Slide/negative scanner recommendations wanted

[usenet]

I know this is a very frequently asked question but I'd appreciate
some advice. I have done quite a bit of Google'ing and have read
quite a few reviews so I have some ideas but there are some areas
which the reviews don't seem to address.

I have thousands of negatives and slides, I'm not aiming to scan them
all as that would be a life work (it's taken me fify years or so to
take them all, I suspect it would take more time than I have left to
scan them all!).

However I would like to be able to scan some of them and ease/speed of
scanning is important, I want to be able to get acceptable scans for
screen (as opposed to prints) without having to work individually on
each slide. I might occasionally want to get a really good scan of
one slide in which case I'm happy to spend more time on it. I also
have some quite badly faded (and otherwise faulty) slides which could
benefit from some serious 'repair' work.

So, I'm considering flat bed scanners like the Canon 9950F and the
Epson 4990 and, maybe, dedicated film scanners like the Minolta Dimage
IV.

Now to the specific questions:-

Are the HP 4850 and 4890 scanners really as bad as the reviews
seem to suggest? On paper they sound as good as the Epson and
Canon but they get almost uiversally bad reviews. The one good
thing reported about the 4890 is that it is good at scanning
batches of slides - quite a plus for me - is the rest of it so bad
that I shouldn't consider it?

Will I notice a *big* difference between the top Canon and Epson
models and the next one down? The Epson 4490 and the Canon 8400F
are *much* cheaper than the 4990 and the 9950F, will I gain a lot
by going for the more expensive model?

Is a dedicated film scanner going to be easier for my requirement,
that of 'easy' scanning of most slides? I know that a scanner
like the Minolta Dimage or even a Nikon Coolscan will give rather
better scans but I doubt if I want the ultimate in quality, I'm
more after ease of getting most scans right without too much
manual intervention.

I think my 'ease of use' requirement means that some sort of
automatic dust removal will be necessary, is Digitial ICE really a
lot better than most of the others? If so that probably rules out
the Minolta Dimage IV. How does Canon's FARE compare? How do
others (HP, etc.) compare?

Should I consider any other models? I've rejected the Plustek
scanners because it would seem they are not very convenient or
quick for large numbers of slides and I've rejected Microtek
because I found their support rather unhelpful when I had one of
their scanners, but the i700 or i800 might be a possibility.

My budget is quite flexible, I could afford even a Nikon Coolscan if I
felt it would fulfil my requirements but on the other hand if an HP
4890 is really what I want ('good enough' quality and better ease of
scanning lots of slides) then I might as well get one of those.

I have an Epson Perfection 1650 Photo at the moment, that is just
rather clumsy for slide scanning (though I suspect it would get
better if I started using it in earnest). What I'm looking for is
something that will be significantly quicker to use and will give as
good or better results.

Sorry for the long post, any/all comments will be appreciated.

 

[rafe b]

I know this is a very frequently asked question but I'd appreciate
some advice. I have done quite a bit of Google'ing and have read
quite a few reviews so I have some ideas but there are some areas
which the reviews don't seem to address.

I have thousands of negatives and slides, I'm not aiming to scan them
all as that would be a life work (it's taken me fify years or so to
take them all, I suspect it would take more time than I have left to
scan them all!).

You ask lots of questions. Old questions.

So let me answer just one or two.

1. Digital ICE. See

<http://www.asf.com/products/ICE3/Example.shtml>

ICE uses hardware AND software. It must be
done at "scan-time" -- it can't be done after
the fact. It's amazing technology, and it's
especially useful for old, beat up film. It
does NOT work on silver-based emulsions,
however. Old versions of ICE had issues with
Kodachromes. Supposedly newer versions of ICE
do better.

2. Dedicated film scanner vs. flatbed-film scanner

There's no comparison, really. The dedicated
scanners have it all over the flatbeds. That's
not just an opinion. It's borne out by thousands
of independent users and observations. Do some
googling. You'll find many sites showing comparisons.

3. Batch scanning

The only realistic choice here is the Nikon
LS-5000 with the SF-210 (?) batch feeder.

You will never get as good quality with
unatttended, "automatic" settings as you
would with careful attention to each slide.

However, you may get "good enough."

4. Film scanning is a pain. In my opinion,
if you're going to bother with it at all,
use the best gear you can afford.



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Surfer!]

You ask lots of questions. Old questions.

3. Batch scanning

The only realistic choice here is the Nikon
LS-5000 with the SF-210 (?) batch feeder.

The SF-200 works on the LS-5000 as well, and whilst I wouldn't buy an
LS-5000 on ebay, I did buy the SF-200 there and saved about $300.

4. Film scanning is a pain. In my opinion,
if you're going to bother with it at all,
use the best gear you can afford.

Make sure you have plenty of hard disk to spare - you might want to
investigate the external USB2.0 drives which don't cost much more than
an internal drive. A 35mm frame scanned at 4,000dpi and saved as a TIF
comes out at 64 or 128MB, depending on the colour depth!

I save all scans as a TIF, as in creating a JPG some details is already
being lost, and you can also get strange artefacts if you resize an
image. When I started on my scanning project I upped the PC memory to
1GB. BTW the processing it does for Digital ICE sends the CPU
temperature up quite noticeably.

Also make sure you have some kind of system for storing and naming the
images, so you can always get back to the original source if you want to
rescan. Don't see digitising as an excuse to get rid of the original
source - keep it, and cherish it.

My own is that I create a folder with the name 'yyy-mm-SetXX' where XX
is the slide set number - 01 onwards. I know that runs out at 99 (or I
could go to A0, A1,..., AZ through to ZZ!) but I think it will suffice
for me. I'll do the same when I do films. Then, I set up the software
so the prefix for the name it generates (with the slide feeder) is 'SXX'
so I know exactly where to find the original for any image. When I
start on my films I'll be using 'FilmXX' and 'FXX'.

 

[usenet]

Thanks for the responses so far. Yes, I realise that a dedicated
Nikon scanner will give better results than a flatbed. However the
question I am asking is really whether I need this better quality
and/or do I have the time to even use it?

I don't want to be able to produce A3 size (or even 10x8) prints from
my slides and negatives. I want to be able to produce acceptable
scans to put on a CD album for a TV or a computer display. I want
the best tool for doing this reasonably efficiently.

That's why I asked if the HP 4890 would produce acceptable quality for
this as it would appear that it's good and quick at scanning multiple
slides. Also will the Epsons be much superior because they have
Digital ICE or is the HP's dust removal software acceptable?

On the other hand if a Nikon with an autofeed is really quick as well
as good maybe it's the way I should go. Has anyone actually compared
the time it takes scanning a whole film using various scanners? I
could find little help on this front looking at all the reviews I
found.

 

[tom]

You asked about the Epson 4490 vs 4490. I think it was Rafe (apologies
if it wasn't) that said it looked like they were pretty much the same
scanner. Everyone seems to like the 4990. I looked at specs, seemed to
be pretty the same to me and I went for the 4490 recently. I'm tickled.

I did intrigue me as to what the other differences for the money were so
looked a bit and you can scan more slides in a batch with the 4990 (8
compared to 4 on the 4490).

I have an old HP photo scanner and the Epson seems to ME to give better
scans than the HP. Fair comparison? Not really, several years difference
in manufacture but it's still going to allow me to get better scans.

I think the main thing to concentrate on is "for screen" in your
requirements. Probably be scanning for 640x480 or a little better so I'm
not sure that the extra money for film scanner would be evident in your
"slide shows".

But if you decide, hey, I really LIKE my old pics...then you'd be buying
better equipment if you opted for "get by" at the start. Only YOU can be
the judge of that. And that's ok 'cause you're footing the bill! <g>

As for "auto process", I'm happy with the results I've been getting from
VueScan (I *know* Don won't agree). Seems to put the pictures out more
what I think they should look like and it supports batch scanning.

I suppose a disclaimer is in order - I'm rather new here so don't take
my "gospel" as knowledgable as some of the others, just trying to
volunteer another data point for you.

Tom

 

[usenet]

You asked about the Epson 4490 vs 4490. I think it was Rafe (apologies
if it wasn't) that said it looked like they were pretty much the same
scanner. Everyone seems to like the 4990. I looked at specs, seemed to
be pretty the same to me and I went for the 4490 recently. I'm tickled.

I did intrigue me as to what the other differences for the money were so
looked a bit and you can scan more slides in a batch with the 4990 (8
compared to 4 on the 4490).

What seems strange to me is the *big* price difference if it's purely
down to the number of slides/negs you can scan at one time. The 4990
is almost twice the price of the 4490. The claimed optical density
range is a bit better for the 4990 but that's a bit of a 'thumb in the
air' figure anyway. The difference between the Canon 8400F and 9950F
is similar, except that the price difference is even more.

I have an old HP photo scanner and the Epson seems to ME to give better
scans than the HP. Fair comparison? Not really, several years difference
in manufacture but it's still going to allow me to get better scans.

I think the main thing to concentrate on is "for screen" in your
requirements. Probably be scanning for 640x480 or a little better so I'm
not sure that the extra money for film scanner would be evident in your
"slide shows".

But if you decide, hey, I really LIKE my old pics...then you'd be buying
better equipment if you opted for "get by" at the start. Only YOU can be
the judge of that. And that's ok 'cause you're footing the bill! <g>

That's part of the reason I'm asking about the Canon 8400F and the
Epson 4490 versus the more expensive 9950F and 4900. The former two
are much cheaper and I might be better off in many ways getting one of
them and then 'upgrading' to a dedicated film scanner than buying one
of the more expensive pair. Similarly maybe I'd be better off with an
HP 4890 which is around the same price and seems to be even better for
multiple slide scanning.

As for "auto process", I'm happy with the results I've been getting from
VueScan (I *know* Don won't agree). Seems to put the pictures out more
what I think they should look like and it supports batch scanning.

I suppose a disclaimer is in order - I'm rather new here so don't take
my "gospel" as knowledgable as some of the others, just trying to
volunteer another data point for you.

Tom

Thanks for the response, it all helps me decide on what I want.

 

[rafe b]

What seems strange to me is the *big* price difference if it's purely
down to the number of slides/negs you can scan at one time. The 4990
is almost twice the price of the 4490. The claimed optical density
range is a bit better for the 4990 but that's a bit of a 'thumb in the
air' figure anyway. The difference between the Canon 8400F and 9950F
is similar, except that the price difference is even more.

The difference is the size of the transparencies
you can scan.

The 3490 does 35mm only.
The 4490 can scan 35mm and MF.
The 4990 can scan any film format up to 8x10".

The 4990 has a very interesting and (to me)
unique illumination scheme for films: there is
a flourescent tube (CCFL) in the "lid" that remains
in sync with the scan head and travels with it
during the scan -- on the opposite side of
the film, of course.

The less-expensive Epson flatbed/film scanners
use a more conventional arrangement of diffused
glass or plexi for illumination -- but no moving
parts. The cheaper (more conventional) scheme
covers a more limited area.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[usenet]

The difference is the size of the transparencies
you can scan.

The 3490 does 35mm only.
The 4490 can scan 35mm and MF.
The 4990 can scan any film format up to 8x10".

The 4990 has a very interesting and (to me)
unique illumination scheme for films: there is
a flourescent tube (CCFL) in the "lid" that remains
in sync with the scan head and travels with it
during the scan -- on the opposite side of
the film, of course.

The less-expensive Epson flatbed/film scanners
use a more conventional arrangement of diffused
glass or plexi for illumination -- but no moving
parts. The cheaper (more conventional) scheme
covers a more limited area.

So it is basically the larger transparency/film scanning area that
costs more on the two more expensive ones (putting aside the special
illumination on the 4990). That might persuade me to go for one of
the cheaper ones then, the 8400F in particular can be bought for not
much more than £100.

 

[Scott in Florida]

That's part of the reason I'm asking about the Canon 8400F and the
Epson 4490 versus the more expensive 9950F and 4900. The former two
are much cheaper and I might be better off in many ways getting one of
them and then 'upgrading' to a dedicated film scanner than buying one
of the more expensive pair. Similarly maybe I'd be better off with an
HP 4890 which is around the same price and seems to be even better for
multiple slide scanning.

I'm going through the same decision process.

It seems to me that the Canon 8400F would do most of what I want to do
(scan a lifetime of slides, negatives etc). If it gave a decent 4 x 6
then that might be my choice.

If I find a negative or slide that I really want a great scan of....I
can take it to a local photo shop and get a high resolution scan.

Still thinking.... <g>

 

[rafe b]

So it is basically the larger transparency/film scanning area that
costs more on the two more expensive ones (putting aside the special
illumination on the 4990).

That is the case for the various Epson film/flatbed
scanners I cited.

You'll have to check for yourself on any other brands
and models.

Just be aware that there is a large variation between
brands and models in terms of the area available for
transparency scanning.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Surfer!]

I'm going through the same decision process.

It seems to me that the Canon 8400F would do most of what I want to do
(scan a lifetime of slides, negatives etc). If it gave a decent 4 x 6
then that might be my choice.

If I find a negative or slide that I really want a great scan of....I
can take it to a local photo shop and get a high resolution scan.

Still thinking.... <g>

When I thought about scanning 25 years of sometimes sporadic slides and
films, being able to (usually) load a batch of slides and let the
machine get on with it was to tempting to resist. It's true I don't
have as many as some people do by a long chalk, but there were nearly 50
boxes and scanning them a few at a time is not a nice through. Also, it
did a super job with the Fuji I've just had back - the slides are so
clean I'm going to rescan one of the best without digital ICE for
comparison... Since my only way of viewing slides is to hold them up to
the light it's much easier for me to view a scan on the screen to decide
if it's worthwhile.

 

[theo]

I want to be able to get acceptable scans for screen (as opposed to

prints) without having to work individually on each slide. I might
occasionally want to get a really good scan of one slide in which case
I'm happy to spend more time on it. I also have some quite badly faded
(and otherwise faulty) slides which could benefit from some serious
'repair' work.

If all your film is of one format (i.e. 135 aka 35mm), for your end
product consider using a service as contrasting to the tedious time hog of
feeding the machine. Every choice taken has a regret of missed
opportunities; sitting nights in front of my monitor means losing chances
to connect with family and community. My justification is I'm scanning
mixed media from tintypes developed in the 'naughts, thru 127, 126, 120,
even 110 held in place by 16mm gates on the MF adapter.
Choosing which films to scan, working color and exposure adjustments,
editing for keywords, adding text, and cataloging images; all these
require applications of judgment and brain power, which feeding the
machine does not. If you have better things to do with your time, brain
and body, consider devoting to those things while some service is doing
the tedious task.
As rafe suggests elsewhere, if you elect to feed the machine, get the best
specs you can afford. And despite your stated settling for generally
screen-ready digital images, buy a dedicated film scanner which offers as
MINIMUM of D-ICE, 12 bit/color internal AND external. This opens to some
scanners available on eBay from folks whose legacy film is now digitized
and cataloged.
Regards,
Theo

 

[usenet]

That is the case for the various Epson film/flatbed
scanners I cited.

You'll have to check for yourself on any other brands
and models.

Just be aware that there is a large variation between
brands and models in terms of the area available for
transparency scanning.

I'm pretty well narrowed down to Canon or Epson anyway, with a faint
possibility of using HP. The difference between the Canon 8400F and
the 9950F would appear to pretty well parallel the difference between
the two Epsons.

I still wonder about the HP 4890 though, it gets good reviews for the
speed at which it can do 'OK' slide scans and that *might* be just
what I want. Many of my slides (the majority probably) were shot on
Agfachrome in the 1980s and home processed so their quality may simply
not be good enough to require a top notch scanner.

 

[usenet]

When I thought about scanning 25 years of sometimes sporadic slides and
films, being able to (usually) load a batch of slides and let the
machine get on with it was to tempting to resist. It's true I don't
have as many as some people do by a long chalk, but there were nearly 50
boxes and scanning them a few at a time is not a nice through. Also, it
did a super job with the Fuji I've just had back - the slides are so
clean I'm going to rescan one of the best without digital ICE for
comparison... Since my only way of viewing slides is to hold them up to
the light it's much easier for me to view a scan on the screen to decide
if it's worthwhile.

So there are quite a lot of people out there with similar requirements
to me, we don't need the ultimate in scan quality we want the ability
to scan most slides adequately without too much user interaction.

It's a pity that most reviews don't seem to address this sort of
requirement.

I have just realised that I do have one other requirement which
probably precludes dedicated film scanners, I have lots of B&W 120
film that I would like to scan so (within a reasonable budget) a
flatbed is going to be the way to go. I now need to go and recheck
which of the scanners I'm looking at can handle 16 on 120 size
negatives easily.

 

[usenet]

If all your film is of one format (i.e. 135 aka 35mm), for your end
product consider using a service as contrasting to the tedious time hog of
feeding the machine. Every choice taken has a regret of missed
opportunities; sitting nights in front of my monitor means losing chances
to connect with family and community. My justification is I'm scanning
mixed media from tintypes developed in the 'naughts, thru 127, 126, 120,
even 110 held in place by 16mm gates on the MF adapter.

No, as I just said in my last posting, I have other formats too.
Quite a lot of 16 on 120 plus a few bits and pieces in 110 and, if I
still have them, some 116 which is a very old format somewhat bigger
than 8 on 120.

Choosing which films to scan, working color and exposure adjustments,
editing for keywords, adding text, and cataloging images; all these
require applications of judgment and brain power, which feeding the
machine does not. If you have better things to do with your time, brain
and body, consider devoting to those things while some service is doing
the tedious task.

Yes, quite, which is why I'm looking for something that streamlines
the process as much as possible while maybe not giving the ultimate in
quality.

As rafe suggests elsewhere, if you elect to feed the machine, get the best
specs you can afford. And despite your stated settling for generally
screen-ready digital images, buy a dedicated film scanner which offers as
MINIMUM of D-ICE, 12 bit/color internal AND external. This opens to some
scanners available on eBay from folks whose legacy film is now digitized
and cataloged.

Yes, I've decided I definitely want Digital ICE (or equivalent, e.g.
FARE) but some of the latest flatbeds seem to have the above specs or
better. So, OK, they may not live up to their specs but most reviews
have suggested that they are as good as older dedicated film scanners.
Thus only a reasonably modern, current generation, film scanner is
going to be significantly better than a Canon 9950F or an Epson 4900
(and how about the Epson V700, it's not totally out of my price
range).

 

[Surfer!]

Surfer! <[email protected]> wrote:
So there are quite a lot of people out there with similar requirements
to me, we don't need the ultimate in scan quality we want the ability
to scan most slides adequately without too much user interaction.

There are times when I *do* want to be able to make a good scan, and the
only film scanner I could find with a batch loader for slides was a
high-end one.

 

[CSM1]

There are times when I *do* want to be able to make a good scan, and the
only film scanner I could find with a batch loader for slides was a
high-end one.

The Nikon COOLSCAN 9000 ED film scanner can scan 120 size film. About $1800.

For 120 size film the current flatbed scanners are a lot lower in price. But
nothing beats a good film scanner for scanning 35 mm film.

 

[Mike Morley]

I know this is a very frequently asked question but I'd appreciate
some advice. I have done quite a bit of Google'ing and have read
quite a few reviews so I have some ideas but there are some areas
which the reviews don't seem to address.

I have thousands of negatives and slides, I'm not aiming to scan them
all as that would be a life work (it's taken me fify years or so to
take them all, I suspect it would take more time than I have left to
scan them all!).

snipped

Sorry to be a bit late on response to a set of questions that have provoked
much discussion.

I have recently been through some of the same process and finished up buying
an Epson 4490. I had been using an Epson 2400 for some while to scan a
collection of slides and was becoming dissatisfied with the results whilst
showing them on digital projector.I'll summarise some of the actions that I
took to arrive at my decision:-

Jessops were helpful in setting up a "try-out" on a 4490. Took a batch of
slides to the shop and at a quiet time was able to scan these and compare
with:-
My then current E2400 photo
A somewhat elderly Nikon Coolscan
One scan from an HP 4890 at Jessops (this was so bad that the assistant
suspected that it was faulty but I saw it come new from the box)

These convinced me that I would get a useful improvement from about £200
spent on the 4490.

I have since seen scans from an Epson 4870 (around £350 when it was a
current model) and these seem a little better than the 4490. Like you I did
not wish to go for a dedicated slide scanner unless this was linked to a
slide feeder but this was outside the money I was willing to spend. Besides
which my desk is running out of room for more devices.

Scan speed is not too bad at 1600dpi (which seems to be enough for use on an
XGA projector) The twain software is much more useable than that on the
2400. Ultimately only you can be the judge of what is good enough for your
use. The problem is in obtaining comparative sample from candidate devices.

Hope this may help

Mike

 

[usenet]

I have recently been through some of the same process and finished up buying
an Epson 4490. I had been using an Epson 2400 for some while to scan a
collection of slides and was becoming dissatisfied with the results whilst
showing them on digital projector.I'll summarise some of the actions that I
took to arrive at my decision:-

Jessops were helpful in setting up a "try-out" on a 4490. Took a batch of
slides to the shop and at a quiet time was able to scan these and compare
with:-
My then current E2400 photo
A somewhat elderly Nikon Coolscan
One scan from an HP 4890 at Jessops (this was so bad that the assistant
suspected that it was faulty but I saw it come new from the box)

These convinced me that I would get a useful improvement from about ?200
spent on the 4490.

I have since seen scans from an Epson 4870 (around ?350 when it was a
current model) and these seem a little better than the 4490. Like you I did
not wish to go for a dedicated slide scanner unless this was linked to a
slide feeder but this was outside the money I was willing to spend. Besides
which my desk is running out of room for more devices.

Scan speed is not too bad at 1600dpi (which seems to be enough for use on an
XGA projector) The twain software is much more useable than that on the
2400. Ultimately only you can be the judge of what is good enough for your
use. The problem is in obtaining comparative sample from candidate devices.

Thanks for the feedback, I'm actually homing in on the Epson 4990, the
new Epson V700 and the Canon 9950F at the moment. I think my real
issue now is whether the Epson V700 is worth £100 more (to me!) than
the Canon 9950F.