SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4729 times:
Hi all,
As the title says, I'm looking for a good-quality scanner to scan film negatives. Would anyone like to recommend one? I only did a little bit of research and I read a few good things about the Canon CanoScan 8800F. Is it reasonable?
BTW, what kind of resolution should I expect from 35mm film?
Thanks!
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4722 times:
I too have been looking into this. My budget isn't crazy, perhaps £300 ($600) maximum - any chance of a (half) decent negative scanner for this or am I dreaming? Don't know much about scanners.....
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4693 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 1): My budget isn't crazy, perhaps £300 ($600) maximum
I was actually looking to spend less!!!
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6184 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4677 times:
I use the Canon Canoscan 4400F that works OK for slides and negatives (as well as regular scans) and should cost you less than $100.
Got many scans on here with it.
The resolution is what you want it to be, within the limits of the machine. I scan to get an image of around 3600x2400 pix then process it (remove dust, etc).
Great stuff! I imagine the 8400F is the better? How much is that? Do these scanners have some sort of special cradle to put your neg's in to scan them? I assume they are meant to scan neg's?
I always thought that scanners which can process neg's cost an absolute fortune?
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, RR: 12 Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4671 times:
If you guys don't mind looking for a used scanner, the Minolta Dimage Scan series is an excellent option. They're tough to find used though because they are just so good... but I can't recommend anything else; from my own personal use it brings exemplary output.
If a brand new unit is a must, the Nikon Coolscan 5000 is also an equally good choice.
Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6184 posts, RR: 11 Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4667 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5): Do these scanners have some sort of special cradle to put your neg's in to scan them? I assume they are meant to scan neg's?
Yes, in mine there's a special holder that clips into the cover and holds 4 slides or a strip of 6 negatives. Any slides/negs are backlit from a light in the cover.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5): I always thought that scanners which can process neg's cost an absolute fortune?
The ones specifically for negatives usually are, but I think they have a higher resolution than an A4 flatbed scanner.
Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6184 posts, RR: 11 Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4659 times:
As an example from my scanner (when they were a bit more amenable at CDG.)
This is more or less a full size KC64 slide scan at 3900x2600 straight from the scanner (but sized at 1024x683 by flickr). Beware dust. You might not be able to see it but you will scan it.
And this is the nose at 1024x683, so full size as scanned. The jags in various places suggest that the the scanning resolution is a bit high (scanner "pixels" bigger than corresponding detail on the photo)
Strikeeagle From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 12 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4642 times:
Hi , The minolta dimage scan elite 5400 is a very good dedicated scanner for both
negs and slides , i dont think however that minolta make these now so i guess
you would have to search for a used one ? A few years back a decent quality
film scanner was about £400 plus , there are cheaper ones available now i
think such as flatbed scanners that will do both print and negs - slides etc .
I would say though that if you have a lot of film negs or slides that you want
to preserve then go for a dedicated film scanner as these produce high quality
images .
Anthony
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4609 times:
Quoting Dvincent (Reply 6): If you guys don't mind looking for a used scanner, the Minolta Dimage Scan series is an excellent option. They're tough to find used though because they are just so good... but I can't recommend anything else; from my own personal use it brings exemplary output.
Absolutely agree
I had a Nikon Coolscan III that failed. I had always considered that to be pretty good and went to buy a Coolscan IV simply because the Minolta one had been discontinued, though it had the best reviews. When I got to the shop they actually had a few Minolta Dimage Scan Elite on offer as a discontinued line and I bought one as it was considerably cheaper than the Nikon
What a move ?
The results are superb with excellent shadow and highlight detail, far far better than the Nikon and I had to rescan a lot that I had done before. The only downside is that it is rather slow particularly when Digital ICE is used (the Elite 2 was faster). Whilst capable of scanning at 5400 DPI I generally scan at 2700 or 1800 for here
I also have a Canonscan 9950F (a flatbed) on which I can scan 120 film negs and transparencies. It gives good results with 35mm too and whilst the resolution is the same as my dedicated 35mm scanner, I do not find the shadow detail as good (and that is very important for good scans)
Mick Bajcar
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4493 times:
(apologies for the late reply here!)
Thanks all for the very useful information. Does anyone know what the differences between the Canon 9950F, 8600F, and 8800F are? Thanks.
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4465 times:
Hey Tony,
Took the plunge yesterday and bought a CanoScan 4400F (as recommended above). My initial budget was double what this cost (£70 or US$135), however the recommendations regarding its capability convinced me that I really didn't need to spend the extra (I think!).
I haven't given it a blast yet but I'll let you know ASAP how it does and I'll try and post some scans.
Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6184 posts, RR: 11 Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4445 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 16): Took the plunge yesterday and bought a CanoScan 4400F (as recommended above).
I hope you like it. I've had mine for over 18 months now and it's worked fine, when the kids give me enough time to use it.
Quoting SNATH (Reply 15): Does anyone know what the differences between the Canon 9950F, 8600F, and 8800F are? Thanks.
Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6184 posts, RR: 11 Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4434 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 18): Oly720man, have you any accepted images here with the 4400F using 35mm standard film
These are scanned from colour negatives (I haven't got round to doing that many yet)
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4432 times:
Wow! Those results look really good! I'm just installing the bugger now so hopefully for the benefit of the OP I can post some of my own scans shortly. Oly720man, many thanks for your help in making me make my choice.
Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6184 posts, RR: 11 Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4429 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 20): Oly720man, many thanks for your help in making me make my choice.
Glad to help. I look forward to seeing some scans.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4422 times:
OK, silly post above - should have read the on-screen manual instead of just the basic scanning guide! I've gone into advanced negative scanning so hopefully the next result will be much, much better...
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4420 times:
Karl
If you have used a lot of higher ISO film like 200 you are probably going to need a noise reduction programme.
Neat Image is dreadful if abused but very good if used at low levels and the free version at www.neatimage.com will suffice.
When all else fails, read the instructions.
Mick Bajcar
25 JakTrax: OK, thanks Mick, I'm gonna have a good read of the manual tonight to see if I can get my head round it all. Do you think though that good scans (using
26 Oly720man: Just had a quick go at it and got this...
27 Olympus69: Given similar quality scanners, which method should give the best results - scanning from negatives or prints? I am using digital now and have scanne
29 JakTrax: OK folks, here's my first decent scan (I think!). Comments good and bad welcome. Is it alright quality-wise? Anything more I can do? Is it rare enough
30 JakTrax: Think I'm kinda getting the hang of this - would this be worthy of uploading to the database? Thanks, Karl
31 PRM: Both of those look good enough to make it, (the Let too especially if re-sized to 1024x pixels and post-processed so the defects will be less evident)
32 113312: I usually scan as a .tiff. Then, clean any defects such as dust, scratches or other spots using Paintshop or Photoshop. Of course, any color or contra
33 Walter2222: Most old slides tend to have color casts, and if not corrected, the shot will be rejected. I had a lot of problems seeing this, but with a lot of hel
34 Dendrobatid: Karl Neither are there yet. It is not as easy as it looks and it has taken me a long time to get things right. A lot of my accepted early scans are ru
35 JakTrax: Er, yeah, haven't stopped since 7am..... Mick, thanks for the tips, however in all honesty I've only had a two-minute play in PSE5.0 to achieve those
36 Dendrobatid: Karl Use my profile to contact me please Mick
37 JakTrax: I would normally put this in the pre-screen thread but I think we'd lose track of where we're at if I did that. Here's a re-edit of the Caribair LET41
38 Olympus69: Thanks. I was hoping that would be the case since my B/W prints are rather small. John.
39 Walter2222: This is a very good read for people that want to know somewhat more about scanning: http://www.scantips.com/ (by Wayne Fulton) PS: Most of the info ca
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1272 posts, 
, 6184 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Feb 2006, 1 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
