View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
my_photography
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 2772 Location: Pearl of the Orient
Expire: 2016-12-25
|
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:23 am Post subject: Scanner Recommendation |
|
|
my_photography wrote:
A friend asked me to recommend a scanner for 35mm. My experience with scanners are much outdated and the result I obtained last time, I was not happy. I did a quick search here and seems like most of the topics here regarding scanners are already few years old. Can some one recommend?
I remember reading here once about scanning through DSLR. The result I obtained last time was not good at all. Maybe I did it incorrectly. Anyone remember where the link is?
(Question 1 is for my friend and question 2 is for me. I have not been using film for a long while and would love to shoot film again if I can find a good way to digitize my film.) _________________
Zeiss: CJZ Flektogon 20/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 20/4, , CJZ Pentacon 29/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 35/2.4, CJZ Pancolar 50/1.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Biotar 7.5cm/1.5, CJZ Pancolar 80/1.8, CJZ Sonnar 135/3.5, CJZ Pentacon 135/2.8 CJZ Sonnar 200/2.8
Other Germany: Meyer Primoplan 50/1.8, Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8
Takumar: SMC 50/1.4 Super Tak 55/2, Super Tak 85/1.9, S-M-C 135/3.5, Super Tak 150/4
Russian: Zenith 16/2.8, Mir-24M 2/35, Volna-9 50/2.8, Helios 44M (58/2), Helios 44M-3 MC (58/2), Helios 40 (85/1.5), Tair 11A (135/2.8 )
Others: Sears 28/2.8, Sankor 35/2.8, Enna M�nchen Tele-Ennalyt 135/3.5
Zoom Sigma Zoom 28-85/3.5-4.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008 Posts: 6950 Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
Plustek scanners have a good rep. I was tied between one and a Epson V500, but went for the latter for it's versatility. I actually think I should have gone with the former. _________________ Casual attendance these days |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eeyore_nl
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 837 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
eeyore_nl wrote:
martinsmith99 wrote: |
Plustek scanners have a good rep. I was tied between one and a Epson V500, but went for the latter for it's versatility. I actually think I should have gone with the former. |
I'm more or less in the same boat ... my next scanner will be a dedicated 35mm film scanner. _________________ Fujifilm X-Pro2 / Fujifilm X-T1 / some Sonnar & Takumar lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
my_photography
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 2772 Location: Pearl of the Orient
Expire: 2016-12-25
|
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
my_photography wrote:
My friend did not specify whether dedicated film scanner or not. Perhaps recommendation for both and he can make his own decision.
By the way, I don't think Pulstek is sold where I am from. _________________
Zeiss: CJZ Flektogon 20/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 20/4, , CJZ Pentacon 29/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 35/2.4, CJZ Pancolar 50/1.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Biotar 7.5cm/1.5, CJZ Pancolar 80/1.8, CJZ Sonnar 135/3.5, CJZ Pentacon 135/2.8 CJZ Sonnar 200/2.8
Other Germany: Meyer Primoplan 50/1.8, Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8
Takumar: SMC 50/1.4 Super Tak 55/2, Super Tak 85/1.9, S-M-C 135/3.5, Super Tak 150/4
Russian: Zenith 16/2.8, Mir-24M 2/35, Volna-9 50/2.8, Helios 44M (58/2), Helios 44M-3 MC (58/2), Helios 40 (85/1.5), Tair 11A (135/2.8 )
Others: Sears 28/2.8, Sankor 35/2.8, Enna M�nchen Tele-Ennalyt 135/3.5
Zoom Sigma Zoom 28-85/3.5-4.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
eeyore_nl
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 837 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
eeyore_nl wrote:
my_photography wrote: |
By the way, I don't think Pulstek is sold where I am from. |
Maybe Plustek uses another brand name over there? _________________ Fujifilm X-Pro2 / Fujifilm X-T1 / some Sonnar & Takumar lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mo
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 Posts: 8979 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-07-30
|
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
mo wrote:
This is a link to the makers in America
http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/introduction.html
Interesting to hear they are an ok scanner...I see them on ebay all the time but have always thought of them as second rate... because ebay is the only place I see them. Not sound reasoning I know. _________________ Moira, Moderator
Fuji XE-1,Pentax K-01,Panasonic G1,Panasonic G5,Pentax MX
Ricoh Singlex TLS,KR-5,KR-5Super,XR-10
Lenses
Auto Rikenon's 55/1.4, 1.8, 2.8... 50/1.7 Takumar 2/58 Preset Takumar 2.8/105 Auto Takumar 2.2/55, 3.5/35 Super Takumar 1.8/55...Macro Takumar F4/50... CZJ Biotar ALU M42 2/58 CZJ Tessar ALU M42 2.8/50
CZJ DDR Flektogon Zebra M42 2.8/35 CZJ Pancolar M42 2/50 CZJ Pancolar Exakta 2/50
Auto Mamiya/Sekor 1.8/55 ...Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2.8/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 200/3.5 Tamron SP500/8 Tamron SP350/5.6 Tamron SP90/2.5
Primoplan 1.9/58 Primagon 4.5/35 Telemegor 5.5/150 Angenieux 3.5/28 Angenieux 3,5/135 Y 2
Canon FL 58/1.2,Canon FL85/1.8,Canon FL 100/3.5,Canon SSC 2.8/100 ,Konica AR 100/2.8, Nikkor P 105/2.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7567 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
my_photography wrote: |
My friend did not specify whether dedicated film scanner or not. Perhaps recommendation for both and he can make his own decision.
By the way, I don't think Pulstek is sold where I am from. |
Ask them:
http://www.jumbo-computer.com/pricelist.aspx?id=59 _________________ https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Epson V500 look my scans, I doubt any 35mm scanner in this price range will be better.
http://forum.mflenses.com/sonnar-5cm-f1-5-t-pre-war-lens-kiev-4-foma-100-budapest-t37185.html _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
my_photography
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 2772 Location: Pearl of the Orient
Expire: 2016-12-25
|
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
my_photography wrote:
Wow, those are great scan, Attila. V500 will definitely be one of the recommendation to my friend. _________________
Zeiss: CJZ Flektogon 20/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 20/4, , CJZ Pentacon 29/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 35/2.4, CJZ Pancolar 50/1.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Biotar 7.5cm/1.5, CJZ Pancolar 80/1.8, CJZ Sonnar 135/3.5, CJZ Pentacon 135/2.8 CJZ Sonnar 200/2.8
Other Germany: Meyer Primoplan 50/1.8, Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8
Takumar: SMC 50/1.4 Super Tak 55/2, Super Tak 85/1.9, S-M-C 135/3.5, Super Tak 150/4
Russian: Zenith 16/2.8, Mir-24M 2/35, Volna-9 50/2.8, Helios 44M (58/2), Helios 44M-3 MC (58/2), Helios 40 (85/1.5), Tair 11A (135/2.8 )
Others: Sears 28/2.8, Sankor 35/2.8, Enna M�nchen Tele-Ennalyt 135/3.5
Zoom Sigma Zoom 28-85/3.5-4.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Epson scanners are generally a safe bet. I believe the V500 has been replaced by the V600. If you have more to spend then you might want to look at the V700 or even the V750. These are mostly of value if you'll be scanning medium and large format, though.
I have an Epson 4990, which was the immediate predecessor to the V700. I have been very happy with it for medium format scans. It it my opinion, however, based on a fair amount of research, that for 35mm, any flatbed scanner will not be any better than "adequate." This is why I began to duplicate my slides and B&W negatives with my DSLR. You might be referring to the thread I posted on that subject here.
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=22881
However, using a duplicator for color negatives can be tricky. It's been a real hit-or-miss operation for me trying to get the colors right, so I generally still scan my color 35mm negs with my 4990. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
my_photography
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 2772 Location: Pearl of the Orient
Expire: 2016-12-25
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
my_photography wrote:
calvin83 wrote: |
my_photography wrote: |
My friend did not specify whether dedicated film scanner or not. Perhaps recommendation for both and he can make his own decision.
By the way, I don't think Pulstek is sold where I am from. |
Ask them:
http://www.jumbo-computer.com/pricelist.aspx?id=59 |
Thanks for the link. _________________
Zeiss: CJZ Flektogon 20/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 20/4, , CJZ Pentacon 29/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 35/2.4, CJZ Pancolar 50/1.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Biotar 7.5cm/1.5, CJZ Pancolar 80/1.8, CJZ Sonnar 135/3.5, CJZ Pentacon 135/2.8 CJZ Sonnar 200/2.8
Other Germany: Meyer Primoplan 50/1.8, Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8
Takumar: SMC 50/1.4 Super Tak 55/2, Super Tak 85/1.9, S-M-C 135/3.5, Super Tak 150/4
Russian: Zenith 16/2.8, Mir-24M 2/35, Volna-9 50/2.8, Helios 44M (58/2), Helios 44M-3 MC (58/2), Helios 40 (85/1.5), Tair 11A (135/2.8 )
Others: Sears 28/2.8, Sankor 35/2.8, Enna M�nchen Tele-Ennalyt 135/3.5
Zoom Sigma Zoom 28-85/3.5-4.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
gaeger
Joined: 16 Jan 2010 Posts: 722 Location: Brier, Wash.
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
gaeger wrote:
I got an Epson V300 at Christmas, and it does pretty swell job, I think. Plus it was cheap!
_________________ "Here's to the wonder" -- Alan Boyle
Nikkor/Nikon 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 55, 85, 105, 135, 180, 200, 300, 10-20, 18-35, 18-55, 28-50, 28-70, 24-85, 35-200, 50-300, 75-150, 80-200, 70-210, 70-300, 200-500
Minolta Rokkor 24, 28, 35, 45, 50, 58, 100, 135, 50-135, 300
My most interesting images | Full photostream
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008 Posts: 6950 Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
What you need the images for should really dictate which you buy. For web-sized images, most entry level ones are fine. I have made 8x12 prints on my V500 from 35mm negatives and they have been top quality; difficult to tell apart from 5D mkii images. _________________ Casual attendance these days |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7793 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
As I have a huge collection of slides to copy this topic caught my eye so I looked for info' on the Epson V 600, and found this good article.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/V600/V600.HTM
. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Hey Lloyd,
I just read through that article and found it basically empty of content. The author continuously used a straw man argument against adding Vuescan or Silverfast to the V600, claiming that one might as well buy a V700 if one did that. This is bunk. Vuescan is cheap and does a good job if somebody really objects to Epson Scan. Adding Vuescan into the total cost with the street price of the V600 and you aren't even up to half the price of a V700. So, so much for that argument.
Second, he was using a pre-release scanner. Tell you what, most credible places won't do reviews of pre-release products. He even admitted at the end that the software that came with his scanner was different from that which shipped with the original scanners.
Third, he keeps alluding to the idea that somebody who decides to scan their slides and negatives will likely spend the rest of their life doing so. Geez, enough already. I managed to scan thousands of slides and negatives with my scanners while I was doing other things -- watching TV, posting messages online, reading -- whatever. You're not required to sit there and stare at your scanner while it's doing its business. So, so much for that stupid argument.
He continues to recommend sending your images out to be scanned. Well, I tried this. They were scanned at about 1800 ppi (5mp), which is pretty standard from what I've found and which is suitable really only for 4x6 inch prints. A good flatbed will do a better job. And so much for that argument.
I have never used a V600 -- just the older Epsons. I own a 3170 and a 4990. And I've had no problems scanning properly exposed negatives using Epson Scan software. In fact, I've used evaluation copies of Vuescan and Silverfast, and I prefer Epson Scan. It's easier to use than either of the other two and the results I get are just as good as with the other two, if not better.
And you'll note that he does mention using a duplicator rig with a DSLR. Like I do. Because it's fast and gives better images to boot. And if a person already has a macro lens it might not be that expensive or difficult for one to put together a good duplicating rig.
Here's a link to the scanning forum at dpug.org. If you read up on what these folks have to say regarding scanning and scanners, you will probably learn more than you ever wanted to know on the subject.
http://www.dpug.org/forums/f6/ _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7793 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
Thank you Michael, the more reliable info' the better.
I have an Epson all in one Stylus Photo RX620 with a light in the lid etc for scanning, but I haven't had very good results with it. I suspect the software is poor ?
I also have a stand alone scanner, an old Epson that is under the spare room bed at the moment so I don't know what model it is, and I have the attachments for that as well. I kinda remember having more luck with that, I'll go and retrieve it tomorrow.
One thing that article did say was that 'VueScan' software worked with most scanners and is ( probably ) better. Is that the case?
The other thing I read with interest in that article was the "SHORT COURSE ON SCANNING" section, but I have no idea if the guy is talking through his butt or not.
I have a big problem with this kind of stuff because I have dyscalculia and after about 30 seconds of reading through this kind of instructions with so many numbers my brain just switches off and I might just as well be reading a recipe for cooking dinner! ( I don't cook either )
I always suspected that everything on the internet isn't true ! _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex
Joined: 18 Apr 2009 Posts: 561 Location: UK
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
alex wrote:
I have an Epson 4990, and a Plustek 7500i. Very little to choose between them, unless you have a lot of film scanning to do, in which case the Epson wins hands down. I chose the Epson originally because I wanted the capability to scan rollfilm.
I have Silverfast and Vuescan, as well as the Epson sofware for the 4990. The Epson software's interface is streets ahead of Silverfast and Vuescan put together for usability. Silverfast is very good indeed, but its interface is clunky, and I hate with a passion that's almost irrational the fact that it's tied to your model of scanner. Buying a new scanner? You need to buy a new version of Silverfast. Vuescan is far better in that respect, you just buy it once, and if you get the professional version (no economic reason not to), it not only works on nearly everything, but updates are free forever. Unfortunately, the interface is old-fashioned, counter-intuitive, and appears to have been designed by an enthusiastic schoolboy programmer. The end result is that I use the Epson scan software for just about everything.
Batching things on the Epson is a piece of cake. With Vuescan, it's a nightmare. I've been scanning decades worth of 35mm archives, and on the Plustek it would have been a logistical nightmare, as the Plustek has no motor to pull the film/slide holder through, it's entirely hand-operated. With the Epson, you load the film holder frame, and click on Scan. It then scans up to 24 frames at a time, numbering them sequentially, while you go off and brew some coffee. It's a pity the holder doesn't take 36 frames, but I got round this by contacting Epson and buying a spare 35mm filmholder set, and loading the remaining strips while the first lot were scanning, ready for a simple open-and-swap.
The Epson scan software does a good job in identifying all the frames in a 35mm strip, but I've never had any success with rollfilm. No matter whether it's 6x9 or 6x6 or 6x4.5, it gets regularly confused, so you always end up creating a 'marquee' and re-using it frame by frame. Fortunately, it's no great hassle. _________________ Alex |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Alex, you've summed things up very well! Including my sentiments toward both Silverfast and Vuescan. So well, that we might want to recommend to Lloyd that he look for a 4990. Or a 4870, which is virtually the same unit, but can probably found for a little cheaper.
Lloyd, you're probably not gonna want to wade through this article because it's kinda long, but I think I did a reasonably good job of explaining the various options when one wants to digitize ones slides. And I ended up going into quite a bit of detail describing what all you need to do for scanning with a flatbed. So . . . anyway, you can find it at my blog, here:
http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/?p=100 _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eeyore_nl
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 837 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
eeyore_nl wrote:
One thing that I like very much about Vuescan is the option to create RAW scans. Never a need to re-scan when you are not satisfied with the settings you used, because you still have the raw digitized original. _________________ Fujifilm X-Pro2 / Fujifilm X-T1 / some Sonnar & Takumar lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tikkathree
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 755 Location: Lovely Suffolk in Great Britain
Expire: 2012-12-28
|
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tikkathree wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
Hey Lloyd,
I
He continues to recommend sending your images out to be scanned. Well, I tried this. They were scanned at about 1800 ppi (5mp), which is pretty standard from what I've found and which is suitable really only for 4x6 inch prints. A good flatbed will do a better job. And so much for that argument.
I have never used a V600 -- just the older Epsons. I own a 3170 and a 4990. And I've had no problems scanning properly exposed negatives using Epson Scan software. In fact, I've used evaluation copies of Vuescan and Silverfast, and I prefer Epson Scan. It's easier to use than either of the other two and the results I get are just as good as with the other two, if not better.
And you'll note that he does mention using a duplicator rig with a DSLR. Like I do. Because it's fast and gives better images to boot. And if a person already has a macro lens it might not be that expensive or difficult for one to put together a good duplicating rig.
Here's a link to the scanning forum at dpug.org. If you read up on what these folks have to say regarding scanning and scanners, you will probably learn more than you ever wanted to know on the subject.
http://www.dpug.org/forums/f6/ |
Excuse my joining in but suddenly from a position of complete ignorance I have a need to know about digital scanning of film negative (slide or print): are you saying that the DSLR duplicator method gives better results than a dedicated flatbed or pull-through scanner? _________________ I used to think digital was fun but then I discovered film, then I found old lenses and then, eventually I found rangefinders.
EOS 5DII, loadsalenses
Canon G9 IR conv,
MF: TLR, 645 and folders
35mm: Oly OM Pro bodies 1, 2, 3 and 4; Soviet RF kit |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 11015 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Scanner Dmax is less than dSLR Dmax.
With dSLR, lens resolution is important -- the lenses in those inexpensive 35mm slide copiers are not as good a quality macro lens or quality lens on bellows.
For medium format, scanner resolution is better than resolution obtained with APS-C dSLR. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
lauge
Joined: 14 Jun 2008 Posts: 101 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Expire: 2013-05-30
|
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lauge wrote:
tikkathree wrote: |
Excuse my joining in but suddenly from a position of complete ignorance I have a need to know about digital scanning of film negative (slide or print): are you saying that the DSLR duplicator method gives better results than a dedicated flatbed or pull-through scanner? |
This site tests (and sells) scanners and as you can see from his results the Epson V600 has an effective resolution of about 3,6MP where the PlusTek dedicated 35mm has a resolution of about 14MP.
In the "Enlarging lens for film copy" thread here you can see the results from my effort on a bellows solution. I will post some pics soon of the setup. Enlarging lenses are interesting as they are design for flat field and no vignetting and they are very well corrected. I use a 16MP DSLR and the enlarging lens seems to have more resolution than that which means I can scan up to 16MP. _________________ M42:
S-M-C Takumar: 3.5/28 1.4/50 2.8/105
USSR: Industar 61L/Z
CZJ: Flektogon 2.4/35
MD:
Rokkor: 35-70/3.5
Kiron: 2.8/105 Macro
OM:
Zuiko: 50/1.8 75-150/4
Sigma: 24/2.8
Cameras:
Asahi Spotmatic F (looking for a sample with working light meter)
Olympus OM-1
Zeiss Ikon Contaflex IV
NEX 7 Sony A55 Konica Minolta Dynax 5D Minolta Dynax 7 Minolta AF 7000 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
tikkathree wrote: |
Excuse my joining in but suddenly from a position of complete ignorance I have a need to know about digital scanning of film negative (slide or print): are you saying that the DSLR duplicator method gives better results than a dedicated flatbed or pull-through scanner? |
That's what I've been stating for some time now. Of course, it depends on the resolution of your DSLR. Not much point in using a DSLR unless it has at least 8mp or so, I would say.
Duping color negatives and getting accurate colors after reversing them can be somewhat tricky. I've found that, with most regular negative films I've tried, it isn't too difficult to get good dupes from color negatives. Except for Ektar. There's something odd about Ektar, such that it just doesn't want to reverse well. My problem with Ektar is too much cyan after reversal. Haven't had much luck so far trying to get rid of the orange before reversal. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1888 Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
Alex, you've summed things up very well! Including my sentiments toward both Silverfast and Vuescan. So well, that we might want to recommend to Lloyd that he look for a 4990. |
So two of you have the 4990! What do you guys think of it? I've read mixed reviews, but I'm tempted to pick one up since it has a full size 8x10" transparency unit... _________________ Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Scheimpflug wrote: |
cooltouch wrote: |
Alex, you've summed things up very well! Including my sentiments toward both Silverfast and Vuescan. So well, that we might want to recommend to Lloyd that he look for a 4990. |
So two of you have the 4990! What do you guys think of it? I've read mixed reviews, but I'm tempted to pick one up since it has a full size 8x10" transparency unit... |
Now that I've owned a 4990 for a couple of years, I'll state this about it: it is a good workhorse of a scanner that will turn out acceptable images from film, whether slides or negatives. The 35mm images aren't as sharp as I like, but hey, even if I were using a V7xx model, I still wouldn't be satisfied in that regard.
A big reason for my buying my 4990 was because it would scan large format. I've seen prints from LF scans done by the 4990 and they were outstanding. However, the scanner comes with a film holder for 4x5s only. It won't do 8x10s -- at least with the holders provided. But since the scanning deck is big enough to do an 8x10, there's nothing stopping you. You just would need to make your own 8x10 film holder, is all, which shouldn't really be all that hard to do. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|