Recommendation for 35mm scanner

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jonathan Sylvestre, Feb 1, 2006.

  1. Hi,

    I have lots of 35mm films to scan. IM looking for a 35 mm scanner but I
    consider a flat scanner (or an all-in-one printer) that have a support for
    35mm films.

    What I would like to know is :

    1)Is there any 35mm scanner that do a good job but that not too expensive
    (around 200 $, except the Konica - Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV) ?

    2)Can I optain good results with a flat scanner or a all-in-one printer
    (good results and save some time)? (minium resolution of 3200)

    3)Anyone who use the Epson Stylus CX7800 (all-in-one printer)? How is the 35
    mm film scanning ? (and the printing of photos?)

    Thank you very much for your help.... I have undreds of films to scan but
    not enough money to spend. I read many reviews but I cant make my mind

    Thank you

    Jonathan
     
    Jonathan Sylvestre, Feb 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jonathan Sylvestre

    tomm42 Guest

    Jonathan Sylvestre wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I have lots of 35mm films to scan. IM looking for a 35 mm scanner but I
    > consider a flat scanner (or an all-in-one printer) that have a support for
    > 35mm films.
    >
    > What I would like to know is :
    >
    > 1)Is there any 35mm scanner that do a good job but that not too expensive
    > (around 200 $, except the Konica - Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV) ?
    >
    > 2)Can I optain good results with a flat scanner or a all-in-one printer
    > (good results and save some time)? (minium resolution of 3200)
    >
    > 3)Anyone who use the Epson Stylus CX7800 (all-in-one printer)? How is the 35
    > mm film scanning ? (and the printing of photos?)
    >
    > Thank you very much for your help.... I have undreds of films to scan but
    > not enough money to spend. I read many reviews but I cant make my mind
    >
    > Thank you
    >
    > Jonathan


    The KM Scan Dual IV is about the best bang for the buck. With flat beds
    the specs are often inflated and they give disappointing results
    especially with small films. If you want to get into an Epson 4180 or
    4990, Canon, Microtek, and Umax have equivalents, all are better for
    small films. If you just want to have pics on the web you may get by
    with a cheaper scanner. Just remember film scanners do film the best.
    Some Polaroid 35mm scanners were quite good, but they have a SCSI
    interface and you have no support if there is problems. SCSI scanners
    can be finicky. Pacific Image had a series of film scanners they had
    some very cheap ones, their higher priced scanners had a good
    reputation.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Feb 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Steve Guest

    I would recommend getting a dedicated film scanner like a decent Minolta or
    Nikon.

    Lets face it, scanning negatives is a boring, laborious task, so believe me,
    you only want to be doing it once. Better to get the best results first
    time, so you don't have to do it again in the future.


    "Jonathan Sylvestre" <> wrote in message
    news:F78Ef.6859$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I have lots of 35mm films to scan. IM looking for a 35 mm scanner but I
    > consider a flat scanner (or an all-in-one printer) that have a support for
    > 35mm films.
    >
    > What I would like to know is :
    >
    > 1)Is there any 35mm scanner that do a good job but that not too expensive
    > (around 200 $, except the Konica - Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV) ?
    >
    > 2)Can I optain good results with a flat scanner or a all-in-one printer
    > (good results and save some time)? (minium resolution of 3200)
    >
    > 3)Anyone who use the Epson Stylus CX7800 (all-in-one printer)? How is the

    35
    > mm film scanning ? (and the printing of photos?)
    >
    > Thank you very much for your help.... I have undreds of films to scan but
    > not enough money to spend. I read many reviews but I cant make my mind
    >
    > Thank you
    >
    > Jonathan
    >
    >
     
    Steve, Feb 1, 2006
    #3
  4. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Guest

    Hello Jonathan, I have used Microtek scanners for a few years and I
    have found thier support/helpline very good when I need support. I
    would ask them. Tele- 01782 753366 or web site www.microtekeurope.com.
    The head office is in Newcastle. Hope you find something, thier
    scanners are not over priced.
    Best Regards
    uglyone25.
     
    , Feb 1, 2006
    #4
  5. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    > The KM Scan Dual IV is about the best bang for the buck. With flat beds
    > the specs are often inflated and they give disappointing results
    > especially with small films. If you want to get into an Epson 4180 or
    > 4990, Canon, Microtek, and Umax have equivalents, all are better for
    > small films. If you just want to have pics on the web you may get by
    > with a cheaper scanner. Just remember film scanners do film the best.
    > Some Polaroid 35mm scanners were quite good, but they have a SCSI
    > interface and you have no support if there is problems. SCSI scanners
    > can be finicky. Pacific Image had a series of film scanners they had
    > some very cheap ones, their higher priced scanners had a good
    > reputation.


    Any particular model recomendations on the SCSI Polaroid scanners? I have
    a slew of SCSI-based systems (not to mention all of the extra controllers
    and cables laying around), and if a used one could be had inexpensively,
    that would make me very happy.

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Feb 1, 2006
    #5
  6. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Dave Guest

    On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:26:48 -0000, "Steve" <> somehow
    managed to impart:

    >I would recommend getting a dedicated film scanner like a decent Minolta or
    >Nikon.
    >

    I had a Nikon Coolscan but I get better results with an Epson 4180 -
    except when it intermittently aborts with an 'out of memory' error
    when I do 12 negatives at once (I have 2GB memory).

    The Nikon would jam after the little rubber rollers that pulled the
    strips of 6 negatives in lost their grip. Cotton buds dipped in Platen
    Clean would temporarily restore the grip. No such problems with the
    Epson 4180.

    The results are just as good or better and the dust removal seems to
    be as good, too. Also important is the fact it cost one quarter of the
    price, about the same I paid for my handheld two-bit Atari scanner
    years ago.

    Dave.
    2500 hi-resolution photos especially Edinburgh
    * No advertisements * http://www.henniker.org.uk
    * délété david to use email address *
     
    Dave, Feb 1, 2006
    #6
  7. Jonathan Sylvestre

    rafe b Guest


    > Any particular model recomendations on the SCSI Polaroid scanners? I
    > have
    > a slew of SCSI-based systems (not to mention all of the extra controllers
    > and cables laying around), and if a used one could be had inexpensively,
    > that would make me very happy.




    Polaroid SprintScan Plus was a much-coveted scanner in its
    day that can be had for under $150 on eBay nowadays.
    Very comparable to Nikon's LS-2000. Both were rated
    at 2700 dpi. The SprintScan LE was a cheaper model,
    which I'd avoid. Moving up the chain a notch, the SprintScan
    4000 can probably be had for around $400 or so.

    But as with any SCSI scanner it may take some skill and
    patience to get it working with a "modern" PC and OS.

    For starters, you'll need to download and install the so-called
    ASPI layer, from Adaptec's website. Drivers for any of these
    can be downloaded from Polaroid's web site.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Feb 1, 2006
    #7
  8. Jonathan Sylvestre

    theo Guest

    On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:39:19 -0500, Jonathan Sylvestre
    <> wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I have lots of 35mm films to scan. IM looking for a 35 mm scanner but I
    > consider a flat scanner (or an all-in-one printer) that have a support
    > for 35mm films.
    >
    > What I would like to know is :
    >
    > 1)Is there any 35mm scanner that do a good job but that not too expensive
    > (around 200 $, except the Konica - Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV) ?
    > How good (resolution) do you think you need? Who will be your audience
    > for your scanned images? If family and progency then DVD player
    > sldeshows (even at HDTV resolutions (1080i)) require comparatively low
    > $ outlay (<100USD ) for hardware to satisfy this audience.
    > 2)Can I optain good results with a flat scanner or a all-in-one printer
    > (good results and save some time)? (minium resolution of 3200)

    AFAIK, Several current flatbed, zero all-in-one @/>3200ppi for .tif files
    or offload to .psd or .psp files or default to similar apps. And
    devil-in-details, bundled software provide the playspace for pre- or
    post-scan processing? As often raised in this and related
    (comp.periphs.scanner) newsgroups, mo-betah to get the best cleanest
    raw-est scan then leave it to PSP/PS/ACDSee/Irfanview/... for post-scan
    processing.
    >
    > 3)Anyone who use the Epson Stylus CX7800 (all-in-one printer)? How is
    > the 35 mm film scanning ? (and the printing of photos?)

    No experience therefore no suggestions.
    >
    > Thank you very much for your help.... I have undreds of films to scan
    > but not enough money to spend. I read many reviews but I cant make my
    > mind.

    Another factor to consider: are your children still under your roof? Do
    you know their teachers' names and attended PTA? Why not? Care to
    explain why you are denying your life's real priorities? "The Cat's in
    the Cradle..." (Harry Chapin). Every hour of tedious tending to the
    feeding of the scanner is an hour of neglect of spouse and offspring, of
    neighbor contact and community roots, unless you are already a curmugeonly
    spinster hermit of whatever gender. Check out the myriad offerings across
    the i'net from folks willing to take your 35mm pos+neg, and allow you to
    revert attentions to real life. Oh, Me? My kids have all lived beyond
    30yoa, left town and taken their children along, as it should be.
    >
     
    theo, Feb 2, 2006
    #8
  9. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Dan Hollands Guest

    "Jonathan Sylvestre" <> wrote in message
    news:F78Ef.6859$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I have lots of 35mm films to scan. IM looking for a 35 mm scanner but I
    > consider a flat scanner (or an all-in-one printer) that have a support for
    > 35mm films.
    >
    > What I would like to know is :
    >
    > 1)Is there any 35mm scanner that do a good job but that not too expensive
    > (around 200 $, except the Konica - Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV) ?
    >
    > 2)Can I optain good results with a flat scanner or a all-in-one printer
    > (good results and save some time)? (minium resolution of 3200)
    >
    > 3)Anyone who use the Epson Stylus CX7800 (all-in-one printer)? How is the
    > 35 mm film scanning ? (and the printing of photos?)
    >
    > Thank you very much for your help.... I have undreds of films to scan but
    > not enough money to spend. I read many reviews but I cant make my mind
    >
    > Thank you
    >
    > Jonathan
    >


    I used a PrimeFilm 1800u - cheap and gave adequate results - one frame at a
    time


    --
    Dan Hollands
    1120 S Creek Dr
    Webster NY 14580
    585-872-2606

    www.QuickScoreRace.com
     
    Dan Hollands, Feb 2, 2006
    #9
  10. In article <F78Ef.6859$>, Jonathan
    Sylvestre <> writes
    >Hi,
    >
    >I have lots of 35mm films to scan. IM looking for a 35 mm scanner but I
    >consider a flat scanner (or an all-in-one printer) that have a support for
    >35mm films.
    >

    Personally, if you have a lot of 35nn images to scan, I would recommend
    the Nikon LS-5000 with either or both of the SA-30 and SF-210 adapters,
    depending on the form your film is stored in. If strips, you can save
    on the adapters entirely as the basic scanner includes a strip adapter
    and single frame slide adapter.

    If you don't mind running back to your PC every 10 minutes for the next
    year that it takes to scan your thousands of frames, then you might also
    look at the Plustek OpticFilm 7200, which is cheaper and, allegedly,
    gets as good results as the Nikon. I can't confirm this first hand, but
    it has had good reviews in the press.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Feb 3, 2006
    #10
  11. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Father Kodak Guest

    On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:42:25 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
    <> wrote:

    >In article <F78Ef.6859$>, Jonathan
    >Sylvestre <> writes
    >>Hi,


    >Personally, if you have a lot of 35nn images to scan, I would recommend

    Wot a coincidence. Just today I was in my local camera emporium and
    the head honcho there said that until now they were recommending both
    the high-end Nikon and Minolta scanners, unless you wanted to buy a
    drum scanner for twenty grand!

    Now they are going to recommend Nikon only. And of course for me I
    "need" both the SF-210 and SA-30 adapters. However, I was wondering
    if the strip scanner that comes with the scanner automatically
    advances the film frame by frame for batch scanning.


    >the Nikon LS-5000 with either or both of the SA-30 and SF-210 adapters,
    >depending on the form your film is stored in. If strips, you can save
    >on the adapters entirely as the basic scanner includes a strip adapter
    >and single frame slide adapter.


    I should add that if I want 8000 line resolution, instead of the 4000
    that the Nikon gives me, I can rent this scanner for $55/hour! That's
    a great argument for going digital!

    Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Feb 4, 2006
    #11
  12. In article <>, Father Kodak
    <> writes

    >However, I was wondering
    >if the strip scanner that comes with the scanner automatically
    >advances the film frame by frame for batch scanning.
    >

    Yes it does - up to a maximum of 6 frames per strip as delivered.

    However, with a minor tweak you can increase that to 40 frames per roll

    http://groups.google.com/group/comp.periphs.scanners/msg/60b0a25021e222c1

    (watch out for line wrap in this URL!)

    You might want to wait until the warranty is up before making that
    tweak. ;-)

    The single frame mounted slide adapter isn't so easily modified for bulk
    work - it is just a dumb holder without any motorised mechanism.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Feb 4, 2006
    #12
  13. Thank you very much for your answers.

    I'll go with a 35 mm scanner.
     
    Jonathan Sylvestre, Feb 5, 2006
    #13
  14. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Father Kodak Guest

    On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 17:21:19 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, Father Kodak
    ><> writes
    >
    >>However, I was wondering
    >>if the strip scanner that comes with the scanner automatically
    >>advances the film frame by frame for batch scanning.
    >>

    >Yes it does - up to a maximum of 6 frames per strip as delivered.
    >
    >However, with a minor tweak you can increase that to 40 frames per roll
    >
    >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.periphs.scanners/msg/60b0a25021e222c1
    >
    >(watch out for line wrap in this URL!)


    No wrap problems. A detail. The real question is:

    How in heck did you find out about this great hack? I think you just
    saved me about $450! Any other inspired ideas like this one?


    >You might want to wait until the warranty is up before making that
    >tweak. ;-)


    Yeah, once I'm past "infant mortality" of the electronics, I'll do the
    hack.
    >
    >The single frame mounted slide adapter isn't so easily modified for bulk
    >work - it is just a dumb holder without any motorised mechanism.


    Too bad.

    (a very pleased) Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Feb 5, 2006
    #14
  15. In article <>, Father Kodak
    <> writes
    >On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 17:21:19 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>, Father Kodak
    >><> writes
    >>
    >>>However, I was wondering
    >>>if the strip scanner that comes with the scanner automatically
    >>>advances the film frame by frame for batch scanning.
    >>>

    >>Yes it does - up to a maximum of 6 frames per strip as delivered.
    >>
    >>However, with a minor tweak you can increase that to 40 frames per roll
    >>
    >>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.periphs.scanners/msg/60b0a25021e222c1
    >>
    >>(watch out for line wrap in this URL!)

    >
    > No wrap problems. A detail. The real question is:
    >
    >How in heck did you find out about this great hack?


    Comparison of the two adapters after buying an SA-30 adapter myself and
    then tracing which connector pins the link went to with a meter.

    > I think you just
    >saved me about $450!


    Glad to have helped.

    >Any other inspired ideas like this one?
    >

    Yes - make sure you open the aperture at the back of the scanner and
    have a container to collect the film before feeding a roll into it! ;-)

    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Feb 5, 2006
    #15
  16. Jonathan Sylvestre

    Father Kodak Guest

    On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 16:56:58 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
    <> wrote:

    >
    >>
    >>How in heck did you find out about this great hack?

    >
    >Comparison of the two adapters after buying an SA-30 adapter myself and
    >then tracing which connector pins the link went to with a meter.
    >
    >> I think you just
    >>saved me about $450!

    >
    >Glad to have helped.
    >
    >>Any other inspired ideas like this one?
    >>

    >Yes - make sure you open the aperture at the back of the scanner and
    >have a container to collect the film before feeding a roll into it! ;-)


    No problem. For the $450 I just saved (in advance) I'm sure that I
    can think of _something_.

    Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Feb 5, 2006
    #16
  17. Jonathan Sylvestre

    crabsallover Guest

    Plustek OpticFilm 7200 /7200i (£130 - £250) was tested against Nikon
    Coolscan LS-5000 by Practical Photography Magazine (UK).

    http://www.datamind.co.uk/Merchant/pp_apr05_review_7200.pdf

    Preview time with the Plustek was quicker than the Nikon but the Nikon
    wins on normal scan speed. However the figure given in this article is
    for scans at 7200dpi by the Plustek and 4000dpi for the Nikon. At
    3600dpi the Plustek scans are as fast (48s) as the Nikon at 4000dpi.
    The SA-30 adaptor does improve workflow - but at £400 extra is it cost
    effective?

    more Plustek OpticFilm 7200/7200i UK magazine reviews:
    http://www.datamind.co.uk/Merchant/plustek_opticfilm_uk_press.htm

    Chris Street www.datamind.co.uk

    Kennedy McEwen wrote:
    > In article <F78Ef.6859$>, Jonathan
    > Sylvestre <> writes
    > >Hi,
    > >
    > >I have lots of 35mm films to scan. IM looking for a 35 mm scanner but I
    > >consider a flat scanner (or an all-in-one printer) that have a support for
    > >35mm films.
    > >

    > Personally, if you have a lot of 35nn images to scan, I would recommend
    > the Nikon LS-5000 with either or both of the SA-30 and SF-210 adapters,
    > depending on the form your film is stored in. If strips, you can save
    > on the adapters entirely as the basic scanner includes a strip adapter
    > and single frame slide adapter.
    >
    > If you don't mind running back to your PC every 10 minutes for the next
    > year that it takes to scan your thousands of frames, then you might also
    > look at the Plustek OpticFilm 7200, which is cheaper and, allegedly,
    > gets as good results as the Nikon. I can't confirm this first hand, but
    > it has had good reviews in the press.
    > --
    > Kennedy
    > Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    > A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    > Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    crabsallover, Feb 28, 2006
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Sam Carleton

    Best budget 35mm Scanner

    Sam Carleton, Sep 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    463
    Jason O'Rourke
    Sep 10, 2003
  2. Trevor Aiston

    35mm Slide/Neg Scanner UK?

    Trevor Aiston, Sep 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    612
    Ptarmigan
    Sep 21, 2003
  3. Chris
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    418
    Ed E.
    Oct 22, 2003
  4. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    604
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    981
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page