A big film scanner thread

OK, having recently bought a lovely new Fuji GS645S, it looks like I will be scanning quite a bit more 120 on my Epson V500 than in the past few years... but having scanned a roll on Saturday, the supplied 120 film holders are a pain in the proverbial. The available area is essentially 6x12 cm; I can't remember if it had room for two 6x6, but I certainly can only do two 6x4.5 frames, whereas I want to scan a strip of four frames. I've spent much of the morning looking at alternatives. ISTR that @Harlequin565 tried the Lomo Digitaliza 120 film holder and found it was too thick for the V500. The Betterscan ones are now available but look like they'll be over US$100 (plus VAT etc).

I found a thread on Photo.net (https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/494204-can-a-epson-v600-120-film-holder-be-used-on-a-v500/) that suggests that there are 120/brownie holders: "the stock 120/Brownie film holders [...] only allow for 2 6x9 to be scanned at a time". Well, two 6x9 frames would possibly cope with my strip of four 6x4.5 frames (though the inter-frame gap is quite wide). The OP in that case was trying to scan three 6x9 frames, which strikes me as a bit of a problem as apparently the scanning area is only 27 cm long (so no room for inter-frame gaps!). I guess Brownie in this case refers to 620 film... I thought these weren't available, but I did find one from fleabay for US$50, and another from AliExpress for £17. The fleabay US one appears to be genuine Epson, but the AliExpress one I'm not so sure about. The latter also suggests that the V500 should use a design with a shorter film strip, although I can't quite see why!

I also found a quite different (and rather flimsy-looking) design on fleabay, with a long negative area, supposedly suitable for V500 upwards, again for around US$50 plus VAT etc.

Has anyone any advice for me before I splash my hard-earned on one of these?
 
V550 owner here, so not 100% the Lomo thingy won't work on the V500.

With all my 120 scans now, I drop them straight on the scanner bed with a Betterscan piece of ANR glass over the top. Can confirm this will do 4 at a time.
 
Harlequin565 said:
V550 owner here, so not 100% the Lomo thingy won't work on the V500.

With all my 120 scans now, I drop them straight on the scanner bed with a Betterscan piece of ANR glass over the top. Can confirm this will do 4 at a time.
Click to expand...
Thanks Ian. Looks like that also comes to around US$50 plus VAT, if I've read their pricing right... I couldn't find any UK suppliers of ANR glass in a quick look. Interestingly, I did find a longer 120 film holder with ANR resin fitted, from Canada for about US$55 plus VAT etc.

I also found a couple of posts saying ANR glass slightly softens the scans. Since I'm generally of the "sharpness is bourgeois" school, I shouldn't be bothered by this, but having lloked at my GS645S scans, maybe sharpness isn't such a bad thing after all! ;)
 
ChrisR said:
Thanks Ian. Looks like that also comes to around US$50 plus VAT, if I've read their pricing right... I couldn't find any UK suppliers of ANR glass in a quick look. Interestingly, I did find a longer 120 film holder with ANR resin fitted, from Canada for about US$55 plus VAT etc.

I also found a couple of posts saying ANR glass slightly softens the scans. Since I'm generally of the "sharpness is bourgeois" school, I shouldn't be bothered by this, but having lloked at my GS645S scans, maybe sharpness isn't such a bad thing after all! ;)
Click to expand...


I've seen this on eBay:


No idea if it's any good or not, but thought it was worth mentioning.
 
FishyFish said:
I've seen this on eBay:


No idea if it's any good or not, but thought it was worth mentioning.
Click to expand...
That's interesting, though I'm having trouble thinking through how it works; the pics show it being hinged at one end, which I think could be an issue with 120 (although that's how my 135 film holders work), but other pics show film being slid in at the side.
 
FishyFish said:
I've seen this on eBay:


No idea if it's any good or not, but thought it was worth mentioning.
Click to expand...
I bought one like that from AliExpress. Not a great experience buying, but I've just scanned my first roll. The holder does hinge at one end, but has a cunning little notch near the hinge end that holds the film down when you slide under it. My flat FP4 was no problem. Some of the rolls of my father's film I've been looking at this even (devved but left on the roll uncut for maybe 70 years), they might be a bit more of an issue!
 
ChrisR said:
Your software may be able to deliver “raw” files, that can be re-edited either in the same software at a later time, or in some cases through your image processing software (eg Photoshop and competitors directly, or via plugins for Lightroom or Photoshop). [Section 3.1]
Click to expand...
Most references to "raw files" I've seen in this thread, or elsewhere in relation to scanning are of two kinds: first, re-processing the "raw scans" in the original scanning software (Vuescan or Silverfast, mostly), or second, processing raw images of scans made with a capable digital camera.

I recently used a couple of rolls of expired 135 Provia 100F that I found in a bottom drawer. Processed by The Darkroom in Cheltenham, but home scanned. As usual, sight of those wonderful little images set in black was enough to bring a smile to my face. But the first few frames as I scanned also reminded me how paradoxically tricky it is to scan slide/reversal film So I decided to get both JPEGs and 48-bit raw files for the better images from then on.

The first issue of course was that my2400 samples per inch scans took around 2 MB in JPEG, while approaching 100 MB as raw files!

I use Capture One Pro for my post-processing (the best substitute I could find for the late lamented Aperture). I was surprised to find that C1Pro had no problem importing the Vuescan/Plustek raw files, nor indeed in processing them. The starting point was obviously very different from with the corresponding JPEG, but there's no special "raw develop" module, so the basic steps were the same. The flaw in my experiment of course is that I've only processed a dozen or so raw files before, not having an advanced digital camera. Some of the steps, particularly dealing with white balance or colours more generally, are ones I'm pretty unfamiliar with. Nevertheless, I thought the results in some cases were significantly better (or had the potential to be so) than the corresponding JPEGs. I won't be experiementing with raws from negative files, but I will have further goes with the second Provia roll, due back in a couple of days.

BTW 7-year-expired Provia 100F kept in a bottom drawer and used at EI 100 seems to have held up just fine!
 
Bit of a strange email from Vuescan for Black Friday as they're encouraging us long standing pro users to voluntarily pay more as a "gesture of support" :thinking:

Many of you may have previously invested in VueScan when our Professional Edition licenses included unlimited free upgrades. While you are certainly welcome to keep using that, it's important to note that the ongoing development and enhancement of VueScan heavily rely on our ability to attract new customers. As a gesture of support and to ensure continuous improvement of our software, we kindly encourage you to consider joining the VueScan Update Program.​
We created the VueScan Update Program to help customers who want to continue to receive updates to VueScan after their one year of free updates have ended. You can indefinitely use any version of VueScan that was released during your VueScan Update Program subscription - you won't lose access even after your subscription ends. The price of the VueScan Update Program is usually 50% off a new license, but this you can get it for an additional 25% off.​
​
Click to expand...
 
ChrisR said:
... I decided to get both JPEGs and 48-bit raw files for the better images from then on.

The first issue of course was that my2400 samples per inch scans took around 2 MB in JPEG, while approaching 100 MB as raw files!
Click to expand...
I've only just noticed another little detail. I scan my images at 2400 samples per inch. one particular image is reported as being 2272 x 3339 pixels in the JPEG, but 5008 x 3408 pixels in the raw image (it was initially landscape format and had to be rotated in C1Pro). At first I thought it had somehow counted the pixels twice, once for each pass, but the numbers are clearly not double. It appears the native scan is actually 3600 samples per inch, and Vuescan downsamples it for the "2400 spi scan" JPEG. Obvious maybe, but news to me!
 
Further emailed update on the Vuescan email I posted about above.
​
I hope you are doing well. Just the other day, we reached out regarding the VueScan Update Program, and we've been overwhelmed by the positive response – thank you to everyone who has signed up! Your support and enthusiasm for VueScan are truly the driving forces behind our continuous improvement.​
We also heard from many of you who are seeking alternative ways to support VueScan. I want to assure you that the lifetime free updates you've enjoyed with the Professional Edition are not ending. However, to respond to your requests for additional ways to contribute, either as a one-time gesture or on an ongoing basis, we're thrilled to introduce the VueScan Supporter Program.​
​
  • One-Time Contribution: Choose this to make a single, impactful support gesture, aiding us in our mission to continuously enhance VueScan.
  • Ongoing Support: Opt for a subscription-based contribution to consistently be a part of our ongoing development and innovation.
​
We are incredibly proud to have supported your many of your scanning needs with VueScan for 10, 20, or even more years. It’s been a remarkable journey continuing to develop and evolve VueScan and stay ahead in technology, thanks to your continued usage and feedback. As we look forward to maintaining the high standards and innovation you’ve come to expect from us, embracing a sustainable business model becomes crucial. This ensures that VueScan not only keeps pace with technological advancements but also remains an indispensable tool in your toolkit for many more years.​
We're truly grateful for your continued support. Thank you for being such an important part of VueScan’s journey.​
Warm regards,
David Hamrick​
Click to expand...
 
Peter B said:
Further emailed update on the Vuescan email I posted about above.
Click to expand...
I got one of those, too, but not the first one. While the original model was likely not sustainable, it's not quite clear why they haven't given their new subscription model a longer try before resorting to what feels like guilt tripping. I'm used to these emails from Wikipedia and the Internet Archive and occasionally respond, likewise for Open Source software, but it doesn't feel quite the same coming from a private company. OTOH, I definitely don't want us to lose Vuescan!
 
ChrisR said:
OK, that's all I've got so far. Any comments?
Click to expand...
Hi Chris
Thanks for the info.
I now have a better idea of the scale of the challenge I have shown below:-




I have over 400 negatives of various sizes I'd like to transfer to a disc or other digital storage.
I've tried a few companies but ,if they can do the job, want too much.

Can you suggest a suitable scanning method which would enable me to do the job?
The range of negative sizes are approximately :-

3.5"x 2"
2"x 2"
3"x 1.5"
1"x1.5"
1"x0.5"

Ideally I'd like something where I have the flexibility to scan various sizes at one go with a method of holding them in place.

Could you suggest the best method or equipment and scan quality which would be suitable.


Thanks

Bob Moore
 
That's an interesting challenge, @bad Bob ! I think for DIY you have two choices, either a flat bed scanner or using a digital camera with a light source.

If the first two were actually 3.25x2.25 and 2.25x2.25, then those would be what we usually refer to as 9x6 and 6x6 (approx, cm) frame sizes on 120 film. There would be perforations or markings down one side, IIRC. There would be film holders for 120 with a flatbed scanner.

The 1" wide neatives, if that refers to the image area, could be normal 135 film (standard frame sizes are 24x36mm). There would be film holders for 135 with a flatbed scanner. The ones I have don't have dividing strips, so might let you scan your 1x0.5" frames. Otherwise you would have to scan placing the negatives on the scanner glass (with a small risk of Newton's rings), or else cut holes in cardboard as DIY film holders (I've seen folk tape them in place with masking tape).

An Epson Perfection V600 would probably do the job, depending on how much resolution your need (if you want to print the small frames big, you'd need the much more expensive V850, AFAIK. (The V600 would OK for the smaller sizes, possibly, depending what you want to do with them.)

I don't know enough to advise about the film holders for camera scanning, like the pixl-latr. A few on here use this method, I believe.
 
Last edited:
With my V700 scanner I have made masks from black card which fit in the standard film holders, for 35mm, 120 and 5x4 film. The holders are flexible (flimsy) enough to accommodate tho thicknesses of card in addition to the film.
 
It seems as if it was last century but in fact it was about 2007 I bought a Nikon CoolscanV (or at least I think that is its name) I don't think, for the general user there has never been a scanner made since then can produce quality scans of 35mm film negs better. I still have it and occasionally I get it out and stretch its legs a bit. It will not work using the Nikon Software on anything later than Windows XP so I have an old XP laptop which I keep for that purpose.
As far as I know it is only the range of later Nikon scanners that can scan in RAW (or for NIKON purists NEF) It also has the last time I checked a higher D Max than any other. The only one that comes close appears to be the Epson 850 with a D max of 3.9, Nikons is 4.2! Admittedly it gets little use at present but I am not getting rid of it, it is just too good.
Film flatness has never been a problem, if the negative or slide is sharp, then the scan will be sharp too.
It is a bit slower than others, but that is almost certainly due to the old laptop's software, not the scanner.
 
Last edited:
Regarding a much earlier thread giving the eye watering costs of Negative Supply negative scanning equipment, a quick glance at the latest offers from First Call Photographic, reveals a present offer of the following items bundled together at £299.00 listed below: -

Negative Supply Basic Film Carrier 35 (12175)
Negative Supply Basic Scanning Light Source 4""x 5"" 95 CRI (12165)
Firstcall Copystand 500 (25264)


There is also an enthusiast kit that covers 35 and 120 film at £779.00 listed below: -

Enthusiast Kit for 35mm and 120 Film Scanning Includes:
Basic Riser MK3: With a solid steel base, anodized aluminium central column, and design cues from the Pro Riser MK3, the new Basic Riser MK3 boasts a massive upgrade over the Basic Riser MK2. This is ideal for users looking to scan 35mm and 120 with nearly any camera and macro combination and even 4x5 with up to a 90mm macro lens.
Basic Film Carrier 35 MK2: Using shared parts and processes from the Pro Film Carrier 35, this all-new Basic Film Carrier 35 MK2 offers superior film flatness to its predecessor and is capable of scanning all 35mm film formats including half frame, full frame (standard 35mm), and panoramic sizes in a single capture. It also works with Minox, 110, APS, and 126 formats (sold separately). It can scan full rolls of 35mm film in 2 minutes or less and works with cut strips as short as three frames.
Basic Film Carrier 120 MK2: Quickly and easily scan up to 6x9cm negatives in a single capture. It guarantees film flatness with an all-new interchangeable cassette with a double s-curve design, includes masks for 6x4.5 up to 6x9, and can scan full rolls in 60 seconds or less.
4x5 Light Source Basic MK2 (99 CRI) Compact and bright, it is an excellent light pad for colour and black and white film.
Basic Film Carrier 120 MK2 Stabilizing Mask: This accessory holds the Basic Film Carrier 120 MK2 firmly to our light source and helps mask extraneous light when scanning, and ensures a confident workflow.
Basic Film Carrier 35 MK2 Stabilizing Mask: This accessory holds the Basic Film Carrier 35 MK2 firmly to our light source and helps mask extraneous light when scanning, and ensures a confident workflow.
Inline Power Switch f/ 4x5 Light Source Basic or Light Source Mini: This accessory allows you to leave your light source plugged in and turn the light on and off via a toggle switch, preventing accidental movement of the light.

For anyone interested in seriously photographing a large collection of negatives, this could be the way to go, though not cheap by any stretch of the imagination, the quality of Negative Supply equipment is first class, and manuafactured in the USA too.
 
Does being made in America mean anything significant? (Last Paragraph in post above.)

I have just had a look on the First-call website and cannot identifyee what you are describing.

Just found the item I think you are describing priced at £299. That is not a scanner, it is a setup for photographing negatives with a digital camera - in my book not quite the same thing. It will only be significantly time saving if your negs/slides are still in the 36 exp strip.
 
Last edited:
Rodinal said:
Does being made in America mean anything significant? (Last Paragraph in post above.)

I have just had a look on the First-call website and cannot identifyee what you are describing.

Just found the item I think you are describing priced at £299. That is not a scanner, it is a setup for photographing negatives with a digital camera - in my book not quite the same thing. It will only be significantly time saving if your negs/slides are still in the 36 exp strip.
Click to expand...
No, being made in the USA means nothing except that I chose to identify the origin of the equipment, I thought that I made clear with my post, and I quote "For anyone interested in seriously photographing a large collection of negatives" unquote! That I was not referring to scanning negatives, and my reply was in fact intended for ChrisR who had some time ago quoted the prices of Negative Supply items and I was merely updating that post with the relatively reduced prices. As for your comment about time saving, having owned a Nikon Coolscan V, I can assure you that I am more than able to photograph 36 35mm images from a copy stand in the time it takes to scan one image with the scanner, and a reason I hawked the scanner on Ebay years ago.
 
Ah, but ... despite the mechanical scan time of the scanner itself, the associated Nikonscan software did a prime job of colour negative conversion, along with the availability of dust removal that was pretty good. For me, Silverfast or even Vuescan (ugh!) could never come close. But Vuescan was very good at providing drivers. Their use of 'RAW' terminology, though, was misleading. SCSI scanners could be tricky to connect in latter years, but for usb scanners the last available version, Nikonscan 4, could be quite easily got to work with Windows 8 etc. I can't speak for Mac.

Indeed, the Nikonscan software could output a NEF RAW file if required, instead of a tif. Which would seem to address your concern in another thread. There's never a perfect answer!
 
droj said:
Ah, but ... despite the mechanical scan time of the scanner itself, the associated Nikonscan software did a prime job of colour negative conversion, along with the availability of dust removal that was pretty good. For me, Silverfast or even Vuescan (ugh!) could never come close. But Vuescan was very good at providing drivers. Their use of 'RAW' terminology, though, was misleading. SCSI scanners could be tricky to connect in latter years, but for usb scanners the last available version, Nikonscan 4, could be quite easily got to work with Windows 8 etc. I can't speak for Mac.

Indeed, the Nikonscan software could output a NEF RAW file if required, instead of a tif. Which would seem to address your concern in another thread. There's never a perfect answer!
Click to expand...
Yes indeed it was an incredible scanner in its day with its digital ICE technology, but it was the time factor that finally did it for me, hence I lost interest when I realised the almost never ending task of converting such a large collection of negatives, finally deciding to sell it.
It was to be many years later when my interest was awakened when I visited a friend who developed and enlarged all his own film stock and he took me into his darkroom to show me his negative photographing set up using his digital SLR and a micro lens, he then took me through his method of inversion and post processing and I was completely taken by the quality that he was acheiving in Photoshop, I think it was CS3 at the time, as a result I too went down the same path, and though I never really found the time required, I did get a flavour of what was possible, of course now retired I can really make a start, and have set this as my project for the coming year. However I know I have a pretty steep learning curve, and am hoping to pick up some advice from forum members along the way.
 
Mehal said:
Yes indeed it was an incredible scanner in its day with its digital ICE technology, but it was the time factor that finally did it for me, hence I lost interest when I realised the almost never ending task of converting such a large collection of negatives, finally deciding to sell it.
It was to be many years later when my interest was awakened when I visited a friend who developed and enlarged all his own film stock and he took me into his darkroom to show me his negative photographing set up using his digital SLR and a micro lens, he then took me through his method of inversion and post processing and I was completely taken by the quality that he was acheiving in Photoshop, I think it was CS3 at the time, as a result I too went down the same path, and though I never really found the time required, I did get a flavour of what was possible, of course now retired I can really make a start, and have set this as my project for the coming year. However I know I have a pretty steep learning curve, and am hoping to pick up some advice from forum members along the way.
Click to expand...
I can see that for large volumes of negatives, the "photo and convert" workflow could seriously speed things up. Speaking for myself, I found the time starting around 2012 to scan all my slides and most negatives, over 4,000 in all, dating from 1966 to the noughties. My first scanner, one of those 5 mPixel boxes, basically a cheap camera and a SD card, was very fast but the quality was terrible, so I sent it back and invested in the best proper scanner I could afford. I worked out I could get around one film done each day, more or less, and just kept at it, off and on. Now I only need to scan recently finished rolls, so it's easy to keep up. I found quite a lot of the time is spent adjusting the precise framing of each image in the scanner, something I'd guess always has to be dealt with even in this new workflow, whether at photo time or later in post.

My scanner requires me to move the film holder for each frame; there are relatively few scanners that will automatically move the film, these days. Some allow you to batch scan, but I've had trouble making that work. I think there is at least one photo-based system that will automatically move the film, but unless you have a really high resolution system I'd have thought that photoing multiple negatives and then splitting them would not really be viable.

However, the aim of this thread is to provide pointers to any of the ways the reader can use to convert their film images to digital. None is particularly better for everyone, all have their place.
 
Peter B said:
Bit of a strange email from Vuescan for Black Friday as they're encouraging us long standing pro users to voluntarily pay more as a "gesture of support" :thinking:
Click to expand...
"We made a promise to you, to start our business, and now we want to renege on that promise, in order to keep our margins up!"

That's one reason why I stick to open source software, when I can...
 
I have significantly updated Section 4 (now up to version 1.4), including adding the following:

4.9 FilmoMat SmartConvert

FilmoMat's SmartConvert (see https://www.filmomat.eu/smartconvert) is a recent release, first mentioned in a charmingly typoed thread on here ("New Film Sna Software fro Filmomat. Smaet Convert") by @MrDrizz . SmartConvert is stand-alone software, so does not require LR, PS etc. It claims to be "designed for simplicity and power", and will process common Raw formats as well as TIFFs (presumably JPEGs as well?). All images are processed in AdobeRGB and have that profile embedded (I don't really understand the implications of that for those of us who only use sRGB, but caveat emptor I suppose). The price late 2023 is €99 inc VAT at 19%. Although this is (I understand) a perpetual licence, it is not yet clear how much support is included, or whether any new versions will require additional costs.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
"We made a promise to you, to start our business, and now we want to renege on that promise, in order to keep our margins up!"

That's one reason why I stick to open source software, when I can...
Click to expand...
While researching just now I saw a post that made a number of comparisons, one was to DarkTable NegaScan NegaDoctor. I know no more at this stage.
 
Last edited:
ChrisR said:
I have significantly updated Section 4 (now up to version 1.4), including adding the following:

4.9 FilmoMat SmartConvert

FilmoMat's SmartConvert (see https://www.filmomat.eu/smartconvert) is a recent release, first mentioned in a charmingly typoed thread on here ("New Film Sna Software fro Filmomat. Smaet Convert") by @MrDrizz . SmartConvert is stand-alone software, so does not require LR, PS etc. It claims to be "designed for simplicity and power", and will process common Raw formats as well as TIFFs (presumably JPEGs as well?). All images are processed in AdobeRGB and have that profile embedded (I don't really understand the implications of that for those of us who only use sRGB, but caveat emptor I suppose). The price late 2023 is €99 inc VAT at 19%. Although this is (I understand) a perpetual licence, it is not yet clear how much support is included, or whether any new versions will require additional costs.
Click to expand...
Chris
Just to update you regarding Smartconvert, I have been in touch with the creator of the software and he assures me that all future upgrades are included in the initial cost of the software, as I understand it, the software converts a RAW negative to a positive, then you carry out what necessary adjustments you wish to undertake using the very easy to use interface, once satisfied with the result, you can export it in either TIFF or JPEG, and then continue to make any further adjustments in your go to programme, be it PS, LR, Affinity Photo, Gimp or whatever other software that you use.
It is well worth downloading the demo version to make a comparison with what you have previously used, my personal opinion is that compared to the tweaking that I used to undertake in PS CS5, I have never owned LR, so cannot comment on FLP, it is pretty damned good straight out of the box, of course much depends on the quality of the original negative, I would not expect an exhibition print to come from a negative taken in 1962 on a Zeiss Ikon Contina, but the ones I have tested are certainly satisfactory for my digital archival purposes.
Regarding the cost, which is shown, as you correctly say as 99 Euros inclusive of VAT at 19%, works out at £85.61 at present exchange rates.
 
OK, a little research gets me:

"darktable is an open source photography workflow application and raw developer — a virtual lighttable and darkroom for photographers." (See https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/3.8/en/)

negadoctor is a new module in darktable: "Process scanned negatives. You can obtain an image of a negative using a film scanner, or by photographing it against a white light (e.g. a light table or computer monitor) or off-camera flash." (See https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/3.8/en/module-reference/processing-modules/negadoctor/). There follow detailed instructions for using it. So, a no-cost, open source solution @AndrewFlannigan ! I have seen no results so far.

EDIT: I will add this as section 4.10.
 
Added this, self-explanatory...

4.11 Basic ACR/PS "actions" to invert

I've been looking for someone explaining how they do colour inversion using basic Photoshop (or similar) "actions. Tim Gray (who I don't otherwise know) popped up on Mastodon (he's @ezwal@social.lol) with a link to a blog post where he explains how he uses Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop for his inversions. See here: https://125px.com/articles/photography/digital/color-film-scan-processing/ .

If anyone here has more detail on methods of doing this (nverting by simply using your post-processing tool of choice), I'd be interested to know of it!
 
A really interesting thread on an affordable Copy Stand has just re-surfaced. It was started in [EDIT] 2021 by @Cuchulainn: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/copy-stand-alternative.721190/#post-9430642. It refers to the Reprostativ kit from German company Dold Mechatronic (see https://www.dold-mechatronik.de/Reprostativ_1). He reported quick delivery, even post-Brexit and mid-pandemic! Apparently you need the Quick Release kit as well as the stand... oh, and some Allen keys!

He also mentioned in one post that Reflecta was up for sale. I checked their website, and it only has a "refreshing page" notice on it. The Wayback Machine's last crawl was 3 October 2023, significantly after that report. Not sure what's happening there. It would be a shame to lose Reflecta, definitely one of the better remaining suppliers, particularly for resolution. Some are still available from retail suppliers and other online sources.
 
Last edited:
I've often thoght that instead of a copystand, one could build a hollow tower out of lego and lay a camera across the top pointing downwards. Well it appears that someone is offering an upmarket version of that, according to this article from 35mmc: https://www.35mmc.com/12/01/2024/ne...t-film-scanning-after-success-of-35mm-system/.

It's effectively a light source, a film holder and a set of stackable rings that your mcaro lens screws onto at the top. Always parallel to the film plane, and no stray light so improved contrast. The 120 version (up to 6x9) is £240 and the 135 version for £150, from https://www.etsy.com/listing/1555862456/blackbox-120-system-for-high-quality?etsrc=sdt . Out of 27 reviews on that site, 26 are 5* and one is 4*.

EDIT: I'm impressed at how compact this is; it wouldn't take up much more space on a desk than my Plustek, and a lot less than any of the Epson flatbeds!
 
Last edited:
Harlequin565 said:
V550 owner here, so not 100% the Lomo thingy won't work on the V500.

With all my 120 scans now, I drop them straight on the scanner bed with a Betterscan piece of ANR glass over the top. Can confirm this will do 4 at a time.
Click to expand...
Do you not suffer from height/focus issues doing that?
I did a rough and ready calibration check on my V850 and the film needs to be about 1.2mm above the glass for sharpest focus.
That said, I've given up with the folly of film holders and now exclusively wet scan.
It is still a shame after all these years Epson could not have included some sort of autofocus.
 
soupdragon said:
It is still a shame after all these years Epson could not have included some sort of autofocus.
Click to expand...
I hear this!

soupdragon said:
Do you not suffer from height/focus issues doing that?
Click to expand...
I did have a betterscan holder which had screws on the corners to elevate/lower the holder. I did an exhaustive (and extremely boring) set of scans with a quarter turn on the screws each time, vs on the glass, vs the epson holder and "straight on the glass" was sharpest for me.
 
We found a Minolta 5400 in a charity shop last week, original box and seemed to be complete. Got it for £5, but when we tried to test it with some slides the results were barely recognisable. After some investigation it turns out that people actually take the lenses from these to use as macro lenses, and opening it up the lens is in fact missing. Normally this would just be a sell it for parts machine I guess, but given we're in for so little money and it seems to be working fine mechanically, I've been looking into whether there might be something we could replace it with. There's one listing of the original lens on ebay for a pretty preposterous £175, but there's a few others that at least on paper seem promising. One from a Coolscan LS-2000, which is 38mm vs the 39mm focal length, f2.8 vs f4, doesn't have quite the same optical resolution as the original but might at least get the scanner working again. The only thing it's hard to find data for is the actual size of the lenses, whether it would fit in the same place without modification. It is just mounted with a metal bracket, and there's some adjustment in the sensor itself. I guess the answer is to just buy it and try, worst case scenario I get to play around with a macro lens for a bit...
 
I assume that these scanners have a focussing capability to allow for differing mount sizes or film curvature. Replacing the missing lens with another from a different device, although similar, will probably not work
 
Superewza said:
We found a Minolta 5400 in a charity shop last week, original box and seemed to be complete. Got it for £5, but when we tried to test it with some slides the results were barely recognisable. After some investigation it turns out that people actually take the lenses from these to use as macro lenses, and opening it up the lens is in fact missing. Normally this would just be a sell it for parts machine I guess, but given we're in for so little money and it seems to be working fine mechanically, I've been looking into whether there might be something we could replace it with. There's one listing of the original lens on ebay for a pretty preposterous £175, but there's a few others that at least on paper seem promising. One from a Coolscan LS-2000, which is 38mm vs the 39mm focal length, f2.8 vs f4, doesn't have quite the same optical resolution as the original but might at least get the scanner working again. The only thing it's hard to find data for is the actual size of the lenses, whether it would fit in the same place without modification. It is just mounted with a metal bracket, and there's some adjustment in the sensor itself. I guess the answer is to just buy it and try, worst case scenario I get to play around with a macro lens for a bit...
Click to expand...
Worth looking at the bootie for Epson scanners e.g. 4180 good enough for enlarging up to A4 for 35mm and quite good for MF on comparing with my Epson 750 pro......of course caveat emptor when buying any electric things (but if you get it very cheap it's worth a gamble, I bought one for a fiver years ago) and would have to check it has neg holders and IIRC check for a power supply.
 
Last edited:
Regarding FilmLab; I've tried it on my Mac and iPhone using scans from my X-T20. You can get a 14 day trial for it.

The beta version 3 of FilmLab has profiles for different film, which I believe they are expanding on.

There is quite a discrepancy in look and result from the iOS and Mac versions; the Mac version has a lot more to play with and generally gets better results.

Anyway, as a means of comparison:

Noritsu scan from Take It Easy Lab in Leeds:
It's in the trees! It's coming! by Chris Walker, on Flickr
(I'm finding all their scans coming out a little green)

X-T20 scan with FilmLab:
filmlab by Chris Walker, on Flickr

X-T20 scan with manual processing in Rawtherapee & GIMP; following this guide
rawtherapee by Chris Walker, on Flickr
(i'm following the tutorial to the letter without making any personal edits myself. In all pictures I've tried, the reds come out a little bit 'Star Trek' like seen here)

The film here is Kodak Ultramax 400.

I think on balance the FilmLab result is good. I'm going to play with Darktable today and see how it compares.
 
Well, I like the gimp one but it wants the contrast of the noritsu
The filmlab is a bit contrasty and mebbe a shade cool
All calced from my uncalibrated 12inch 15 pixel lap top in strong sunlight, strobe ficker and bogeyes of course..:)
 
On average the Noritsu scan is the cleanest and has the most natural colours.
Once again, viewed from an uncalibrated monitor
 
For years i've always been disappointed with my scans at home, and I think it is one of the reasons I have sloewed in shooting film. Turns out slapping the negatives on the glass and then putting some betterscan glass on top has improved them wildly. They seem sharper and the colours pop more.
 
Personally I find the Nikon Scan 4 software gives me the most natural colours & detail I have ever seen, I have Silverfast 9 installed but much prefer the older Nikon software. (I used to use an Epson V850 & Silverfast)
Here is a scan from a Medium Format 6 x 6 negative, wet scanned using a Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED & a Stephan Scharf wet scan film holder:


Peaky Blinder 2 by Fraser White, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top