Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Cheap film scanner vs Print scan and lab scan
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Darkroom
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:13 am    Post subject: Cheap film scanner vs Print scan and lab scan Reply with quote
Ok, my Epson flatbed scanner with neg scan broke down not long before I joined this forum. So there was no way to scan my vast collection of slides and negs. So this project went on a back burner.

However I've been using film for a while now and not been happy with the quality of neg scans to CD from Jessops and ASDA.

OK Jessops is out of the equation so it leaves me with ADSA.

Recently Maplins were selling their £59.99 scanner for £14.99, so awash with small change I invested in one.



The photos were done on my Zeiss Contina III, exposing using the built in meter.

Let the photos do the talking.

The only PP I've done is to correct the neg scan, the original is here too.

A photo of the actual print



The neg, which is a little thin:



Print scan and 100% crop:



CD scan and 100% crop:



Straight neg scan and 100% crop:



Photoshopped neg scan and 100% crop:



Varied eh?

The straight print scan has the best colours and the cd scan although a little washed out is ok. But the neg scan, I think has the best detail and resolution but the software has this terrible 'auto correct' feature which needs work to sort it out.

I'll do some more


PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The output from this small scanner looks terrible - the CD scan from the lab is far better.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
std wrote:
The output from this small scanner looks terrible - the CD scan from the lab is far better.


I agree on the above scans

Some better exposed negs scanned

An original, straight scan:



Saturation boosted a bit(40%) - that's all:



and a 100% crop:



and a couple more:






I think it's not bad, quality wise, but the scanning software 'Arcsoft Mediaimpression' leaves a lot to be desired


PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The original non saturated scan looks pretty decent if you open the picture in new window.
About software you can try Vuescan in manual mode with lock the exposure and film base color like in this tutorial http://benneh.net/techshit/better-colour-neg-scanning-with-vuescan/ , but anyway i doubt that you can get a big improvement over the bundled soft.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i gives you a lot of extra noise and it looks like digital color noise, quite terrible, probably would be better for black & white but still bad. J have paid 11 quid for my flatbed HP4850 and I get superb results comparing to that and I run it on windows 8 no problem at all.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nurkov wrote:
i gives you a lot of extra noise and it looks like digital color noise, quite terrible, probably would be better for black & white but still bad. J have paid 11 quid for my flatbed HP4850 and I get superb results comparing to that and I run it on windows 8 no problem at all.


Yeah, I think I overdid the saturation, looking at it now.

I'm hammering the slides, you seem to get better scans from slides. Here's a couple:

The colour is almost gone from this slide, what you see here is fairly accurate



This is a model at my night class, taken on Agfa Dia-Direct B&W slide film



EDIT: I didn't know you could open these pics on a new page and magnify them. The b&w scan does have a lot of 'colour' noise in the shadows,

But y'know what; I'm happy I can see my old slides again. I scanned slides in I've never even seen before, unopened packets from P.O. Box 14 and Deer Park Road if anyone remembers them! For new stuff I think I'm gonna have to get a good scanner.

oooh, here's a few blasts from the past: Who remembers what they were? Orwo, Dia-Direct, Ferrania, CT18, E4, C22, FP4, HP3 and Cibachrome!!


PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
These kinds of "scanners" seem universally crap, but I have to confess that's the best performance I've seen from one. I'd go as far as to say it's acceptable for general use. The one I had suffered mostly from extremely low dynamic range, and the results looked more like 256 colour GIFs Sad


PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looking at the scans I start to think whether its worth me getting scsi pc card to connect my old canon film scanner to my pc? Its been given to me as a present years back ,but never used. Does anyone know if 2720dpi film scanner would produce decent results?
thx


PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Digitalriver wrote:
Looking at the scans I start to think whether its worth me getting scsi pc card to connect my old canon film scanner to my pc? Its been given to me as a present years back ,but never used. Does anyone know if 2720dpi film scanner would produce decent results?
thx


If it is a TRUE 2720dpi (suspicious advertising) then it's ok for posting shots on a forum and about 8"X10" print. In fact the supermarket 1600 X 1200 scans produce very good shots for posting on forums e.g. :-

Agfa vista film in supermarket for £1 and 36 exp scanned at a supermarket and touched up in Photoshop (usually for spots and too much contrast and brightness). Rikenon 28mm


PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the advice!!!

P.s I had my agfa vista scanned in asda few days ago , I asked the girl if they could save the images in tiff, she answered no, just jpeg. I would be much happier with asda results if only she would say YES Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Digitalriver wrote:
Thanks for the advice!!!

P.s I had my agfa vista scanned in asda few days ago , I asked the girl if they could save the images in tiff, she answered no, just jpeg. I would be much happier with asda results if only she would say YES Very Happy


Wink At my Asda I asked about scanning negs and she said as long as they are at least three frames long, then she would do up to 36 exp and put them on a CD for £2 Cool .....and it would be interesting to see if she and the machine can get the colours right on my 50 year old colour negs in a profitable time.........


PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Digitalriver wrote:
Looking at the scans I start to think whether its worth me getting scsi pc card to connect my old canon film scanner to my pc? Its been given to me as a present years back ,but never used. Does anyone know if 2720dpi film scanner would produce decent results?
thx


I think if it's a Canon, it ought to be a good one. Mine uses a generic built-in camera.It's ok.

A scsi PCI card only costs about 5 pounds on ebay I think it's worth a go. Probably better than buying a new cheap scanner (like mine)

Digitalriver wrote:
Thanks for the advice!!!

P.s I had my agfa vista scanned in asda few days ago , I asked the girl if they could save the images in tiff, she answered no, just jpeg. I would be much happier with asda results if only she would say YES Very Happy


If they did save them in TIFF they would still be the same resolution wouldn't they? do you think it would be much different than JPG?


PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If they did save them in TIFF they would still be the same resolution wouldn't they? do you think it would be much different than JPG?




Tiff file format is a lot less compressed , so it would at least contain more and better dynamic range , the image in general would be much better!! Tiff format is also much better to post process. But then again , 2£ is a bargain,and also, it is a supermarket not a pro-lab!!! Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
With a 35mm neg this is what a home scan looks like on a computer screen, dev at Boots and scanned by me with a Epson V750 (true dpi is about 2500) in JPG format, using a cheap consumer Canon FD 28mm, and years ago I didn't have the skills to sharpen, de-noise\grain etc and haven't re scanned it since. Film was OOD Superia 200.


Hand the neg to a good lab and you can get results like this, notice the size by comparing the cigarette packet, the white smudge is because I used flash:-


PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Epson V750 is outside my price league but I'm looking for a better-than-this scanner.

Heres a photo I took with my Olympus 35 RC a few weeks ago. I have scanned it in Tiff and Jpg I see no difference with this scanner.


close ups



I've just developed my first B&W film in over 30 years, It curls like crazy, in the old days you could flatten it in the neg carrier, how the heck do I do it in a film scanner??

Last edited by philslizzy on Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:40 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:
The Epson V750 is outside my price league but I'm looking for a better-than-this scanner.

Heres a photo I took with my Olympus 35 RC a few weeks aho. I have scanned it in Tiff and Jpg I see no difference with this scanner.


close ups



I've just developed my first B&W film in over 30 years, It curls like crazy, in the old days you could flatten it in the neg carrier, how the heck do I do it in a film scanner??


Interesting comparison with Tiff and JPG, and someone said if you are continually altering and saving a JPG image it degrades the quality Question
Well the older recommended Epson scanners are just as good as the V750, and I only got the V750 because it was going for £90 and am disappointed it's not much better than a £20,000 Fuji frontier at Asda Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
mine does not I just leave it hanging from wet stage over night with small weight at the bottom and cut it next day in pieces by 6 frames and is reasonably flat.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
With a 35mm neg this is what a home scan looks like on a computer screen, dev at Boots and scanned by me with a Epson V750 (true dpi is about 2500) in JPG format, using a cheap consumer Canon FD 28mm, and years ago I didn't have the skills to sharpen, de-noise\grain etc and haven't re scanned it since. Film was OOD Superia 200.


Hand the neg to a good lab and you can get results like this, notice the size by comparing the cigarette packet, the white smudge is because I used flash:-


Lovely result!! If my canon FS2710 scanner , will produce similar results , I will be more than happy!!!


PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:
The Epson V750 is outside my price league but I'm looking for a better-than-this scanner.

Heres a photo I took with my Olympus 35 RC a few weeks ago. I have scanned it in Tiff and Jpg I see no difference with this scanner.


close ups



I've just developed my first B&W film in over 30 years, It curls like crazy, in the old days you could flatten it in the neg carrier, how the heck do I do it in a film scanner??


I dont see much difference either , but its for certain , that, we could extract more from tiff in pp.

Last edited by Digitalriver on Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:00 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="Digitalriver"]
Excalibur wrote:

Lovely result!! If my canon FS2710 scanner , will produce similar results , I will be more than happy!!!


Thanks and I assume the picture in the frame was drum scanned as I was amazed at the quality... but remember the models before V750\V700 are very good also, but unfortunately others know this on ebay so the prices are higher than they should be for old equipment.
Unfortunately a flatbed scanner will never get the best out of a 35mm neg film and no manufacture is bothering to do anything about it (I assume because they think film is dead\dying) but the good news is..... they are very good for scanning MF negs.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nurkov wrote:
mine does not I just leave it hanging from wet stage over night with small weight at the bottom and cut it next day in pieces by 6 frames and is reasonably flat.


Which is exactly what I did, BTW the film curves between the perforations - not along it's length.
In 20 years of developing my own film I'd only had it a few times, perhaps its the particular film base or something.

maybe its the cold rinse water?

anyone any ideas?

Digitalriver wrote:

I dont see much difference either , but its for certain that, we could extract more form tiff in pp.


Good point, the scanner is now set to tiff. Thanks!


PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:


Which is exactly what I did, BTW the film curves between the perforations - not along it's length.
In 20 years of developing my own film I'd only had it a few times, perhaps its the particular film base or something.

maybe its the cold rinse water?


drying time is too quick ??? Temp of the air is high?


PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Digitalriver wrote:
philslizzy wrote:


Which is exactly what I did, BTW the film curves between the perforations - not along it's length.
In 20 years of developing my own film I'd only had it a few times, perhaps its the particular film base or something.

maybe its the cold rinse water?


drying time is too quick ??? Temp of the air is high?


No, I hung the film up in the kitchen late at night, no heating, just normal air temperature. Film drying cabinets wouldn't be much use if warm air made the film curl.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Darkroom
Page 1 of 1