| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Posts: 724
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 2:24 pm Post subject: Change my scanning experience |
 |
|
alaios wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am using a flatbed scanner to scan my negatives but to be honest this is the part that I did not like much in the film world.
And I am not gonna stop film shooting just for that but I would like to try as christmas present to upgrade my scan experience.
The problems I have with my flatbed are:
-The flatbed's glass have some small marks (tiny dots) that look to be below or "deep inside" the glass(?) and can not be removed with cleaning or air blowing.
-Dust gets very easily and I blow every time
I am mostly not that happy.. so perhaps just getting a better condition model could make me happy as well. Although I plan to sell the one I have, I guess I should look one more what is in the market for me.
Are perhaps mickey mouse scanners any better these days? Lloydy looks very happy about them
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1416481.html#1416481
or perhaps I can go to something like that but then
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm8200i.html
but I am not sure at all that the quality would be better compared to my epson flatbed scanner.
Do you think that a mickey mouse or the Plustek (how this type of scanners i called) can give me a better experience with scanning?
I would like to thank you in advance for your reply
Regards
Alex |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 5019
Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
Lloydy's scanner is £100 and would it be the "magic bullet" you are looking for  and if not, where do you go from there
In the past I've shown shots using an old Epson 2480 photo and if you are only going to do prints up to A4 or post shots on the net then these cheap old flatbed scanners are quite decent for 35mm and good for larger negs if you move up. Also they are good for scanning A4 prints.
Before spending more money are you sure your scanner is the problem and not you
_________________
Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 4748
Location: Cheshire, England
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
The Plustek is a 'film scanner'
Your Epson is a 'flatbed scanner'
The Mickey Mouse is an 'optical scanner'
The Plustek and the Epson work in the same way, a CCD in the scanner head sweeps over the image sampling it. The head is smaller in a film scanner and samples at thousands of dots per inch as opposed to the flatbed which samples at hundreds of dpi.
The optical scanner isnt a scanner at all, its a fixed focus camera that holds the neg in the right place and using a light behind the film exposes the film digitally. They typically use a 5mp camera and have an extremely small sensor. Hence the low quality.
The Plustek is a budget model but may be ok. Ask if anyone here has experience of one or look for test reports and comparisons. I'd probably go for a Nikon Coolscan in the belief that it would be better.
Some film scanners have dust reduction software, not sure how it works but it appears to do so.
_________________
Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Posts: 724
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
alaios wrote:
Hi guys,
I have thought many times if the problem is just me..and perhaps it might be me 
I think what drives me crazy are all the small dots that are on my glass and can not be removed with cleaning....
I thought I should have a look to film scanners or upgrade my flatbed to a brand new model or something that has a very clean glass surface.
Regarding the film scanners now, as the plustek is really hard to find many reviews... you can only find one here and there..
Regards
Alex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 5019
Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
Member iangreenhalgh1 has a plustek maybe he can give you his view....do a search for Plustek and you might find some useful info.
Also, I'm sure I've read somewhere that you can take the glass out of Epson scanners for a proper clean...but I might be wrong so it might be worth searching on google for "servicing an Epson scanner".
_________________
Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Posts: 1364
Location: Slovenia
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2014 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
IMHO it's not worth investing in a scanner of any price range unless you need one for other purposes as well. I have a cheap (100eur) Epson flatbed scanner that can also do film (V300 I think it's called, latest model in this line is V370) and I also have access to a couple higher end scanners, namely Epson V750 (~700eur) and Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED (~3000eur). They all produce somewhat decent scans (there's not much difference between them actually) but I get far better results with an improvised homemade "optical scanner" type of thing: I place the negatives on a simple cheap light table (you could just as easily use your smartphone or pad) and shoot them with a decent normal lens mounted with extension tubes on a digital camera (specifically NEX-6). 135 film I digitize one shot at a time and 120 I shoot 6 pics per frame and then stitch them together for better resolution. There are many similar DIY methods described all over the internet. Search for "how to digitize film with DSLR" or something similar. The only challenge is making sure the film is perfectly flat and getting the camera perfectly perpendicular to the film. Also digitizing colour negatives is a little more involved and any dust and scratches must be removed manually but in general I much prefer this method over any scanner.
_________________
my flickr stream |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
l9magen
Joined: 13 Jul 2011
Posts: 326
Location: Calgary, Canada
Expire: 2016-10-21
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
l9magen wrote:
I have Plustek 7600i which I use exclusively for 35mm negatives, and a Nikon Coolscan 9000 (which I picked up at a garage sale for next to nothing - my all-time bargain! I use the Coolscan for my MF negatives and for my 35mm slides. Both machines yield excellent results, now that I've experimented and read around the net for optimal techniques. I'm totally happy with each, and the software I use with each - Vuescan for the Nikon Coolscan, and the native SilverFast-8 for the Plustek.
The thing I've found most useful is to understand that relationship between dpi and final printing size. Vuescan has some good colour controls, the Silverfast less-so.
Fortunately, aside from colour slides (Velvia, Provia), I'm almost always shooting B&W, so the ability to mess things up is reduced.
_________________
Lochlann
Digital Camera: Leica MM246 & M10
RF lenses: Zeiss ZM, assorted Japanese LTMs & Nikkor-S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 4748
Location: Cheshire, England
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
| l9magen wrote: |
I have Plustek 7600i which I use exclusively for 35mm negatives, and a Nikon Coolscan 9000 (which I picked up at a garage sale for next to nothing - my all-time bargain! I use the Coolscan for my MF negatives and for my 35mm slides. Both machines yield excellent results, now that I've experimented and read around the net for optimal techniques. I'm totally happy with each, and the software I use with each - Vuescan for the Nikon Coolscan, and the native SilverFast-8 for the Plustek.
The thing I've found most useful is to understand that relationship between dpi and final printing size. Vuescan has some good colour controls, the Silverfast less-so.
Fortunately, aside from colour slides (Velvia, Provia), I'm almost always shooting B&W, so the ability to mess things up is reduced. |
Perhaps have a look for these Alex, second hand may be fairly cheap. The above looks like a good enough testament for me.
_________________
Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Posts: 724
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
alaios wrote:
Yes indeed... haha I just looked on ebay for the Nikon Coolscan 9000... it costs around 3k 
so I guess the Plustek might be better option for me
Alex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 4748
Location: Cheshire, England
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
| miran wrote: |
| IMHO it's not worth investing in a scanner of any price range unless you need one for other purposes as well. I have a cheap (100eur) Epson flatbed scanner that can also do film (V300 I think it's called, latest model in this line is V370) and I also have access to a couple higher end scanners, namely Epson V750 (~700eur) and Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED (~3000eur). They all produce somewhat decent scans (there's not much difference between them actually) but I get far better results with an improvised homemade "optical scanner" type of thing: I place the negatives on a simple cheap light table (you could just as easily use your smartphone or pad) and shoot them with a decent normal lens mounted with extension tubes on a digital camera (specifically NEX-6). 135 film I digitize one shot at a time and 120 I shoot 6 pics per frame and then stitch them together for better resolution. There are many similar DIY methods described all over the internet. Search for "how to digitize film with DSLR" or something similar. The only challenge is making sure the film is perfectly flat and getting the camera perfectly perpendicular to the film. Also digitizing colour negatives is a little more involved and any dust and scratches must be removed manually but in general I much prefer this method over any scanner. |
I use this method for B&W and slides but colour conversion is a PITA
_________________
Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-rageQuit-
Joined: 26 Dec 2013
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
-rageQuit- wrote:
I have a PlusTek 8200i, but don't think I'd recommend it.
It cost around £220, but the Silverfast-8 software that comes with it retails for approximately £100, meaning that the scanner itself is a £120 box of not-so-quality electronics.
The 8200i is identical to a 7600i - it'd be cheaper to get one of these second-hand and buy the software separately. The updated software (available for download once registered) is a noticeable improvement on that which came on CD with the 8200i.
The maximum resolution is 3600dpi - after this it starts interpolating. I generally use 2400dpi, though. I can't remember if the IR dust removal function works on black and white film.
It comes with a two trays: one holds four slides and the other a six image strip. It is necessary to move the trays across to the next image manually (a flatbed can scan heaps at one time). I don't have a particularly fast computer and it takes me about an hour to process 20 slides.
If you do go down the film scanner route (as opposed to flatbed) you are locking yourself into the 135 film size - no 120 medium format or old prints. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Posts: 724
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
alaios wrote:
Hi,
I was looking closely to the plustek since it somehows fits with the budget..
Are you still using it and did it work with recent operating systems (over usb)?
If not what is your current hardware... I do not understand though if buing the software is mandatory or if I could just buy vuescan that is cheaper.
Regards
Alex
P.S A second model looks to be the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-rageQuit-
Joined: 26 Dec 2013
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
-rageQuit- wrote:
I last used it in February with 32bit Windows XP. Since the 8200i is the current version, there are updated drivers that cover newer versions of Windows. The same goes for Silverfast 8, updates that run on the latest OSes should be available.
With PlusTek, you have no choice but the Silverfast that is bundled with it in two versions: cheaper SE Plus and the fancy Ai Studio (with calibration target).
Have you considered the most recent (March 2014) Reflecta ProScan 10T? This is available most cheaply with its own, rather poor, software OR with Silverfast added for not much more.
Quality older scanners, such as the Dimage IV, are an option though they seem to hold their value very well against newer, cheaper offerings. You might need some advanced technical ability to get them to work with modern computers, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Teo
Joined: 19 Jul 2014
Posts: 1079
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Teo wrote:
I am using a Minolta film scanner .They don't do them any more , but if you fiind one at good price and working condition they are good and gives me 11 mp files. (dimage III) Mine doesn't have automatic dust/scratch correction so I do manually this PIA operation.In excange, it was cheap.
_________________
Cheers ,Teo
( former yinyangbt )
https://www.flickr.com/photos/189381640@N08/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/44698004@N02/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Posts: 724
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
alaios wrote:
Hi,
my alternative choice for came from kenrockwell
| Quote: |
| inolta Dimage Scan Dual IV (introduced in February 2004) If you want an inexpensive new scanner ($ 265) you're really going to be impressed with this one, which as of 2004 replaces the previous model III. The only real difference between it and the $850 one above is the lack of real automated hardware dust removal (ICE). The "Pixel Polish" software doesn't really work, nor does any automated software for removing defects. If you have a lot of scanning to do the ICE will pay for itself in time saved. If not, the best way to remove dirt with any non-ICE scanner is a trick in Photoshop as I explain here. If you just have a few slides to scan and want to do it yourself this is far better than a flatbed. This scanner is 3200 DPI and 16 bits if you care. I'd get it here. |
otherwise I am really lost with how to evaluate performance before buying.. Since most faxers are second hand on ebay... I can not buy them and return them back If I do not like them.
My choice also to leave my flatbed scanner back is coming from kenrockwells link page
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scanrex.htm
commenting that 35mm film would benefit from a dedicated film scanner rather a flatbed scanner. I think that comment makes sense
Anyway, my priority to find a decent machine to scan is the most important part of my workflow. I am not stopping shooting film I am gonna fix the way I am scanning.
Thanks a lot
Alex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Posts: 724
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2014 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alaios wrote:
Hi,
one small update. I spend two days and I have read over 150 customer reviews on b and h, amazon.com and amazon.de
I am not getting the minolta since the feeder can be easily destroyed.
I would be getting the plustek for two reasons
1. I can buy a new one and thus I have a fifteen days returning period
2. It looks to be a big advancement from a flatbed scanner. People give very poor rating for the software but they suggest to buy the Vuescan, which looks more promising combo.
I will report back once scanner arrives
Regards
Alex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Posts: 724
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
alaios wrote:
Scanner came yesterday... I stayed awake for two hours to test it!
Interface of the software is not that good that I was expecting.. but otherwise my comment for my new scanner is
WOW
Alex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 4748
Location: Cheshire, England
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
Great, lets see some results!
_________________
Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Posts: 724
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
alaios wrote:
Thanks. Do you mean comparisons?? Even the results of my scanner I do not know to share to be technical correct (in the sense to allow "decent" comparison)
Regards
A |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 4748
Location: Cheshire, England
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
Just show us what it can do. If you want to do comparisons that would be good.
_________________
Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 5019
Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
| alaios wrote: |
Thanks. Do you mean comparisons?? Even the results of my scanner I do not know to share to be technical correct (in the sense to allow "decent" comparison)
Regards
A |
Well you have scanned some negs with your old scanner so you could rescan them with your new scanner and show the difference. IMO you wont see a massive difference but your new scanner would probably show more detail in the shadows and doing crops it would be sharper and less interference from scanner noise...so it is over to you for "proof of the pudding is in the eating"
_________________
Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Posts: 724
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alaios wrote:
You described it very precisely
".... would probably show more detail in the shadows and doing crops it would be sharper and less interference from scanner noise..."
I can see inside the dark areas now!
Alex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Posts: 724
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alaios wrote:
Hi,
so this is my feedback. For not flooding the forum with the images I am only giving links for the full images so perhaps one can do the comparison in a better way.
I am giving two exampls of my plustek 8200i against the 3490 epson scanner.
I scan same images with 3200 dpi and 24color bit. I disabled all post processing from the scanner, like sharpening.
I then exported both images at highest jpeg quality (100%). Files ended at very similar file size around 15Mb, which perhaps show that are somehow similar.
As a side note their color looks different but I think I should not care much since I can fix that in post processing.
Photo A
-FiilmScanner
-http://alexpal.smugmug.com/photos/i-VCKQ6jF/0/O/i-VCKQ6jF.jpg
-FlatBed
-http://alexpal.smugmug.com/photos/i-G589hwp/0/O/i-G589hwp.jpg
Photo B
-Film Scanner
-http://alexpal.smugmug.com/photos/i-2FbJf6d/0/O/i-2FbJf6d.jpg
-FlatBed
-http://alexpal.smugmug.com/photos/i-RDMVgTp/0/O/i-RDMVgTp.jpg
Regards
Alex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 5019
Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
Well your Epson 3490 results looks crap in comparison.........that Epson is not to be recommended for 35mm.
What about comparing the ones done at the lab
_________________
Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Posts: 724
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alaios wrote:
Hi,
I will dig out the cds once I have time to do one more round.
Although I can say for sure that the size I was given it was either 100+ kb Jpeg or 700kb jpeg.. which I do not expect to be very high resolution.
MY eyes for my new scanner say that I found what I was looking to move forward with film scanning...
Btw any reason to do sharpening and color correction from the scanning software and not from lightroom (I am scanning tiffs). Any reason for adjusting histograms?
So far I have been only enabling the scratch correction that is working great with the infrared channel and nothing more
Regards
alex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
