Digital BW, The Print

What is the best 35mm film scanner I can buy for $500?

Thanks

Steve

Steve,

Pacific Image has some decent scanners under $500.00.  They have two units
with Digital Ice, the 3650u($280) and the 3650PRO ($480).  Contact me
offline if you have questions.

Michael J. Pach
Owner
AdventureCam Photo
Proof Line Ink Jet Paper & Media
719-260-6637
www.adventurecamphoto.com

What is the best 35mm film scanner I can buy for $500?

Thanks

Steve

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.1 - Release Date: 1/27/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve 
Schaefer" <listmail04@b...> wrote:
> 
> What is the best 35mm film scanner I can buy for $500?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Steve

Nikon Coolscan 4000 or 5000ED, used on ebay from trusted seller. New 
epson/scanners available for around 500$ at lower end.

I have heard not so good things about PacificImage and the Minolta
Scan Dual IV does not have ICE which you want if you are scanning
color (or chromogenic B&W). If you want ICE spring for the Nikon
Coolscan V.

-Pieris
digital darkroom blog: www.pmb.net/darkroom

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Schaefer"
<listmail04@b...> wrote:

> 
> What is the best 35mm film scanner I can buy for $500?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Steve

Stretch your budget a bit and get the Minolta 5400. (This assumes you are looking for 35mm only.)

I use mine often and it has yet to disappoint. The scans are the best you can get -- I think you'll find most reviews of the scanner will concur with this opinion.

There is a lot talk about what scanning software to use. At least in the case of the 5400, I think that DiMAGE software that is provided with the scanner (i.e., read that it doesn't cost anything extra) is more than adequate.

Point being you might actually save money with the 5400... The provided software with other scanners may leave much to be desired leading people to buy third party software like Vuescan and Silverfast.

I've read how people extoll the virtues of Vuescan and Silverfast -- I've given each a try but I cannot find how they are superior to the (free) software that comes with the 5400 scanner. Both are counter-inituitive (especially Silverfast) and don't appear to handle multiple (batch) scanning which even at six frames at a time for negs and five frames at a time for slides can be quite useful at times.

The Vuescan and Silverfast fans out there may contradict me on the above but IMHO the bottom line is the DiMAGE software is easy to figure out and use quickly -- the others were not. And it was (is) important to me to be able to use tools (like scanners) quickly and easily -- and not have to labor with this or that learning aid to climb a steep learning curve for overly complicated software.

I don't need my scanner software to do tons of image mantipulation and editing -- I have an overly complicated piece of software called PhotoShop CS for that! :) 

-- 
David Keenan, ausdlk@... on 2/1/2005

On Jan 31, 2005, at 11:31 PM, David Keenan wrote:
>
> Stretch your budget a bit and get the Minolta 5400. (This assumes you 
> are looking for 35mm only.)

5400 is great, i agree... for 35 mm...

> I've read how people extoll the virtues of Vuescan and Silverfast -- 
> I've given each a try but I cannot find how they are superior to the 
> (free) software that comes with the 5400 scanner. Both are 
> counter-inituitive (especially Silverfast) and don't appear to handle 
> multiple (batch) scanning which even at six frames at a time for negs 
> and five frames at a time for slides can be quite useful at times.

i'm  a vuescan fan -- so let me contradict you :-) --- vuescan does 
handle batches --- very easily, i'm doing one right now - specifying 
which frames i want to get scanned... i sometimes compare scans using 
vuescan and dimage -- when i think that the scan is just not coming out 
OK - to check if something got changed in the vuescan inadvertently...

silverfast --- i don't bother with... it is too cumbersome...

> I don't need my scanner software to do tons of image mantipulation and 
> editing -- I have an overly complicated piece of software called 
> PhotoShop CS

i don't use vuescan to manipulate --- it just gives a nice low contrast 
scan that i can "manipulate" in PS ---

altaf

Oh yes, Digital ICE is essential if you ever plan scanning color. Don't get a scanner without it. 

It does nothing for black & white negs however. That's a bummer...

I must admit that I'm interested in the forthcoming Epson 4990 flatbed scanner. Being able to scan an entire roll of 36 (maybe it's 30) at once has a definite appeal... And it has Digital ICE and support for other film sizes.

-- 
David Keenan, ausdlk@... on 2/1/2005

I think the most important thing to think about is the
SilverFast software.You can really fine tune a scan.In
terms of saving contrasty b&w negs,its incredible.I
have the Epson 4870 Pro and I would not be without
it.You mentioned the 4990,I think that would drop the
price of the 4870 to below 500 bucks.Francis Ford
--- David Keenan <ausdlk@...> wrote:

> Oh yes, Digital ICE is essential if you ever plan
> scanning color. Don't get a scanner without it. 
> 
> It does nothing for black & white negs however.
> That's a bummer...
> 
> I must admit that I'm interested in the forthcoming
> Epson 4990 flatbed scanner. Being able to scan an
> entire roll of 36 (maybe it's 30) at once has a
> definite appeal... And it has Digital ICE and
> support for other film sizes.
> 
> -- 
> David Keenan, ausdlk@... on 2/1/2005
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Digital Ice isn't critical if you maintain a relatively clean
workspace, good handling and storage, and blow lots of cans of
compressed air... however you do need Photoshop 7 or CS or Elements 3
for the wonderful "healing brush." 

If you have amateur-grade camera optics or moderate-priced zoom lenses
(eg typical 50 lines per mm), they will probably be the choke point
more than the scanner.

At 11X14 I doubt anybody can discern Nikon V Vs mere Epson 3200 (I
have one, love it), much less 4870 and maybe 4990 in 98% of photos.
Where the pre-4990s such as mine are probably weaker than the new
Nikons is D-Max...nobody's reported yet. On the other hand, the Epsons
are faster, more versatile, and have less focus problems.
 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Keenan
<ausdlk@s...> wrote:
> Oh yes, Digital ICE is essential if you ever plan scanning color.
Don't get a scanner without it. 
> 
> It does nothing for black & white negs however. That's a bummer...
> 
> I must admit that I'm interested in the forthcoming Epson 4990
flatbed scanner. Being able to scan an entire roll of 36 (maybe it's
30) at once has a definite appeal... And it has Digital ICE and
support for other film sizes.

> 
> -- 
> David Keenan, ausdlk@s... on 2/1/2005

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon"
<westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
.
> 
> At 11X14 I doubt anybody can discern Nikon V Vs mere Epson 3200 (I
> have one, love it), much less 4870 and maybe 4990 in 98% of photos.
> Where the pre-4990s such as mine are probably weaker than the new
> Nikons is D-Max...nobody's reported yet. On the other hand, the Epsons
> are faster, more versatile, and have less focus problems.
>  
Having used both and with the same negs, I can assure you that the
Nikon V is way ahead of the E3200 even at 8"x10". The trouble with the
flatbeds, beside the softness of the scans, is the outgassing
(degassing?) of plastic components which will fog the underside of the
glassbed therefore reducing contrast.

Flatbed do better with MF negatives than with 35mm.

Cheers,
André Moreau

That is a very interesting observation. Outgassing[is
that a word] has not happened to my 4870 yet but I'll
be watching.Francis Ford
--- Andre <am1000@...> wrote:

> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> "Djon"
> <westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
> .
> > 
> > At 11X14 I doubt anybody can discern Nikon V Vs
> mere Epson 3200 (I
> > have one, love it), much less 4870 and maybe 4990
> in 98% of photos.
> > Where the pre-4990s such as mine are probably
> weaker than the new
> > Nikons is D-Max...nobody's reported yet. On the
> other hand, the Epsons
> > are faster, more versatile, and have less focus
> problems.
> >  
> Having used both and with the same negs, I can
> assure you that the
> Nikon V is way ahead of the E3200 even at 8"x10".
> The trouble with the
> flatbeds, beside the softness of the scans, is the
> outgassing
> (degassing?) of plastic components which will fog
> the underside of the
> glassbed therefore reducing contrast.
> 
> Flatbed do better with MF negatives than with 35mm.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andr\ufffd Moreau
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. 
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

"outgassing" comes from BS, as any farm boy knows :-)

Hypothetical issues from hypothetical deposits on glass might be
weighed against the regularly reported focus issues in "film only"
scanners. 

In addition to their much superior workflow/speed and film format
versatility, flatbeds can deliver extreme film flatness using
anti-newton glass. Film-only scanners have to rely on iffy autofocus
(focus-tinkering options demonstrate inherent design weakness). 

Film-only Vs flatbed is mostly a pissing contest, in any case: Many
need to scan reflective as well as film and are constrained by cost.
Many need flatbed's superior speed and workflow because they have a
lot of film to deal with. Professionals and former pros have both 120
needs and sheet film needs, so even the Nikon 9000 won't do the
deed...and most will never submit these scans for reproduction because
significant publications use drum scans, not flatbed OR film-only.

People demanding top quality and who have unlimited space, time, and
budget will certainly want better than what Nikon or Epson offer. 
 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Francis Ford
<francisford45@y...> wrote:

> That is a very interesting observation. Outgassing[is
> that a word] has not happened to my 4870 yet but I'll
> be watching.Francis Ford
> --- Andre <am1000@v...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> > "Djon"
> > <westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
> > .
> > > 
> > > At 11X14 I doubt anybody can discern Nikon V Vs
> > mere Epson 3200 (I
> > > have one, love it), much less 4870 and maybe 4990
> > in 98% of photos.
> > > Where the pre-4990s such as mine are probably
> > weaker than the new
> > > Nikons is D-Max...nobody's reported yet. On the
> > other hand, the Epsons
> > > are faster, more versatile, and have less focus
> > problems.
> > >  
> > Having used both and with the same negs, I can
> > assure you that the
> > Nikon V is way ahead of the E3200 even at 8"x10".
> > The trouble with the
> > flatbeds, beside the softness of the scans, is the
> > outgassing
> > (degassing?) of plastic components which will fog
> > the underside of the
> > glassbed therefore reducing contrast.
> > 
> > Flatbed do better with MF negatives than with 35mm.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > André Moreau
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. 
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250