A big film scanner thread

Those settings look like they should be ok. This is what I see when scanning negatives (albeit B&W):

View attachment 299519

This page may be of use if you're having problems:

I've found 3200 dpi seems to be the sweet spot before interpolation gets in the way on my V600, which I think is pretty much the same as the V550, so perhaps see if it looks any better than 2400 dpi you're using, Nige?
 
Last edited:
What size of film are you trying to scan Gareth? Your other thread talks about 120 film from your Bronica ETRS, but it looks like that 3590 scanner only scans 35mm?
 
What size of film are you trying to scan Gareth? Your other thread talks about 120 film from your Bronica ETRS, but it looks like that 3590 scanner only scans 35mm?

Yes, I think this is my issue with the black preview. I am using the flatbed to scan the 120 negs and when I choose the film loader then it knocks off scanning from the document area and then trying to scan from the 35mm film loader area hence why it is so black.

So, I can scan the negs in from the flat bed area only. I need to see if there is software to convert this scan or maybe look at some point to update the scanner.
 
To be honest, I think you would be better with something like an Epson V600 if there are any good deals about on Black Friday week for a new one?
 
....a thought:- with brexit and a trade deal with Japan and if the £ rises then maybe the V600 would be cheaper in the new year. Mind you if true, it's back to "I wanna use it now not wait for months to get it maybe about £20-30 cheaper" ;)
 
...So, I can scan the negs in from the flat bed area only. I need to see if there is software to convert this scan or maybe look at some point to update the scanner.
Can't comment on your other problems, but there are some posts on here about software to invert colour images, like ColorPerfect, Grain2Pixel (both via PS) and Negative Lab Pro (via LR). It is NOT as simple as clicking Invert in Photoshop, as (among other things) there is the orange mask to take into consideration. @Kevin Allan has a blog post comparing ColorPerfect and G2P, and someone on here (either @FishyFish or @Mr Badger ?) has a thread on NLP, I think.

In either case you'd be better starting from a linear positive scan saved as a 16-bit TIFF...
 
Quick update. Had a look on FB marketplace and someone local has Epson Perfection 4490 for sale for £30. Looked online and it was for sale around the same time as the V500 and identical bar it not being an LED light so taken the punt and collect it later on. Selling my old one one then so it'll barely cost me nothing to upgrade.
 
First scan and I'm in business! The holder can scan two 120 negs at once so it's going to be a slow process but I may look to buy the holder and see if it can be cut to scan more? There are some lines in the sky that are very noticeable.

I had the scanner set to:
Image type: 24 bit colour
Resolution 1200 dpi
Unsharp Mask ticked
Digital ICE Technology ticked with the mode set to 'Quality'
 

Attachments

  • img001.jpg
    img001.jpg
    268.4 KB · Views: 34
First scan and I'm in business! The holder can scan two 120 negs at once so it's going to be a slow process but I may look to buy the holder and see if it can be cut to scan more? There are some lines in the sky that are very noticeable.

I had the scanner set to:
Image type: 24 bit colour
Resolution 1200 dpi
Unsharp Mask ticked
Digital ICE Technology ticked with the mode set to 'Quality'
If it will do it, then try 48 bit colour, and turn off the ICE as I suspect ICE might be causing the banding? As for DPI, it's usually a case of taking some comparison scans and looking at the detail in about 3 places on the scanned photo zoomed in. I find my V600 scans best at 3200 dpi, anything less and I can see quality fall off, anything more then I can see sharpness and detail fall off due to interpolation. So a bit of experimentation is required to find the 'sweet spot'.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for hopping into a very impressive discussion about the relative merits of the different scanning methods.
I do shoot film, but I tend to use Filmdev to do my scanning, though judging by some of the examples given here I might need to revisit their files to get better colours.
However, I'm looking at helping my Dad go through his large collection of slides from the 1970s.
He's not likely to spend much time tweaking hundreds of images, so I'm looking at quicker options for scanning his archive.
This scanner (yes it's an Amazon link) seems to give a good resolution of file (albeit jpeg) and has a much bigger screen and the option to connect an external screen on HDMI (both of which are useful for a person with less than perfect eyesight).

Does anyone have experience with this type of standalone scanner or comparisons vs other scanners or indeed any other suggestions of quicker scanning methods for larger numbers of slides?

Cheers
 
Sorry for hopping into a very impressive discussion about the relative merits of the different scanning methods.
I do shoot film, but I tend to use Filmdev to do my scanning, though judging by some of the examples given here I might need to revisit their files to get better colours.
However, I'm looking at helping my Dad go through his large collection of slides from the 1970s.
He's not likely to spend much time tweaking hundreds of images, so I'm looking at quicker options for scanning his archive.
This scanner (yes it's an Amazon link) seems to give a good resolution of file (albeit jpeg) and has a much bigger screen and the option to connect an external screen on HDMI (both of which are useful for a person with less than perfect eyesight).

Does anyone have experience with this type of standalone scanner or comparisons vs other scanners or indeed any other suggestions of quicker scanning methods for larger numbers of slides?

Cheers

These 'webcam in a box' type scanners are generally not great, but are quick and cheap for looking at snaps.

Scanning slides is always slow, relatively tedious work, and not something you want to do twice.

Personally I never recommend these type scanners for anyone, but if he's doing it himself and not computer literate they are the only computer-less option I'm aware of.

I would recommend getting an Epson flatbed scanner that does film, the scans will be much sharper and have much better colour/exposure than the type you've linked.

With those, the V550 type will scan 4 mounted 35mm slides at once, with the V750 scanning 12 at a time, they are more expensive but hold their value well if you can afford it.
 
The only fast method of scanning slides that I've heard of is a scanner that takes slides in projector magazines, and scans the lot automatically. There was one based on a Kodak carousel magazine, which I can't locate. The Braun Multimag 7000 scanner is a trifle upmarket in resolution and price (currently available at Bristol Cameras ar £2,200 but with free postage).

The best reasonably priced option for ease of use would be an Epson flatbed as mentioned above.
 
Sorry for hopping into a very impressive discussion about the relative merits of the different scanning methods.
I do shoot film, but I tend to use Filmdev to do my scanning, though judging by some of the examples given here I might need to revisit their files to get better colours.
However, I'm looking at helping my Dad go through his large collection of slides from the 1970s.
He's not likely to spend much time tweaking hundreds of images, so I'm looking at quicker options for scanning his archive.
This scanner (yes it's an Amazon link) seems to give a good resolution of file (albeit jpeg) and has a much bigger screen and the option to connect an external screen on HDMI (both of which are useful for a person with less than perfect eyesight).

Does anyone have experience with this type of standalone scanner or comparisons vs other scanners or indeed any other suggestions of quicker scanning methods for larger numbers of slides?

Cheers

I used a much earlier version of this kind of scanner when I first started my retro scan project. The huge advantage was that it was quick; I think I scanned 2 rolls in an evening while watching television. The big disadvantage of that particular model is that it was terrible! There were light leaks and the colours were way off. This one looks like an improvement in some ways. I bought mine from Ama$on (those were the days before I became Bezos-averse), and so was able to return it and buy my Plustek (from someone else). Over the next 18 months or so I scanned over 4,000 slides and negatives from 50 years ago.

I hate to recommend Ama$on, but if you're interested in these things it might make sense to buy from somewhere with easy returns?

BTW Reflecta is a well know maker of some high quality scanners; they sell a few of this kind of scanner. I've not tried them, but maybe a better bet?

Good luck, and let us know how it goes.
 
Hamrick have produced their first newsletter of the year on Vuescan. It has a link to Ed's thoughts on the future of scanners, which is an interesting short read. The gist of these is that
no company will release a new film scanner, and more and more people will use VueScan to scan their slide collections with used film scanners (it’s a fast-growing part of our business).

The two main uses for scanners in the future will be document scanners which take stacks of paper and rapidly produce PDF files, and film scanners that take lots of slides and produce JPEG files.

The core of our business with VueScan is USB 2.0 scanners from the past 20 years that we can make work even better than when they were brand new. It’s easy to find a used scanner on ebay.com for a very low price that will work very well. An example of this is used Epson Perfection scanners (some of the best ever made), used Nikon film scanners (very high quality film scans), used Canon LiDE scanners (also great scanners, lightweight and portable), used Fujitsu document scanners (very fast), used Plustek OpticFilm film scanners (fast and reliable) and used PIE Primefilm film scanners (also good film scanners). Scanners just don’t easily wear out - you need to scan tens of thousands of pages or tens of thousands of slides before they wear out.

Our business in 2020 was the highest in 20 years, so I think we can safely predict that scanners (and VueScan) will be around for a long time.
 
I don't have any thoughts, but that's an interesting article, as is this one on how to determine the DoF of your scanner using (of all things) a ruler!


that's pretty much the same procedure as micro tuning focus on a lens. In both instances I suspect it relies on having eyes that can differentiate at that level, mine can't :/

This is what I took from that article " Film is not the same as a digital sensor, and will never be able to record razor-sharp lines from your subjects. Remember, nothing in nature contains razor-sharp edges. Just sayin’. ", which is something I'm aware of and aware that I need to "relearn", nice to see it written down though
 
This is what I took from that article " Film is not the same as a digital sensor, and will never be able to record razor-sharp lines from your subjects. Remember, nothing in nature contains razor-sharp edges. Just sayin’. ", which is something I'm aware of and aware that I need to "relearn", nice to see it written down though

I think there's a lot of nonsense talked about sharpness. How sharp do you need?

Taken with a Yashica 635 TLR camera (6x6 on 120) on Fuji Neopan Acros 100 and scanned on an Epson V600 (click on the image to view at large size in Flickr).

 
I think there's a lot of nonsense talked about sharpness. How sharp do you need?

Taken with a Yashica 635 TLR camera (6x6 on 120) on Fuji Neopan Acros 100 and scanned on an Epson V600 (click on the image to view at large size in Flickr).


h'mm That's a 6X6 neg ;) but (y)
 
h'mm That's a 6X6 neg ;) but (y)

I could post an example of a 35mm Kodachrome slide, but wanted to keep it to the sort of film that's still available. I can drop it to 6x4.5 from an old 1950s folding camera on 400 ISO Ilford XP2 if it helps though? :) Once again, click the pic to view in Flick!

 
Last edited:
Oh, well, if we're talking war stories: Mamiya C330 on Ilford HP5, scanned in an old Epson 640U flat bed with a transparency hood...

Sherman tank and crew at Barnstaple.jpg
 
h'mm That's a 6X6 neg ;) but (y)

Here you go Brian, I've found one for you. Canon EOS-3, 24-105 L IS lens on 35mm Kodak Ektar 100, scanned at high res on a Noritsu by AG Photolab (and resized in Photoshop to upload to Flickr). Click to view large and see if it's sharp enough to spot where I focussed. ;)

 
Last edited:
Here you go Brian, I've found one for you. Canon EOS-3, 24-105 L IS lens on 35mm Kodak Ektar 100, scanned at high res on a Noritsu by AG Photolab (and resized in Photoshop to upload to Flickr). Click to view large and see if it's sharp enough to spot where I focussed. ;)


(y) That's sharp enough for 35mm.......as newbies could be looking at this thread it's worth mentioning that any decent Epson flatbed scanner can give very good results with medium format film (even with some MF cameras like a brownie) but for 35mm whether scanning (or using an enlarger in the darkroom)..... for sharpness the 35mm camera lens has to very good for starters, but the good news for newbies is that most Japanese lenses from the 1970s from Canon, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax etc etc are VG and for lenses in the 1960s 50mms, 135mms and 35mms most (or nearly all) are VG from well known Japanese makes.
 
Nice article on DPReview comparing Epson Scan, SilverFast and Vuescan. Quite detailed and informative. Much as I love Vuescan, this does confirm that its dust and scratch correction isn't a patch on SF's! But I can't use it anyway, because (a) 95% of my scans are silver-based black and white, and (b) my Plustek 7500i doesn't reliably register accurately on second or subsequent passes. The latter would likely mean that the dust correction is applied in the wrong place!

The conclusion? "Overall, the winner in this roundup has to be Hamrick Software's VueScan. Although it isn't the best at everything it does, it turns in a solid performance in basically every category, and includes a several features Epson Scan lacks. It also has by far the cleanest, most responsive user interface of the bunch, and the best documentation."

But, "With that said, I thought Epson Scan did surprisingly well also..."
 
Scanning with Vuescan as I read this. I have an old Epson Perfection 3200 so Vuescan was the obvious choice to ensure driver compatibility.

I find it easy to use and am happy with the results. If I find an image I think is something I want to print to a decent size then I'll send the negative out to be professionally handled.
 
I like to play the field when it comes to scanner software.

Colour negatives and reversal - Vuescan (135 on the Plustek / 120 on the V550)

B&W 135 - Silverfast on the Plustek

B&W 120 - EpsonScan on the V550

:)
Makes you the go-to man for feature comparisons, Nige!
 
I don't have any thoughts, but that's an interesting article, as is this one on how to determine the DoF of your scanner using (of all things) a ruler!

If you get an epson v500 and build you own holders (see here, here and here), then it's no problem to make sure the rebates are included.
I've been doing this for years, including making holders - see my posts linked in the quoted post to show how to calibrate, make a film holder that gets the film flat at the focus height, and a source of what is effectively ANR glass. If you want to wet scan, then there's a (genuinely cheap) way to do it here:
Thanks!

The V750 has a holder that lets you do wet scanning, but you've to do a homemade holder to do so on the v500. I'm doing it on the cheap - I'm using testors odourless mineral spirits from the art shop as mounting fluid (that's basically what Lumina and Kami fluids are) on my homemade holder using the inverted method (air gap from from scanner surface due to mount, then acetate film, then a layer of fluid, then neg, then another layer of fluid, then a glass sheet that supports the neg on the holder). Works a treat. Main difference in the mounting fluid is that art thinners are designed to evaporate more slowly, so I need to stick the films on a radiator to dry for 10 mins. Seems to have no damage or residue on them. Other people have also reported good success with this method.
Not showing off and not trying to be condescending to anyone - just happy to help wherever possible in the spirit of this comic ( https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/ten_thousand.png ):
ten_thousand.png
 
I thought Epson Scan did surprisingly well also

That's not surprising as Epson designed their scanners and would have thought whether they programmed the software themselves or used an outside source it was all based on the operation of their scanners.
 
Not showing off and not trying to be condescending to anyone

Useful to have those posts in this thread. I was actually thinking of making my own holder for my V550 at some point so the reference is very handy. The problem with the V550 is that it does some sort of check before it starts scanning and will (apparently to me) randomly just burp out and blink the error light. Using the OEM holders obviously is fine.
 
Useful to have those posts in this thread. I was actually thinking of making my own holder for my V550 at some point so the reference is very handy. The problem with the V550 is that it does some sort of check before it starts scanning and will (apparently to me) randomly just burp out and blink the error light. Using the OEM holders obviously is fine.
There's a calibration area at the top of the bed that can be one cause of these errors. If you look at the pic of my holder you can see a rectangular cutout - this keeps the area free. It's best to have this notch too large: the scanners can get twitchy when something blocks it in film scanning mode.
 
Back
Top