Advice respectfully requested

  • Thread starter Thread starter John V
  • Start date Start date
J

John V

I'm hoping that I can get some good advice. I'm not a professsional like
many of the people who contribute to this group, so please bear with my
ignorance. The more reviews and comparisons I read about scanners, the
farther I get from being able to determine what I should buy.

I have thousands of 35 mm negatives that I've taken over the years
during my travels in the arctic. Many of these land and seascapes are
worth preserving and reproducing with some quality.

Should I consider buying a decent film scanner for quality and ease of
managing 35mm film, and a cheaper flatbed for routine use? If not, what
single flatbed unit will do what I need, and if so, what combination of
scanners would be a good choice.

I want to have flatbed scanning capability for documents, but high
quality is not particularly important. It seems to me that the typical
35mm scanner attachment devices are cumbersome and inconvenient to use.

Is this too broad a question? Responses would be much appreciated. I'm
kinda lost.
 
What is your budget ?

What does "reproducing with some quality" mean ?

Do you intend to display on CRT only ? large enlargements for print ?
archive for posterity ?

A good film scanner can give you a better image, but it really depends
on what you want and how much you are willing to pay. A drum scanner
will give you the best reproduction of what is on the film once you
learn how to use it, but that may be more than what you really need or
want to spend.

Frank
 
Kind of a broad question, but I can conclude that a drum scanner is overkill
for your uses.

Without question, get a filmscanner for the negatives, whatever your present
intended use - for print for for web. The quality will be incomperable when
compared to a flatbed (excepting the exceptionally high-end [and
exceptionally high-priced] flatbeds).

Nikon and Minolta are generally those recommended, and be sure to get one
that has Digital Ice (TM), which scans and uses a fourth, infra-red channel
for purposes of film dust and scratch removal at the scanning stage, and
which Vuescan also uses to remove dust and scratches on the film.

Get a decent flatbed for routine use - 600-1200 ppi resolution is plenty for
that.

I have an older Epson Perfection 1200 flatbed for routine use - very
satisfied.

I recommend minimum 4000 ppi for the filmscanner, with the IR channel for
Digital Ice (TM). I still have a Nikon LS-30 (2700 ppi), but have recently
upgraded to the 5400 ppi Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400, both having an IR
channel and both purchased through eBay - I'm very satisfied with both.

If your 35 mm film is in roll form, buy a filmscanner that supports
roll-film. If the film is cut, the inconvenience of the film holders is
more than offset by the quality of the scanned images.

Maris
 
Thanks Maris Yes, a drum scanner would be more than I could spend. My
budget may limit me to the LS-30, but that will leave me anough for a
decent flatbed as well. I was leaning towards that. Thanks for the IR
channel advice re Digital Ice. And thanks Frank. I do want to print
occasionally, but no need for larger than 8x10. Mostly archive for
posterity and potential future printing. I'll start shopping tonight.
Thanks for everyone's time.



Kind of a broad question, but I can conclude that a drum scanner is overkill
for your uses.

Without question, get a filmscanner for the negatives, whatever your present
intended use - for print for for web. The quality will be incomperable when
compared to a flatbed (excepting the exceptionally high-end [and
exceptionally high-priced] flatbeds).

Nikon and Minolta are generally those recommended, and be sure to get one
that has Digital Ice (TM), which scans and uses a fourth, infra-red channel
for purposes of film dust and scratch removal at the scanning stage, and
which Vuescan also uses to remove dust and scratches on the film.

Get a decent flatbed for routine use - 600-1200 ppi resolution is plenty for
that.

I have an older Epson Perfection 1200 flatbed for routine use - very
satisfied.

I recommend minimum 4000 ppi for the filmscanner, with the IR channel for
Digital Ice (TM). I still have a Nikon LS-30 (2700 ppi), but have recently
upgraded to the 5400 ppi Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400, both having an IR
channel and both purchased through eBay - I'm very satisfied with both.

If your 35 mm film is in roll form, buy a filmscanner that supports
roll-film. If the film is cut, the inconvenience of the film holders is
more than offset by the quality of the scanned images.

Maris

John said:
I'm hoping that I can get some good advice. I'm not a professsional
like many of the people who contribute to this group, so please bear
with my ignorance. The more reviews and comparisons I read about
scanners, the farther I get from being able to determine what I
should buy.

I have thousands of 35 mm negatives that I've taken over the years
during my travels in the arctic. Many of these land and seascapes are
worth preserving and reproducing with some quality.

Should I consider buying a decent film scanner for quality and ease of
managing 35mm film, and a cheaper flatbed for routine use? If not,
what single flatbed unit will do what I need, and if so, what
combination of scanners would be a good choice.

I want to have flatbed scanning capability for documents, but high
quality is not particularly important. It seems to me that the typical
35mm scanner attachment devices are cumbersome and inconvenient to
use.

Is this too broad a question? Responses would be much appreciated. I'm
kinda lost.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
snip
Should I consider buying a decent film scanner for quality and ease of
managing 35mm film, and a cheaper flatbed for routine use?
Click to expand...

snip

Good strategy, worked for me. Expecting a flatbed to do double-duty is
bad strategy, imho.
 
i would suggest getting a used Nikon CS-4000 and waiting for the flatbed
with a good rebate. See the threads by Don on his LS-30 and his lack of
satisfaction. CS4000 or V : Much better ability to see in the denser
part of the film (neg: highlights, slides: dark). Multisampling (as
opposed to multiscanning - prone to registration error) to reduce random
noise ( color speckles) More bits to work with for edits (less chance of
posterization that you would notice )

Frank

John said:
Thanks Maris Yes, a drum scanner would be more than I could spend. My
budget may limit me to the LS-30, but that will leave me anough for a
decent flatbed as well. I was leaning towards that. Thanks for the IR
channel advice re Digital Ice. And thanks Frank. I do want to print
occasionally, but no need for larger than 8x10. Mostly archive for
posterity and potential future printing. I'll start shopping tonight.
Thanks for everyone's time.



Kind of a broad question, but I can conclude that a drum scanner is
overkill
for your uses.

Without question, get a filmscanner for the negatives, whatever your
present
intended use - for print for for web. The quality will be
incomperable when
compared to a flatbed (excepting the exceptionally high-end [and
exceptionally high-priced] flatbeds).

Nikon and Minolta are generally those recommended, and be sure to get one
that has Digital Ice (TM), which scans and uses a fourth, infra-red
channel
for purposes of film dust and scratch removal at the scanning stage, and
which Vuescan also uses to remove dust and scratches on the film.

Get a decent flatbed for routine use - 600-1200 ppi resolution is
plenty for
that.

I have an older Epson Perfection 1200 flatbed for routine use - very
satisfied.

I recommend minimum 4000 ppi for the filmscanner, with the IR channel for
Digital Ice (TM). I still have a Nikon LS-30 (2700 ppi), but have
recently
upgraded to the 5400 ppi Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400, both having
an IR
channel and both purchased through eBay - I'm very satisfied with both.

If your 35 mm film is in roll form, buy a filmscanner that supports
roll-film. If the film is cut, the inconvenience of the film holders is
more than offset by the quality of the scanned images.

Maris

John said:
I'm hoping that I can get some good advice. I'm not a professsional
like many of the people who contribute to this group, so please bear
with my ignorance. The more reviews and comparisons I read about
scanners, the farther I get from being able to determine what I
should buy.

I have thousands of 35 mm negatives that I've taken over the years
during my travels in the arctic. Many of these land and seascapes are
worth preserving and reproducing with some quality.

Should I consider buying a decent film scanner for quality and ease of
managing 35mm film, and a cheaper flatbed for routine use? If not,
what single flatbed unit will do what I need, and if so, what
combination of scanners would be a good choice.

I want to have flatbed scanning capability for documents, but high
quality is not particularly important. It seems to me that the typical
35mm scanner attachment devices are cumbersome and inconvenient to
use.

Is this too broad a question? Responses would be much appreciated. I'm
kinda lost.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
What is the intended use your your scanned images: print, web, personal
use, etc. If print, to what size do you want them printed and will these
be for sale ?

Any idea or your budget ?
 
Back
Top