This thread is a bit off topic, and, you don't mention what level to which you aspire, but, among those trades at which I am "jack", scanning 35mm negs and slides has recently become one.

I've read with envy review of the dedicated 35mm scanners, those $4k and up boxes, but they are out of my justifiable reach for now (and, whenever I've allowed myself to fabricate the requisite justification in those sort of situations, I have usually been burned by falling prices and escalating technological capability that utlimately render the expenditure unjustifiable, anyhow).

I did, however, purchase an Epson 2400 photo scanner. This is a flatbed unit with a holder for 35mm slides and negatives. The aforementioned reviews made much of the expensive machine's capability to undust the film and the software bundle's ability to unscratch/undust further, so, I wasn't expecting much from the Epson package, but, it was priced right, and I was in the mood to experiment.

To my surprise, this scanner digitized some of the oldest, most abused film stock in my collecton - stuff that has been stored on the top shelf in my garage, exposed to countless seasons of hot/cold, boxes covered in dust from lawn mowers, spider webs, you name it.

A quick puff of air (from me), a quick scan, and I had reasonably good results. The unit is packaged with Adobe Photoshop Elements 1.0 - no competition for Photoshop, but, surprisingly capable in its ability to remove dust marks, scratches, noise, etc. Additionally, there are filters to correct color balance, etc.

The scanner ran around $250 with the software, and I'm currently printing my images with an Epson Stylus 880, hardly cutting edge, and not archival, but, quite impressive to the uninitiated, and a lot of fun for me.

I have now digitized many a "priceless" image, and, at some point in the future, I'll purchase one of the more sophisticated printers and make some truly impressive prints.

Bottom line for me is that you don't have to spend a fortune to enjoy this hobby right now. Further, images that you scan today, even on modest equipment as that described above, will be preserved better than if you wait until you can spend more for better (or future) technology.

I am pleased with my impulsive (and low-end) purchase, and do not hesitate to recommend it (or similar) to you.

Good luck and have fun.

Caruso

thanks for the info. i'm looking at prosumer models in the $1k range. not sure yet what all the specs mean in relation to what i need.

Check out Nikon. They have a line of excellent 35mm film/slide scanners. I use an LS-2000 with fantastic quality. Excellent resolution and scratch removal. That is older model, so go for the current models.

Points to ponder:

What do you want to do with the final output? If you want to print out a large image then you will need more resolution. The more resolution, the better and finer detail the image will be----even if you reduce it for use on the web.

A film scanner will still beat a digital camera in tonal quality and resolution dollar for dollar (although it may take you longer for the process). For instance the Nikon LS 4000 ($1600.) will produce a 4000 dpi image from a negative or slide. That's enough resolution for a crisp, crystal clear printable image up to 8x11 and possibly to 11x14 or higher----depending on results. The LS 2000 as previously mentioned is also a fine product.

. . . and, not to beat a dead horse, the lowly Epson 2400 I mentioned will scan at 4800 dpi for a lot less money. I heartily concede that the extra money you'll spend on the prosumer models is wise money . . . if you'll be using the output as suggested where the extra quality will net you some real benefit.

If you are new to this (as I am), and, if it is a hobby for you, you might want to get your feet wet at a lower price level first.

For me, spending $250 to do a little experimentation is well worth it, and, given my relatively modest printer, the output is fantastic. I'm now considering one of those Epson printers with 7 individual inkjet cartridges (again, the price, IMHO, is more than reasonable) with archival quality inks.

Dust (which I anticipated might be a major problem) is not really a problem for me at all (and I pulled slides from boxes that were buried under dust . . . seems the slide trays/containers adequately protected their contents). Scratches on my slides/negs are almost non-existent. So, for now, I'm quite pleased with my results.

As in most things "computer", I'm sure I'll eventually want to upgrade to prosumer equipment, but, for now, what I have in the way of hardware, along with Phtotshop Elements is a more than worthy addition to my computer stable.

My .02

Caruso

D-Max is one of the most important specs, I do alot of xray scanning and having a hi d-max (3.4-3.6) range is a go starting point. Every .3 d-max is 1 stop in density, so a film scanner that has a 3.6 d-max vs a film scanner that has a 3.3 is going to be able to see deeper into the denser areas of the film or negative,

The other spec it color depth 48bit is preferable to 24bit although you will not use it in video or for that matter for printing to an injet, it does give you greater control of your file image to sample hi before going to finale image for your project.

Dan

informative discussion here! i've had a hard time finding people who know anything about film/slide scanners. i think i've narrowed down my search to the nikon 4000ED and canon FS4000US. still not entirely sure which is better, but i'm leaning towards the canon for some reason.

http://www.pcphotoreview.com/Film,Scanner/PLS_3126crx.aspx

Here's a review site. Don't know if it'll help ya, but...

yes, that helps. but i still can't figure out why the nikon costs so much more than the canon.

Tuff to gauge what level of qaulity fits your needs if you don't have a good definition of qaulity -

The difference between a 35mm scan done via adapter on non-pro flatbed scanner and a pro-level film scanner is night and day.

example - you really don't even have to worry about dust and scratches when scanning with slide adapter on $200 flatbed (as mentioned above) is because the scan qaulity is so bad it doesn't even pick it up - meaning its also not picking up fine details in your slide either

Your $200-300 home use scanner my boast 2000/4000/9000 dpi but thats BS.
Hardware resolution for pretty much all home scanners is 300 dpi
The box my say "4800" but thats done via software

In my book, lowest level of qaulity i would accept for film scan is 2000dpi
These type of scanners should be sub $500 within the next few months

NIKON COOLSCAN 8000. you can scan 35mm mounted or unmounted. you can scan medium format film. i can send you samples if you like.

this scanner rules!!!! it's about $3k.

-craig

<<Your $200-300 home use scanner my boast 2000/4000/9000 dpi but thats BS.
Hardware resolution for pretty much all home scanners is 300 dpi
The box my say "4800" but thats done via software >>

I was wrong, TAD, but so are you. The Epson Perfection 2400 specifications are:

Optical resolution - 2400 DPI
Hardware resolution (please, somebody, tell me what that is) 2400 x 4800 DPI
Interpolated resolution (who cares, really)

And I do see scratches and dust in the scans if same is on the original film. The magazine articles (those touting the 4k dedicated film scanners) make a bigger deal out of dust and scratches than is really the case, and that's my point.

I'd love to see a comparision of the results obtained using a good quality (even if cheap) 2400 dpi scanner (like the one I have) and one of the high quality dedicated scanners.

Even a non-rocket scientist like me can understand that 6000 dpi will allow for more detail than 2400 dpi. But for most of us, the extra resolution will be wasted because we have no means of transfering that detail to the printed page.

I'm not knocking the more expensive stuff, heck, I'd like to own it. But, I can't justify the expense for a film only scanner to get quality that won't benefit me. I paid $1800 for my first flat bed scanner, ten years ago. Seemed great at the time, seems foolish now. I don't want to repeat that scenario as I switch from fillm to digital. I do think that my results, even using this cheap scanner, with top quality 35mm film gear compares favorably with what I might get using a top of the line digital SLR camera . . . the one's I'd be interested in are in the 2000 to 4000 range.

I'm going to wait to see where prices go (probably way down as they did in the case of my scanners).

My two cents . . . interesting thread.

Caruso

"Even a non-rocket scientist like me can understand that 6000 dpi will allow for more detail than 2400 dpi. But for most of us, the extra resolution will be wasted because we have no means of transfering that detail to the printed page."

i read something about there being a limit to the amount of quality you can get from a 35mm negative. that at some point a high dpi scanner can get more image detail than is available in the negative. might also have something do to with the film speed. i could be totally wrong though. can anyone confirm this? i would guess this has something to do with the idea of large format film - more detail.

"I do think that my results, even using this cheap scanner, with top quality 35mm film gear compares favorably with what I might get using a top of the line digital SLR camera"

i also read something about film scanner getting several times more pixels from a film negative than you can from digital camera.

my bottom line question persists - what is the difference between the canon 4000 dpi scanner and the nikon 4000 dpi scanner. why does the canon cost around $800 and the nikon around $1400? i only know that the nikon works faster and has a firewire connection.

my wife's into photography. Last year she bought an Epson 2450 scanner and an Epson 1280 photo printer. Killer combo. the 2450 (scanner) has a seperate light source in the lid, so negative and slide scans turn out great. It will take 35mm up to 4x5" large format negatives. My wife uses both 35, medium and large format negatives at 24 bit 1200 dpi. The files are huge (way past 50 meg). We scanned a medium format negative that she shot in Venice and opened it up in Photoshop and started zooming in and in and in. It was amazing how far we "went into" that photo. We were able to look inside windows in the buildings and see the furniture on the other side of the room! and that was a building 150' away. It reminded me of that scene in Blade Runner.

Any way the light source in the lid of the 2450 scanner is not the same as the dedicated negative scanners like the cannon or nikons. It is not as bright. So to compensate the negative scans take longer. This is a pro-sumer piece. We use the Silver Fast plugin for scaning. That is a pro piece or software. Very nice. Works inside Photoshop or stand alone twain.

Marry a 1200 dpi scan with the 1280 pinter with photo paper and you get output that is simply amazing. You would never know it was a scan/print.

jack

William:
Me thinks you make my point better than I. I'm guessing you paid less than $500 for your "prosumer" Epson scanner . . . and the primary difference between the 2450 and the 2400 is the added accommodation for scanning larger film formats. The optical specs are identical.

Under this roof, we are all musicians (and wine tasters). I always say you should not pay for more than you can hear (taste). Of course, if one has excess gelt, one is free to err on the safe (expensive) side. As a musician (wine taster), I don't fit into that category.

For fun, I have performed the following tests on "knowledgeable" acquaintances:

1) Using high end speakers, play the same source material through two different amp systems, one super-high end, the other of good, but garden variety. Let the discerning audiofile amongst you pick what sounds "best" to his/her ears. Generally, you will find inconsistency and often, a stubborn preference for the cheaper system.

2) Buy a really expensive bottle of wine and drink it (ah!!). Save the bottle and fill it with a respectable, decent tasting generic equivalent. Let the connoiseur amongst you taste of the counterfiet beverage. More likely than not, he/she will express great joy and satisfaction.

I'd venture to guess that, without the aid of special optical instruments to measure the difference, the human eye will not detect a difference in quality between prints derived from scans performed on a 2400 or 2450 and a 4k dedicated photo scanner.

If one is looking to enlarge dramatically, the quality differences might come into play (I'd love to see the results of tests on this point).

If you don't need that degree of enlargement, why pay for the extra quality? You'll never benefit from it.

Caruso

To continue the metaphores...I buy cars (used) that can do over 120 mph. I can count on one finger the only time I have even come close to that speed. However, I like knowing that I have the mechanical means to get up and go if I need to even if it's 0-60. In other words it's good to have horsepower to spare. It's better to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it.

I have a low end pro sound card in my computer that will do 24bit 96khz recording, even though I only use 16bit 44.1 khz. Having the extra resolution in photo scans has it's worth. It's amazing what detail "hides" in the data with digital images. Having that resolution allows you to get at it if you need to. To put it another way reality is at a much higher resolution than we are talking about. Accoustically and visually we are used to this resolution. We can tell the differance between something that is high resolution or not. The differance may not be that much at the higher ends but I do think it makes a diff. However you need to keep the resolutiion of your media in mind. There is no need to scan a photo at 1200 dpi if you are going to show it on a NTSC screen. But this makes sense if you were to print on a 1280 printer which has this resolution. When (if) HDTV really hits our expectation of resolution will change dramatically.

jack

<<I was wrong, TAD, but so are you.

oh caruso - u seem a little miffed there... my bad - just read what i posted & i see how it could be interpreted like i was "talking down" - not my intention at all!

read up on following posts & agree with you on your quality stance.
i for example, could careless between the fidelity of an mp3 audio file verses noncompressed format... i can't tell the difference, and doubt my customers would notice the difference - escpecially on their krappy speakers.

my point though - i first used an 35mm adapter on flatbed to scan slides and everything was cool with me... then. i saw the same slide scanned via pro model scanner - i for one, could clearly see the difference.
Its really distinct -

****craigunderhill - how about posting some samples from your nikkon scanner?

Tad:
I wasn't really miffed and enjoy a spirited discussion (and, as I said, only money (not having enough of it right now) keeps me from popping right out and buying the best money can buy, although I did learn my lesson from that original scanner purchase. My son's reports were absolute smashes with his teachers back then because we were probably the one of the first around to be able to scan pics and such to incorporate into his papers, and the time he and I spent together putting that dreck together was truly memorable . . . but, boy, did we spend time. 600 dpi full color files were no smaller then than they are now, and I had that baby hooked up to a 283/10mhz machine with 1MB RAM. The scanner came with a version of Picture Publisher that was owned by a company that started with an A (not Adobe or Aldus), and you could click on any touch up tool and take a coffee break before it would execute, such was the volume of swaping out to the scratch disk required to get anything done. Hit the wrong button and it would be quicker to trash the document and re-scan than wait for the undo operation to complete. We actually would print our stuff out on one of those dot-matrix machines with the four-color cloth ribbon, LOL.

Tad, you mentioned that you noticed a clear improvement in scans done the dedicated scanner. In what format did you view the scans you compared . . . were they printed or you viewed them on the computer, what?

Just curious.

Caruso