Any recent updates or releases for film scanners?

[Jan Normandale]

I've done a search thru the data base on reviews of scanners here at LFPF. They fade out around 2009. Not much new material that I can find.

Last time I looked Epson's V700 or V750 was the best they put out. I've also looked for information on Canon and the 9000F seems to be the state of the art for them.

I'd like to know if there are any other manufacturers out there putting out flat bed scanners that are worth a look. Or if there are better scanners from Epson, Nikon or Canon that I am missing.

I want something to scan MF, 45 and 57. Thanks for any thoughts, leads or links

[akfreak]

great question, I am in the narket for a new scanner. Havent decided if I am going to shell out for a old drum or a new flatbed and fluid holders,masks ect.. Scanners are a new arena. I need to scan 4x5 and 8x10

[engl]

Nothing significant has happened in the world of consumer flat bed scanners since Epson introduced the V700 and V750 5 years ago. It would not surprise me if nothing happens in the following 5 years either. Scanners are not a mass-consumed item any more, and precision mechanics and image sensors are costly in low volumes.

8 years ago Nikon introduced the 9000ED, and sold it at 2000$. They stopped making scanners recently. This year, with inflation and technological advances and all, Reflecta wants to start selling their 2000$ medium format scanner that is way inferior (resolution, Dmax, automation). That is what happens when volumes go down...

[Frank Petronio]

Plustek still makes 35mm scanners on par with the old Nikons and Minoltas, but they are manual feed. But they sell three models under $500 ;-)

As for flatbeds, the Epson 700-750 are it.

The next step are the Imacons and used, high-end flatbeds and drum scanners. There are also some high-volume scanners that were made for processing labs and for archiving libraries and collections.

[Peter Gomena]

I'm hoping against hope that Epson comes out with a dedicated film scanner. I don't think it's likely.

Peter Gomena

[Jan Normandale]

I was hoping for better news but it's not a surprise. The accountants scare the marketing and production guys to death with their bleak "economic" demand stories. So no one innovates any longer, you just copy the other guy.

No wonder there's no innovation in North America anymore.

I think there's demand for improved scanners, but we'll never know.

[Roger Cole]

Plustek still makes 35mm scanners on par with the old Nikons and Minoltas, but they are manual feed. But they sell three models under $500 ;-)

As for flatbeds, the Epson 700-750 are it.

The next step are the Imacons and used, high-end flatbeds and drum scanners. There are also some high-volume scanners that were made for processing labs and for archiving libraries and collections.

I'm planning to (eventually, may be a few months as I've been hemorrhaging cash lately) get an Epson 750 but was at something of a loss for 35mm as they just don't seem to cut it for negatives that small. Glad to find out about the Plusteks!

I think the 750 will probably be good enough for LF. That sort of leaves making do with it for medium format though (or paying through the nose for a used MF scanner.)

[jp]

It depends on what you are going to do with the scans.. If you want to scan 35mm/120 and put it up on the web, make some blurb books, or make <8x10 prints, a 700/750 epson meets those needs (and exceeds those needs for LF). I am pleased with the detail of my 120 scans too. I don't make large prints since I prefer the B&W darkroom medium and process over inkjet.

The epson should be overkill for a first step in making digital negs. I'd be contact printing on handcoated textured paper, which is way less detailed than normal silver gelatin contact prints.

If you're bent on getting all the possible detail and faithfully scanning the grains of 35mm/120, you may want a more purposeful scanner made for that format. It will cost more and consume more of your time. I used to have a 35mm coolscan, hooked up with scsi... It could scan well, but was a LOT slower than the epson, used older software and hardware, and was a PITA to keep clean and dust free. The epson is easy to inspect for dust like the negatives, and scans pretty fast for a consumer device.

[neil poulsen]

How about this one for medium format? Dunno anything 'bout it, though. Noticed it on B&H.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/762304-REG/Pacific_Image_PRIMEFILM_120_PrimeFilm_120_Multi_Format_Film.html

[neil poulsen]

Out of curiosity, how do scans from a Hasselblad Flextight X1 compare to scans from the Nikon 9000?

[Oren Grad]

Out of curiosity, how do scans from a Hasselblad Flextight X1 compare to scans from the Nikon 9000?

Have a look at the reviews here (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html).

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

There is a new film scanner by Pacific Image, named PrimeFilm 120; available soon (end of July 2011). It will be sold in Europe under the brand Reflecta MF 5000
http://www.scanace.com/product/pf_120.html

This scanner does not qualify for large format, but it can scan up to the 6x12 cm format, unlike the Nikons 8000 and 9000. Hence it can be of some interest to our readers here shooting 6x12.
price tag aroung 1500 euro / USD 2000

Cheaper than a new Nikon 9000, but to the best of my knowledge Nikon no longer makes those scanners. More expensive than a used Nikon 8000 or 9000...
And all three are MF/120 maximum scan width and do not scan 4x5" and above formats.
Hence, the Epsons 7XX are still very attractive to LF aficionados.

[robryan]

when I was doing some research last week the Epson 1000XL photo scanner was recommended to me by a Epson dealer as a better choice than the 750 for large format.

[Roger Cole]

when I was doing some research last week the Epson 1000XL photo scanner was recommended to me by a Epson dealer as a better choice than the 750 for large format.

I'm sure it is and it ought to be. Current B&H price - 1000XL - $1999, v750, $729.

Granted, if it's as good as all that the 1000XL may well be worth two large, but that's still a big price difference.

[Oren Grad]

when I was doing some research last week the Epson 1000XL photo scanner was recommended to me by a Epson dealer as a better choice than the 750 for large format.

The reason for the cost of the Epson 10000XL is that it's tabloid size. The reason to pay that much is if you need to scan ULF negatives. For 8x10 or smaller, it's not going to do any better than a V750, and may not even do so well.

[akfreak]

I know this is an old scanner but I found a Brand New in the box AGFA DuoScan HiD Twinplate Color Flatbed Scanner. It was never opened until a function check was done.

I have never owned a scanner specifically for film scanning . I know I am going to have to buy a pci board to have a SCSI-2 connection. I am running windows 7 64x so I am not sure how the software will function. I did find a download for the current drivers here (http://static.agfa.com/digicam_scanner_drivers/scanner/duoscan/index.html). But I also purchased Vuescan, I know it works on win 7 64x. I did see some scans from the non HiD version (t1200) and they looked amazing. So I feel that this will work fine as my first real scanner. I want to get my feet wet before I go crazy and spend the big bucks.

I also talked to someone here that used to scan 8x10 film but not any more, this is what he said "Now I do my digital copy work with a Canon 5DII on a copy stand with a light box for transparent media or with copy lighting for prints. If I want more resolution than the camera provides natively, I just photograph the original in as many panels as I need and stitch."

I saw an 8x10 scan he did with the AGFA Duoscan T1200 and the detail was incredible. If I can replicate his results I will be more than happy.

Here are the specs of my new scanner It can scan 42-bit at 1000ppi horizontal and 2000ppi vertical with enhanced 4000ppi resolution

I know the new v750 is the cats Rear End and I would love to have one. If I like the use of a scanner, I may invest in the v750 from what I have seen in videos and reviews, it seems to live on the top of the heap for under a Grand.

[D. Bryant]

[QUOTE]So I feel that this will work fine as my first real scanner. I want to get my feet wet before I go crazy and spend the big bucks.

Better make some good negatives before thinking about new scanners. Your Agfa will produce great results as long as the negative you are scanning can be scanned; IOW, over developed and/or over exposed negatives may cause problems for the scanner. The digital noise of the Agfa/Microtek scanners are better than Epson's 8x10 scanners, IME & IMO.


also talked to someone here that used to scan 8x10 film but not any more, this is what he said "Now I do my digital copy work with a Canon 5DII on a copy stand with a light box for transparent media or with copy lighting for prints.

This isn't the path to optimum quality, IMO. Good for quick and dirty and web but no match for a well scanned piece of film


I saw an 8x10 scan he did with the AGFA Duoscan T1200 and the detail was incredible. If I can replicate his results I will be more than happy.

Here are the specs of my new scanner It can scan 42-bit at 1000ppi horizontal and 2000ppi vertical with enhanced 4000ppi resolution

The 4000 DPI is imaginary resolution, the native optical resolution will produce outstanding results. The dynamic range of the scanner could be your biggest concern if you have dense negs.


I know the new v750 is the cats Rear End and I would love to have one.

The V700/750 are okay, really only slightly better than the Epson 4990. If you can get one really cheap - fine, but use your Agfa for a while and see what you think; I think you will be impressed.

BTW, visit Wayne Fulton's site for good scanning tips using Vuescan.

http://www.scantips.com/

It's a bit long in the tooth but it's a great site to get started scanning.

Also David F. Stein has a good page on using Vuescan:

http://homepage.mac.com/onelucent/VS/vsm.html

Definitely bookmark these two pages.

[Corran]

I had a Plustek (7600i) for a while, I found it to be pretty worthless for color negs (color accuracy) and not nearly as sharp as the Nikon 8000 I upgraded to. I wouldn't call them in the same league.

The cool thing about Nikon Scan is the thing gave PERFECT colors with every color neg I tried, and it never even asked for a film profile or anything! Why can't the other company's software do that?

[Rider]

I think the 750 will probably be good enough for LF.

Does the 750 have real practical advantages over the 700 for LF?

[akfreak]

[QUOTE=akfreak;751333]

Better make some good negatives before thinking about new scanners. Your Agfa will produce great results as long as the negative you are scanning can be scanned; IOW, over developed and/or over exposed negatives may cause problems for the scanner. The digital noise of the Agfa/Microtek scanners are better than Epson's 8x10 scanners, IME & IMO.



This isn't the path to optimum quality, IMO. Good for quick and dirty and web but no match for a well scanned piece of film



The 4000 DPI is imaginary resolution, the native optical resolution will produce outstanding results. The dynamic range of the scanner could be your biggest concern if you have dense negs.



The V700/750 are okay, really only slightly better than the Epson 4990. If you can get one really cheap - fine, but use your Agfa for a while and see what you think; I think you will be impressed.

BTW, visit Wayne Fulton's site for good scanning tips using Vuescan.

http://www.scantips.com/

It's a bit long in the tooth but it's a great site to get started scanning.

Also David F. Stein has a good page on using Vuescan:

http://homepage.mac.com/onelucent/VS/vsm.html

Definitely bookmark these two pages.


Thanks for the links

[dorigatti]

Hi everyone. I am new, my name is Carlo and I live and work 6 months in Amsterdam, Netherlands and six months in Jaipur, India.

I need a dedicated 120 format film scanner. Any reviews and info will be much appreciated.