negative scanners

Tykee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if anyone could make any suggestions as to the best negative
> scanners I could purchase. I'm currently using a flatbed scanner but it only
> scans 6 frames at a time at the most. I'm wanting something that will do a
> lot more (36 perhaps?) and will get on with scanning while I do something
> else. Time of the scan isn't really an issue.
>
> I ask as I have thousands of negatives that I'd like to sort and
> scan/digitalise.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> TIA
>
> T.

I've been looking at some of the flatbed scanners for proofing medium
format, I've come across a couple that might be useful to you. These
suggestions are based on my research so far only, I haven't bought any
yet to try myself; so take these suggestions with that in mind.

Check in to the Canon 9950F; it runs ~US$350 and has a carrier that can
hold 30, 35mm negatives at a time - according to user reviews it'll
scan the whole thing in about 1-2 hours at a decent resolution. Reviews
of the software have been good; the scratch/dust removal/auto color
correction software gets favorable mentions for speed and results
compared to digital ICE. Image quality isn't up to drum-scan standards,
but it should be printable to 8X10".

The Epson 4990 can scan 24, 35mm negatives at a time, and has digital
ICE built in. ICE is apparently slower but slightly better than the
Canon's solution. The scanner's output is receiving rave reviews on
usenet. It's running about US$440. It's little brother, the Epson 4490
can hold 12 negatives at a time, and only costs $180.

If you really need top-notch scans consider a Nikon Coolscan 5000 with
the optional negative feeder. Not cheap - $1200 with the feeder, but
it'll give you the best scans.
 >> Stay informed about: negative scanners 

Tykee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if anyone could make any suggestions as to the best negative
> scanners I could purchase. I'm currently using a flatbed scanner but it only
> scans 6 frames at a time at the most. I'm wanting something that will do a
> lot more (36 perhaps?) and will get on with scanning while I do something
> else. Time of the scan isn't really an issue.
>
> I ask as I have thousands of negatives that I'd like to sort and
> scan/digitalise.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> TIA
>
> T.
>
>
Not what you are looking for but my new Canon Scanner will do two strips
of 6 for a total of 12. The quality is good for the price.
 >> Stay informed about: negative scanners 

"Tykee" <ajtNOSPAMPLEASE.RemoveThis@22hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Wo2dh.58333$qd7.43433@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> I was wondering if anyone could make any suggestions as to the best
> negative scanners I could purchase. I'm currently using a flatbed
> scanner but it only scans 6 frames at a time at the most. I'm
> wanting something that will do a lot more (36 perhaps?) and will get
> on with scanning while I do something else. Time of the scan isn't
> really an issue.

You might get more or better responses in the "rec.photo.35mm" group
where I'm sure they've discussed this in detail.

But, do you have a budget in mind?

Beyond that, I've only used my flatbed scanner for my older negs, but
I understand the Nikon Coolscan models are quite good. A friend of
mine has scanned thousands of negs through his Nikon scanner before he
switched to digital, and he never had a complaint about it.
 >> Stay informed about: negative scanners 

On Dec 4, 6:43 pm, "Tykee" <ajtNOSPAMPLE....DeleteThis@22hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if anyone could make any suggestions as to the best negative
> scanners I could purchase. I'm currently using a flatbed scanner but it only
> scans 6 frames at a time at the most. I'm wanting something that will do a
> lot more (36 perhaps?) and will get on with scanning while I do something
> else. Time of the scan isn't really an issue.
>
> I ask as I have thousands of negatives that I'd like to sort and
> scan/digitalise.
>
> Any thoughts?
>

The best affordable are the Nikon transparency scanners LS 5000 if you
only have 35mm, LS9000 if you have some 2 1/4 transparencies. Epson's
new V700 and V750 come close to the Nikons and are faster. They can do
20 negs or 12 slides at a time. I think the V700 at $550 is a best buy
for this type of work. The Epson 4990 is an older model than the V700
and isn't quite as good, most people have dismissed the 4990 for 35mm
but use it for larger formats. Now though you can get new ones for
under $400. All depends on your budget.

Tom
> TIA
>
> T.
 >> Stay informed about: negative scanners 

In article <A5edneVF2vP6bunYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d RemoveThis @golden.net>,
"Bill" <bill RemoveThis @c.a> wrote:

> "Tykee" <ajtNOSPAMPLEASE RemoveThis @22hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Wo2dh.58333$qd7.43433@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone could make any suggestions as to the best
> > negative scanners I could purchase. I'm currently using a flatbed
> > scanner but it only scans 6 frames at a time at the most. I'm
> > wanting something that will do a lot more (36 perhaps?) and will get
> > on with scanning while I do something else. Time of the scan isn't
> > really an issue.
>
> You might get more or better responses in the "rec.photo.35mm" group
> where I'm sure they've discussed this in detail.
>
> But, do you have a budget in mind?
>
> Beyond that, I've only used my flatbed scanner for my older negs, but
> I understand the Nikon Coolscan models are quite good. A friend of
> mine has scanned thousands of negs through his Nikon scanner before he
> switched to digital, and he never had a complaint about it.

Here's a second vote for the Nikon Coolscan V. A bit slow, but nice
large photo docs that can take a lot of cropping.

--
There are two ways to spell Ockham/Occam. Britannica prefers the former.
 >> Stay informed about: negative scanners 

In article <5I3dh.1960$g_3.1767@trndny02>,
Rod Williams <rodw.TakeThisOut@adelphia.net> wrote:

> Tykee wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone could make any suggestions as to the best
> > negative
> > scanners I could purchase. I'm currently using a flatbed scanner but it
> > only
> > scans 6 frames at a time at the most. I'm wanting something that will do a
> > lot more (36 perhaps?) and will get on with scanning while I do something
> > else. Time of the scan isn't really an issue.
> >
> > I ask as I have thousands of negatives that I'd like to sort and
> > scan/digitalise.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > T.
> >
> >
> Not what you are looking for but my new Canon Scanner will do two strips
> of 6 for a total of 12. The quality is good for the price.

That last sentence says it all. If you consider your slides and film
strips to contain your best work or material you might want to crop,
blow up, make large prints use a dedicated slide and film strip scanner.


The Nikon Cool Scan V is around 500.00 and seems to have good resale
value (perhaps even in your own neighborhood) because many people are
just like you (and I). Lots of slides and strips but then dine for the
rest of our lives.

--
There are two ways to spell Ockham/Occam. Britannica prefers the former.
 >> Stay informed about: negative scanners 

>Tykee" <ajtNOSPAMPLEASE DeleteThis @22hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Wo2dh.58333$qd7.43433@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>


I would suggest that the short list be limited to those models with Digital
ICE. When I began scanning old transparencies--that I had kept boxed up
and, presumably, free of dust--I was stunned to see all the dust spots on
them. It would have taken hours to clean each one up, and the results would
not have been nearly as good as those obtained with ICE.

The Nikons seem to represent the performance standard today for advanced
amateurs. If you have budgetary issues, I can recommend the PrimeFilm
PF3650 Pro3, which sells in the neighborhood of US$350, to be a good choice,
with Digital ICE3 and optical resolution of 3600 x 3600 ppi. For my own
amateur requirements it fit the bill just fine. And it exceeds the
resolution of the old Kodak Photo CD, plus it has a DMAX significantly
higher than the Photo CD did.

Its main fault is that it is slow--takes about 5 minutes per scan, at full
resolution and with ICE turned on. But I have found a way to minimize that,
by having my negatives developed and returned uncut, in a long roll. The
scanner can accept a roll of up to 40 frames, and can scan the individual
frames automatically. I just insert the roll, do a prescan (all at once)
and then have the scanner do the full scans on its own. I return in about 2
hours and everything is finished. That suits me better than having to
insert 4 or 5 frames in a negative carrier, and have to keep changing the
negative strips until all the frames are scanned. I can't think of any
other scanners that do full rolls in a single pass, and that feature seems
to overcome the scanner's long scanning times.

Of course, if you are scanning slides you must insert them one at a time.
The Braun (which is also a PrimeFilm scanner, rebadged for sale in the US
under the Braun brand name) has a setup for scanning a full tray of slides
at a time, but it sells for 4 times the price of the PF 3650 Pro3 (which is
sold in Europe under the "Reflecta" brand name).

Nikon has solutions for scanning multiple slides, but they are much more
expensive. If money were no object, I'd probably suggest Nikon. If,
however, you are burdened with minor financial inconveniences like
mortgages, college funds and car payments, and if you do not shoot photos
for a living, the PrimeFilm units will yield good results, with the benefits
of Digital ICE, Digital ROC and Digital GEM, all for a very low price.
 >> Stay informed about: negative scanners