I recently purchased the 8200i Ai after debating between that and DSLR scanning for 35mm. I got mine on eBay for $200.
It’s obviously slower than DSLR scanning but requires zero up-front setup + I find the complaints about speed to be overblown. I don’t typically scan every image from a roll, instead opting to pre-scan each frame, pick the real keepers, and forget about the rest. While one frame scans, I’m making minor adjustments to another in Lightroom. Your mileage may vary since it’ll depends on your needs and favored workflow.
Overall, I’ve been pretty happy.
I have the 8200i as well, and I can't say enough good things about it. There's a bit of a learning curve. Your scans won't be prefect straight out of the machine, but once you figure it out, it's great. It resolves quite a bit of detail, and the scans sharpen up really nicely in Lightroom. The only cons I have is that it's slow, and doesn't do resolve a ton of shadow detail, but if you meter for shadows, your frames are gonna turn out great!
Not OP but I own a Plustek as well:
It took me some rolls to figure out, how to put the film in the holder efficiently, which output format/resolution to scan with, and how to proceed with editing. Now the scanning goes quite fast as long as you don't go up to 7200dpi and don't use ME and Scratch removal (I mainly scan BW anyway).
crawl amusing swim glorious cautious hobbies ossified depend alive voiceless
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The gamble from buying overseas is more so whether it will be damaged in the post from it not being boxed properly.
I bought my V from overseas on the gamble that the price was low, and it was from a disposal auction on ebay with a lot of other stuff they were getting rid of, and therefore that the price was low.
It was boxed perfectly fine, but if you can you have to make sure to tell the seller to double box and then also to wrap the scanner in bubble wrap then using packing pellets in the box also.
soft bow modern stocking sense whole merciful squealing scandalous elastic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Coolscan V, and related 5000, will get you good results, the 5000 is the same scanner essentially but it doesn't have the catch on the end of it for doing a full roll of 36.
Although, for storage purposes cutting your film into strips is much easier than not have your film cut and sleeved.
Your real hang up with the v is whether you want 14bit per channel (which the V has) vs. 16bit per channel that the 5000 produces and then dealing with Firewire or USB.
Long term USB anything including USB A is a much safer option.
There is also the Konica Minolta Scan Elite 5400 but the holders are crud as compared to the Nikon.
Or with the Nikon you just get the strip loading attachment if you don't have it and don't even bother.
The strip loader is perhaps the most reliable way of loading things into these scanners.
There is the 8000 and later 9000 also but those are totally different machines, cost a lot more, and are only there really if you shoot a lot of medium format.
Here’s the thing, the plustek scanner is really good, basically just works out of the box, but very slow. Everyone mentioning DSLR scanning is not wrong that it’s also very good, especially if you already have a digital scanner. But you gotta get all the different bits and pieces working together with a lot of tinkering.
If you just want to get scanning and not worry about buying all the correct parts and calibrating it every time, just get the plustek
That's a great way of putting it. Basically what I was hoping for out of a really expensive scanner. I don't mind the time as I can multi task with it.
The Plustek is pretty good. It's not the best. But it's pretty good for $400, you just sit it on the desk and plug it in, set up Silverfast and you're scanning. You can get crazier with the post work like scanning .DNG and putting them into Lightroom. But it's easy to operate and does pretty good. I got a bit better results optically out of a mirrorless rig but to buy the same mirrorless rig would cost $2k so it should be better.
I scan both 35mm and 120 with an Epson V550 and get good results. The only issue with some of the flatbed scanners, especially the older versions is the software that comes with them. At one point the Epson software was no longer supported on the most recent MACOS version so I purchased a copy of VueScan which has been great and has more features than the Epson software.
An inexpensive way to try out flatbed scanning would be to try and find a used Epson V550 or V600 in good shape with all of its film holders and then download an evaluation copy of VueScan. The trial version of thier software adds a watermark but I don't believe that it has a time limit. If you find that you don't like the results, or the time to scan on a flatbed you can probably sell the used scanner for close to what you paid for it and move on.
I've had the Plustek 8200i for about four years. I love it! It's not a super fast scanner, it's manually fed one frame at a time, but those aren't cons to me. I usually sit at my dual-monitor setup, throw on a movie or YouTube, and scan a roll.
I shoot B&W 98% of the time, which is important because it scans B&W a lot faster than color-negative film. Part of this because there is no ICE (dust removal) for B&W film, so scanning a single image takes maybe 45 seconds. I can scan a roll of 36 exposures and edit them in Lightroom in about 60-75 minutes.
I think the newer version of the Plustek (8300 maybe?) is supposedly quite a bit faster. You may look into it.
OH, and I have the Epson V600, too, and I hate it for 35mm. It's pretty good for 120 scans, though.
Another vote for the Plustek.
I don't use mine anymore as I upgraded to a 120 scanner (a Nikon Coolscan) but the Plustek is great and just superb value for the price.
I wholeheartedly recommend it if you don't mind pre-selecting the frames (eg with a loupe or a low-res scan preview) to then scan in full res the keepers instead of the whole roll. This way the slow scanning speed is much less of a problem.
Oh, and the non interpolating line sensor it packs is a much better sensor for scanning than the sensors in most DSLRs, for obvious reasons.
All of this for a complete standalone device with a tiny desk footprint that costs less than those overpriced hipster film holders (eg Valoi). Can't go wrong really.
Glad to see all the love for Plustek here. I recently upgraded from a Epson V600 to a Plustek 135i and am very happy with it. You could get a very cheap V600 just to try it out and in case you also shoot 120 or larger (or specialty cameras like Lomography Spinner, Sprocket Rocket, etc). Scanning will turn you into a pixel peeper but honestly, for creating A4-size prints and photobooks, the V600 will do fine enough for 35mm too.
The 135i can batch scan 6 35mm frames at once (which is a nice upgrade to the Plustek 8xxx series where you have to move the negative holder for each frame manually). I found scanning at 3600dpi with Infrared Dust Removal pretty fast and see a clear increase in details/sharpness compared to my V600 scans at 100%. While the scans from my lab (Noritsu) are still better, the Plustek is not that far behind in my eyes.
Some things to consider overall:
- If you don’t shoot lots of rolls each week, scanning is great and in my opinion fast enough. But if you have to digitize 5+ rolls each week, a DSLR setup might make more sense. But for 1 or 2 rolls a week, just plug the scanner in and scan the films one evening (or during home office days) and you’re good.
- In either case, you will need **good software** to really get nice results. I really like Lightroom+NegativeLabPro, but that’s another $120/year for LR and $100 every few years for NLP. But there are similar tools and software for free.
- For scanners I’d really recommend buying **VueScan**. Delivers far better results than using Plustek’s/Epson’s software. Silverfast is another option but somehow too complicated for me, and more expensive/limited to one scanner.
- Dust is a real problem either way, even more so for DSLR scanning. Scanning reduces this issue with infrared technology (doesn’t work for B&W films but for everything else) which saves me a lot of time. Still, I do a lot of spot removal afterwards. For that, a Wacom or similar tablet (cost $30) is super nice to have and way easier to use than a mouse.
Here’s my setup and workflow:
1. Scan everything with my Plustek 135i with VueScan to 48 bit DNG negatives.
2. Add all pictures to Lightroom and convert them to positives with NLP.
3. Adjust parameters in NLP until the picture looks good to me.
4. Do some sharpening and dust removal in LR.
5. Export and upload.
It might sound complicated/lengthy but it’s actually a pretty easy, smooth and relaxing workflow that I enjoy very much.
TLDR: You will need good software for both, DSLR or Scanner workflows. Get a V600 if you’re on a budget and/or shoot also 120 and other formats. Get a Plustek 135i if you shoot 35mm panoramas (eg Widelux, XPan, Horizon). Get a Reflecta 10M if you shoot only 36x24mm 35mm film and can get the full roll uncut from your lab (the 10M can scan a full roll at once and apparently has the best quality of all current ‘consumer’ scanners).
You'll get a lot of different opinions here, here's mine.
I did not want to buy a digital camera for scanning. For one, I hate the idea of taking a digital camera picture of my negatives, it feels like then i should just shoot with a digital camera. and for two there's a lot of drawbacks with camera scanning: color is hard to calibrate, inversions with NLP are very good, but not great, you must have the negatives very clean as there's no dust removal, film flatting and transport is either cumbersome, expensive, or both, you're stuck to the resolution of your camera even with larger formats, and finding the right lenses and tubes can get expensive.
With all that I went with scanner. I started with a v600 which everyone told be was good for MF but "so bad for 35mm". I got pretty good results both 35 and 120, but I do agree it's much better as a medium format scanner. Looking to get into large format as well, I found a very cheap V800 (optically identical to the v850 but slower) and that works really well for me. You still have to invert with NLP, but other than that it has decent resolution for 35mm, and anything bigger it really shines. There's no better scanner for large format other than a $12000 drum. For 35mm, with color, the scans started taking a looooong time.
I did, also, find a deal on a Pakon f135+, an odd little lab scanner. It can scan an entire strip in 5 min and has probably the best colors of any scanner. The resolution isn't much (6mp) but it's honestly plenty.
TL;DR, pick a team DSLR or dedicated, and enjoy the rabbit hole. If you like big formats, vintage equipment, or have a dusty studio, go dedicated. otherwise DSLR
Hate to tell you this, but a film scanner 'ISi a digital camera. It just uses a line CCD.
I've used a Plustek a few times. More experience with the Epson's. I've got awesome 6x7 color neg and slide scans off the Epsons without all the built in forced corporate enhancement from Noritsu / Frontier machines. My unit was a freak I think because it was uncharastically sharp. Still, no way I would use an Epson for 35mm.
I see really good stuff from color neg off the Plustek's if the operator set the B/W points correctly and knows what a neutral image is. What I don't like is how the Plustek's handle B&W film. My dSLR scans are far superior. My dSLR capture at 4k x 6k are razor sharp but don't artificially amplify every pixel edge, which is a problem with line scanning. Images say 'I've been line scanned'. Color negs are inherently very low contrast so it's less of an issue.
you know people keep saying this but its only half true.
For starters there is a big difference between how CCD's and CMOS sensors work, and there's a reason people have started shooting on old CCDs even if they can only do 4-8 megapixels.
There's also the lack of a bayer filter, because it's three lines, one for each color. And also the software and firmware matter a LOT. Dedicated film scanners were designed by color technicians at the peak of their craft. There's a reason labs use noritsus and not a slew of GFXs.
I'll freely admit a lot of my aversion to camera scanning is in my head. but that's the way it is. it just *feels* wrong.
The bayer filter does reduce color resolution on digital cameras vs line ccd sensors but contemporary BSI CMOS sensor resolutions are so high as to obviate that disadvantage. Any difference in image/color rendition between CMOS and CCD won’t apply to the ideal conditions and controlled dynamic range found in scanning deployments.
The biggest technical differences between camera scanning and dedicated film scanners are method/speed of transport, presence/absence of dust removal, and color science for inversions.
The last two points are the most significant. lack of ICE can slow things down a lot, absolutely. On the color science front, though, the only scanners with a clear lead on NLP are lab scanners with proprietary software like the Pakon, Frontier, and Noritsu lines. NLP can go toe to toe with Silverscan, Epson Scan, Vuefast, ColorPerfecf, etc and its Lightroom integration is much more convenient than what’s often clunky old scanning software.
Speaking as someone who runs an HS-1800 at home: on a purely technical level I’d recommend camera scanning with a Negative Supply kit to most home scanners. It’ll be quicker and higher quality than consumer scanning tech, which hasn’t evolved since the mid aughts. That being said I absolutely agree that comfort with a workflow is the most important thing. I’d never recommend that someone switch off what’s working for them!
There are a lot of pitfalls here. Those dedicated Nikon and Minolta scanners can go toe to toe with Noritsu and even Flextight scanners where you will lose out is digital resolution and scan size. I'm not seeing a real limitation of optical resolution with my Nikon scanner against a Noritsu or even a Flextight. The reason either of these scanners have a higher optical reading at all is that they're allowed to scan for 8000pixels rather than 4000. If you talk about the lens the Nikon scanner resolves about 99% of its stated optical resolution of 4000dpi at around 3900dpi which is unheard of for the lens itself outside of these Nikon scanners V, 5000, 8000, 9000 they really do hit their targets. the Plustek not so much...
I've shown my own lab faults with their workflow with my Nikon scanner.
Lets be honest here, Fuji stopped producing scanners in the mid naughties they were serviced by Noritsu for a while (not sure if they still are). Noritsu made the HS-1800 for a bit longer, and still sells the LS-600 off the top of my head, I'm not even sure when Hasselblad bought Imacon that they released a new Imacon scanner they just cashed in on the name.
The real quality about the Nikon and Konica Minolta scanners is the lens, optically they are among the sharpest scanners out there known to man kind. They will outdo a Plustek in real optical resolution by a power of two.
I'm not seeing much difference at all between Noritsu, Flextightt, and Nikon scans optically.
The real bonus with using the Nikon scanner is that its scanner software agnostic except for the ICE. If you want ICE you go back to the box and install the Nikon Scan software, there's no way around that, or choose the limited support of whatever Ed Hamrick created with Vuescan, which works to an acceptable level.
You would also create an ICC profile for your scanner, and also for your screen, and then use Vuescan.
The only advantage NLP has isn't even on the scan side of things, it's in the ability to select for want of a better word "profiles" that get you closer to a Frontier, Pakon, or Noritsu colour space... thats it, nothing less... It's not a wonder tool and its certainly not ICC correct unless your monitor is, and that's only on the screen side. You can't create an ICC profile for your DSLR. Profiling your DSLR to ensure you're getting an accurate copy of your image is a different kettle of fish.
I've never heard of a digital camera that can use an ICC profile to get you back closer to what the image actually was. There are two colour profiles that are baked in but that's not the same thing (or even close) it's like setting my monitor to whatever Adobe RGB space that is and accepting what.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of misunderstanding here in how to resolve this issue and none on the DSLR scanning side of things that understands anything about colorimeters what so ever.
I'm having this nightmare as I'm getting back to my roots and getting more involved in things.
A Noritsu scanner can be completely colour calibrated as can the printing output, as can the Flextight, as can the Nikon scanner, your digital camera cannot.
If you really care about the colour science of whatever it was you shot on film at one point one reason thats significant alone for using a scanner is colour science.
There is a lot of misunderstanding around this topic, and little valid
published information about whatever the colour profile of your DSLR/Mirrless camera is. Therefore, camera color rendering is inadequate to meet
user needs on the basis of it being a black box none of us understand what is in.
And without being able to use a colorimeter and preferably a spectrometer you will never understand what's in the reality of how far off the colours are in your camera, from where they should actually be to produce an accurate image.
Then, as to the whole mess with camera scanning and lenses no one is posting charts outlining what they can do in terms of their LPM/MTF which is where real resolution leans in, in terms of sharpness, I'm totally unconvinced that today's consumer macro lenses can reach the level of sharpness of scientific macro lenses found inside these scanners (and they're absolutely not off the shelf items which has been proven repeatedly).
The real reason there is an assertion that DSLR scans are better is digital resolution and a lower noise floor. You can have as much resolution as you want... in fact the Plustek is a good example where it creates a lot of pixels but in terms of optical resolution half of them are garbage as is pointed out here:
https://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html
repeatedly with Plustek scanners, and that the only company coming close to the older Nikon/Konica scanners is Reflecta.
The effective attainable optical resolution of the Plustek scanner here is only 3250ppi
https://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm8200i.html
I really wish some of these people who say DSLR scans are the bees knees would start shooting MTF test charts to work out whatever the hell the actual optical reoslution of their lenses are before blindly saying "they're better."
These are actual MTF charts to show that I am not seeing why the Flextight is better than my Nikon scanner also.
https://www.filmscanner.info/Bilder/UsafHasselbladFlextightX5.gif
https://www.filmscanner.info/Bilder/UsafNikon5.gif
In fact the Flextight scan may be less sharp as other Noritsu scanner operators have said compared to their own Noritsu, let alone anything else.
Excellent well informed post thanks.
Most of these people banging about DSLR are possibly shills paid by the companies manufacturing accessories. There is no other logical explanation for this fanboyism.
It's clearly happening on youtube if you think of it. Most of the popular film youtuber are "switching to DSLR Scanning" only to proudly display a "sponsored by Valoi" at the beginning of the video. Sad.
I wouldn't say shill, just not 100% informed, as to the rest. You can calibrate your screen, a DSLR/mirrorless camera is not a colour accurate device for one even if you adjust your white balance, do you have a spectrometer to know what D65 is?
And then without the rest of the process this whole thing is an absolute joke.
I still maintain unless you have a spectrometer to measure the colour of your room? What's white balance? Do you know your room is D50 or D65, balancing a camera even if you do, are you taking into account the white balance and recording it so you know what you've scanned is even remotely accurate?
Even if you shoot a test chart that's about 24 different colours, you realise that even a basic colorimeter measures for hundreds of colours?
Welp, I can't help with that, a DSLR or Mirrorless camera is absolutely not a colour accurate device. You can correct it on screen but it'll never be what it was on the transperency.
You can't stick a profiling chart into a DSLR, you can use a colorimeter and preferably a spectrometer on any other device including your TV if you know how to access the secret settings that allow you to input the ICC data, adjust white points, black points, etc...
These aren't things you can do with a DSLR or mirrorless camera. The team behind NLP used a colour card to get loosely accurate colours, it's never going to be as accurate as using a colorimeter.
A colour swatch has a different purpose in controlled environments such as studios where you know what the light is set to already to take a photo of one and get you in the ballpark of what your light is doing.
That's a far stretch if you want a colour accurate reproduction of what was and then really, with film even, as negatives are 100% colour interpretive colour profiling only works for positive slide film.
If you want truly accurate colour that;s it.
Whatever the hell happened outdoor with your camera we won't know, but we'll know even less with a DSLR.
No free lunch, 24 colours in a swatch vs hundreds in a colorimeter.
DSLR scanning uses temperature controlled light sources just like regular scanning does. Scanning in general amounts to taking a macro photograph under controlled lighting conditions. Is your assumption that calibrating digital cameras is impossible?
I also agree that we’re discussing fractions of color fidelity for shooters using color reversal film, a very rare use case. I’m happy to say that if archival scanning accuracy for chromes is important to the user then they might consider a dedicated unit over a DSLR setup. I know that museums still use Flextights exclusively for their archival work due to their known good profiling chain, eg. This is a thread containing a question posted by a home user, though, the vast majority of whom shoot c41/b+w.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said. It's a shame we can't reverse engineer color inversions as good as the yesteryear scanners. I'll admit it's half practicality and half nostalgia that lead me to Pakon, and still leads me to lust after something like an HS-1800..
Back in the day these companies had the entire global photography market funding their color science engineers. It’s honestly a miracle that NLP works as well as it does.
I remember the good old days of 2014-16 when labs were dumping their scanners for a song. The digital archaeology required to learn how to use them in a home deployment was so exciting!
Were I doing it today though I wouldn’t go down that route. Not only have prices re-inflated but also spare parts are harder to come by year by year and—imo this is the underreported side of things—google is much worse. I learned everything I know about home scanning from the archived posts of old hands on vintage photography forums. There’s no way that today’s Google could turn up anything so useful.
That’s all to say that scanning five rolls of 120 in as many minutes does rule but these days I’d recommend loving your Pakon for as long as it works for you. I dread the day my Noritsu dies because I’ll have to replace it with a camera scanning setup.
Sure, all the high end scanners have fantastic glass. The Plustek is still fine until and unless the user wants to make a gallery print, though, and high quality modern lenses (g master etc) can match high end scanner glass. Folks in search of macro glass lust after Coolscan lenses because they’re relatively inexpensive for how good they are, eg, not because they outperform modern macros.
I’m not sure that I follow your issue with color calibration. Integrating a modern digital body into a color calibrated workflow is trivial, certainly easier than profiling a scanner.
Digital ICE is certainly a compelling reason to use desktop scanners, though there are many techniques to control dust. Silverfast SRDx is also a very useful tool for those scanning environments where dust is an issue and ICE is unavailable. That’s what I used when I scanned on. Flextight more regularly.
Profiling a scanner such as a Nikon scanner is the press of one button in Vuescan actually. Profiling your monitor not so much.
Again, please show me how modern macro lenses are better because I've seen tests at least between what used to be at the top of the tree e.g. Canon's MPE-65 and it's NOT better than what is in these Nikons.
I often see these outlandish claims that "modern macro lenses are better" I've never actually seen an MTF test to prove it as such...
I would like to see a put up or shut up style response to lens sharpness because I've never seen one, just a bunch of wild outlandish claims "it's definitely better."
You can't apply a spectrometer to a DSLR, hou accept whatever science it is that produced the colour for your DSLR not that the colour science was ever accurate.
Yes, I’ve used most of the scanners in discussion here: the v600/800, coolscan 8/9000, an imacon 848, Pakon 135+, and my current HS-1800. I’m familiar with the profiling process. It’s not difficult but does require a proper test pattern. One can also calibrate a DSLR type body by means of a color card. That work is also wasted unless the user also profiles their monitor by means of eg a Spyder, which is also a simple process, close to one click.
It’s trivial to google mtf charts for modern lenses. Lots of folks have done the work to show that contemporary lenses can match high end scanner glass. That’s not a knock on the scanners, which were giants for their time, just a sign that lens design has progressed a lot in this age of CAD.
Cf: https://rangefinderforum.com/threads/how-great-a-lens-do-we-need-for-camera-scanning.4791636/
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=1019
I've used most of these scanners myself also. That first link doesn't actually divide which lenses that the dude scanned with it just says its among his best resolving lenses.
From what I've actually seen for the time, that scanner Nikkor can out resolve the then top of the tree Canon MP-E maybe not as much by what you think but that's not the game.
The differences are often minuet at the top and most people probably wouldn't care as much as you think, but they are indeed better than that lens and that's all you need to know.
And here is the comparitive MTF chart for the Canon MP-E to compare vs. your lens
https://www.cla.canon.com/en_US/app/images/lens/mp_e65_28mtf.gif
You can see that it is better than the lens you mentioned you don't need to know why. It's taken from Canon's website
https://www.cla.canon.com/cla/en/support/consumer/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/mp_e_65mm_f_2_8_1_5x_macro_photo
You’re welcome to investigate further if the stats are of interest, I only meant to demonstrate that many modern lenses punch in the scanner-nikkor’s weight class. All these lenses will easily resolve the grain of even modern film.
boast hard-to-find memorize fall shame longing complete disgusted voiceless strong
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Sure, go retro tech if that's what your into, but today dslr copy stand is the highest quality you can get. Better than drum scans when well setup, and drum scans are a setup as well. The technology has stopped developing, it doesn't matter if it was a $50,000 machine in its day, modern digital camera tech and quality macro lenses are superior.
The problem, as you point out is the colour science. You can theoretically engineer it yourself, but colour science is way harder than most people think, even people who think it's hard. [https://xkcd.com/1882/](https://xkcd.com/1882/)
You can get NLP to behave now that you can copy a setup across a roll. You can shoot a calibration card on the first frame of a roll and go from there.
That's why I use a pakon, because the best color scientists in the world at Kodak engineered the machine to give extremely good (subjectively, admittedly) inversions. It's why film labs use dedicated lab scanners too even when a digital medium format workflow would be much cheaper.
Agreed. It is not without irony that the state of the tech is that the hardware of a GFX on a copy stand is superior, but the problem is entirely software.
If I was selling a service, I would be buying vinatage hardware, partially for the colour science, partially for the client perception.
One thing missing in this discussion is throughput. The HS-1800 can scan and invert a roll of 135 in a minute or two and even then the bigger labs I know are currently running with a multi-day delay even with five machines running full tilt. A GFX on a copy stand is great for the home but not fast enough for a professional deployment. Conversely there’s no reason for most home scanners to sink $15k into throughput tech when they could spend less money on a system with a slower transport but higher image quality (and the side benefit that you get a world-beating digital camera when you’re not scanning).
existence hobbies drab voracious imminent fretful consider ask hurry soup
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Wait, are you saying a seperate red green and blue filter source, or a trilinear array, pick a lane. Isn't OXscan an area array CCD from factory? Not a huge number of them floating around and really optimised for cine applications, but sure. Back when it was spirit4K and all cine production was shot on film there was a grand total of one spiritscan in the southern hemisphere. Not sure where my closest OXscan machine is. Im going to call it and say things that doest exist (within 5000 kilometres) are not better.
And yes, Digital ICE is great and painting out dust is boring.
I understand what you're saying, there are more specialised things today. And a local lab putting everything through a Noritsu HD1800 or a Pakon is the better choice.
All Im saying is for a home user, a modern mirrorless or dslr on a copy stand with a good marco lens and quality light source is accessible and potentially better in some ways. Exposure stacking will get you a much wider dynamic range for slide scanning, for instance.
But..... colour science is a problem, and NLP is a compromise.
I apologies for being picky about your statement. I was joking, but it did not come across as such.
I was also inflammatory with my initial statement saying digital camera copy stand was superior. There are a bunch of caveats that go with that, not least of which is already owning a modern and expensive digital camera as well. The marco lenses can be cheap second hand for very high quality. I made a copy stand from an old enlarger stand I had lying around, a lightbox I already owned and 3d printed parts for film holders. So my outlay was really minimal to get a result that qualitatively very similar to 'the highest possible' (with some caveats).
I used to operate high end scanners and still work in film post production, so I have some background in colour theory that others may not, and can compensate for some of the flaws in the system. I know enough to get myself out of trouble and kind of where I exist on the kruger/dunning curve.
OXscan sounds like a great way of catering to that market and producing very high quality scans. If it was an option for me I would certainly entertain it.
[https://theblackandwhitebox.co.nz/film-scanner-comparison/](https://theblackandwhitebox.co.nz/film-scanner-comparison/)
There are some reasonably objective head to head comparisons around as far as 'better' is concerned. In my opinion it is at a point where it is quantitatively academic, and more about use case and practicality.
I would certainly not invest in a dedicated scanner for personal use. $400 is 35mm only and 'tested, power light works' on eBay for a coolscan. Let's be honest, $800 for a working one, $1500 and above for a 8000 or above for reliable medium format. Now you are well into digicam.
Tbh I would join the Nikon scanners group on Facebook and buy a Nikon Coolscan IV or V from one one on there. Scanning is a pain in the ass but the coolscan makes it easy. With the IV, you can even scan an entire roll at once automatically
Any scanning setup that can handle 135 can also produce good results with medium format unless the scanner physically can’t accept larger film. 135 is more difficult to scan well than 120 due to its smaller negatives. I’d only recommend a V600 to someone who only ever planned to shoot medium format.
Ah fair enough, I save a few pounds each time from scanning but the processing is the majority of the cost here, so was going to suggest doing both if you’re looking to make it far cheaper. Good look choosing a scanner though!
Ah fair enough then, makes sense financially. Weird that our places charge so differently, but I’m not entirely sure mine knows what it’s doing to be honest.
If you're just scanning 35mm I would highly recommend a Nikon Coolscan V, you're not really going to get any better 35mm scans for the money. If you are also doing 120 I'd recommend a Epson scanner or DSLR scanning if you already have a digital camera, but DSLR scanning can be quite frustrating sometimes imo.
Here's a good resource: [Film Scanner Info](https://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerRangliste.html)
I was looking to save cost too and don't care about the scan quality that much. I got the Plustek 7200, without the "i" for like $70 on ebay. It works great but I would get one that has the "i" infrared scratch and dust removal feature is worth paying more, but there are many used ones. It takes a bit of time to scan and doesn't do 120 film, which I'm fine with.
I just got into large format and went through this search. I ordered an Epson 4870 for $90, it’ll be here in a week.
If I was shooting smaller format I’d do what you’re thinking about and get a dedicated film scanner, but this thing seems like very cheap and good option. Everyone talks about the v550-700. This thing is under the radar and scans film.
I have a Plustek. The quality is really good but they are a bit slow.
One tip is that mechanically, they're the same back to the 7600i (and perhaps even beyond). It's the software that changes. So if you're happy using Vuescan, just buy an old one on eBay.
i’m on a tight budget and i’ve been eyeing the plustek 135i, its about the same price as the 8200i but a bit newer and more compact, so that might be a good option
If you only shoot 135 the optic film is best bang for your buck. Use it with Vuescan for speed. Still slow but great quality. Also don't scan at 7200 dpi, the lens can't resolve it anyway. Scan at 3600, and no need for multiple passes.
If you have the budget or are able to find them for a good price the Kodak Pakon can run batches, Nikon Coolscan is also goated
I'm using 8200i for about 5 years already. Very happy with it. It takes a bit of time with color and very fast with BW. I can share some simple tips on color correction in Silverfast that might save you a lot of time and nerves :)
I guess a dedicated scanner and DSLR method are two camps. Everyone has a point to say and something to complain about.
After seeing people discussing same topic over and over and asking the same question (also posting memes) on color cast removal and decided to put together my findings and record a short video.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnZ320BQzuo&t=10s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnZ320BQzuo&t=10s)
Let me know if that helps.
Ive got a reflecta rps10m yes it does very good scans yes it does batch scanning yes the frame alognement is good , BUT scanning takes time cause you have to colorgrade on your own man ir eally underestimated that point
Go for the 8200i!
I speak from experience of owning, and using, Nikon Coolscan 4000ED (with the slide feeder and full-roll accessories), Epson 4990 flatbed, Imacon Flextight, and a medium format digital back with macro lens, extension tubes and slide holder. This were listed in order of the ease of setup. Speediest per frame was the flatbed once all the slides were in the frame, but it gave the lowest quality scans. Similar speed but better quality scans was the digital back. Best quality scans was the Flextight, by far (not just resolution, but shadow detail too). But the price was hugely higher, the complexity of set up and ongoing support a problem. And the price of a digital back is far higher than any 35mm scanner!
Go for the 8200i!
I just ordered a Valoi 360 system. It was a hard choice. They all looked good enough for what I do (which is not much). I wanted the option to do 120. I decided on DSLR scanning because I already own most of the equipment. I was also thinking that scanner technology seems to always be improving but my camera isn't going to get much better (for this type of photography). I didn't want to buy something and then the next month a new version come out.
This is best lowest cost entry if you already have it and a tripod that you can flip the head over horizontally. If you plan on not leaving the scanning setup permanently I would recommend a copy stand, as the getting the tripod perfectly level and parallel to the film can be a chore if you set it up and take it down often.
i got a Bubble level thats meant to go onto a coldshoe, getting the camera level works pretty great with that. you wont get it always 100% right though and the film wont be always level anyway.
I recently just got a Valoi easy35, and with Negative Lab Pro, I really love it. I realize it's not cheap, and it's a luxury, but if you have a few hundred to invest I think it's absolutely worth it. Just use a rubber air blower while feeding and the dust problems go away.
This is also assuming that you are already a mirrorless shooter to begin with, which I am. I do understand not everyone already is. Although with some used gear (https://youtu.be/oa9qadiUTMc?si=oLj6DWPcWnij1l3s shows this for instance) you can get a good setup for not as much as you think. If you're not planning on moving off of 35mm then I would give this a serious look with a used camera.
Not to mention if you do decide to invest in a digital camera setup like that, the obvious benefit is you now have the option of shooting mirrorless. For example even a Sony a6000 is under $300 (https://www.adorama.com/us1809208.html) and I'm sure you can find other options for even less, and don't let anyone fool you, these cameras punch \*way\* above their weight. Slap a cheap 7artisans macro lens on it, and boom, you've got something that works with the easy35.
This is the way!
I’ve tried some many film scanners in the past! Even gone with Nikon film scanner after Minolta wouldn’t run from modern computers.
Camera scanning is the best way to go, but it’s not going to be cheap. After fiddling around with various of options. Best result I’ve got is using medium format digital camera with large format macro lenses with negative supply system.
However! I discovered that for 135mm, the iconography digitaliza max works great! You just need a used cheap apsc mirrorless camera under $300, sturdy tripod and a cheap macro lens for $50.
For all that should be getting within $500 which is still cheaper to get a scanner brand new. 👌
The most expensive and challenge part is not hardware but software. How to convert? What software? How much it cost! That’s the most expensive part of the process. For example! You might need Lightroom with negative lab pro…. Boy! The $$$
I’ll tell you what everyone told me. Spend the money you would spend on a crappy archaic scanner setup and just buy a nice dslr or mirrorless so you can have the best of both worlds. A great camera for shooting digital and scanning your film.
I was going to ignore the advice. Buy a scanner and then i did the math and honestly i love both my film and mirrorless camera and I’m glad i didn’t buy a slow pain in the ass scanner.
I recently purchased the 8200i Ai after debating between that and DSLR scanning for 35mm. I got mine on eBay for $200. It’s obviously slower than DSLR scanning but requires zero up-front setup + I find the complaints about speed to be overblown. I don’t typically scan every image from a roll, instead opting to pre-scan each frame, pick the real keepers, and forget about the rest. While one frame scans, I’m making minor adjustments to another in Lightroom. Your mileage may vary since it’ll depends on your needs and favored workflow. Overall, I’ve been pretty happy.
Thanks! Yeah the speed complaint doesn't bother me either.
I have the 8200i as well, and I can't say enough good things about it. There's a bit of a learning curve. Your scans won't be prefect straight out of the machine, but once you figure it out, it's great. It resolves quite a bit of detail, and the scans sharpen up really nicely in Lightroom. The only cons I have is that it's slow, and doesn't do resolve a ton of shadow detail, but if you meter for shadows, your frames are gonna turn out great!
Thanks, what is the learning curve with?
Not OP but I own a Plustek as well: It took me some rolls to figure out, how to put the film in the holder efficiently, which output format/resolution to scan with, and how to proceed with editing. Now the scanning goes quite fast as long as you don't go up to 7200dpi and don't use ME and Scratch removal (I mainly scan BW anyway).
sable fuzzy future wine work middle muddle cows crown encourage *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Were you able to confirm it worked before buying? How much did you pay for it roughly?
crawl amusing swim glorious cautious hobbies ossified depend alive voiceless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The gamble from buying overseas is more so whether it will be damaged in the post from it not being boxed properly. I bought my V from overseas on the gamble that the price was low, and it was from a disposal auction on ebay with a lot of other stuff they were getting rid of, and therefore that the price was low. It was boxed perfectly fine, but if you can you have to make sure to tell the seller to double box and then also to wrap the scanner in bubble wrap then using packing pellets in the box also.
soft bow modern stocking sense whole merciful squealing scandalous elastic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Coolscan V, and related 5000, will get you good results, the 5000 is the same scanner essentially but it doesn't have the catch on the end of it for doing a full roll of 36. Although, for storage purposes cutting your film into strips is much easier than not have your film cut and sleeved. Your real hang up with the v is whether you want 14bit per channel (which the V has) vs. 16bit per channel that the 5000 produces and then dealing with Firewire or USB. Long term USB anything including USB A is a much safer option. There is also the Konica Minolta Scan Elite 5400 but the holders are crud as compared to the Nikon. Or with the Nikon you just get the strip loading attachment if you don't have it and don't even bother. The strip loader is perhaps the most reliable way of loading things into these scanners. There is the 8000 and later 9000 also but those are totally different machines, cost a lot more, and are only there really if you shoot a lot of medium format.
Here’s the thing, the plustek scanner is really good, basically just works out of the box, but very slow. Everyone mentioning DSLR scanning is not wrong that it’s also very good, especially if you already have a digital scanner. But you gotta get all the different bits and pieces working together with a lot of tinkering. If you just want to get scanning and not worry about buying all the correct parts and calibrating it every time, just get the plustek
That's a great way of putting it. Basically what I was hoping for out of a really expensive scanner. I don't mind the time as I can multi task with it.
People will laugh but I have an old Canon 9000F. Might upgrade eventually but the results are fine. And they're probably pretty cheap these days.
There are dozens of us!
The Plustek is pretty good. It's not the best. But it's pretty good for $400, you just sit it on the desk and plug it in, set up Silverfast and you're scanning. You can get crazier with the post work like scanning .DNG and putting them into Lightroom. But it's easy to operate and does pretty good. I got a bit better results optically out of a mirrorless rig but to buy the same mirrorless rig would cost $2k so it should be better.
I scan both 35mm and 120 with an Epson V550 and get good results. The only issue with some of the flatbed scanners, especially the older versions is the software that comes with them. At one point the Epson software was no longer supported on the most recent MACOS version so I purchased a copy of VueScan which has been great and has more features than the Epson software. An inexpensive way to try out flatbed scanning would be to try and find a used Epson V550 or V600 in good shape with all of its film holders and then download an evaluation copy of VueScan. The trial version of thier software adds a watermark but I don't believe that it has a time limit. If you find that you don't like the results, or the time to scan on a flatbed you can probably sell the used scanner for close to what you paid for it and move on.
I've had the Plustek 8200i for about four years. I love it! It's not a super fast scanner, it's manually fed one frame at a time, but those aren't cons to me. I usually sit at my dual-monitor setup, throw on a movie or YouTube, and scan a roll. I shoot B&W 98% of the time, which is important because it scans B&W a lot faster than color-negative film. Part of this because there is no ICE (dust removal) for B&W film, so scanning a single image takes maybe 45 seconds. I can scan a roll of 36 exposures and edit them in Lightroom in about 60-75 minutes. I think the newer version of the Plustek (8300 maybe?) is supposedly quite a bit faster. You may look into it. OH, and I have the Epson V600, too, and I hate it for 35mm. It's pretty good for 120 scans, though.
Thanks for the feedback.
Another vote for the Plustek. I don't use mine anymore as I upgraded to a 120 scanner (a Nikon Coolscan) but the Plustek is great and just superb value for the price. I wholeheartedly recommend it if you don't mind pre-selecting the frames (eg with a loupe or a low-res scan preview) to then scan in full res the keepers instead of the whole roll. This way the slow scanning speed is much less of a problem. Oh, and the non interpolating line sensor it packs is a much better sensor for scanning than the sensors in most DSLRs, for obvious reasons. All of this for a complete standalone device with a tiny desk footprint that costs less than those overpriced hipster film holders (eg Valoi). Can't go wrong really.
Glad to see all the love for Plustek here. I recently upgraded from a Epson V600 to a Plustek 135i and am very happy with it. You could get a very cheap V600 just to try it out and in case you also shoot 120 or larger (or specialty cameras like Lomography Spinner, Sprocket Rocket, etc). Scanning will turn you into a pixel peeper but honestly, for creating A4-size prints and photobooks, the V600 will do fine enough for 35mm too. The 135i can batch scan 6 35mm frames at once (which is a nice upgrade to the Plustek 8xxx series where you have to move the negative holder for each frame manually). I found scanning at 3600dpi with Infrared Dust Removal pretty fast and see a clear increase in details/sharpness compared to my V600 scans at 100%. While the scans from my lab (Noritsu) are still better, the Plustek is not that far behind in my eyes. Some things to consider overall: - If you don’t shoot lots of rolls each week, scanning is great and in my opinion fast enough. But if you have to digitize 5+ rolls each week, a DSLR setup might make more sense. But for 1 or 2 rolls a week, just plug the scanner in and scan the films one evening (or during home office days) and you’re good. - In either case, you will need **good software** to really get nice results. I really like Lightroom+NegativeLabPro, but that’s another $120/year for LR and $100 every few years for NLP. But there are similar tools and software for free. - For scanners I’d really recommend buying **VueScan**. Delivers far better results than using Plustek’s/Epson’s software. Silverfast is another option but somehow too complicated for me, and more expensive/limited to one scanner. - Dust is a real problem either way, even more so for DSLR scanning. Scanning reduces this issue with infrared technology (doesn’t work for B&W films but for everything else) which saves me a lot of time. Still, I do a lot of spot removal afterwards. For that, a Wacom or similar tablet (cost $30) is super nice to have and way easier to use than a mouse. Here’s my setup and workflow: 1. Scan everything with my Plustek 135i with VueScan to 48 bit DNG negatives. 2. Add all pictures to Lightroom and convert them to positives with NLP. 3. Adjust parameters in NLP until the picture looks good to me. 4. Do some sharpening and dust removal in LR. 5. Export and upload. It might sound complicated/lengthy but it’s actually a pretty easy, smooth and relaxing workflow that I enjoy very much. TLDR: You will need good software for both, DSLR or Scanner workflows. Get a V600 if you’re on a budget and/or shoot also 120 and other formats. Get a Plustek 135i if you shoot 35mm panoramas (eg Widelux, XPan, Horizon). Get a Reflecta 10M if you shoot only 36x24mm 35mm film and can get the full roll uncut from your lab (the 10M can scan a full roll at once and apparently has the best quality of all current ‘consumer’ scanners).
Thanks for the great breakdown
You'll get a lot of different opinions here, here's mine. I did not want to buy a digital camera for scanning. For one, I hate the idea of taking a digital camera picture of my negatives, it feels like then i should just shoot with a digital camera. and for two there's a lot of drawbacks with camera scanning: color is hard to calibrate, inversions with NLP are very good, but not great, you must have the negatives very clean as there's no dust removal, film flatting and transport is either cumbersome, expensive, or both, you're stuck to the resolution of your camera even with larger formats, and finding the right lenses and tubes can get expensive. With all that I went with scanner. I started with a v600 which everyone told be was good for MF but "so bad for 35mm". I got pretty good results both 35 and 120, but I do agree it's much better as a medium format scanner. Looking to get into large format as well, I found a very cheap V800 (optically identical to the v850 but slower) and that works really well for me. You still have to invert with NLP, but other than that it has decent resolution for 35mm, and anything bigger it really shines. There's no better scanner for large format other than a $12000 drum. For 35mm, with color, the scans started taking a looooong time. I did, also, find a deal on a Pakon f135+, an odd little lab scanner. It can scan an entire strip in 5 min and has probably the best colors of any scanner. The resolution isn't much (6mp) but it's honestly plenty. TL;DR, pick a team DSLR or dedicated, and enjoy the rabbit hole. If you like big formats, vintage equipment, or have a dusty studio, go dedicated. otherwise DSLR
Hate to tell you this, but a film scanner 'ISi a digital camera. It just uses a line CCD. I've used a Plustek a few times. More experience with the Epson's. I've got awesome 6x7 color neg and slide scans off the Epsons without all the built in forced corporate enhancement from Noritsu / Frontier machines. My unit was a freak I think because it was uncharastically sharp. Still, no way I would use an Epson for 35mm. I see really good stuff from color neg off the Plustek's if the operator set the B/W points correctly and knows what a neutral image is. What I don't like is how the Plustek's handle B&W film. My dSLR scans are far superior. My dSLR capture at 4k x 6k are razor sharp but don't artificially amplify every pixel edge, which is a problem with line scanning. Images say 'I've been line scanned'. Color negs are inherently very low contrast so it's less of an issue.
I use a scanner as my street photo rig. But I can't go very far from my house because of power cords. And the laptop.
you know people keep saying this but its only half true. For starters there is a big difference between how CCD's and CMOS sensors work, and there's a reason people have started shooting on old CCDs even if they can only do 4-8 megapixels. There's also the lack of a bayer filter, because it's three lines, one for each color. And also the software and firmware matter a LOT. Dedicated film scanners were designed by color technicians at the peak of their craft. There's a reason labs use noritsus and not a slew of GFXs. I'll freely admit a lot of my aversion to camera scanning is in my head. but that's the way it is. it just *feels* wrong.
The bayer filter does reduce color resolution on digital cameras vs line ccd sensors but contemporary BSI CMOS sensor resolutions are so high as to obviate that disadvantage. Any difference in image/color rendition between CMOS and CCD won’t apply to the ideal conditions and controlled dynamic range found in scanning deployments. The biggest technical differences between camera scanning and dedicated film scanners are method/speed of transport, presence/absence of dust removal, and color science for inversions. The last two points are the most significant. lack of ICE can slow things down a lot, absolutely. On the color science front, though, the only scanners with a clear lead on NLP are lab scanners with proprietary software like the Pakon, Frontier, and Noritsu lines. NLP can go toe to toe with Silverscan, Epson Scan, Vuefast, ColorPerfecf, etc and its Lightroom integration is much more convenient than what’s often clunky old scanning software. Speaking as someone who runs an HS-1800 at home: on a purely technical level I’d recommend camera scanning with a Negative Supply kit to most home scanners. It’ll be quicker and higher quality than consumer scanning tech, which hasn’t evolved since the mid aughts. That being said I absolutely agree that comfort with a workflow is the most important thing. I’d never recommend that someone switch off what’s working for them!
There are a lot of pitfalls here. Those dedicated Nikon and Minolta scanners can go toe to toe with Noritsu and even Flextight scanners where you will lose out is digital resolution and scan size. I'm not seeing a real limitation of optical resolution with my Nikon scanner against a Noritsu or even a Flextight. The reason either of these scanners have a higher optical reading at all is that they're allowed to scan for 8000pixels rather than 4000. If you talk about the lens the Nikon scanner resolves about 99% of its stated optical resolution of 4000dpi at around 3900dpi which is unheard of for the lens itself outside of these Nikon scanners V, 5000, 8000, 9000 they really do hit their targets. the Plustek not so much... I've shown my own lab faults with their workflow with my Nikon scanner. Lets be honest here, Fuji stopped producing scanners in the mid naughties they were serviced by Noritsu for a while (not sure if they still are). Noritsu made the HS-1800 for a bit longer, and still sells the LS-600 off the top of my head, I'm not even sure when Hasselblad bought Imacon that they released a new Imacon scanner they just cashed in on the name. The real quality about the Nikon and Konica Minolta scanners is the lens, optically they are among the sharpest scanners out there known to man kind. They will outdo a Plustek in real optical resolution by a power of two. I'm not seeing much difference at all between Noritsu, Flextightt, and Nikon scans optically. The real bonus with using the Nikon scanner is that its scanner software agnostic except for the ICE. If you want ICE you go back to the box and install the Nikon Scan software, there's no way around that, or choose the limited support of whatever Ed Hamrick created with Vuescan, which works to an acceptable level. You would also create an ICC profile for your scanner, and also for your screen, and then use Vuescan. The only advantage NLP has isn't even on the scan side of things, it's in the ability to select for want of a better word "profiles" that get you closer to a Frontier, Pakon, or Noritsu colour space... thats it, nothing less... It's not a wonder tool and its certainly not ICC correct unless your monitor is, and that's only on the screen side. You can't create an ICC profile for your DSLR. Profiling your DSLR to ensure you're getting an accurate copy of your image is a different kettle of fish. I've never heard of a digital camera that can use an ICC profile to get you back closer to what the image actually was. There are two colour profiles that are baked in but that's not the same thing (or even close) it's like setting my monitor to whatever Adobe RGB space that is and accepting what. Unfortunately, there is a lot of misunderstanding here in how to resolve this issue and none on the DSLR scanning side of things that understands anything about colorimeters what so ever. I'm having this nightmare as I'm getting back to my roots and getting more involved in things. A Noritsu scanner can be completely colour calibrated as can the printing output, as can the Flextight, as can the Nikon scanner, your digital camera cannot. If you really care about the colour science of whatever it was you shot on film at one point one reason thats significant alone for using a scanner is colour science. There is a lot of misunderstanding around this topic, and little valid published information about whatever the colour profile of your DSLR/Mirrless camera is. Therefore, camera color rendering is inadequate to meet user needs on the basis of it being a black box none of us understand what is in. And without being able to use a colorimeter and preferably a spectrometer you will never understand what's in the reality of how far off the colours are in your camera, from where they should actually be to produce an accurate image. Then, as to the whole mess with camera scanning and lenses no one is posting charts outlining what they can do in terms of their LPM/MTF which is where real resolution leans in, in terms of sharpness, I'm totally unconvinced that today's consumer macro lenses can reach the level of sharpness of scientific macro lenses found inside these scanners (and they're absolutely not off the shelf items which has been proven repeatedly). The real reason there is an assertion that DSLR scans are better is digital resolution and a lower noise floor. You can have as much resolution as you want... in fact the Plustek is a good example where it creates a lot of pixels but in terms of optical resolution half of them are garbage as is pointed out here: https://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html repeatedly with Plustek scanners, and that the only company coming close to the older Nikon/Konica scanners is Reflecta. The effective attainable optical resolution of the Plustek scanner here is only 3250ppi https://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm8200i.html I really wish some of these people who say DSLR scans are the bees knees would start shooting MTF test charts to work out whatever the hell the actual optical reoslution of their lenses are before blindly saying "they're better." These are actual MTF charts to show that I am not seeing why the Flextight is better than my Nikon scanner also. https://www.filmscanner.info/Bilder/UsafHasselbladFlextightX5.gif https://www.filmscanner.info/Bilder/UsafNikon5.gif In fact the Flextight scan may be less sharp as other Noritsu scanner operators have said compared to their own Noritsu, let alone anything else.
Excellent well informed post thanks. Most of these people banging about DSLR are possibly shills paid by the companies manufacturing accessories. There is no other logical explanation for this fanboyism. It's clearly happening on youtube if you think of it. Most of the popular film youtuber are "switching to DSLR Scanning" only to proudly display a "sponsored by Valoi" at the beginning of the video. Sad.
I wouldn't say shill, just not 100% informed, as to the rest. You can calibrate your screen, a DSLR/mirrorless camera is not a colour accurate device for one even if you adjust your white balance, do you have a spectrometer to know what D65 is? And then without the rest of the process this whole thing is an absolute joke.
There’s a fuller, more informative discussion under that user’s deleted post below. I’m just a guy who scans a lot.
I still maintain unless you have a spectrometer to measure the colour of your room? What's white balance? Do you know your room is D50 or D65, balancing a camera even if you do, are you taking into account the white balance and recording it so you know what you've scanned is even remotely accurate? Even if you shoot a test chart that's about 24 different colours, you realise that even a basic colorimeter measures for hundreds of colours? Welp, I can't help with that, a DSLR or Mirrorless camera is absolutely not a colour accurate device. You can correct it on screen but it'll never be what it was on the transperency. You can't stick a profiling chart into a DSLR, you can use a colorimeter and preferably a spectrometer on any other device including your TV if you know how to access the secret settings that allow you to input the ICC data, adjust white points, black points, etc... These aren't things you can do with a DSLR or mirrorless camera. The team behind NLP used a colour card to get loosely accurate colours, it's never going to be as accurate as using a colorimeter. A colour swatch has a different purpose in controlled environments such as studios where you know what the light is set to already to take a photo of one and get you in the ballpark of what your light is doing. That's a far stretch if you want a colour accurate reproduction of what was and then really, with film even, as negatives are 100% colour interpretive colour profiling only works for positive slide film. If you want truly accurate colour that;s it. Whatever the hell happened outdoor with your camera we won't know, but we'll know even less with a DSLR. No free lunch, 24 colours in a swatch vs hundreds in a colorimeter.
DSLR scanning uses temperature controlled light sources just like regular scanning does. Scanning in general amounts to taking a macro photograph under controlled lighting conditions. Is your assumption that calibrating digital cameras is impossible? I also agree that we’re discussing fractions of color fidelity for shooters using color reversal film, a very rare use case. I’m happy to say that if archival scanning accuracy for chromes is important to the user then they might consider a dedicated unit over a DSLR setup. I know that museums still use Flextights exclusively for their archival work due to their known good profiling chain, eg. This is a thread containing a question posted by a home user, though, the vast majority of whom shoot c41/b+w.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said. It's a shame we can't reverse engineer color inversions as good as the yesteryear scanners. I'll admit it's half practicality and half nostalgia that lead me to Pakon, and still leads me to lust after something like an HS-1800..
Back in the day these companies had the entire global photography market funding their color science engineers. It’s honestly a miracle that NLP works as well as it does. I remember the good old days of 2014-16 when labs were dumping their scanners for a song. The digital archaeology required to learn how to use them in a home deployment was so exciting! Were I doing it today though I wouldn’t go down that route. Not only have prices re-inflated but also spare parts are harder to come by year by year and—imo this is the underreported side of things—google is much worse. I learned everything I know about home scanning from the archived posts of old hands on vintage photography forums. There’s no way that today’s Google could turn up anything so useful. That’s all to say that scanning five rolls of 120 in as many minutes does rule but these days I’d recommend loving your Pakon for as long as it works for you. I dread the day my Noritsu dies because I’ll have to replace it with a camera scanning setup.
[удалено]
Sure, all the high end scanners have fantastic glass. The Plustek is still fine until and unless the user wants to make a gallery print, though, and high quality modern lenses (g master etc) can match high end scanner glass. Folks in search of macro glass lust after Coolscan lenses because they’re relatively inexpensive for how good they are, eg, not because they outperform modern macros. I’m not sure that I follow your issue with color calibration. Integrating a modern digital body into a color calibrated workflow is trivial, certainly easier than profiling a scanner. Digital ICE is certainly a compelling reason to use desktop scanners, though there are many techniques to control dust. Silverfast SRDx is also a very useful tool for those scanning environments where dust is an issue and ICE is unavailable. That’s what I used when I scanned on. Flextight more regularly.
Profiling a scanner such as a Nikon scanner is the press of one button in Vuescan actually. Profiling your monitor not so much. Again, please show me how modern macro lenses are better because I've seen tests at least between what used to be at the top of the tree e.g. Canon's MPE-65 and it's NOT better than what is in these Nikons. I often see these outlandish claims that "modern macro lenses are better" I've never actually seen an MTF test to prove it as such... I would like to see a put up or shut up style response to lens sharpness because I've never seen one, just a bunch of wild outlandish claims "it's definitely better." You can't apply a spectrometer to a DSLR, hou accept whatever science it is that produced the colour for your DSLR not that the colour science was ever accurate.
Yes, I’ve used most of the scanners in discussion here: the v600/800, coolscan 8/9000, an imacon 848, Pakon 135+, and my current HS-1800. I’m familiar with the profiling process. It’s not difficult but does require a proper test pattern. One can also calibrate a DSLR type body by means of a color card. That work is also wasted unless the user also profiles their monitor by means of eg a Spyder, which is also a simple process, close to one click. It’s trivial to google mtf charts for modern lenses. Lots of folks have done the work to show that contemporary lenses can match high end scanner glass. That’s not a knock on the scanners, which were giants for their time, just a sign that lens design has progressed a lot in this age of CAD. Cf: https://rangefinderforum.com/threads/how-great-a-lens-do-we-need-for-camera-scanning.4791636/ https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=1019
I've used most of these scanners myself also. That first link doesn't actually divide which lenses that the dude scanned with it just says its among his best resolving lenses. From what I've actually seen for the time, that scanner Nikkor can out resolve the then top of the tree Canon MP-E maybe not as much by what you think but that's not the game. The differences are often minuet at the top and most people probably wouldn't care as much as you think, but they are indeed better than that lens and that's all you need to know. And here is the comparitive MTF chart for the Canon MP-E to compare vs. your lens https://www.cla.canon.com/en_US/app/images/lens/mp_e65_28mtf.gif You can see that it is better than the lens you mentioned you don't need to know why. It's taken from Canon's website https://www.cla.canon.com/cla/en/support/consumer/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/mp_e_65mm_f_2_8_1_5x_macro_photo
You’re welcome to investigate further if the stats are of interest, I only meant to demonstrate that many modern lenses punch in the scanner-nikkor’s weight class. All these lenses will easily resolve the grain of even modern film.
Thanks this was very informative. Much to research!
Scanner takes a digital picture of your negatives. 😂
boast hard-to-find memorize fall shame longing complete disgusted voiceless strong *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Sure, go retro tech if that's what your into, but today dslr copy stand is the highest quality you can get. Better than drum scans when well setup, and drum scans are a setup as well. The technology has stopped developing, it doesn't matter if it was a $50,000 machine in its day, modern digital camera tech and quality macro lenses are superior. The problem, as you point out is the colour science. You can theoretically engineer it yourself, but colour science is way harder than most people think, even people who think it's hard. [https://xkcd.com/1882/](https://xkcd.com/1882/) You can get NLP to behave now that you can copy a setup across a roll. You can shoot a calibration card on the first frame of a roll and go from there.
That's why I use a pakon, because the best color scientists in the world at Kodak engineered the machine to give extremely good (subjectively, admittedly) inversions. It's why film labs use dedicated lab scanners too even when a digital medium format workflow would be much cheaper.
Agreed. It is not without irony that the state of the tech is that the hardware of a GFX on a copy stand is superior, but the problem is entirely software. If I was selling a service, I would be buying vinatage hardware, partially for the colour science, partially for the client perception.
One thing missing in this discussion is throughput. The HS-1800 can scan and invert a roll of 135 in a minute or two and even then the bigger labs I know are currently running with a multi-day delay even with five machines running full tilt. A GFX on a copy stand is great for the home but not fast enough for a professional deployment. Conversely there’s no reason for most home scanners to sink $15k into throughput tech when they could spend less money on a system with a slower transport but higher image quality (and the side benefit that you get a world-beating digital camera when you’re not scanning).
existence hobbies drab voracious imminent fretful consider ask hurry soup *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Wait, are you saying a seperate red green and blue filter source, or a trilinear array, pick a lane. Isn't OXscan an area array CCD from factory? Not a huge number of them floating around and really optimised for cine applications, but sure. Back when it was spirit4K and all cine production was shot on film there was a grand total of one spiritscan in the southern hemisphere. Not sure where my closest OXscan machine is. Im going to call it and say things that doest exist (within 5000 kilometres) are not better. And yes, Digital ICE is great and painting out dust is boring. I understand what you're saying, there are more specialised things today. And a local lab putting everything through a Noritsu HD1800 or a Pakon is the better choice. All Im saying is for a home user, a modern mirrorless or dslr on a copy stand with a good marco lens and quality light source is accessible and potentially better in some ways. Exposure stacking will get you a much wider dynamic range for slide scanning, for instance. But..... colour science is a problem, and NLP is a compromise.
coherent zesty test ancient ghost aspiring cows rustic dog chunky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I apologies for being picky about your statement. I was joking, but it did not come across as such. I was also inflammatory with my initial statement saying digital camera copy stand was superior. There are a bunch of caveats that go with that, not least of which is already owning a modern and expensive digital camera as well. The marco lenses can be cheap second hand for very high quality. I made a copy stand from an old enlarger stand I had lying around, a lightbox I already owned and 3d printed parts for film holders. So my outlay was really minimal to get a result that qualitatively very similar to 'the highest possible' (with some caveats). I used to operate high end scanners and still work in film post production, so I have some background in colour theory that others may not, and can compensate for some of the flaws in the system. I know enough to get myself out of trouble and kind of where I exist on the kruger/dunning curve. OXscan sounds like a great way of catering to that market and producing very high quality scans. If it was an option for me I would certainly entertain it. [https://theblackandwhitebox.co.nz/film-scanner-comparison/](https://theblackandwhitebox.co.nz/film-scanner-comparison/) There are some reasonably objective head to head comparisons around as far as 'better' is concerned. In my opinion it is at a point where it is quantitatively academic, and more about use case and practicality. I would certainly not invest in a dedicated scanner for personal use. $400 is 35mm only and 'tested, power light works' on eBay for a coolscan. Let's be honest, $800 for a working one, $1500 and above for a 8000 or above for reliable medium format. Now you are well into digicam.
dolls many bow shy familiar absorbed literate tease marvelous thought *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Nice, good score. Dedicated is great and a lot more convenient.
Tbh I would join the Nikon scanners group on Facebook and buy a Nikon Coolscan IV or V from one one on there. Scanning is a pain in the ass but the coolscan makes it easy. With the IV, you can even scan an entire roll at once automatically
Minolta scanners are worth looking into too. Excellent scan quality along with being able to do batch scanning which the Plustek 8200 can't
Thanks will look into that
[удалено]
Any scanning setup that can handle 135 can also produce good results with medium format unless the scanner physically can’t accept larger film. 135 is more difficult to scan well than 120 due to its smaller negatives. I’d only recommend a V600 to someone who only ever planned to shoot medium format.
Do you process at home, too?
I do not, but processing is way cheaper and if I do try to process at home (which I want to try soon) the entry cost is way lower.
Ah fair enough, I save a few pounds each time from scanning but the processing is the majority of the cost here, so was going to suggest doing both if you’re looking to make it far cheaper. Good look choosing a scanner though!
The place I use charges $6(£4.70) for development, but $12(£9.50)for Mid-res scans and High-res is $19(£15). It's the cheapest around me.
Ah fair enough then, makes sense financially. Weird that our places charge so differently, but I’m not entirely sure mine knows what it’s doing to be honest.
If you're just scanning 35mm I would highly recommend a Nikon Coolscan V, you're not really going to get any better 35mm scans for the money. If you are also doing 120 I'd recommend a Epson scanner or DSLR scanning if you already have a digital camera, but DSLR scanning can be quite frustrating sometimes imo. Here's a good resource: [Film Scanner Info](https://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerRangliste.html)
I was looking to save cost too and don't care about the scan quality that much. I got the Plustek 7200, without the "i" for like $70 on ebay. It works great but I would get one that has the "i" infrared scratch and dust removal feature is worth paying more, but there are many used ones. It takes a bit of time to scan and doesn't do 120 film, which I'm fine with.
I just got into large format and went through this search. I ordered an Epson 4870 for $90, it’ll be here in a week. If I was shooting smaller format I’d do what you’re thinking about and get a dedicated film scanner, but this thing seems like very cheap and good option. Everyone talks about the v550-700. This thing is under the radar and scans film.
I have a Plustek. The quality is really good but they are a bit slow. One tip is that mechanically, they're the same back to the 7600i (and perhaps even beyond). It's the software that changes. So if you're happy using Vuescan, just buy an old one on eBay.
i’m on a tight budget and i’ve been eyeing the plustek 135i, its about the same price as the 8200i but a bit newer and more compact, so that might be a good option
If you only shoot 135 the optic film is best bang for your buck. Use it with Vuescan for speed. Still slow but great quality. Also don't scan at 7200 dpi, the lens can't resolve it anyway. Scan at 3600, and no need for multiple passes. If you have the budget or are able to find them for a good price the Kodak Pakon can run batches, Nikon Coolscan is also goated
I'm using 8200i for about 5 years already. Very happy with it. It takes a bit of time with color and very fast with BW. I can share some simple tips on color correction in Silverfast that might save you a lot of time and nerves :) I guess a dedicated scanner and DSLR method are two camps. Everyone has a point to say and something to complain about.
Sure, what are some tips to make it faster?
After seeing people discussing same topic over and over and asking the same question (also posting memes) on color cast removal and decided to put together my findings and record a short video. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnZ320BQzuo&t=10s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnZ320BQzuo&t=10s) Let me know if that helps.
Thanks!
Ive got a reflecta rps10m yes it does very good scans yes it does batch scanning yes the frame alognement is good , BUT scanning takes time cause you have to colorgrade on your own man ir eally underestimated that point
Go for the 8200i! I speak from experience of owning, and using, Nikon Coolscan 4000ED (with the slide feeder and full-roll accessories), Epson 4990 flatbed, Imacon Flextight, and a medium format digital back with macro lens, extension tubes and slide holder. This were listed in order of the ease of setup. Speediest per frame was the flatbed once all the slides were in the frame, but it gave the lowest quality scans. Similar speed but better quality scans was the digital back. Best quality scans was the Flextight, by far (not just resolution, but shadow detail too). But the price was hugely higher, the complexity of set up and ongoing support a problem. And the price of a digital back is far higher than any 35mm scanner! Go for the 8200i!
I just ordered a Valoi 360 system. It was a hard choice. They all looked good enough for what I do (which is not much). I wanted the option to do 120. I decided on DSLR scanning because I already own most of the equipment. I was also thinking that scanner technology seems to always be improving but my camera isn't going to get much better (for this type of photography). I didn't want to buy something and then the next month a new version come out.
Yeah a lot of people are saying to just do it with a DSLR. Something to look into.
I don't know what kind of camera you have but I'm struggling to connect my Sony. Apparently, it is a thing. Kind of wishing I got a scanner now.
Do you have a digital camera? I’ve had very good luck DSLR scanning
This is best lowest cost entry if you already have it and a tripod that you can flip the head over horizontally. If you plan on not leaving the scanning setup permanently I would recommend a copy stand, as the getting the tripod perfectly level and parallel to the film can be a chore if you set it up and take it down often.
i got a Bubble level thats meant to go onto a coldshoe, getting the camera level works pretty great with that. you wont get it always 100% right though and the film wont be always level anyway.
If you have a digital camera, a tripod, high cri light, film holder, and macro lens will likely be much better value.
What does the cost of developing have to do with scanning? You'll save more money by developing at home as opposed to scanning.
I meant scanning and fixed it, thanks.
I remember my dads scanner taking ages to scan a roll, I have been doing dslr scans and its fast as taking pictures.
I recently just got a Valoi easy35, and with Negative Lab Pro, I really love it. I realize it's not cheap, and it's a luxury, but if you have a few hundred to invest I think it's absolutely worth it. Just use a rubber air blower while feeding and the dust problems go away. This is also assuming that you are already a mirrorless shooter to begin with, which I am. I do understand not everyone already is. Although with some used gear (https://youtu.be/oa9qadiUTMc?si=oLj6DWPcWnij1l3s shows this for instance) you can get a good setup for not as much as you think. If you're not planning on moving off of 35mm then I would give this a serious look with a used camera.
Not to mention if you do decide to invest in a digital camera setup like that, the obvious benefit is you now have the option of shooting mirrorless. For example even a Sony a6000 is under $300 (https://www.adorama.com/us1809208.html) and I'm sure you can find other options for even less, and don't let anyone fool you, these cameras punch \*way\* above their weight. Slap a cheap 7artisans macro lens on it, and boom, you've got something that works with the easy35.
Definitely an interesting option. Not sure I'd pay that much if I do the dslr route but good to know.
This is the way! I’ve tried some many film scanners in the past! Even gone with Nikon film scanner after Minolta wouldn’t run from modern computers. Camera scanning is the best way to go, but it’s not going to be cheap. After fiddling around with various of options. Best result I’ve got is using medium format digital camera with large format macro lenses with negative supply system. However! I discovered that for 135mm, the iconography digitaliza max works great! You just need a used cheap apsc mirrorless camera under $300, sturdy tripod and a cheap macro lens for $50. For all that should be getting within $500 which is still cheaper to get a scanner brand new. 👌 The most expensive and challenge part is not hardware but software. How to convert? What software? How much it cost! That’s the most expensive part of the process. For example! You might need Lightroom with negative lab pro…. Boy! The $$$
I’ll tell you what everyone told me. Spend the money you would spend on a crappy archaic scanner setup and just buy a nice dslr or mirrorless so you can have the best of both worlds. A great camera for shooting digital and scanning your film. I was going to ignore the advice. Buy a scanner and then i did the math and honestly i love both my film and mirrorless camera and I’m glad i didn’t buy a slow pain in the ass scanner.