Help with 35mm Film Scanner

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by RENE 2FUN, Aug 12, 2003.

  1. RENE 2FUN

    RENE 2FUN Guest

    Hi,
    I have alot of 35mm prints I would like to put on cd, yet I know nothing about
    the digital world.

    I am looking for a film scanner so I will be able to scan,edit, and then place
    on cd to archive as well as, printing and making a web page.

    I am looking at the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000dpi
    and the new Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 dpi

    Any advice would be helpful

    Rene
     
    RENE 2FUN, Aug 12, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RENE 2FUN

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: (RENE 2FUN)
    I've been using Nikon scanners for the past 5 years, with fine success (LS-2000
    and LS-8000). But the new Minolta 5400 sure looks like the better 35 mm
    scanner right now :) That's what I'd get if buying today.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 12, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements


  3. Check out the reviews at:
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM

    Here's a page full of review links:
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/scanners.html


    FWIW, I'm happy with my Canon FS4000. I can e-mail you a sample scan if
    you like.

    -Greg
     
    Greg Campbell, Aug 12, 2003
    #3
  4. RENE 2FUN

    Alan Browne Guest

    The Minolta 5400 looks to be the very best bang/$ right now. I'd hold
    off 3 months to let all the reviews build up. Initial comments are very
    good, with the exception of long ICE times (scratch/dust removal), but
    that is perhaps normal when processing at max resolution.

    If you're not that fussy, then the LS-4000 (Nikon) and the Scan Elite
    III (Minolta) will probably fall in price and these are excellent scanners.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 12, 2003
    #4
  5. RENE 2FUN

    snaps! Guest

    I've been down the film scanner route myself.
    First I bought a Canon 9900f... It was dog slow but did good scans except
    for the dust & scratch removal - A JOKE!

    Next I bought an Epson 3200 Photo scanner. Supposedly the best in it's
    class. This beastie is no different to the Canon scanner except it has
    "Silverfast" scanning software. The dust problem is worse with this one.
    It's quality of scans is superb. It is faster than the Canon but I can still
    make coffee while it does a 120 neg!

    I looked at the Nikon 8000 and even had a demo of it. It doesn't handle 120
    film very well so it's not for me. I had a demo of the Minolta 5400 last
    week and it does everything anyone could want of a film scanner. Digital Ice
    is probably the most essential feature any film scanner can have.

    So after spending 4 months and $2k going through scanners, I came across
    Polaroid's (free) dust & scratch removal software. If I'd have discovered
    this at the start, I'd still have the Canon scanner! In hindsight, I could
    have had a professional lab do my scans for me at a hell of a lot less money
    than I've spent so far. If I was to do it all again but have the knowledge I
    have now, I'd get someone else to do the scanning. At 50 cents per frame I
    could get 4000 frames scanned for the cost I've already had to get what
    amounts to 30 quality scans!

    Doug
     
    snaps!, Aug 12, 2003
    #5
  6. RENE 2FUN

    Rafe B. Guest

    That's interesting, because aside from handling 120 film,
    there's not much reason to buy the LS-8000 over the
    LS-4000 or IV.

    FWIW, I've been scanning 120 film on an LS-8000 for
    a couple of years now, with no serious problems


    Unless you need to scan 120 film, that is...


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Aug 13, 2003
    #6
  7. RENE 2FUN

    Tang Wong Guest

    If you are looking for scanners that can scan prints, then neither the Nikon
    nor the Minolta is right for you. They are scanners for slides and
    negatives.

    I do have a Nikon LS-40 and like it a lot, although the Minolta 5400 is
    very appealing and the price is right.
     
    Tang Wong, Aug 13, 2003
    #7
  8. SNIP
    The LS-8000 has a more diffuse lightsource than the LS-4000. This reduces
    apparent graininess.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Aug 13, 2003
    #8
  9. RENE 2FUN

    Rafe B. Guest


    Umm, yes, maybe. But my response was to
    someone who claimed that the 8000 wasn't
    much good at scaning 120 film.

    Which would, you know, be a bit ironic for
    this scanner (if it were true.)


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Aug 13, 2003
    #9
  10. RENE 2FUN

    snaps! Guest

    It is true. It is in fact well documented that the LS 8000 handles 120 roll
    film very badly.

    Doug
     
    snaps!, Aug 13, 2003
    #10
  11. RENE 2FUN

    JR Guest

    I have the Minolta 5400....In fact I am scanning right now. The ICE
    works exceptionally well. The sharpness and resolution of this scanner
    is amazing. I had the Minolta Scan Dual II before and this is a world
    apart. I looked into the Nikon as well, but on paper the Minolta beats
    it in every way. The real world reviews say it beats it in use as well.
    So if I were you, the Minolta would be the one...I can't think of one
    reason to buy the Nikon, and I am a Nikon fan...

    JR
     
    JR, Aug 13, 2003
    #11
  12. SNIP
    The only frequent comment revolves round the limited depth of field,
    requiring very good film flatness. Some say they have no issues because the
    film holder puts enough tension on the film to hold it flat, others insist a
    glass holder is an unavoidable (expensive) accessory. It's a good scanner,
    it's well built, and the LED lightsource is very stable over time, creates
    little heat, and provides good color accuracy.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Aug 13, 2003
    #12
  13. RENE 2FUN

    Rafe B. Guest


    Does that "documentation" come from some guy named Entlich?

    News flash: I have scanned many, many rolls of 120 film in my
    LS-8000. Nice and sharp, edge to edge.

    I've also done many dozens of scans for paying customers on
    that same machine -- of 6x7 chromes.

    It does rather annoy me to have folks propagating misinformation
    about products they clearly haven't used, and know nothing about.



    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Aug 14, 2003
    #13
  14. RENE 2FUN

    Rafe B. Guest


    If I were in the market for a 35 mm film scanner at the moment,
    I'd certainly take a close look at the Minolta.

    But I'm not. I've been using an LS-8000 for the last two years,
    and unless it dies a horrible death, it will be my very last
    film scanner.

    For my purposes, 35 mm film is nearly history and I'm sort of
    wondering how much longer I'm going to want to put up with the
    MF gear and the scanning.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Aug 14, 2003
    #14
  15. RENE 2FUN

    Rafe B. Guest



    I readily agree that film holds its own against digital,
    at least for now, and that it is more cost effective in
    some ways (aside from the cost of the film itself and
    the processing.) A half-decent SLR with decent
    lenses and a $350 film scanner should match a 10D.

    It will be interesting to see if any other manufacturers
    follow Minolta's lead with higher-res film scanners.

    As to how much detail is left in film beyond 4000 dpi,
    we both know that depends on many factors, and that
    there is a fair amount of disagreement on this topic.
    My own low-ish estimates most likely relate to the
    lenses I own (ie., not Zeiss) and the film I shoot
    (mostly ISO 100 pro grade negative films.)

    Even as recently as a year ago, I was still convinced
    that scanned 35 film could beat any digital capture device
    under $10K. Looking at 1Ds captures changed my mind.

    Comparing G2 vs. scanned 35 opened my eyes. No
    way does the G2 "beat" 35 mm, except when you stop
    to consider the tiny size of its sensor.

    With the 10D I have been looking closely again, and
    I'd have to say it's a toss-up between 10D captures
    and my 4000 dpi scans of Reala, Supra Provia, and the
    like. (Mostly negative films, but a few slides here and
    there.)

    The total absence of grain or noise on the 10D captures
    makes them look a bit unreal at times. I've found that
    just a touch of noise added in Photoshop makes them
    suddenly look much more "lifelike" -- or perhaps that is
    to say "much more like film."


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Aug 14, 2003
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.