currently usually a time-consuming DIY affair, with a fair bit of trial-and-error involved.

Seems to me that what the high end of the amateur scanning market is begging for right now isn't a new dedicated scanner, which isn't going to happen, but rather turnkey mounting setups that can accept high-MP digital cameras and repro lenses, align and adjust easily and with good finesse at both the camera and negative stages, and hold the alignment/adjustment reliably. But given the mechanical precision and robustness required, does anyone have a good sense of how many thousands of dollars such a system would have to cost?

[bob carnie]

Manually focusing on a 100MP sensor with magnified live view is not especially challenging - *if* the camera and lens are rigidly mounted and the focus mechanism for the lens - whether a bellows or a helical - has adequate finesse. The real challenge is that cobbling together an optimized mounting is currently usually a time-consuming DIY affair, with a fair bit of trial-and-error involved.

Seems to me that what the high end of the amateur scanning market is begging for right now isn't a new dedicated scanner, which isn't going to happen, but rather turnkey mounting setups that can accept high-MP digital cameras and repro lenses, align and adjust easily and with good finesse at both the camera and negative stages, and hold the alignment/adjustment reliably. But given the mechanical precision and robustness required, does anyone have a good sense of how many thousands of dollars such a system would have to cost?

I have no idea on the costs, I do have a younger friend who is working on a concept to make exactly what you are suggesting, once he gets to the right stage and the huge sensor backs (phase one) come down in price I will seriously get involved.
But you are right this would be a great device for someone to bring to market, my gut tells me it would be in the 10k range.

[bmikiten]

I have no idea on the costs, I do have a younger friend who is working on a concept to make exactly what you are suggesting, once he gets to the right stage and the huge sensor backs (phase one) come down in price I will seriously get involved.
But you are right this would be a great device for someone to bring to market, my gut tells me it would be in the 10k range.

I would agree based on my expenses in the past. I ended up with an Eversmart Supreme (and an 848) and while the process of getting it here, set up and dealing with a few software/hardware issues was a bit annoying, the scans are AMAZING. Mounting is so critical on other methods and you can spend your life cleaning, mounting, cleaning, etc.

[Peter De Smidt]

I did this. I'd say the material, other than the camera, cost about $1000. What greatly increases cost is adding flexibility. The single biggest cost in my system was a Velmex unislide. That let me use various lenses and cover different formats. Making a minimal vibration setup for one magnification is easy. Making one that would cover a big range is more challenging, and much more expensive.

[biedron]

Seems to me that what the high end of the amateur scanning market is begging for right now isn't a new dedicated scanner, which isn't going to happen, but rather turnkey mounting setups that can accept high-MP digital cameras and repro lenses, align and adjust easily and with good finesse at both the camera and negative stages, and hold the alignment/adjustment reliably. But given the mechanical precision and robustness required, does anyone have a good sense of how many thousands of dollars such a system would have to cost?

Turnkey system does exist: https://heritage-digitaltransitions.com/film-scanning-kit/ coupled with https://heritage-digitaltransitions.com/dt-atom-entry-level-digitizer/

The links above don't indicate prices, but I'd bet way north of $10k

Bob

[Oren Grad]

Yes, I know about the DT stuff. I believe it's based on the Cambo repro system, but regardless, you can be sure that it's priced for institutional customers.

[Daniel Stone]

I know someone who purchased a refurbished single-shot DT repro system with a 100mp sensor, and dedicated lens/shutter module. He does digitization work, and formerly used a Linhof m679 with Phase One back on it. The system ran him around $50k, and it was a couple years old already. But a large job digitizing both film and prints for a collection(around 2,000 pieces/frames in total) paid for the system, so with the right jobs, it can be profitable. But yes, it isn't cheap.

But then again, I've met hobbyists who aren't afraid of spending $30k+ on a custom run of Kodak film cut to their desired sizes. Paid up front, didn't even balk at the price. One quipped "It is what it is, my other hobbies cost more(in his case, fancy shotguns and precision competition big-bore rifles)" :D

[Tin Can]

On this forum many complain about hobby collectors

hoarding

Using too cheap a film

not using film

DIY

wrong processing

incompetence accusations

many suggest we give away most things

some do

where did the 'must have' pay teachers go

soon blind leading blind will be criminal





I know someone who purchased a refurbished single-shot DT repro system with a 100mp sensor, and dedicated lens/shutter module. He does digitization work, and formerly used a Linhof m679 with Phase One back on it. The system ran him around $50k, and it was a couple years old already. But a large job digitizing both film and prints for a collection(around 2,000 pieces/frames in total) paid for the system, so with the right jobs, it can be profitable. But yes, it isn't cheap.

But then again, I've met hobbyists who aren't afraid of spending $30k+ on a custom run of Kodak film cut to their desired sizes. Paid up front, didn't even balk at the price. One quipped "It is what it is, my other hobbies cost more(in his case, fancy shotguns and precision competition big-bore rifles)" :D

[bmikiten]

Hobbyists drive markets. As someone who has been (and is) on both sides of this equation, I've manufactured and designed products that were brought to market only because there is a group of people that appreciate quality and, often, being first. Cost is not an issue. A great example of this is Graham Nash without whom, we may not have digital printing or digital photography. Thank goodness there isn't a test to approve your work, skills, etc before purchasing that new Hasselblad or that 62' Stratocaster! (Speaking from personal experience).


On this forum many complain about hobby collectors

hoarding

Using too cheap a film

not using film

DIY

wrong processing

incompetence accusations

many suggest we give away most things

some do

where did the 'must have' pay teachers go

soon blind leading blind will be criminal

[Bernice Loui]

Tin Can:

On this forum many complain about hobby collectors
~Jealousy.

hoarding
~Greed.

Using too cheap a film
~Penny "wise" pound foolish, lesson to be learned.

not using film
~Destructive tribalism.

DIY
~Good or not so Good, variable.

wrong processing
~Ignorance, possible knowledge/wisdom gained or learning resistant.

incompetence accusations
~Ego or internet/web mythbusting.. If proven, Egos get dented.
~"Rumors/Gossip stops at a wise individual's ears."

many suggest we give away most things
~"Best things in life are not "things"...

some do
~Yes indeediee.

where did the 'must have' pay teachers go
~No longer fashionable.

soon blind leading blind will be criminal.
~"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question, why not keep the entire image process digital instead of scanning film to the limits of any film scanner?

Or, keep film as film "wet" process to the finished print?


Bernice

[Peter De Smidt]

Or, why not just do whatever you'd like?

[Tin Can]

I do

I seldom tell others what to do, at least I think I don't

I try to answer questions, as many are ignored until I stick my foot in

I don't have a DIGI printer, I either use DIGI straight to 'friends' or save as

I try to have fun, but I got/git beat up here many times

Hence TIN CAN

Photography is very competitive if you want

I don't


Or, why not just do whatever you'd like?