Any "full frame" 8x10 film flatbed scanners exist?

[JM Woo]

Thanks for your responses. I had a second run with the i900, and it's been enough to convince me that it's the scanner that I want to buy. The forthcoming Epson 4990 sems nice on paper, but I think I will prefer i900's glassless scanning underneath the reflective bed (logic says less dust). I've compared some 4x5 i900 scans to ones that I've done with my 3200 and the i900 scans look much better to my eye.

As for the related thread up above started by CXC-- I stick with 8x10 because I enjoy contact printing. But since I've move over to a dry inkjet darkroom for 35mm and 4x5, I'd also like the option of creating prints from 8x10 negs without having to head over to the wet lab each time. I imagine that this is probably the case with many other people who scan 8x10.

[CXC]

Well, all those reasons sound pretty reasonable, I must say. Happy scanning, all.

[Lars Åke Vinberg]

CXC,

If you haven't, I hope you get a chance to look at a good 8x10 chrome on the light table some day. It can be quite mesmerizing. Whether it is worth the substatial overhead in cost and effort is of course subjective.

[CXC]

Lars,

I only shoot b&w. I find that with my limited talent and vision a larger camera buys me nothing: though it is fun to use the bigger ground glass, the final print is no different or better. I bought an 8x10 thinking it would be big enough for contact prints (or Polaroids), but while others excell at that scale, my stuff needs to be bigger. Consequently the 8x10 has been sitting on the shelf for a while... I'm fishing for reasons to give it another try.

I sincerely doubt that I could tell the difference between two 11x14 prints from scans of similar 4x5 & 8x10 b&w negatives. And even if I could, I probably wouldn't be sufficiently enthusiastic about it to be bothered to use the 8x10. If I ever discover differently, I'll buy an 8x10 scanner in a minute. If they still make them by then...

[jonathan smith]

OK, this is another question, but I've checked specs on all the scanners mentioned, and it looks like the Microtek 1800 is the only one made to scan 8x10 film.

The i900 specs say it goes up to 6x9.

Is this true, or are they just referring to included masks that you can remove? Can you do the glassless, backlit scanning of an 8x10 neg?

Thanks, the i900 looks otherwise like a perfect scanner

[Ole Tjugen]

I know that the AGFA Duoscan T1200 takes 8x10", since that is what I use. It has glassless carriers for 35mm, 120 and 4x5"; other sizes are scanned on glass - backlit.

[Donald Qualls]

Another in the Agfa line (obsolete, but likely still available in good working condition if you shop around) is the Arcus 1200. I have one; this scanner scans 8x10 on the glass with a transparency mask, 4x5 and smaller with a glassless insert that replaces the glass. Newton rings can be a problem on the glass, but at 2400 ppi (interpolated from 1200 ppi on the narrow dimension) and 16 bits per channel, it's very hard to beat the performance at the kind of price you'll pay; mine cost me under $150 shipped, including purchase of a SCSI card and cable to connect it to my computer. In addition to the glass and glassless carrier, and 8x10 transparency mask, that price included the drivers for the scanner, scanning software for both direct and TWAIN operation, and an OEM copy of Photoshop (version 5, I think).

I've made simple adapters for the 4x5 scan opening, and can now scan my 9x12 cm and Minolta 16 negatives glassless, as well as all formats of 120 and standard 35 mm film or 2x2 mounted slides in the supplied carriers.

At 2400 ppi, a 9x12 cm negative creates an 88 megapixel file.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have a relatively high res scan of an 8x10" neg from the Agfa Duoscan linked to this page--


http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/imviaduct.htm

The original scan was 1000 dpi, 16 bit. The images posted are 8 bit JPEG's, and the largest version posted is downsized to 500 dpi.

[Lars Wildmarker]

I have a Epson 4990 Photo who I uses to scan my 4x5 negatives and slides.
I have a few enlargements in the size 100x70 cm that holds up pretty good.
I´m however looking for a glassless scanner with the Optical resolution of about 3200 or more and the Dmax 4,0 or greater.
I have plans of buying a 8x10 camera for my landscape shots.
I really want users opinions before I buy anything.

I do think for a scanner that coast over or near $1000 I want better holders than that comes with this scanner.

Do anyone in this forum have such a scanner who delivers high quality scans and is easy to use with good build quality.

I am only going to use the scanner for sheet film 4x5 now and later on for 8x10.

[locutus]

Epson V800/V850 is the step up, after that it gets esoteric quick.