Film scanner for 2 1/4 inch by 2 1/4 inch

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by James E Koehler, Oct 14, 2003.

  1. I am new to film scanning and I am seeking advice on the purchase of a
    film scanner.

    I have hundreds of APS, 35mm, and 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 inch negatives that I
    would like to scan.

    I realize that the 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 inch requirement may be a problem.

    Any suggestions?

    Thanks for your help.

    Jim Koehler
    James E Koehler, Oct 14, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. James E Koehler

    ajacobs2 Guest

    Join the club. You have reached the same position (problem) many have

    What to do with old negatives.....

    PRESCAN: No equipment other than a light box or table. The hardest part
    First resign yourself to many hours of boring repetitive work. Which negs
    are worthy of saving? Sometimes a shredder is more valuable time wise than
    a scanner. Much of what I had saved over the years simply had no value
    anymore. Much of what I had I should of culled years ago was still around.
    Into the chopper. Lots of it should have been scanned a long time ago or
    thrown out a long time ago.

    APS and 35 are best scanned with a film scanner, while a bed scanner can
    work on these small negs it's a waste of time. Film scanner with either a
    roll attachment or slide attachment helps. We commercially use the Nikons
    with ICE, saves a ton of time. We also have a commercial SONY that does the
    rolls too.

    The 21/4 can be scanned nicely with the Epson 2450 or the next step up they
    make. Does an excellent job with the mid size negs.
    Or a Nikon 8000 series can do all sizes but it is expensive. Or pay someone
    who is equipped to do this.
    ajacobs2, Oct 14, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. James E Koehler

    gsum Guest

    What you need (and I know I'll get howls of derisison
    from anyone with a film scanner) is the astounding
    Epson 3200 flatbed (£260) from Dabs. There are
    many reviews on the web which rave about this
    scanner and they're right.

    A 6x4.5 cm slide produces a 7000x5300 pixel (approx)
    image at the highest optical resolution. The quality is
    limited the resolution of your lens or by the film
    grain depending on which is worse.

    The result is that images from 35mm film are almost
    as good as from the Nikon D100 and MF results
    are much better (I usually use ISO 100 Provia).
    The scanner includes masks for 35mm, roll film
    and 5x4 LF film. About 12 35mm frames can be scanned
    at one go.

    gsum, Oct 14, 2003
  4. Ask this in the comp.periphs.scanner newsgroup.
    How much do you wish to spend? How big do you want to make your prints?

    You can get the Epson 3200 for about $300 which will do fine for 120
    film, but is marginal for 35mm.
    You can get one of the 120 size film scanners from Minolta, Nikon, etc.
    for $1000-$2000 which will do much better.
    Robert D Feinman, Oct 14, 2003
  5. James E Koehler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: (James E Koehler)
    This is asked often on the scanner NG and the medium format NG.

    Basically, for a few hundred bucks you can get a flatbed like the Epson 3200
    that does a mediocre job on MF and a poor job on 35 mm.

    For $1,800 - $2,700 or thereabouts (haven't priced them lately) you can buy a
    dedicated MF scanner that does a fine job on MF and 35 mm but I'm not sure
    which ones support APS. The players in this field are the Nikon 8000 (which
    I've used with good results for 2+ years), the Minolta Multi Pro, and the
    Polaroid SS 120 (which is also sold as a Microtek model, Polaroid may have
    dropped it by now).

    People argue endlessly about the pros and cons of these models, especially the
    Minolta and Nikon ... you can see sample scans from each model with user
    comments at this site ...

    Best advice I can give is to try to have a slide or two scanned with each model
    and compare for yourself. I've been very happy with the Nikon but others
    prefer the Minolta (the only people who choose the Polaroid seem to do so for
    cost reasons).

    Finally, at the top end there's the Imacon Flextight models, which are more
    expensive and probably not what you want.

    Bill Hilton, Oct 14, 2003
  6. James E Koehler

    Charlie Self Guest

    Graham responds:
    Well, I've got the 3170 coming. It does 2-1/4 (at least, it has the mask) and
    35mm. Costs about half what the 3200 does ($399 vs. $199 USD, IIRC).

    The resolution is the same, some other things are not (the ads are deliberately
    unclear on this, I think). I just got notice it shipped, so with luck, it will
    arrive early next week. I've got some 35mm and a couple 2-1/4 on hand that need
    doing, so I'll try to report on it.
    Charlie Self

    "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
    for sure that just ain't so."
    Mark Twain
    Charlie Self, Oct 16, 2003
  7. James E Koehler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: "gsum"
    Considering it costs about 10-20% what a film scanner costs it's a fine
    bargain. But I once saw a test pattern scanned with a Tango drum scanner, the
    Nikon 8000, the Polaroid SS 120 and the Epson 3200 flatbed and you can really
    see the difference in resolution and contrast.
    Bill Hilton, Oct 16, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.