Professional Web Applications Themes

Film Scanner: Epson/Canon/Microtek - Photography

Hi all, Looking at the Canon CS9900F Epson 3200 Microtek 6800 Film scanning mainly, has anybody had any experience with these scanners. Tell me what you think? What sort of work do you usually scan? What res? Sweet spots on the scanners? Will be scanning in negatives sized at 35mm, 6x6,6x7 and 6x9. Cheers jag2x...

  1. #1

    Default Film Scanner: Epson/Canon/Microtek

    Hi all,

    Looking at the
    Canon CS9900F
    Epson 3200
    Microtek 6800
    Film scanning mainly, has anybody had any experience with these
    scanners. Tell me what you think? What sort of work do you usually scan?
    What res? Sweet spots on the scanners?

    Will be scanning in negatives sized at 35mm, 6x6,6x7 and 6x9.
    Cheers
    jag2x

    LG Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Film Scanner: Epson/Canon/Microtek

    I originally bought a Canon 9900f and set about scanning 6x9 negs at 100 MB
    file size. Wrong thing to do! Nothing wrong with the quality but it took 20
    minutes per frame to scan.
    Sold that.
    Bought an Epson Perfection 3200. This works faster but has a problem common
    to all film scanners... Poor or no dust elimination. I still have this
    scanner. The silverfast interface is way better than the Canon one and I get
    closer colour matching. Scanning prints is way better than with the Canon
    too.

    I went then and bought a Microtech dedicated film scanner and this is the
    beast I should have bought up front. The Digital Ice dust and scratch
    handling alone is enough to justify buying any scanner with it, regardless
    of the brand.

    Unfortunately DI has to be built into the scanner so IMHO... Don't even
    think about a scanner you intend to scan film with that hasn't got Digital
    Ice. Don't worry about sweet spots. Worry about film grain (noise) and dust.
    I bought GEM from the digital Ice people to clear up 'noise' which I'd say
    was film grain. Now I can scan my 6x9 negs and get them printed at wall
    print size... But it's been an expensive path to get this far!

    RNJF
    -----------------------------
    "LG" <gonsajiinet.net.au> wrote in message
    news:3F2C202D.27363454iinet.net.au...
    > Hi all,
    >
    > Looking at the
    > Canon CS9900F
    > Epson 3200
    > Microtek 6800
    > Film scanning mainly, has anybody had any experience with these
    > scanners. Tell me what you think? What sort of work do you usually scan?
    > What res? Sweet spots on the scanners?
    >
    > Will be scanning in negatives sized at 35mm, 6x6,6x7 and 6x9.
    > Cheers
    > jag2x
    >

    Russian? nah... Just fast! Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Film Scanner: Epson/Canon/Microtek

    I have the Epson 3200. Fast scanner, solid film holders, good
    assortment of photo scanning software.
    I bought the $265 version from Amazon. I'll give credit to the
    software (Epson and Silverfast) that came with it but I'll stick with
    Vuescan. A friend and I put all software through a bunch of tests and
    it was clear as day the Vuescan gave the best output. On the other
    hand both the Espon and Silverfast software was easier to use.

    Good luck

    "Russian? nah... Just fast!" <justthe.groups> wrote in message news:<SdWWa.7009$bo1.6205news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
    > I originally bought a Canon 9900f and set about scanning 6x9 negs at 100 MB
    > file size. Wrong thing to do! Nothing wrong with the quality but it took 20
    > minutes per frame to scan.
    > Sold that.
    > Bought an Epson Perfection 3200. This works faster but has a problem common
    > to all film scanners... Poor or no dust elimination. I still have this
    > scanner. The silverfast interface is way better than the Canon one and I get
    > closer colour matching. Scanning prints is way better than with the Canon
    > too.
    >
    > I went then and bought a Microtech dedicated film scanner and this is the
    > beast I should have bought up front. The Digital Ice dust and scratch
    > handling alone is enough to justify buying any scanner with it, regardless
    > of the brand.
    >
    > Unfortunately DI has to be built into the scanner so IMHO... Don't even
    > think about a scanner you intend to scan film with that hasn't got Digital
    > Ice. Don't worry about sweet spots. Worry about film grain (noise) and dust.
    > I bought GEM from the digital Ice people to clear up 'noise' which I'd say
    > was film grain. Now I can scan my 6x9 negs and get them printed at wall
    > print size... But it's been an expensive path to get this far!
    >
    > RNJF
    > -----------------------------
    > "LG" <gonsajiinet.net.au> wrote in message
    > news:3F2C202D.27363454iinet.net.au...
    > > Hi all,
    > >
    > > Looking at the
    > > Canon CS9900F
    > > Epson 3200
    > > Microtek 6800
    > > Film scanning mainly, has anybody had any experience with these
    > > scanners. Tell me what you think? What sort of work do you usually scan?
    > > What res? Sweet spots on the scanners?
    > >
    > > Will be scanning in negatives sized at 35mm, 6x6,6x7 and 6x9.
    > > Cheers
    > > jag2x
    > >
    David R Guest

  4. #4

    Default Film Scanner: Epson/Canon/Microtek

    Hi all,

    Looking at the
    Canon CS9900F
    Epson 3200
    Microtek 6800
    Film scanning mainly, has anybody had any experience with these
    scanners. Tell me what you think? What sort of work do you usually scan?

    What res? Sweet spots on the scanners?

    Will be scanning in negatives sized at 35mm, 6x6,6x7 and 6x9. My
    negatives/tranny are quite dark, do any of the scanners account for
    this? Can you set how dense the negative/tranny is?
    Cheers
    jag2x

    LG Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Film Scanner: Epson/Canon/Microtek

    LG wrote: 

    I have an Epson 3200. I use it for medium format (mostly 6 x 7) and
    large format (4 x 5), almost entirely negative color or b/w. See
    www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html for some
    examples. The scans were done with the Epson 2450, but the 3200 only
    has at most a 10 percent higher resolution of small detail, and is
    similar to the 2450 in other respects.

    The Epson 3200 is not adequate for high quality 35 mm work, but it
    produces quite acceptable scans for medium and large format. Since I
    scan most negatives, dmax is not a problem for me. When I use slide
    film, I'm very careful about exposure, so I haven't usually had any
    problems with the dmax of 3.4 of the scanner, but I get pretty close.

    I use Vuescan to scan, and it does most of the work of dealing with the
    density range. I use its settings for black and white points to make
    sure I use the full range of values without clipping highlights or
    shadows. There is also a brightness control which is really a gamma
    multiplier.

    If your negatives are dark, that means the film was overexposed or
    overdeveloped or both. Vuescan used with this scanner doesn't have any
    trouble with such negatives in my experience. Slides on the other hand
    will be dark if they are underexposed. Slide film should generally be
    slightly underexposed rather than slightly overexposed, but accurate
    exposure is much more important than for negative film. If film is
    underexposed, there is a limit to what you can do with it, since detail
    in the shadows that isn't captured on film can'be be scanned no matter
    what you do.

    --
    Leonard Evens northwestern.edu 847-491-5537
    Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

    Leonard Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Film Scanner: Epson/Canon/Microtek

    "Leonard Evens" <northwestern.edu> wrote in message
    news:Fa5Xa.39517$ops.asp.att.net...
    | LG wrote:
    | > Hi all,
    | >
    | > Looking at the
    | > Canon CS9900F
    | > Epson 3200
    | > Microtek 6800
    | > Film scanning mainly, has anybody had any experience with these
    | > scanners. Tell me what you think? What sort of work do you usually scan?
    | >
    | > What res? Sweet spots on the scanners?
    | >
    | > Will be scanning in negatives sized at 35mm, 6x6,6x7 and 6x9. My
    | > negatives/tranny are quite dark, do any of the scanners account for
    | > this? Can you set how dense the negative/tranny is?
    | > Cheers
    | > jag2x
    | >
    |
    | I have an Epson 3200. I use it for medium format (mostly 6 x 7) and
    | large format (4 x 5), almost entirely negative color or b/w. See
    | www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html for some
    | examples. The scans were done with the Epson 2450, but the 3200 only
    | has at most a 10 percent higher resolution of small detail, and is
    | similar to the 2450 in other respects.
    |
    | The Epson 3200 is not adequate for high quality 35 mm work, but it
    | produces quite acceptable scans for medium and large format. Since I
    | scan most negatives, dmax is not a problem for me. When I use slide
    | film, I'm very careful about exposure, so I haven't usually had any
    | problems with the dmax of 3.4 of the scanner, but I get pretty close.
    |
    | I use Vuescan to scan, and it does most of the work of dealing with the
    | density range. I use its settings for black and white points to make
    | sure I use the full range of values without clipping highlights or
    | shadows. There is also a brightness control which is really a gamma
    | multiplier.
    |
    | If your negatives are dark, that means the film was overexposed or
    | overdeveloped or both. Vuescan used with this scanner doesn't have any
    | trouble with such negatives in my experience. Slides on the other hand
    | will be dark if they are underexposed. Slide film should generally be
    | slightly underexposed rather than slightly overexposed, but accurate
    | exposure is much more important than for negative film. If film is
    | underexposed, there is a limit to what you can do with it, since detail
    | in the shadows that isn't captured on film can'be be scanned no matter
    | what you do.
    |
    | --
    | Leonard Evens northwestern.edu 847-491-5537
    | Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208


    I have an Epson Filmscan 300 (SCSI) which has been refurbished by Epson
    costing 200 for sale. I'm happy to let it go for 50 if anyone is
    interested and it is in fully working condition. It comes with a SCSI card
    but the card is NOT recognisedc under Win XP so a new card would be
    required. Its just lying in a cupboard doing nothing so if anyone is
    interestded please let me know via co.uk.
    I'm in Edinburgh - Scotland.
    Regars
    Brian


    Ptarmigan Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Film Scanner: Epson/Canon/Microtek

    I've used the 2450 for 35mm, MF, & LF. I think the quality for MF and LF is
    much better than for 35mm. When you compare a scan from the 2450 with a
    dedicated film scanner, the difference is noticeable. While you can get an
    8"x10" print out of the 2450, you will get a better one out of most
    dedicated film scanners. I wish it were otherwise!

    "el sid" <net> wrote in message
    news:YgjXa.2459$news.pas.earthlink.net... 
    35mm 
    prints [/ref][/ref]
    scan? 
    > >
    > > I have an Epson 3200. I use it for medium format (mostly 6 x 7) and
    > > large format (4 x 5), almost entirely negative color or b/w. See
    > > www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html for some
    > > examples. The scans were done with the Epson 2450, but the 3200 only
    > > has at most a 10 percent higher resolution of small detail, and is
    > > similar to the 2450 in other respects.
    > >
    > > The Epson 3200 is not adequate for high quality 35 mm work, but it
    > > produces quite acceptable scans for medium and large format. Since I
    > > scan most negatives, dmax is not a problem for me. When I use slide
    > > film, I'm very careful about exposure, so I haven't usually had any
    > > problems with the dmax of 3.4 of the scanner, but I get pretty close.
    > >
    > > I use Vuescan to scan, and it does most of the work of dealing with the
    > > density range. I use its settings for black and white points to make
    > > sure I use the full range of values without clipping highlights or
    > > shadows. There is also a brightness control which is really a gamma
    > > multiplier.
    > >
    > > If your negatives are dark, that means the film was overexposed or
    > > overdeveloped or both. Vuescan used with this scanner doesn't have any
    > > trouble with such negatives in my experience. Slides on the other hand
    > > will be dark if they are underexposed. Slide film should generally be
    > > slightly underexposed rather than slightly overexposed, but accurate
    > > exposure is much more important than for negative film. If film is
    > > underexposed, there is a limit to what you can do with it, since detail
    > > in the shadows that isn't captured on film can'be be scanned no matter
    > > what you do.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Leonard Evens northwestern.edu 847-491-5537
    > > Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
    > >[/ref]
    >
    >[/ref]


    Jeff Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Film Scanner: Epson/Canon/Microtek

    i guess i should have made more clear , that the epson 2450, while usable as
    a 35mm scanner, is slower, has less dynamic range, more electronic noise
    scanning underexposed films than a 35mm film scanner. the ROC and SHO
    programs are very helpful with old color slides or negatives. that software
    is included in the Ice cubed programs that is part of a film scanner such
    as the nikon . after using the epson 2450 for finding out how to make scans
    from faded and color changed slides and negatives, i am about to buy a 35mm
    film scanner such as nikon , or maybe the new minolta 5400. I will stick to
    the epson for scanning of medium format up to 4x5 size b+w negatives.
    "Jeff Novick" <net> wrote in message
    news:nblXa.892$news.prodigy.com... 
    is 
    > 35mm 
    > prints [/ref]
    works [/ref]
    problem [/ref]
    > scan? [/ref][/ref]
    the [/ref][/ref]
    any [/ref][/ref]
    hand [/ref][/ref]
    be [/ref][/ref]
    detail 
    > >
    > >[/ref]
    >
    >[/ref]


    el Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Film Scanner: Epson/Canon/Microtek


    Hi David,

    How have you found the quality of the 35mm film scanner on the Epson? What
    kind of print size could you enlarge to?

    What are people's experiences with current flat bed scanners that scan film
    at 2400dpi? A couple of models I'm interested in are the Epson 3200, Canon
    5000F and 8000F.

    Cheers
    Michael


    Michael Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Film Scanner: Epson/Canon/Microtek

    I use a Canon D2400U which I think is similar to the 8000F and it
    performs well with 6x6 and larger film.
    Results with 35mm are poor and not good for much more than making proof
    sheets.

    Alex

    Michael wrote:
    >
    > What are people's experiences with current flat bed scanners that scan film
    > at 2400dpi? A couple of models I'm interested in are the Epson 3200, Canon
    > 5000F and 8000F.
    Alex Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Film Scanner: Epson/Canon/Microtek

    What the other guy said...

    I have the 3200, and it's an excellent conventional scanner, but merely OK
    for film. My basis for comparison is a Nikon 8000ED film scanner. The Epson
    is OK for MF film, bad for 35mm film, and neither is in the same
    neighborhood as the Nikon 8000ED, which is sharper, and captures lots more
    detail than the Epson.

    "LG" <net.au> wrote in message
    news:net.au... 


    Bowser Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Film Scanner: Epson/Canon/Microtek

    I have not been all that impressed with the scans of 35MM on the Epson
    3200. I mainly use it for 4x5 negatives. For these medium size
    negatives I am very impressed.
    I wanted to get the Canon 9900f for it's high dpi and for the FAIR but
    it did not work with Vuescan. As I mentioned before I am almost
    exlusivly a Vuescan user.


    Alex <alexwhyalla.info> wrote in message news:<3f2f0118$1news.comindico.com.au>...
    > I use a Canon D2400U which I think is similar to the 8000F and it
    > performs well with 6x6 and larger film.
    > Results with 35mm are poor and not good for much more than making proof
    > sheets.
    >
    > Alex
    >
    > Michael wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > What are people's experiences with current flat bed scanners that scan film
    > > at 2400dpi? A couple of models I'm interested in are the Epson 3200, Canon
    > > 5000F and 8000F.
    David R Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Illustrator and Epson Scanner
    By Brian_Coalson@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Illustrator Macintosh
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 9th, 04:55 PM
  2. Film Scanner or Flatbed with Film Adaptor??
    By Jan Philips in forum Photography
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 22nd, 05:37 AM
  3. MF Film Scanner
    By Bill Hilton in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 13th, 08:57 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 11th, 06:48 PM
  5. Cleaning a film scanner
    By JONAS CARLSSON in forum Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 10th, 08:37 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139