Scanning 35mm Film using Epson 2450 Scanner

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by PO, Aug 16, 2006.

  1. PO

    PO Guest

    I have been using Epson 2450 to scan slides. However, I have trouble
    scanning 35mm film. It is not easy to insert the film in the film
    holder, the film gets damaged. I have been avoidung scanning films
    because it seems so tedious. Also, the scan quality was very poor.
    Please advise whether anyone had similar problems, and what could be
    done about it.
     
    PO, Aug 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. PO

    Jim Guest

    You need a dedicated film scanner. Poor scan quality is a feature of user
    grade flat bed scanners.
    Jim
     
    Jim, Aug 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. PO

    PO Guest

    Jim:

    Thanks for your advice. Any recommendation for a film scanner under
    $800?
     
    PO, Aug 17, 2006
    #3
  4. PO

    rafe b Guest

    The Nikon V can be had for under $600 at BH.

    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Aug 17, 2006
    #4
  5. I would look at used units. Some very high end
    hardware is going for some very low end prices:
    Looks like a lot of pros/agencies who
    have scanned their inventory are now selling the
    worthless [to them] scanner.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Aug 17, 2006
    #5
  6. PO

    no_name Guest

    Actually, I've been thinking just the other way; looking into
    used/refurbished film recorders.
     
    no_name, Aug 17, 2006
    #6
  7. There are several of them. Just don't pay too much extra for resolution. For
    35 mm, 2000 dpi is all you need.....I generally use 1350 dpi for anything I
    am going to save on my hard disk, and I haven't seen any need for more
    resolution than that......If you are going to blow up your stuff to poster
    sized prints, bear in mind that 35 mm has never been much good for anything
    larger than 8 x 10 anyway. So why pay extra for a silk purse scanner when
    you are just going to feed it sow's ears?
     
    William Graham, Aug 17, 2006
    #7
  8. I beg to disagree. More resolution gives more room for cropping. It also
    gives more sharpness at even fairly small prints. It makes image
    manipulation easier. In my experience 2000 is not even nearly enough. Of
    course it depends on what you need, there is no one truth. Anyhow my
    experience is quite different.
    Finally, what do you mean by "35 mm has never been much good for
    anything larger than 8 x 10 anyway". I do not quite understand.

    Väinö Louekari
     
    Väinö Louekari, Aug 18, 2006
    #8
  9. I agree, I have ordered a couple of digital prints at 30x45cm (too
    bored to do an inch conversion now) size from images shot and
    self-developed on Tmax100 and/or Delta 100 and I am very happy with
    the results.

    I scanned those images at 5400 DPI. Sure, I got more visible grain
    when inspected at 100% size on the screen, however when examining the
    print at very close range, I'd rather see sharp grain details than
    fuzzy/blurry pixels.
     
    Toni Nikkanen, Aug 18, 2006
    #9
  10. In my case, It doesn't help to scan at higher resolutions than about 1/2 the
    5400 ppi capability that my scanner has.....IOW, if I am trying to read a
    license plate or other small sign in the background of one of my slides, and
    I can't read it at 2700 DPI, I am not going to be able to read it by
    scanning the slide at 5400. This is because when I hand hold the camera and
    take the picture with my consumer grade lens, I don't get any better
    resolution than that in the slide to begin with. If it isn't on the film,
    its not going to help to try to scan it into the computer. Your mileage may
    be different from mine. If you use some kind of special very fine grain
    film, and use a tripod and the best Leitz lenses money can buy, then maybe
    you will be able to see the difference when you scan your stuff at 5400
    dpi.....All I know is, I can't.
    Back in the 70's, when I was doing my own darkroom work with black &
    white 35 mm film, I never tried to make prints bigger than 8 x 10 for much
    the same reasons. The grain and general deterioration of the image made it a
    waste of time, at least if you are talking about sharpness and detail in the
    image. If you are talking about works of art, where sharpness doesn't
    matter, then that's a different story......
     
    William Graham, Aug 19, 2006
    #10
  11. PO

    Ric Trexell Guest

    *************************************************************************
    I use an Epson 2450 and my results are rather impressive I think. I have
    never had any problem with damaged 35mm film. I'm wondering if your guides
    are a little narrow or blocked on your film holder. When I want to remove
    my negatives from the holder, I give it a little tap and the negative will
    slide down enough to put my finger behind it and push it out. I wouldn't
    say the images are good enough for a 20 X 24 but I would guess they are
    certainly good enough for a 8 X 10, maybe 11 X 14 size print. Ric in
    Wisconsin.
     
    Ric Trexell, Aug 19, 2006
    #11
  12. PO

    PO Guest

    Ric:

    After your response I tried again and it is working good enough for a
    slide show on TV.

    Some of the films have a protective paper. I believe that this should
    be removed. Please advise.

    Thanks for your help Ric. It seems I do not have to buy another
    scanner at present.

    PO
     
    PO, Aug 20, 2006
    #12
  13. PO

    Ric Trexell Guest

    **********************************************************************
    Glad to help. Yes, that protective film is sometimes hard to even see and
    you don't think it is there. I store my negatives in an archival sheet that
    I buy from Century Photo Products. There are many places out there that
    sell them though. (Make sure it is archival if you store them that way.) I
    bought the 2450 after reading about it in Shutterbug magazine. The author
    said he was impressed with the quality for a flatbed. I got into a
    discussion once with a guy that was telling another person to not bother
    with flatbeds as they were poor quality. I sent him a scan of one of my
    pictures and he came back and said that he needed to look at the new
    scanners out there. That was a couple years ago, so I suppose the new ones
    are better. If I was going to have a 20 X 24 done, I would not use this
    scanner but for general stuff, it is super. I think you will like it now.
    It might also be too that if it isn't sharp, the focus might be off.
    However, first make sure the negative you are scanning is super sharp. It
    should be one that was taken with a tripod with the aperature set right and
    no wind. Also, a shutter release cord or self timer. That is the negative
    to test your scanner against. Have fun whatever you do. Ric in Wisconsin.
     
    Ric Trexell, Aug 21, 2006
    #13
  14. PO

    Craig Bailey Guest

    Craig Bailey, Aug 24, 2006
    #14
  15. PO

    Father Kodak Guest

    No_Name,

    I am also interested in this. Do you have any specific information on
    makes/models?

    I've looked into this a little bit, and it seems that the Achilles
    Heel issue is going to be software to drive the film recorder. Is
    that also your view?

    Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Aug 29, 2006
    #15
  16. I haven't seen a single one on ebay that didn't say "No
    software, cables or interface cards."

    What are the people who take these out of service
    [not]thinking?

    Do they believe it is like cleaning MS Office off a
    corporate PC before selling it and so they destroy the
    floppies?
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Aug 29, 2006
    #16
  17. PO

    rafe b Guest


    This is also the issue with old drum scanners and
    film scanners. You might be get the machine for
    cheap, but the software is another story.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Aug 29, 2006
    #17
  18. PO

    fatherKodak Guest

    I have also seen all those auctions that are hardware-only. I think
    what happens is this: The film recorders were used in instructions
    like colleges or hospitals. These are large organizations, with a
    department specifically devoted to selling off no longer used
    equipment. So someone in a "user department" decides the film
    recorder is surplus. So somebody from the "used equipment disposition
    department comes by, puts the scanner on a cart, and takes it to the
    user equipment disposition department. Then that department runs a
    sale, perhaps an auction, where all kinds of stuff is sold off, from
    typewriters to trucks to old PCs.

    The reason that the instruction is getting rid of the film recorder is
    that nobody wants it or uses it any longer. And like any other old IT
    equipment, support and expertise evaporates as people move on to new
    jobs and assignments.

    There is even a website of a company that sells recorders and recorder
    software, that warns about this very situation. Here is a quote from
    their web site:
    ---------

    In addition, almost all this equipment also comes without any driver
    software, interface hardware, or cables to actually operate it. This
    is particularly true of film recorders. It is sad how many calls and
    emails we get from people who have just bought a film recorder on the
    internet for a few hundred dollars and want to get it running, and
    they are shocked to find out that the software and/or required
    interface board to run it costs $1000-$2000 or more, or worse yet,
    that the only driver software available is for DOS or Mac OS6 only, or
    even that the software and/or required interface board is not
    available at any price for any operating system! They have just
    purchased a very expensive paperweight! Many of the ads for this used
    equipment say that "the driver software is downloadable from the
    manufacturer's web site". This is absolutely untrue! NO current driver
    software for any film recorder is downloadable for free from any
    manufacturer's web site. All that is downloadable from their web sites
    are patches to the driver software, but you must first have a paid
    copy of the driver software to install the patches.

    ---------

    To see the full page, go to http://computergraphicsgroup.com/, and
    then click on the SALE PRODUCTS button on the left side of the page.
    Scroll down to CAUTION - Read This Before You Buy Used Equipment!!.

    I am hoping against hope that someone out there has a less expensive
    solution than Palette Plus @ $495.

    Father Kodak
     
    fatherKodak, Sep 10, 2006
    #18
    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.