What 120 scanners are available?

[Jtown2354]

I am considering switching from film to digital and am trying to evaluate the
options - digital equipment - or a scanner. I have looked at several digital
cameras and have the specs on a lot of them. All of the scanners that I have
the specs on do not address scanning 120 negatives. I would appreciate
information on any better quality scanners that will accept 120 negatives.
Please respond via e-mail as I frequently get into this site - thanks. ------
Jerry/Idaho

[HRosita]

Hi,

Check out the new Epson 3200 flatbed scanner. I understand it does a good job
with MF and also can scan up to nine 35mm film at one time.

Of course there is the Minolta
DiMAGE Scan Multi Pro, 4800 dpi, 35mm/Medium Format, Film Scanner with Firewire
(IEEE1394) Interface card

for $2850 at B&H that will scan both MF and 35mm.
Rosita

[Bill Hilton]

>From: [email]jtown2354@aol.com[/email] (Jtown2354)

>I would appreciate
>information on any better quality scanners that will accept 120 negatives.

I use the Nikon LS-8000 and get very good results with it. Similar models
include the Minolta Multi Pro and the Polaroid SS 120 (which Microtek is
re-branding now as well). These are roughly $1,800 - $2,700.

If you have a lot of money for this look at the $10,000 Imacon Flextight.

If you have little money for this look at the Epson 3200 flatbed for a few
hundred bucks, which won't do as good a job but is much more affordable.

Bill

[Bill Hilton]

>From: [email]hrosita@aol.comn[/email]et (HRosita)

>Of course there is the Minolta
>DiMAGE Scan Multi Pro, 4800 dpi, 35mm/Medium Format, Film Scanner

It's 4,800 dpi for 35 mm but 3,200 dpi for medium format. Read the fine print
:)

[David J. Littleboy]

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20030713105024.07405.00000254@mb-m11.aol.com...

> >From: [email]hrosita@aol.comn[/email]et (HRosita)

>

> >Of course there is the Minolta
> >DiMAGE Scan Multi Pro, 4800 dpi, 35mm/Medium Format, Film Scanner

>
> It's 4,800 dpi for 35 mm but 3,200 dpi for medium format. Read the fine

print

> :)

But it's probably the right scanner for 35mm types who sometimes shoot MF.
(It desperately needs the 3rd party diffuser called "scanenhancer" or
"scanhancer" or something to scan negatives, though. Out of the box, its
negative scans are ugly.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[nobody nowhere]

Thank you, but the question now becomes the printer, would an inject, eg
a nice Epson 1290 or 2200 do justice to something like the Imacon? From
your account, it seems to me that the Imacon is more for pre-press large
sizes processing. I studied very carefully a 35mm slide with a 22 X
magnifying glass on a pro light table, and *absolutely everything on the
slide* was on the Nikon 8000 scanned image, as reproduced by the Epson
1290, in particular at A3 (which is also a great compliment to Epson).
Absolutely all the detail, including shadow detail was there, I could
read on the print (with a magnifying glass) (better on A3) the
registration number of a car which occupied less than 1/25 (about 4 per
cent, if my arithmetic is right) of the total surface of the 35mm
slide! and that was a handheld photo, with an SLR (admittedly, a Leica
lens). Like in Dickens' novel "more, do you want more"? :-) What for?

PS: Is all the additional shadow detail of the Imacon really a matter of
optics, or one of clever interpolation?

In article <20030713130533.02944.00000228@mb-m29.aol.com>, Bill Hilton
<bhilton665@aol.comedy> writes

>>>Bill Hilton <bhilton665@aol.comedy> writes

>>

>>>I use the Nikon LS-8000 and get very good results with it.
>>>If you have a lot of money for this look at the $10,000 Imacon Flextight.

>

>>From: nobody nowhere [email]nobody@jwhite.demon.co.uk[/email]
>>
>>Having used the Nikon 8000 for a short time ... I simply cannot see why
>>would anybody go for the Flextight and all the complications associated
>>with it ...

>
>The Imacon 646 costs about $14,000 (instead of $10,000 ... must have gone up
>when I wasn't looking) and offers pretty much drum scan quality, meaning
>another 5-10% or so resolution improvement over the 8000, with better shadow
>detail.
>
>The two guys I know who bought one both shoot large format (4x5") and panoramic
>medium format (6x17 cm) and the 646 accepts films up to 12 x 17 cm, so it does
>both of these odd formats well.
>

>>(eg. I understand that one has to put a
>>certain oil on the film/slide before scanning, etc. etc.). Is this all a
>>matter of size, or what?

>
>You need mounting fluid for a drum scanner too, so at the high end it's not a
>big deal.
>
>The 646 scans at 6,300 dpi (if you happen to need it :) and true 16 bit,
>instead of 14 bit. You'll get better shadow detail than with the 8000. A
>couple of the problems people mention about the 8000, like banding in normal
>mode and problems with films not laying flat, are non-existent with the 646.
>
>You're right, it's a bit more trouble to use, especially if you need to unmount
>35 mm slides, but for those willing to pay about 5x more for the extra bit of
>quality, and for those who need high quality large format or 6x17 cm pano scans
>it's worth it. That's why I said he should "look at" it. But I bought the
>8000 too :)
>
>Bill
>
>

Nobody

[Jtown2354]

I appreciate all of the comments, thoughts, and expertise provided by everyone.
Most helpful and a great big first step in making this decision. Thanks
again ----- Jerry/Idaho

[brston73-nospam@hotmail.com]

I have the Epsom 3200 which does a good job on 35mm negaitves, - I
thnk as good as the Minolta Scan Dual II, although I have not been
able to do a comparison on the same negative.

If it does 35mm well, I should think it would be great for 120, which
it will also do.

On 13 Jul 2003 03:56:39 GMT, [email]jtown2354@aol.com[/email] (Jtown2354) wrote:

>I am considering switching from film to digital and am trying to evaluate the
>options - digital equipment - or a scanner. I have looked at several digital
>cameras and have the specs on a lot of them. All of the scanners that I have
>the specs on do not address scanning 120 negatives. I would appreciate
>information on any better quality scanners that will accept 120 negatives.
>Please respond via e-mail as I frequently get into this site - thanks. ------
>Jerry/Idaho