Scanner question

[Joseph O'Neil]

Maybe comparing apples vs oranges, but here goes. I have the Epson V600, which only does 35mm and 120. I have lots of those negatives lying around, but maybe it is just me, I am not too happy with the quality of the scans. I've been looking at a better scanner, and something that can do 4x5, but I seem to have one of two choices, the Epson V750 or gazillion dollar drum scanner. So a couple of "scanners for dummies" questions:

- is there anything in between the V750 and a drum scanner available?

- has anybody compared the quality of scans between a V600 and V750 on smaller format films, such as 35mm and 120? The reason I ask there is we have the Epson 2000 and the Epson 3000 printers here, and while the R3000 is not twice the price of the R2000, it is, IMO, twice the printer. I am wondering if the same thing is true for the Epson scanners?

thanks much in advance
joe

[Peter De Smidt]

Used drum scanners and used pro level flatbeds are viable options, although not without some negatives, namely size, cost, upkeep... You could build a dslr scanner if you have a good dslr. Used film scanners, such as from Nikon or Minolta, would also fit the bill, but they are legacy scanners, just as the pro flatbeds are.

[georgl]

Try to get your hands on a pro-flatbed (Scitex Eversmart (not Jazz), Kodak Iqsmart2/3, Linotype-Hell/Heidelberg Topaz or Nexscan) which offer good (superior to Minolta or Nikon film-scanners) quality, rugged build and the ability to scan 4x5" and beyond.

The alternative is a drum scanner, it has to be a working setup (scanner, computer/software) in good condition. Drum scanners with malfunctions or poorly maintained mechanics/ optics are nearly impossible to repair.

It takes time to get a good scanner in decent condition for a good price, but it's absolutely worth it! It will propably revive your love for film! It's not only max. resolution, it's the dynamic and good basic color calibration - even with an unexperienced operator, a drum scanner in decent condition will give you superior results!

Imacons are often out-of-whack resulting in poor sharpness - but nobody was able to tell me if it is an easily solvable problem!?

[Peter De Smidt]

A Screen Cezanne is also a decent option.

[Don Dudenbostel]

Look for a Fuji (Crossfield) 2750, 5000 or Lanovia Quattro. They're in the top pro flatness. The Lanovia Quattro was their top of the line but the 5000 is essentially the same machine. I owned all three and have had scans on Creo and other pro level machines and none are better. The advantages of the Fuji are true XY scanning and no stitching, amazing speed and superb dynamic range. These also scan full res with film as large as 13x18 inches The downside is size and weight. The three above weigh about 150 pounds and the early version of the Lanovia C550 weighs 350 pounds. The Cuji requires a very hard to find dongle with unlock codes and the only software is Fujis own. They also require a unique calibration neg and print and an alignment neg. Most machines I've seen for sale do not have the dongle, codes, calibration negs or software. The Fujis will run on Mac OS X up to 10.5 (don't know beyond that), os9 and Windows XP if you have the correct dongle, unlock codes an software. If you find a complete one it's one of the finest it if it breaks down or needs bulbs your only hope of repair is to buy another and scavenge parts. The good side is they're relatively inexpensive now.

I used a new Imacon prior to owning the Fuji and just sold my Fuji and bought a Hasselblad refurbished Imacon 848. I no longer needed the large film capability and wanted something that took up less space and runs on current software an OS. The Imscon is fantastic and scans up through 5x7. If you buy an Imacon don't buy anything older than the numbered series like the 343, 646, 848 or 949 or the. Sw X1 or X5 (extremely expensive). The numbered series and X series are all FireWire 400. The old ones are scsi and you're back to the problem of old computers to run them.

You can't go wrong with the Imacon / Hasselblad in either scan quality, ease of use and service from Hasselblad.

[robert muzyka]

Hey Joe! Have you considered wet mounting your film for scanning on your v600? Some of the benefits of drum scanning are due to the wet mount: it makes grain less apparent, improves sharpness and luminosity (eg what you can see in shadows and radiant brilliance in highlights), and is generally suggested for magnifications over 5x (I am sure I read that somewhere...). I know that you can wet mount with a v750, I don't think a wet mount kit is available for the v600 but I would suspect that if you carefully mount your film and use as little mounting fluid as possible you could mount it right on the bed without any issue and thus scan up to 8x10 or whatever that max frame size it. Check out www.aztek.com they have starter kits and a v750 kit http://aztek.com/Epson%20V750%20KAMI%20Kit.html , plus I've dealt with them a bunch and they are supremely helpful and courteous. Their Kami mounting fluid is excellent a requires minimal clean up as it evaporates quite fast when left out in the open (eg when film is unmounted).

If you're going for a new flatbed I've heard plenty people argue that the v750 *with a wet mount* is excellent. I specifically add wet mount because that radically changes the quality of the scan. I really can't comment on the quality of other flat beds as I've never used them nor do I know anyone that does.

If you're going for an Imacon, I'd suggest pricing out a used drum scanner. Imacons are amazing, excellent machines that are very easy to use, but if you're going to drop that much for a scanner you can probably buy a used drum scanned for a similar amount. Imacons are great but in comparison to drum scanners they tend to be grainy (though you may like a grainier look so it might be fitting) and they have a far lower Dmax than any drum scanner. As far as I know you can't wet mount on Imacons because the film is held and bent in an open space above the sensor (there's no glass in an Imacon): the reason imacons claim to be virtual drum scanners is that they bend the film to maintain uniform flatness at the plane of scanning, they are still CCD based scanners (drum scanners use something called a Photo Multiplier Tube, it's similar to what they use in high particle accelerators to detect subatomic particles, hence why drum scanners are infinitely more sensitive than a CCD based scanner) . The software is great, especially with fff scanning where its kinda like a raw file (it scans the piece of film at max resolution and allows it to be opened after the scan and reprocessed in the software as if it were scanning the film right then and there, kinda nice if you send out film to be scanned on a imacon but don't like the operator's rhetorical choices) , but I don't think the film profiles are quite on point.

So if you consider a drum scanner you run into a lot of old software, old computers, and complete lack of support; however, if you look into a Howtek scanner, they still have a thriving supporter in California: the same company I mention earlier, Aztek. They service Howtek Scanners and have updated software that runs on windows 7, vista, or xp. I own a Howtek and use their new Digital PhotoLab software, and I have to say it is certainly the best software I have used, and it should be for what it costs. Film profiles are absolutely excellent, the software is easy to use, and the end product is amazing. It all sounds great but you have to remember that if want to drum scan you need a special area for your drum scanner (tabletop units usually take up the whole table, not including the absolutely necessary mounting station), you need to mount film to a special drum and you are going to need to maintain the drum by cleaning it with each use (if you don't maintain the drum it will be unusable, dust loves drums), and scans at very high resolutions are going to take time! A 4x5 at 3200 takes about a half hour. But good lord does it look amazing, especially when perusing the most subtle details of a negative or transparency.

So I suppose looking at the four options I've outlined
v600 with wet mount- cheapest and probably solve the issues you mentioned (a wet mount makes a huge difference!)
v750 with wet mount- some investment and should return higher quality files with a similar workflow
imacon- expensive but so easy, workflow is very similar to a flatbed, pretty solid at high magnifications, but I feel still requires a bit of color correcting and other tweaking post scan for best results
drum scanner- expensive, but trumps all others in terms of color accuracy, sharpness, shadow depth, and magnification possibility (you can make a 4gig file from a piece of 35mm, I'm not sure why you would but you can).

So what might be most important for your consideration is your style of workflow- do you like to get all the scanning done while sitting at your desk and then pop out some 8x10 prints from what you shot that day, or do you spend a hours/days/weeks laboring over a perfect 40x50? You might hate drum scanners because of all the work the required for the proper conditions to scan and you might find that a wet mount on a flat bed can solve all your problems. I mean the bottom line is the scanner needs to fit the way you like to work

[RichardSperry]

How do you wet mount on a V600?

[Ari]

How do you wet mount on a V600?

You can get a third-party accessory for wet-mounting, like a BetterScanning wet/dry holder.