Recommend a Good Flatbed Scanner?

[Peter De Smidt]

While a lot of progress has been made on the DIY scanner front, building a good system would be a lot of work, and it's easy to go wrong. In addition, many aspects have not been thoroughly tested, including stitching, color accuracy, dmax... If someone enjoys building and investigating this type of thing, then by all means give it a go. But if you just want to get to scanning, and especially if you don't have a good digital camera and macro lens, then finding a good scanner would probably be a better choice, although used scanners come with risks. I've bought two. The first, an Agfa T2500, would've required a $1000 repair to get working properly, which I decided against. The second, a pro flatbed, has been working fine, but if a hardware problem pops up, I doubt I'll be able to get it fixed. Even if repair is possible, it's unlikely that I'd be able to afford it.

I agree with Lenny (and others) that if you can find a Howtek 4500 in good working condition with the needed accessories for a reasonable price it would be worth serious consideration.

I would be very surprised if a DIY approach could equal the scan quality of a top flight drum scanner run by an accomplished operator, such as Lenny.

[Light Guru]

I would be very surprised if a DIY approach could equal the scan quality of a top flight drum scanner run by an accomplished operator, such as Lenny.

Again nobody is saying it would beat a drum scan.

[Peter De Smidt]

Again nobody is saying it would beat a drum scan.

Gianluca Bevacqua does suggest this in the links you provided. He said, "...I discovered that the file I was absolutely sure was of the Dainippon drum scanner (because it was obviously superior) was in fact the one shot with the Canon!"

[Noah A]

I use both an Epson V750 and a Howtek HR8000 drum scanner. Obviously the drum scanner is superior in several ways, but the Epson is a nice little scanner and It seems to be the best thing around for under 1K.

I use the drum scanner for my final scans, but it's nice to have the Epson on hand for preview scans and scans for small prints or when I'm on a deadline. Maybe I got lucky with a good copy, but I get pretty good results with the stock holders after a quick test to determine the right height for the adjustable feet on the holder. If I were really going for ultimate quality more work would be involved, as you say using better holders, wet mounting, etc. But the whole point of the Epson for me is speed and convenience. You could use your stock epson holders for quick and easy scans then deal with the other more complicated stuff for exhibition scans.

I'm a big fan of the drum scanner, and you can probably find a Howtek 4500 for 2k, but I doubt it will be less work than your Epson. Replacement parts may also be difficult to find and/or expensive. It will, however, produce more accurate and repeatable results.

[Brian Ellis]

1. You asked whether any new and improved (relative to the 700/750) scanners have been introduced since 2006. None that I know of. A few years ago there were many rumors about Epson bringing out a successor or supplement to the 700/750 but I don't think anything came of it. I'd be surprised if the market for film scanners is a growing market.

2. I think you're doing a lot more "fiddling" with your current scanner than you need to do. I've never found a need to wet mount, constantly adjust focus and calibrate my Epson 4990 with 4x5 and 8x10 negatives (99% b&w).

3. Somebody mentioned the Heidelberg/Linotype Linoscan 2400 scanner. My first scanner was a Linoscan. I had constant problems with it. Heidelberg at first had a very helpful customer service center here in the U.S. But then they shifted customer service to some independent outfit that was next to useless. Not too long after that Heidelberg got out of the "prosumer" scanner market in the U.S. at least. Others may have had better experiences but based on mine I wouldn't recommend this scanner.

4. If I was as serious about scanning film as I used to be I'd go the drum scanner route. But I'd spend a whole lot of time learning about the need for ancillary equipment, things to watch out for, etc. etc. Buying and using a drum scanner for the first time these days has never struck me as something to blindly wade into.

In any event, good luck with your search.

[Ari]

Thank you, everyone, for your responses.
I appreciate the product recommendations as well as the usual caveats about rushing into something like this.
I am researching this a lot, and this thread is part of the research.

Getting a drum scanner is a meduim-term goal; in the short term, it may be more cost-efficient to have the few important images I own drum-scanned by a third party, and put up with the v750.
My beef with it is that the stock holders plain suck, and the BS holder's height needs to be calibrated often, despite my attempts to keep some kind of consistency in their adjustment.
Fiddling is a part of scanning, I know, but having to re-set the equipment often is an added pain.
I'm no fan of wet mounting, I find it drags too many particles in along with the liquid, but I find it to be a faster workflow sometimes.

[Andrew O'Neill]

and put up with the v750.

I just picked up a V750 and so far it's doing a great job with my 4x5 and 8x10 negatives. I don't wet mount. I just lay the negative emulsion side down on the scanner glass, and a piece of A/N glass on top. Scans are pretty sharp to me.

[Tin Can]

I agree. My scans are fine. There could be good and bad V7XX with inferior manufacturing tolerance stack-up.

Somebody with more time than I, needs to figure out how to trick them into using the high rez lens, which is for roll film, into working for 8x10.

Hackers needed. Always.

I just picked up a V750 and so far it's doing a great job with my 4x5 and 8x10 negatives. I don't wet mount. I just lay the negative emulsion side down on the scanner glass, and a piece of A/N glass on top. Scans are pretty sharp to me.

[pasiasty]

You may also consider buying some old, professional flat-bed, e.g. Topaz. I know about one, that is for sale for much over a year, in the Czech Rep., Europe (where everything but beer and wine is more expensive), for some $6k; so I guess it can be found tor $4k-5k. The seller claims it's way superior to V700/750, but who knows. Disadvantage is, that you'd buy something relatively old, hard to repair and not compatible even with VueScan, practically requiring a dedicated, and also much outdated computer to operate it. Not to mention about its footprint...

[photobymike]

when looking at a print made with a drum and my flat epson 750 ...i cannot tell you what scanner it was scanned with. Looking at the raw scan at 100 percent i can see the difference. I tested and retested because i wanted the best print i could make. When viewing a print for sharpness i cannot honestly tell the difference. Oh and how many of your print viewers look at your prints with a magnify glass? Then there is the principals of perceived sharpness. i can with some manipulation make the Epson look super sharp. this concept is not well understood by many people, even here. Want proof? Look at the pictures online. Without much exception they all are over sharpened to be viewed on the computer screen. Why is this relevant to this discussion? Well if you do not know how to sharpen your images for the screen or different size prints, does not matter how good of a scanner you have. Just my humble opinion...

http://youtu.be/KXtTeixz92A click here for a good tutorial on lightroom sharpening