film scanner
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
>excuse the gear thread
looking to get a 35mm negative scanner for around $200, any good recommendations? thanks /p/als
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 100 dpi Vertical Resolution 100 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 267 Image Height 300 Scene Capture Type Standard
V600 and a Film Tray.
It'll be like 155
Lemme just hijack this thread
I'm also looking for a film scanner under $200, but it must be supported by SANE ("good" or "complete" on http://www.sane-project.org/lists/sane-mfgs-cvs.html) It would also be nice if it could do 4x5.
currently I'm looking at the canon 9000f, but it can't do 4x5 in a single pass. I've used one before and was pretty happy with the results so it's probably a good choice for 35mm or medium format.
>>2709622
This, my V600 is tits. I don't even have an expensive film tray, just the one it comes with. its fine.
>flatbed shills still recommending flatbeds for 35mm
DSLR
SCAN
LA
RN
Flatbeds are for medium format and larger. No matter what the shills say, flatbeds aren't putting out enough detail to fully resolve a 35mm negative. DSLR scanning costs you all of a 50mm (equivalent) lens, reversal ring, a cardboard box, some glue, some aluminium foil, some white tissue paper, a digital camera, a tripod, and a reversal ring. Oh, and accepting never having sharp corners on your scans unless you buy a macro lens. Thanks, field curvature. Other than that, the detail is excellent, macro lenses are plentiful, and most people have everything on hand anyways.
High end dedicated scanners are slightly worse than DSLR scanning for 35mm. Lower in resolution, higher in convenience, and you better hope you can interface with the scanner and run the software. If you don't care for 16MP worth of data, then pick up a Plustek or something.
Low end dedicated scanners a shit.
Is the V600 really that cheap in the US? Here they still sell for £200+ which is $300+ equivalent.
>>2709858
>flatbeds aren't putting out enough detail to fully resolve a 35mm negative
Nobody is talking about that. If you want scans to put on the Web & do small prints from, flatbeds are more than adequate for 35mm.
>>2709858
DSLR scanning is a pain in the ass and the results are shit unless you put a ton of time into it. Much better to just slide two strips into a holder and scan them all in one go.
>>2709927
Amazon says $200 for the v600 and $150. I like how bonglanders like to brag about their exchange rate when their money actually buys less on the international market.
>>2709948
Tbf a lot of things (electronics especially) are just cheaper in the US regardless of exchange rate.
Plustek is ok for 35mm, but you will not get epic resolution. Also mine tends to make the result more blue than the preview, especially when I have been scanning for a while. So there's that.
I use a plustek 8100 that I got for cheap and like it more than the V600 I used to have access to (not mine). The quality is maybe a bit better with the plustek but mainly it is more convenient. Also found it worked better than the V600 when the film was not very flat.
One big advantage with the V600 is the ability to scan MF and paper...
>flatbeds aren't putting out enough detail to fully resolve a 35mm negative
It really depends on which 35mm film you're using desu.
>DSLR scanning costs you all of a 50mm (equivalent) lens, reversal ring, a cardboard box, some glue, some aluminium foil, some white tissue paper, a digital camera, a tripod, and a reversal ring.
That's a lot of gear for something I can do with my flatbed that takes up next to no space on my bed. It also takes up more time than just sliding a strip of 6x2 into a tray.
>Lower in resolution
I'm not personally looking for a super hi-res scan for my snapshits, tho if I did, I'd go with a plustek or something else.
I just wish DSLR scanner anon could adopt a name or trip in these threads so I don't have to see the same god damned bullshit that doesn't interest me every time. Not everyone is you, just add the information you already screencapped to the /p/ wiki/sticky.
>>2709948
>I like how bonglanders like to brag about their exchange rate when their money actually buys less on the international market.
I don't think I've ever bragged about the exchange rate and £=$=EUR being a good thing. Smart bonglanders like myself just import everything from Europe.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SEIKO EPSON CORP. Camera Model EPSON scanner Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:21 12:27:01
>>2709858
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
V600 just cant manage to pull enough film resolution man . . just not enough sorry. I can't quite make out the edge definition of the emulsion crystals.
GTFO
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.4 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2012:09:04 17:33:46
>>2710124
that looks good, is that 35mm with DSLR scanning?
