Good Negative Scanner- large format?

[tulsaboy]

Quick question...
I have several hundred vintage negatives that are all large format (about 3x4".) I am wanting to do archival scans, and have struggled finding a scanner that will do that size. Most of them have a small window for doing negatives that maxes out at about 2"x2". Does anyone have any suggestions? Trying to stay under about $200.

Thanks!

kevin

[Swiss Mustangs]

Kevin

I am using a CanoScan 8400F that supports slides, medium format film and regular film strips, apart from being a great flatbed scanner for photographic prints


http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/contr ... elid=10242

Martin

[Mgawa]

Epson also work perfect but model proposed by Swiss Mustang is also good choice

[RMAllnutt]

An alternative is to use a light table with a high resolution digital camera on a tripod to copy the images directly. I've found that it works really well, and is a lot quicker than scanning. Plus, if you use RAW format, you have a much better image to work with than a scan.

Richard

[tulsaboy]

Thanks for the suggestions! I'll check them out. Richard- how high res is required? I have a light table, but a medium res camera. Martin- good to see you! Did you get that packet I sent you a while ago? Kevin

[RMAllnutt]

Thanks for the suggestions! I'll check them out. Richard- how high res is required? I have a light table, but a medium res camera. Martin- good to see you! Did you get that packet I sent you a while ago? Kevin

Hi Kevin... I use a Canon 5DMkii with 21MP which is a wonderful camera, and seems to work very well indeed for copying using this method. The only trick is making sure the camera is pointing squarely at the image, as if it's off a little it wil skew the picture slightly... correctable of course, but preferably avoided. Obviously, you'll also need a lens that can focus at reasonably short distances too. The 5D Mkii will give you 5616x3744 resolution, which is more than enough for all but the sharpest of medium format images, and certainly much more than you'll get from a 35mm film frame.

Cheers,
Richard

[k5083]

You are not going to get truly archival quality for anywhere near $200. The options suggested thus far either will not work at all or will not give you more than a pale shadow of the detail available in the original negs.

I don't know of any flatbed scanner near that price range that can handle anything larger than medium format film (120 size, 2.25" wide). The Canoscan 8400F cannot.

The Epson V700 lists for about $600 and, I understand, can handle film up to 8x10" size. It is probably your best bet. Like any flatbed scanner, it will not give you truly archival film scans. The scans of your 3x4" negs probably will end up with better resolution than a good scan of 35mm film and better than any DSLR, but nowhere near what the film is capable of. Whatever you do, keep the film safe and treat it as your ultimate archive.

The light table and DSLR strategy would be okay for making an image to post on the web or for a snapshot-type print. That would be it.

August

[barnbstormer]

Hi Kevin; have over 120,000 aero negatives in all sizes, all formats. I did a lot of searching for a decent affordable scanner. Been using the Epson Pefection 4990 Photo scanner since it came out at about 6-700 dollars (which I paid)about two years ago. It was highly rated for amateur or professional use, in reviews. You can NOW find them on Ebay for $100-200 WITH all the various size negative holders/matts etc. Just click on that auction site and search for one. I have done thousands of neg scans and it has the EXTRA light built right into the top with no conversion other than a click on the box to go from scanning prints to negs, in color or black & white. I have used it for MANY scans that have been published and printed in magazines. I often scan a small 35mm neg at 4800 dpi, and I like the sample image I tried. It was a photo of a plane take from about 75 feet away. With the 4800 dpi scan I could see the postion of the cotter pin in the wheel nut. Rivet-counting detail is no problem..It is also great at scanning negatives UP to 8 x 10 size. Lots of adjustable features and options (ONLY if you want them) and does very good flatbed photo print scanning wth ease. You can scan in many formats such as tiff and the common .jpg but I think raw is an option too (although I don't use it)

[k5083]

The 4990 is a good scanner. The newer V700 and V750 are supposed to be better, especially the V750, but the 4990 is fine for a lot of purposes. It just depends what you want it for. Kevin, when you said you want to do archival scans, I assumed that meant they are to backup the film and take its place if it is ever lost or destroyed, so you would want to extract the max possible info for any future purpose. None of the devices we're talking about are suitable for that. But with such a large neg, any of these Epsons will allow you to make nice prints, easily 8x10 or 11x14. If you can get a 4990 under $200, it's a good deal. I use a 4180, which I got for $100, for 120 film and it does a fine job for everyday uses, but it won't handle larger film.

August

[RMAllnutt]

You are not going to get truly archival quality for anywhere near $200. The options suggested thus far either will not work at all or will not give you more than a pale shadow of the detail available in the original negs.

I don't know of any flatbed scanner near that price range that can handle anything larger than medium format film (120 size, 2.25" wide). The Canoscan 8400F cannot.

The Epson V700 lists for about $600 and, I understand, can handle film up to 8x10" size. It is probably your best bet. Like any flatbed scanner, it will not give you truly archival film scans. The scans of your 3x4" negs probably will end up with better resolution than a good scan of 35mm film and better than any DSLR, but nowhere near what the film is capable of. Whatever you do, keep the film safe and treat it as your ultimate archive.

The light table and DSLR strategy would be okay for making an image to post on the web or for a snapshot-type print. That would be it.

August

Hi August... I completely disagree with you that a $600 scanner would be better than a high end DSLR.

I've tried both methods, and am very unsatisfied with the scanning end. I have a high end Epson flat bed scanner with a full-bed negative/positive scan feature and was never happy with scans bigger than 300dpi (they were too soft)... I also have a Nikon coolscan 8000. It's ok, but the color balancing was never great, and it is slow... slow... slow.

It's pretty crap for black and whites too. The dust and scratch removal won't work either of course (due to the silver in the negatives). You're never going to get much more than 2000dpi out of most negatives anyway, unless you've got a superbly focused shot... which is unlikely in most cases. The resolving power of a good lens and the 5DMkii are more than capable of exceeding that, and they have almost as high a bit depth as any of the high end scanners. The prints I've made with the 5D are capable of blowing up to the same size as a medium format film camera could achieve in all but the most exceptional cases.

The ultimate solution would be to use a drum scanner of course, but that's way up there in price range, even if you pay a service bureau to do it.

Regardless... keep good care of the negatives... they are very precious.

Cheers,
Richard

[k5083]

Richard, I do agree with you that the results from flatbed scans usually are disappointing. There's none that will really pull out much more than 1000 dpi in a scan, which is okay with a medium or large format neg if you don't want really big prints, but I wouldn't use one for archiving and never with 35mm.

As far as optical scanners like the Coolscan, they take practice and careful calibration to use well, but can produce very nice results with a little patience. The point is moot here because none of the optical scanners presently available to consumers will do the film size Kevin needs. Yes, IR dust removal doesn't work with B&W and really is overrated generally. Doing it by hand is best. What do you use for dust removal when you copy film with your 5D? My guess would be you don't need to do much, because it doesn't have the acuity to resolve the dust. It's a fine camera but, properly set up, even a cheap scanner should blow it away as a film copier.

August

[Ztex]

I use the HP G4050. It's not "Archival" quality but it does a good job. It has trays built for several different negative sizes. Large and medium format plus 35mm and slides. all for a couple of hundred.

Just FYI

[Buz]

I Have to agree with Ztex I also use the HP 4050, and never had an issues, as well as being able to scan up to 19200dpi....although the largest I ever do is 9600.

Doesa good job on Photos, in conjuction with a photo shop type program, as well as having a large number of supported formats for Neg Holders.

Buz

[Mark Nankivil]

Hi Kevin -

I have the Epson 4990 and it works well - the scans may not be "National Archives" level archival but work very well and for me, the ability to handle slides too has worked out well. Rich Dann has the V700 and it is every bit as good if not maybe a wee bit better. Check the Epson website store - I bought mine for roughly 1/3rd original cost as a reconditioned unit. I have had it now going on three years and still going strong. HTH!

For a V700, take a look at: http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/cons ... r0302DRGG5

If you can, check your PM - going to be coming thru Tulsa on 11/19 and would like to cross paths with you.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

[k5083]

Buz, you might be using too high a resolution already.

The top few levels of resolution on consumer scanners, both flatbed and film scanners, are really just marketing hype. They create bigger files, but with no real increase in resolution. The way to test your scanner is to start by scanning a sharp slide or neg at the max resolution. Then scan it again with all settings the same but at half that resolution. Resize the second scan 2x using photoshop or whatever. Zoom in on a part of both scans that has small detail -- the best thing is text, because we are all trained to be very discriminating when it comes to the clarity of text, so something like stenciling on an aircraft is ideal -- and see if you can convince yourself that you see a real difference. If you can't, then the higher resolution is just wasting your time and disc space, because you can scan smaller, resize when/if you need it, and it will be just as good. On my 4180, which has a claimed max res of 4800 dpi, I not only can't tell a resized 2400 dpi scan from 4800 dpi, I can't even tell a resized 1200 dpi scan from 4800 dpi. Then there's a big difference between 1200 dpi and 600 dpi. So it's really a 1200 dpi scanner and I don't waste an hour (with multi-sampling) to generate a 135 Mb scan from a 6x7 slide when an 11 Mb one that takes a few minutes is just as good. Most people who have tested flatbeds arrive at the same conclusion, they max out at 1200 Mb, or 2400 Mb tops.

August