Based on Moose's comments I think I might have been somewhat better off
with the Canon 4000F flatbed but I have experienced no problems with my
Epson V700 flatbed. I bought it refurbished direct from Epson for $500.
My only disappointment with the refurbished product is that, although it
works perfectly and is squeaky clean internally, one can see from
severely worn paint around the "copy" button that this scanner had seen
a lot of use before being refurbished and external appearance is not a
part of the refurbishment process.
I've done very little negative scanning with the V700 but it certainly
works well for print/paper copying and slide scanning. So far I have
not experienced any focus problems that were claimed at one review site.
The film holders do have little feet that can be installed at two
different heights to adjust focus but I've not seen any need yet to use
them in other than the default configuration. "Digital ICE" (Epsons
infrared channel dust removal system) works splendidly on color
negatives and Ektachrome but not at all on silver B&W. That's due to
the silver content blocking the infrared which it a problem with all IR
channel dust removal systems. Although it's not supposed to work on
Kodachrome due to some silver content in Kodachrome it does seem to work
to some degree and helps minimize dust/scratch touchup.
Anyhow, I've been quite content with the scanner and also with the Epson
scanning software when used in its "Professional Mode" which gives you a
lot of control over the process. I have VueScan but haven't been able
to get it to work with film because it doesn't know the locations of the
negatives and slides in their film holders. There is a training process
one is supposed to use to teach it where the frames are but my one
attempt at using it didn't work. One of these days (when I get much
more serious about scanning the many thousands of film images I have)
I'll get back to it and figure out what I was doing wrong.
One very important thing I've learned is that many (most?) of my old
negatives and slides (at least until acquiring the OM-1 in 1974) are of
rather poor quality for focus and/or sharpness. Having a 4000 dpi
capable scanner is not a requirement because there simply isn't that
much true data in the image. Even excellent 35mm images probably don't
contain more than 8-9 MP of real data. 2400 dpi will probably capture
all that's there on many if not most images. Certainly enough for an
8x10 or 10x15 print and maybe even 11x14.
A friend of mine recently went through his old slide collection from the
60s and early 70s and captured them on digital using his slide projector
(on the wall) and his P&S digital. Near the end of the process his old
Argus projector stopped working and I volunteered to try and fix it for
him. The problem was old, migrating grease which was gumming up the
slide change advance/retreat mechanism. I was able to fix it well
enough to allow it to run forward only and for him to finish the last
slide magazine or two.
While I had his slide magazine in my possession for testing I tried
scanning some of his old Kodachromes on the Epson V700. The result was
that my high resolution scans looked very little better than what he was
doing with his P&S camera except for the elimination of some keystoning.
Most of his old film images suffered from poor focus, poor lens
quality and motion blur. There just wasn't enough there to bother with
a higher quality capture.
He and his wife were thrilled that I fixed the projector and they then
had all their old slides in digital form that they could copy for their
kids. They were really ecstatic when I showed the wife how to use
Windows Live Photo Gallery to do automatic exposure and color balance
adjustments since they were then getting images "better" than the originals.
Perfection is not always required. Good luck in your choice.
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/3/2014 6:35 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 1/3/2014 2:30 PM, bob benson wrote:
>> I've noted a lot of discussion about scanning recently.
>>
>> What is your scanner of choice for negative film ?
>
> Canon FS4000. When I bought a scanner, I did endless research. The Minoltas
> and Nikons were excellent in many ways. But
> both had fiddly focus.
>
> Subsequently, I learned here that the Nikons suffer from internal flare.
> Also, their relatively coherent light source
> makes scratches, etc. stand out more than the more diffuse light of the
> Canon. The Canon has deep DOF, so no focus
> problems, and no flare.
>
> If you want auto feed of full rolls or stacks of slides, I believe Nikon is
> the only game in town.
>
> Most of these are discontinued, and must be acquired used.
>
> Did I hear about some new scanners out of Germany?
>
> If you want quite good, but not ultimate, IQ, proper flatbeds are cheaper and
> scan more frames at once. The Epson V
> series are good. The Canon 4000F is as good or better, again with better
> DOF/no focus problems and, with a larger light
> source in the lid and different film holders, can scan more at once. But also
> discontinued.
>
> C.H. has been very happy 'scanning' with camera, copy stand and flash. As he
> did some commercial scanning with Nikons,
> his opinion carries some weight. He finds it faster than scanners and the
> quality up to his needs (with no flare!)
>
> My problem with that approach is the lack of IR scratch and dust removal,
> which all the above scanners have. If you mean
> silver film B&W negs, this doesn't matter, as IR doesn't work with silver
> films. For color neg, most slide films, even
> decent with KR now, and chromogenic B&W, IR cleaning is magic.
>
> Scanning All Moose
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|