Recommendations on digital 35mm/slide scanners?

In article , ScottyBaby
writes

Hi,

We’re looking at buying a scanner for 35mm negatives and possibly slides as well. A friend recommended the Epson 3200 Perfection Photo Flatbed Scanner; around $250 – $300, which is in the ballpark of my price range.
I was wondering if anyone out there has experience with this or other negative scanners that produce high-resolution images of good quality? I know that there are $10K scanners out there, but that’s out of my price range. I’m thinking about stuff that’s suitable for professionals.

You will get scans from negatives and slides from the Epson flatbed, but nothing in the same league as a dedicated film scanner. However these can be 3-4x the prince of the Epson.

Consider the following half dozen from the current range film scanners:

Canon FS2720U
http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/fs2720/index.html

Canon FS4000US
http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/fs4000/index.html

Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV
http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/main/MinoltaUSA/MUSAContent /CPG/CPGProdu cts?cname=scan&fname=scan_dual&Mname=DiMAGE_Scan_Dua l_IV

Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400
http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/main/MinoltaUSA/MUSAContent /CPG/CPGProdu cts?cname=scan&fname=scan_dual&Mname=DiMAGE_Scan_Eli te_5400

Nikon Coolscan V ED
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=98&pr oductNr=9239

Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=98&pr oductNr=9238

Watch for the line wraps on some of those references.

You might still find the Nikon CS-IV and CS-4000 around in some places, but be sure you don’t pay more than the price of a CS-V for a CS-4000.

Things to look out for are a means of automatically removing dust and dirt spots from the image, unless you plan to spend most of your spare time manually cloning spots. The best versions are called ICE or FARE and use a fourth colour channel, operating in the infrared, to detect the blemish and correct it without degrading the rest of the image. —
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he’s pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace ‘nospam’ with ‘kennedym’ when replying)

there is a little Polaroid program, PolaDSR, which can be used as a plugin (PS) or stand alone that does the dust removal which negates the need for ICE3. I use it with my Minolta Dimage Multi II.

Alan

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

In article , ScottyBaby
writes

Hi,

We’re looking at buying a scanner for 35mm negatives and possibly slides as
well. A friend recommended the Epson 3200 Perfection Photo Flatbed Scanner;
around $250 – $300, which is in the ballpark of my price range.
I was wondering if anyone out there has experience with this or other negative scanners that produce high-resolution images of good quality? I know that there are $10K scanners out there, but that’s out of my price range. I’m thinking about stuff that’s suitable for professionals.

You will get scans from negatives and slides from the Epson flatbed, but nothing in the same league as a dedicated film scanner. However these can be 3-4x the prince of the Epson.

Consider the following half dozen from the current range film scanners:
Canon FS2720U
http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/fs2720/index.html

Canon FS4000US
http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/fs4000/index.html

Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV
http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/main/MinoltaUSA/MUSAContent /CPG/CPGProdu cts?cname=scan&fname=scan_dual&Mname=DiMAGE_Scan_Dua l_IV
Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400
http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/main/MinoltaUSA/MUSAContent /CPG/CPGProdu cts?cname=scan&fname=scan_dual&Mname=DiMAGE_Scan_Eli te_5400
Nikon Coolscan V ED
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=98&pr oductNr=9239
Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=98&pr oductNr=9238
Watch for the line wraps on some of those references.

You might still find the Nikon CS-IV and CS-4000 around in some places, but be sure you don’t pay more than the price of a CS-V for a CS-4000.
Things to look out for are a means of automatically removing dust and dirt spots from the image, unless you plan to spend most of your spare time manually cloning spots. The best versions are called ICE or FARE and use a fourth colour channel, operating in the infrared, to detect the blemish and correct it without degrading the rest of the image.

In article <r6TVb.39510$>, Alan Kerr
writes

there is a little Polaroid program, PolaDSR, which can be used as a plugin (PS) or stand alone that does the dust removal which negates the need for ICE3. I use it with my Minolta Dimage Multi II.

The Polaroid plug-in is useful for traditional silver black and white film, which ICE does not work with. However it is very much inferior to ICE, resulting in significant loss of image quality by comparison. Like all post processing clean-up filters it falls a long way short of "negates the need for ICE". Perhaps, if you had a scanner which provided ICE, you would appreciate just what a very long way short of ICE that is!
—
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he’s pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace ‘nospam’ with ‘kennedym’ when replying)

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message

In article <r6TVb.39510$>, Alan Kerr
writes

there is a little Polaroid program, PolaDSR, which can be used as a plugin (PS) or stand alone that does the dust removal which negates the need for ICE3. I use it with my Minolta Dimage Multi II.

The Polaroid plug-in is useful for traditional silver black and white film, which ICE does not work with. However it is very much inferior to ICE, resulting in significant loss of image quality by comparison. Like all post processing clean-up filters it falls a long way short of "negates the need for ICE". Perhaps, if you had a scanner which provided ICE, you would appreciate just what a very long way short of ICE that is!

If you were to look up the details you will find that ‘ICE’ is far more than just a program. If your looking for a good scanner a Nikon the LS4 isn’t too expensive and they give away a S/H LS3 for about a third of the cost. There are plenty of film scannners available S/H as people move up to DSLR’s. If you need good info look at the many tests available on the net.

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he’s pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace ‘nospam’ with ‘kennedym’ when

replying)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:39:23 +1300, Alan Kerr
wrote:

there is a little Polaroid program, PolaDSR, which can be used as a plugin (PS) or stand alone that does the dust removal which negates the need for ICE3. I use it with my Minolta Dimage Multi II.

How effective is the Polaroid software Alan? I’ve just ordered a Scan Dual IV and plan on trying the Polaroid app once I get it.

In article <c097ha$85u$>, Bob
writes

If you were to look up the details you will find that ‘ICE’ is far more than just a program.

Keep up at the back there – I made that issue perfectly clear earlier in the thread when explaining what ICE was and did. 😉
—
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he’s pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace ‘nospam’ with ‘kennedym’ when replying)

"ScottyBaby" …

Hi,

We’re looking at buying a scanner for 35mm negatives and possibly slides as well. A friend recommended the Epson 3200 Perfection Photo Flatbed Scanner; around $250 – $300, which is in the ballpark of my price range.
I was wondering if anyone out there has experience with this or other negative scanners that produce high-resolution images of good quality? I know that there are $10K scanners out there, but that’s out of my price range. I’m thinking about stuff that’s suitable for professionals.
Thanks in advance for any and all advice.

Scott Smith
Blue Lilly Photography
http://www.bluelillyphoto.com

I have a Nikon Supercoolscan 4000 and it is excellent. I have a large Epson (1600 Expression w/transparency lid)and the scans of 35mm are truly lousy. Flat beds are good for 4×5 and fair for 2 1/4 and terrible for 35mm.

I simply can’t imagine that an Epson costing 1/4 of my Epson flat bed is going to produce anything remotely usable.

Nikon, Minolta and others make film scanners for 35mm. I had a Minolta Dimage which gave me very good scans (I thought) but they weren’t going to update the drivers for my model to use XP. I sold it and bought the SuperCoolscan 4000 for $1700. Now I think they are around $1500. Given what I was getting with the cheaper Minolta the Nikon raised my quality to a much, much higher level.

Hope that helps.

Pete

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:22:16 -0600, "ScottyBaby" wrote:

Hi,

We’re looking at buying a scanner for 35mm negatives and possibly slides as well. A friend recommended the Epson 3200 Perfection Photo Flatbed Scanner; around $250 – $300, which is in the ballpark of my price range.
I was wondering if anyone out there has experience with this or other negative scanners that produce high-resolution images of good quality? I know that there are $10K scanners out there, but that’s out of my price range. I’m thinking about stuff that’s suitable for professionals.
Thanks in advance for any and all advice.

Scott Smith
Blue Lilly Photography
http://www.bluelillyphoto.com

AT reasonable prices these three:

Nikon Coolscan V (aka Coolscan 50)
Minolta Dimage 5400

and if you can’t afford either of those (but think carefully, the ICE programs are worth it if only in terms of time saved – and time is money)):

Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

I stand corrected Kennedy, I have only just installed this software and admittedly have only used it on a couple of images so my comments were premature and from others who recommended it to me and I possibly should have said nothing until I’d tested it properly. After your comments I don’t think I’ll bother and I withdraw my comment. I will stick to manually doing the dust removal until I upgrade my scanner to the Multi Pro. BTW I scan my trannies as soon as I get them home from the lab and don’t have many spots to remove then store all my images in archival pages to keep dust to a minimum. If the lab is using clean chemicals there shouldn’t be many spots to clean up and I’d change labs if there was lots.

Alan

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

In article <r6TVb.39510$>, Alan Kerr
writes

there is a little Polaroid program, PolaDSR, which can be used as a plugin (PS) or stand alone that does the dust removal which negates the need for ICE3. I use it with my Minolta Dimage Multi II.

The Polaroid plug-in is useful for traditional silver black and white film, which ICE does not work with. However it is very much inferior to ICE, resulting in significant loss of image quality by comparison. Like all post processing clean-up filters it falls a long way short of "negates the need for ICE". Perhaps, if you had a scanner which provided ICE, you would appreciate just what a very long way short of ICE that is!

Mike, it was recommended to me but as I have just stated inreply to Kennedy’s post I haven’t tested it properly. Here are some comments from others who have used it:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003qUT and
http://www.reasonableexpectations.com/scanner/digital_ice.ht m and here is where you can download this free:
http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/poladsr/poladsr.htm l

If you trial it let others know what you think

Alan

Mike Tuthill wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:39:23 +1300, Alan Kerr
wrote:

there is a little Polaroid program, PolaDSR, which can be used as a plugin (PS) or stand alone that does the dust removal which negates the need for ICE3. I use it with my Minolta Dimage Multi II.

How effective is the Polaroid software Alan? I’ve just ordered a Scan Dual IV and plan on trying the Polaroid app once I get it.

"ScottyBaby" …

Hi,

We’re looking at buying a scanner for 35mm negatives and possibly slides as well. A friend recommended the Epson 3200 Perfection Photo Flatbed Scanner; around $250 – $300, which is in the ballpark of my price range.
I was wondering if anyone out there has experience with this or other negative scanners that produce high-resolution images of good quality? I know that there are $10K scanners out there, but that’s out of my price range. I’m thinking about stuff that’s suitable for professionals.
Thanks in advance for any and all advice.

Scott Smith
Blue Lilly Photography
http://www.bluelillyphoto.com

It’s always a bit risky to come out and make a blanket statement about some piece of equipment that might be someone’s favourite. That said I think in this instance it is safe to say the Epson 3200 will not give you satisfactory results for your needs with 35mm given your last sentence re professional use.

There’s a new model out, the 4870, which most likely will do a better job with 35mm than the 3200. But…it costs more than your budget and is probably still not as good as using a dedicated film scanner, as opposed to a flatbed, for 35mm. Actually I’ll be able to confirm that (or not) soon as there’s one sitting on my desk next to the Nikon Coolscan IV. I’m not expecting to be getting rid of the Nikon for 35mm and my reason for getting the 4870 is purely for scanning medium format (645 and 6×7) but of course I’ll be tempted to make the comparison. In fact for now I might be restricted to the 35mm option because my poor little computer is absolutely shagged out trying to cope with the file sizes that the Epson produces with m/format (not an Epson problem just an unavoidable with larger format and higher resolution).

For your requirements I’d be looking at the cheaper Minolta film scanner or if you don’t mind s/h look for a previous generation scanner with ICE if you feel you need it (such as the Coolscan IV I’ve got).

If you want some more info to help make up your mind over flatbed vs. film scanner there’s a review of the 4870 currently being done at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/pa ge_1.htm Already he’s established that the Epson gives him better 35mm scans than his (old) Nikon LS1000. Not the most conclusive conclusion as the LS1000 is the day before yesterday’s scanner. Anything he says about the 4870 you can probably knock 10% off to get an idea whether the 3200 would do what you want.

(Subliminal message….Get a film scanner).

Brian
(the other one)

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:56:32 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article <r6TVb.39510$>, Alan Kerr
writes

there is a little Polaroid program, PolaDSR, which can be used as a plugin (PS) or stand alone that does the dust removal which negates the need for ICE3. I use it with my Minolta Dimage Multi II.

The Polaroid plug-in is useful for traditional silver black and white film, which ICE does not work with. However it is very much inferior to ICE, resulting in significant loss of image quality by comparison. Like all post processing clean-up filters it falls a long way short of "negates the need for ICE". Perhaps, if you had a scanner which provided ICE, you would appreciate just what a very long way short of ICE that is!

The Polaroid plugin is useless, IMO.

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:50:14 GMT, Mike Tuthill
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:39:23 +1300, Alan Kerr
wrote:

there is a little Polaroid program, PolaDSR, which can be used as a plugin (PS) or stand alone that does the dust removal which negates the need for ICE3. I use it with my Minolta Dimage Multi II.

How effective is the Polaroid software Alan? I’ve just ordered a Scan Dual IV and plan on trying the Polaroid app once I get it.

The Polaroid scratch/dust removal program
is a joke, IMO. Real ICE — the kind that uses
an IR channel within the scanner — is anything
but.

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:22:16 -0600, "ScottyBaby" wrote (with possible editing):

Hi,

We’re looking at buying a scanner for 35mm negatives and possibly slides as well. A friend recommended the Epson 3200 Perfection Photo Flatbed Scanner; around $250 – $300, which is in the ballpark of my price range.
I was wondering if anyone out there has experience with this or other negative scanners that produce high-resolution images of good quality? I know that there are $10K scanners out there, but that’s out of my price range. I’m thinking about stuff that’s suitable for professionals.
Thanks in advance for any and all advice.

Scott Smith
Blue Lilly Photography
http://www.bluelillyphoto.com

FWIW, I agree with the others that film scanners, particularly those with ICE are vastly better for your purpose than flat beds. If you can’t afford new ones, why not look for a used one. I picked up a Nikon Coolscan IV with ICE for just a little above your limit, and it’s been superb. You want to be able to test it before buying to make sure it’s ok (no dead cells).
—

Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message

In article <r6TVb.39510$>, Alan Kerr
writes

there is a little Polaroid program, PolaDSR, which can be used as a plugin (PS) or stand alone that does the dust removal which negates the need for ICE3. I use it with my Minolta Dimage Multi II.

The Polaroid plug-in is useful for traditional silver black and white film, which ICE does not work with. However it is very much inferior to ICE, resulting in significant loss of image quality by comparison. Like all post processing clean-up filters it falls a long way short of "negates the need for ICE". Perhaps, if you had a scanner which provided ICE, you would appreciate just what a very long way short of ICE that is!

Having recently tried the Polaroid plug-in I would absolutely agree with the above. Often it seems to remove small amounts of highlight detail but misses the larger, more ‘obvious’ dust pieces.

As an aside, I find that using a good quality wetting / anti-static agent on films when processing makes for much cleaner negs and dramatically reduces the amount of unwanted residue on my scans.

Roger

In article , Raphael Bustin
writes

The Polaroid plugin is useless, IMO.

I disagree Rafe. I have had some very good results with it on monochrome. I find the "Adaptive" option a bit tedious, taking far more time to fix the image and then missing a lot of flaws, but apart from that it does work – just not as good as ICE. 😉
—
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he’s pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace ‘nospam’ with ‘kennedym’ when replying)

Alan,

that is reading a little too much into what I said. The Polaroid program is good and, if you don’t have ICE, it certainly among the best around. It will certainly save you hours of retouching by hand, but it does degrade the image quite visibly, especially if adjusted to catch all defects, especially small ones. It would surprise you how much of these small dust specks appear, even on a perfectly new slide, when scanned at 4000ppi!

The Polaroid filter also misses most of the larger dust defects, but ICE does seem to have a size limit too, leaving irregularly shaped peak black and white artefacts when it encounters them – easily seen even in preview, so easy to fix (usually such particles are easily visible to the naked eye and blow off with a blast of compressed air). However the Polaroid option is certainly not a substitute for ICE when scanning colour emulsions. Since ICE doesn’t work at all on traditional black & white emulsions, it is amongst the best options available other than manually retouching them yourself.

Anyway, I certainly wasn’t intending to persuade you not to use this software, just explaining that it doesn’t make ICE redundant – in fact, once you get an ICE scanner (a nice scanner?) you will wonder how you ever got bye without it. 😉

In article <MM1Wb.40078$>, Alan Kerr
writes

I stand corrected Kennedy, I have only just installed this software and admittedly have only used it on a couple of images so my comments were premature and from others who recommended it to me and I possibly should have said nothing until I’d tested it properly. After your comments I don’t think I’ll bother and I withdraw my comment. I will stick to manually doing the dust removal until I upgrade my scanner to the Multi Pro. BTW I scan my trannies as soon as I get them home from the lab and don’t have many spots to remove then store all my images in archival pages to keep dust to a minimum. If the lab is using clean chemicals there shouldn’t be many spots to clean up and I’d change labs if there was lots.

Alan

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

In article <r6TVb.39510$>, Alan Kerr
writes

there is a little Polaroid program, PolaDSR, which can be used as a plugin (PS) or stand alone that does the dust removal which negates the need for ICE3. I use it with my Minolta Dimage Multi II.

The Polaroid plug-in is useful for traditional silver black and white film, which ICE does not work with. However it is very much inferior to ICE, resulting in significant loss of image quality by comparison. Like all post processing clean-up filters it falls a long way short of "negates the need for ICE". Perhaps, if you had a scanner which provided ICE, you would appreciate just what a very long way short of ICE that is!

—
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he’s pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace ‘nospam’ with ‘kennedym’ when replying)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:01:01 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article , Raphael Bustin
writes

The Polaroid plugin is useless, IMO.

I disagree Rafe. I have had some very good results with it on monochrome. I find the "Adaptive" option a bit tedious, taking far more time to fix the image and then missing a lot of flaws, but apart from that it does work – just not as good as ICE. 😉

I might give it another try one of these days,
but it missed a lot of what it was supposed
to catch, and in the process softened the image
considerably and created odd artifacts… sort of
like sharpening halos, and "reflections" of
contrasty lines and shapes.

As I’m scanning 4×5 on a non-ICE scanner
(Artixscan 2500) I really miss ICE, and am not
pleased to be back in the realm of hand-
retouching.

I was hoping NeatImage would help, but it
doesn’t.

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com