Recommendation for 35mm scanner

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by Jonathan Sylvestre, Feb 1, 2006.

  1. Hi,

    I have lots of 35mm films to scan. IM looking for a 35 mm scanner but I
    consider a flat scanner (or an all-in-one printer) that have a support for
    35mm films.

    What I would like to know is :

    1)Is there any 35mm scanner that do a good job but that not too expensive
    (around 200 $, except the Konica - Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV) ?

    2)Can I optain good results with a flat scanner or a all-in-one printer
    (good results and save some time)? (minium resolution of 3200)

    3)Anyone who use the Epson Stylus CX7800 (all-in-one printer)? How is the 35
    mm film scanning ? (and the printing of photos?)

    Thank you very much for your help.... I have undreds of films to scan but
    not enough money to spend. I read many reviews but I cant make my mind

    Thank you

    Jonathan
     
    Jonathan Sylvestre, Feb 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jonathan Sylvestre

    tomm42 Guest

    The KM Scan Dual IV is about the best bang for the buck. With flat beds
    the specs are often inflated and they give disappointing results
    especially with small films. If you want to get into an Epson 4180 or
    4990, Canon, Microtek, and Umax have equivalents, all are better for
    small films. If you just want to have pics on the web you may get by
    with a cheaper scanner. Just remember film scanners do film the best.
    Some Polaroid 35mm scanners were quite good, but they have a SCSI
    interface and you have no support if there is problems. SCSI scanners
    can be finicky. Pacific Image had a series of film scanners they had
    some very cheap ones, their higher priced scanners had a good
    reputation.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Feb 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Steve Guest

    I would recommend getting a dedicated film scanner like a decent Minolta or
    Nikon.

    Lets face it, scanning negatives is a boring, laborious task, so believe me,
    you only want to be doing it once. Better to get the best results first
    time, so you don't have to do it again in the future.
     
    Steve, Feb 1, 2006
    #3
  4. Jonathan Sylvestre

    uglyone25 Guest

    Hello Jonathan, I have used Microtek scanners for a few years and I
    have found thier support/helpline very good when I need support. I
    would ask them. Tele- 01782 753366 or web site www.microtekeurope.com.
    The head office is in Newcastle. Hope you find something, thier
    scanners are not over priced.
    Best Regards
    uglyone25.
     
    uglyone25, Feb 1, 2006
    #4
  5. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    The KM Scan Dual IV is about the best bang for the buck. With flat beds
    Any particular model recomendations on the SCSI Polaroid scanners? I have
    a slew of SCSI-based systems (not to mention all of the extra controllers
    and cables laying around), and if a used one could be had inexpensively,
    that would make me very happy.

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Feb 1, 2006
    #5
  6. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Adam Jacobs Guest

    I can definitely recommend against flat-bed scanners if you can help it.
    The best one I've ever seen is the Visioneer 8920, and it is pretty
    crummy. It can only do one frame at a time and the results are not so
    great, very saturated colors and everything is kind of green..

    Does anyone know of a film negative scanner that can do both 35mm and
    120? This is the major reason I have been messing with flatbeds so far.
     
    Adam Jacobs, Feb 1, 2006
    #6
  7. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Dave Guest

    I had a Nikon Coolscan but I get better results with an Epson 4180 -
    except when it intermittently aborts with an 'out of memory' error
    when I do 12 negatives at once (I have 2GB memory).

    The Nikon would jam after the little rubber rollers that pulled the
    strips of 6 negatives in lost their grip. Cotton buds dipped in Platen
    Clean would temporarily restore the grip. No such problems with the
    Epson 4180.

    The results are just as good or better and the dust removal seems to
    be as good, too. Also important is the fact it cost one quarter of the
    price, about the same I paid for my handheld two-bit Atari scanner
    years ago.

    Dave.
    2500 hi-resolution photos especially Edinburgh
    * No advertisements * http://www.henniker.org.uk
    * délété david to use email address *
     
    Dave, Feb 1, 2006
    #7
  8. Jonathan Sylvestre

    rafe b Guest



    Polaroid SprintScan Plus was a much-coveted scanner in its
    day that can be had for under $150 on eBay nowadays.
    Very comparable to Nikon's LS-2000. Both were rated
    at 2700 dpi. The SprintScan LE was a cheaper model,
    which I'd avoid. Moving up the chain a notch, the SprintScan
    4000 can probably be had for around $400 or so.

    But as with any SCSI scanner it may take some skill and
    patience to get it working with a "modern" PC and OS.

    For starters, you'll need to download and install the so-called
    ASPI layer, from Adaptec's website. Drivers for any of these
    can be downloaded from Polaroid's web site.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Feb 1, 2006
    #8
  9. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Dan Hollands Guest

    I used a PrimeFilm 1800u - cheap and gave adequate results - one frame at a
    time


    --
    Dan Hollands
    1120 S Creek Dr
    Webster NY 14580
    585-872-2606

    www.QuickScoreRace.com
     
    Dan Hollands, Feb 2, 2006
    #9
  10. Personally, if you have a lot of 35nn images to scan, I would recommend
    the Nikon LS-5000 with either or both of the SA-30 and SF-210 adapters,
    depending on the form your film is stored in. If strips, you can save
    on the adapters entirely as the basic scanner includes a strip adapter
    and single frame slide adapter.

    If you don't mind running back to your PC every 10 minutes for the next
    year that it takes to scan your thousands of frames, then you might also
    look at the Plustek OpticFilm 7200, which is cheaper and, allegedly,
    gets as good results as the Nikon. I can't confirm this first hand, but
    it has had good reviews in the press.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Feb 3, 2006
    #10
  11. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Father Kodak Guest

    Wot a coincidence. Just today I was in my local camera emporium and
    the head honcho there said that until now they were recommending both
    the high-end Nikon and Minolta scanners, unless you wanted to buy a
    drum scanner for twenty grand!

    Now they are going to recommend Nikon only. And of course for me I
    "need" both the SF-210 and SA-30 adapters. However, I was wondering
    if the strip scanner that comes with the scanner automatically
    advances the film frame by frame for batch scanning.

    I should add that if I want 8000 line resolution, instead of the 4000
    that the Nikon gives me, I can rent this scanner for $55/hour! That's
    a great argument for going digital!

    Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Feb 4, 2006
    #11
  12. Yes it does - up to a maximum of 6 frames per strip as delivered.

    However, with a minor tweak you can increase that to 40 frames per roll

    http://groups.google.com/group/comp.periphs.scanners/msg/60b0a25021e222c1

    (watch out for line wrap in this URL!)

    You might want to wait until the warranty is up before making that
    tweak. ;-)

    The single frame mounted slide adapter isn't so easily modified for bulk
    work - it is just a dumb holder without any motorised mechanism.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Feb 4, 2006
    #12
  13. Thank you very much for your answers.

    I'll go with a 35 mm scanner.
     
    Jonathan Sylvestre, Feb 5, 2006
    #13
  14. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Father Kodak Guest

    No wrap problems. A detail. The real question is:

    How in heck did you find out about this great hack? I think you just
    saved me about $450! Any other inspired ideas like this one?

    Yeah, once I'm past "infant mortality" of the electronics, I'll do the
    hack.
    Too bad.

    (a very pleased) Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Feb 5, 2006
    #14
  15. Comparison of the two adapters after buying an SA-30 adapter myself and
    then tracing which connector pins the link went to with a meter.
    Glad to have helped.
    Yes - make sure you open the aperture at the back of the scanner and
    have a container to collect the film before feeding a roll into it! ;-)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Feb 5, 2006
    #15
  16. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Father Kodak Guest

    No problem. For the $450 I just saved (in advance) I'm sure that I
    can think of _something_.

    Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Feb 5, 2006
    #16
  17. Jonathan Sylvestre

    crabsallover Guest

    Plustek OpticFilm 7200 /7200i (£130 - £250) was tested against Nikon
    Coolscan LS-5000 by Practical Photography Magazine (UK).

    http://www.datamind.co.uk/Merchant/pp_apr05_review_7200.pdf

    Preview time with the Plustek was quicker than the Nikon but the Nikon
    wins on normal scan speed. However the figure given in this article is
    for scans at 7200dpi by the Plustek and 4000dpi for the Nikon. At
    3600dpi the Plustek scans are as fast (48s) as the Nikon at 4000dpi.
    The SA-30 adaptor does improve workflow - but at £400 extra is it cost
    effective?

    more Plustek OpticFilm 7200/7200i UK magazine reviews:
    http://www.datamind.co.uk/Merchant/plustek_opticfilm_uk_press.htm

    Chris Street www.datamind.co.uk
     
    crabsallover, Feb 28, 2006
    #17
    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.