Film Scanner: Epson/Canon/Microtek

LG wrote:

Hi all,

Looking at the
Canon CS9900F
Epson 3200
Microtek 6800
Film scanning mainly, has anybody had any experience with these scanners. Tell me what you think? What sort of work do you usually scan?
What res? Sweet spots on the scanners?

Will be scanning in negatives sized at 35mm, 6×6,6×7 and 6×9. My negatives/tranny are quite dark, do any of the scanners account for this? Can you set how dense the negative/tranny is?
Cheers
jag2x

I have an Epson 3200. I use it for medium format (mostly 6 x 7) and large format (4 x 5), almost entirely negative color or b/w. See www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html for some examples. The scans were done with the Epson 2450, but the 3200 only has at most a 10 percent higher resolution of small detail, and is similar to the 2450 in other respects.

The Epson 3200 is not adequate for high quality 35 mm work, but it produces quite acceptable scans for medium and large format. Since I scan most negatives, dmax is not a problem for me. When I use slide film, I’m very careful about exposure, so I haven’t usually had any problems with the dmax of 3.4 of the scanner, but I get pretty close.

I use Vuescan to scan, and it does most of the work of dealing with the density range. I use its settings for black and white points to make sure I use the full range of values without clipping highlights or shadows. There is also a brightness control which is really a gamma multiplier.

If your negatives are dark, that means the film was overexposed or overdeveloped or both. Vuescan used with this scanner doesn’t have any trouble with such negatives in my experience. Slides on the other hand will be dark if they are underexposed. Slide film should generally be slightly underexposed rather than slightly overexposed, but accurate exposure is much more important than for negative film. If film is underexposed, there is a limit to what you can do with it, since detail in the shadows that isn’t captured on film can’be be scanned no matter what you do.

—
Leonard Evens 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

"Leonard Evens" wrote in message
| LG wrote:
| > Hi all,
| >
| > Looking at the
| > Canon CS9900F
| > Epson 3200
| > Microtek 6800
| > Film scanning mainly, has anybody had any experience with these | > scanners. Tell me what you think? What sort of work do you usually scan? | >
| > What res? Sweet spots on the scanners?
| >
| > Will be scanning in negatives sized at 35mm, 6×6,6×7 and 6×9. My | > negatives/tranny are quite dark, do any of the scanners account for | > this? Can you set how dense the negative/tranny is? | > Cheers
| > jag2x
| >
|
| I have an Epson 3200. I use it for medium format (mostly 6 x 7) and | large format (4 x 5), almost entirely negative color or b/w. See | www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html for some | examples. The scans were done with the Epson 2450, but the 3200 only | has at most a 10 percent higher resolution of small detail, and is | similar to the 2450 in other respects.
|
| The Epson 3200 is not adequate for high quality 35 mm work, but it | produces quite acceptable scans for medium and large format. Since I | scan most negatives, dmax is not a problem for me. When I use slide | film, I’m very careful about exposure, so I haven’t usually had any | problems with the dmax of 3.4 of the scanner, but I get pretty close. |
| I use Vuescan to scan, and it does most of the work of dealing with the | density range. I use its settings for black and white points to make | sure I use the full range of values without clipping highlights or | shadows. There is also a brightness control which is really a gamma | multiplier.
|
| If your negatives are dark, that means the film was overexposed or | overdeveloped or both. Vuescan used with this scanner doesn’t have any | trouble with such negatives in my experience. Slides on the other hand | will be dark if they are underexposed. Slide film should generally be | slightly underexposed rather than slightly overexposed, but accurate | exposure is much more important than for negative film. If film is | underexposed, there is a limit to what you can do with it, since detail | in the shadows that isn’t captured on film can’be be scanned no matter | what you do.
|
| —
| Leonard Evens 847-491-5537
| Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

I have an Epson Filmscan 300 (SCSI) which has been refurbished by Epson costing

I’ve used the 2450 for 35mm, MF, & LF. I think the quality for MF and LF is much better than for 35mm. When you compare a scan from the 2450 with a dedicated film scanner, the difference is noticeable. While you can get an 8"x10" print out of the 2450, you will get a better one out of most dedicated film scanners. I wish it were otherwise!

"el sid" wrote in message

i also have an epson 2450 that does a very slow but usable scan of both

35mm

and larger size negatives and slides. Silverfast does a good job of scanning color negatives . the scanner is capable of scans for 8×10

prints

of 35mm film. the applied science fiction programs ROC and SHO make older faded and changed color photos look like new easily. Scanner works well with medium format negatives and slides. Scanner does have a problem with electronic noise when scanning underexposed slides and negatives. "Leonard Evens" wrote in message

LG wrote:

Hi all,

Looking at the
Canon CS9900F
Epson 3200
Microtek 6800
Film scanning mainly, has anybody had any experience with these scanners. Tell me what you think? What sort of work do you usually

scan?

What res? Sweet spots on the scanners?

Will be scanning in negatives sized at 35mm, 6×6,6×7 and 6×9. My negatives/tranny are quite dark, do any of the scanners account for this? Can you set how dense the negative/tranny is?
Cheers
jag2x

I have an Epson 3200. I use it for medium format (mostly 6 x 7) and large format (4 x 5), almost entirely negative color or b/w. See www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html for some examples. The scans were done with the Epson 2450, but the 3200 only has at most a 10 percent higher resolution of small detail, and is similar to the 2450 in other respects.

The Epson 3200 is not adequate for high quality 35 mm work, but it produces quite acceptable scans for medium and large format. Since I scan most negatives, dmax is not a problem for me. When I use slide film, I’m very careful about exposure, so I haven’t usually had any problems with the dmax of 3.4 of the scanner, but I get pretty close.
I use Vuescan to scan, and it does most of the work of dealing with the density range. I use its settings for black and white points to make sure I use the full range of values without clipping highlights or shadows. There is also a brightness control which is really a gamma multiplier.

If your negatives are dark, that means the film was overexposed or overdeveloped or both. Vuescan used with this scanner doesn’t have any trouble with such negatives in my experience. Slides on the other hand will be dark if they are underexposed. Slide film should generally be slightly underexposed rather than slightly overexposed, but accurate exposure is much more important than for negative film. If film is underexposed, there is a limit to what you can do with it, since detail in the shadows that isn’t captured on film can’be be scanned no matter what you do.

—
Leonard Evens 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

i guess i should have made more clear , that the epson 2450, while usable as a 35mm scanner, is slower, has less dynamic range, more electronic noise scanning underexposed films than a 35mm film scanner. the ROC and SHO programs are very helpful with old color slides or negatives. that software is included in the Ice cubed programs that is part of a film scanner such as the nikon . after using the epson 2450 for finding out how to make scans from faded and color changed slides and negatives, i am about to buy a 35mm film scanner such as nikon , or maybe the new minolta 5400. I will stick to the epson for scanning of medium format up to 4×5 size b+w negatives. "Jeff Novick" wrote in message

I’ve used the 2450 for 35mm, MF, & LF. I think the quality for MF and LF

is

much better than for 35mm. When you compare a scan from the 2450 with a dedicated film scanner, the difference is noticeable. While you can get an 8"x10" print out of the 2450, you will get a better one out of most dedicated film scanners. I wish it were otherwise!

"el sid" wrote in message

i also have an epson 2450 that does a very slow but usable scan of both

35mm

and larger size negatives and slides. Silverfast does a good job of scanning color negatives . the scanner is capable of scans for 8×10

prints

of 35mm film. the applied science fiction programs ROC and SHO make older faded and changed color photos look like new easily. Scanner

works

well with medium format negatives and slides. Scanner does have a

problem

with electronic noise when scanning underexposed slides and negatives. "Leonard Evens" wrote in message

LG wrote:

Hi all,

Looking at the
Canon CS9900F
Epson 3200
Microtek 6800
Film scanning mainly, has anybody had any experience with these scanners. Tell me what you think? What sort of work do you usually

scan?

What res? Sweet spots on the scanners?

Will be scanning in negatives sized at 35mm, 6×6,6×7 and 6×9. My negatives/tranny are quite dark, do any of the scanners account for this? Can you set how dense the negative/tranny is?
Cheers
jag2x

I have an Epson 3200. I use it for medium format (mostly 6 x 7) and large format (4 x 5), almost entirely negative color or b/w. See www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html for some examples. The scans were done with the Epson 2450, but the 3200 only has at most a 10 percent higher resolution of small detail, and is similar to the 2450 in other respects.

The Epson 3200 is not adequate for high quality 35 mm work, but it produces quite acceptable scans for medium and large format. Since I scan most negatives, dmax is not a problem for me. When I use slide film, I’m very careful about exposure, so I haven’t usually had any problems with the dmax of 3.4 of the scanner, but I get pretty close.
I use Vuescan to scan, and it does most of the work of dealing with

the

density range. I use its settings for black and white points to make sure I use the full range of values without clipping highlights or shadows. There is also a brightness control which is really a gamma multiplier.

If your negatives are dark, that means the film was overexposed or overdeveloped or both. Vuescan used with this scanner doesn’t have

any

trouble with such negatives in my experience. Slides on the other

hand

will be dark if they are underexposed. Slide film should generally

be

slightly underexposed rather than slightly overexposed, but accurate exposure is much more important than for negative film. If film is underexposed, there is a limit to what you can do with it, since

detail

in the shadows that isn’t captured on film can’be be scanned no matter what you do.

—
Leonard Evens 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

What the other guy said…

I have the 3200, and it’s an excellent conventional scanner, but merely OK for film. My basis for comparison is a Nikon 8000ED film scanner. The Epson is OK for MF film, bad for 35mm film, and neither is in the same neighborhood as the Nikon 8000ED, which is sharper, and captures lots more detail than the Epson.

"LG" wrote in message

Hi all,

Looking at the
Canon CS9900F
Epson 3200
Microtek 6800
Film scanning mainly, has anybody had any experience with these scanners. Tell me what you think? What sort of work do you usually scan?
What res? Sweet spots on the scanners?

Will be scanning in negatives sized at 35mm, 6×6,6×7 and 6×9. My negatives/tranny are quite dark, do any of the scanners account for this? Can you set how dense the negative/tranny is?
Cheers
jag2x