It seems for my business I will need a dedicated film scanner.
I have been using an Epson Perfection 4990 Photo which does the job well but it is too slow (15 mins each 6x6cm color frame at 2400dpi and ICE dust removal).
Is there a Medium Format film Scanner that will do the job quicker?

Ari,

I have questions:

What is your budget?
What do you need the scans for (ie what sort of quality)?
Shouldn't this be in the Gray Area?

Best,
Helen

Two basic questions:
Is your computer fast enough to handle a continuous stream of data from the scanner? If not, scans will take a long time!
Do you need to run ICE as standard (for every scan)? This slows things down a lot too! How long does your set-up take for a scan without ICE?

Regards,

David

PS: How is the scanner connected to the computer? USB2 and FireWire are a lot faster than SCSI!

Nikon 9000...superb scanner...EC

I have a dual core AMD Athlon X2 4400+, 2GBs of low latency memory and all that. So, my computer can handle it (I also have both USB 2.0 and Firewire ports).
My priority is not the highest resolution or DMax, its the speed.
As for ICE I need it to combat dust, otherwise I would need to check and retouch if not all but most of the negatives and yes I use an anti-static brush and strong blower.

As for the grey forum, sorry Helen, I couldn't find it at the time, I don't know how I must have missed it. If a moderator decides to move it, go ahead.

My priority is not the highest resolution or DMax, its the speed.


Use a lower resolution which will give you faster scans.

Use a lower resolution which will give you faster scans.

Lowering the resolution from 4800dpi to 2400dpi did not lower the time of scanning at all. Lowering it even more would not be desirable. I am sorry, but do you think that if the solution would be so simple, I wouldn't have thought of it?

I have a Nikon 9000 but ICE doesn't work for B&W. My 6x6 scans at 4000dpi take about 1-2 minutes I think at 16 bit.

Price is around $2000 US

Michael

I have a Nikon 9000 but ICE doesn't work for B&W. My 6x6 scans at 4000dpi take about 30sec to a minute at 16 bit.

Michael

How about color? That is my main concern as it takes much longer than BW and won't really need to scan BW.

I've only scanned one color neg and it was somewhere around 2-5 I think. I didn't time it but it was no where near 15.

Michael

I've only scanned one color neg and it was somewhere around 2-5 I think. I didn't time it but it was no where near 15.

Michael

Are you talking about the whole strip of three frames or one?
Is the timing with ICE enabled?

The times than Nikon give are the absolute minimum without any corrections so they are not much use.

I bought the glass holder that does only one neg at at time. Pose the question on photonet digital darkroom forum and there are lots of people there using different scanners.

Let me know and if you want I'll scan one today and time it.

Send me a PM.

Michael

Thank you Michael

15 minutes to scan a 6x6, wow, that seems awful long, even my worst scanner does them quite a bit quicker than that, my minolta does a 6x6 color in about 2 minutes...

Dave

Everyone is going to yell at me, but I let the software do the interpolation work with my 9000 and my Artixscan 1800f. I scan for final output which is normally 11x14x360 dpi and the prints are just great at 11 x14 and the scans are quick. I shoot roll film with RZ67s, Mamiya 645af and Arca Swiss 6x9 and scan all of them on the 9000..the scans are quick. For color, at this level of resolution, the ICE is quick too. Try it with your Epson, you could be surprised especially at a realistic viewing distance. If you have to use a loupe to compare prints then you may be gilding the lily....EC

Check Imacon scanners. But, be warned, cheapest is about 7000 EURO... :)

Buy MF dedicated scanner, about 1500 EURO...

If you need speed, turn dust removal off. Then you will lose time to manually remove dust. That means, at the end, just accept speed of your scanner...

No way I am afraid to get speed without spending significand amount of money and have ICE working...

I have an Imacon, the 646 model which scans at about 40 Megabytes a minute. I did have previously the Nikon coolscan 9000 which is a great scanner for the price but does not work with anything bigger then 6x9cm and doesn't have near the sharpness or shadow detail of the Imacon. If you want blazing fast scan speeds the Imacon 848 does 100 meg a minute and the 949 does 200 meg a minute.

The imacon scanners also have their own ICE type dust remover called flex touch.

The Imacon is just the entry level into the more professional scanners. There are several taht will offer you speed and quality. What surprises me is that you are focused on speed rather than quality. For starters, I would want to scan 6x6 at a higher resolution than 2400 spi (and the 4990 is only delivering ~ 2000 spi no matter where you set it). Having said that, I am totally surprised at your times on the 4990. Our experience has been that, at a 2400 dpi setting, the 4990 will scan a 4x5 transparency in something like 5 minutes or less. Adding ICE will increase the time but not tripleit and that is for much more turf.

Before looking for alternatives check the settings on yoru scanner.

Basically agreeing with Ted, there are better scanners though at higher prices. As far as support or service in Greece, that is a tougher issue and something to check with each manufacturer. Better high end scanners seem to need less service, and some even allow user cleaning or replacement of illumination sources. If you need this for your work, then the higher priced gear can quickly pay for itself in time savings.

At whatever point the Large Format Forum comes back on-line, you might want to search for scanners or scanning, specifically words like Imacon, Creo, Screen, or ICG. There are numerous threads about these things on that forum, and a much more appropriate place to discuss these things than APUG.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

I use both a Nikon 9000 (and an 8000) and the Imacon 949. Though the 949 is faster, it doesn't have ICE - there's no IR channel as far as I know. Flextouch doesn't work in the same way as ICE, and it isn't as good in my opinion. It loses detail.

I only use the Imacon for 35 mm (at 8000 ppi) and 4x5 (at 2040 ppi) - I don't bother using the Imacon for medium format because the 9000 with the single-frame glass holder is so good. I only use neg film in medium format. The 9000 can cope with the density range of neg film easily so there is no discernible difference in shadow or highlight detail between the 9000 and the 949.

Best,
Helen

Helen you do so much scanning that you own both an Imacon 949 and a Nikon 9000? Geez, you could buy a used drum scanner for that much. I first bought the Nikon coolscan 9000 but it was a pain to use with 6x12 and 6x17, couldn't do 4x5 and didn't have anywhere near the center and edge sharpness of the Imacon. I couldn't justify buying the 949, it didn't give me any more PPI for 120 and 4x5, I didn't need the speed and $10k more was just too much money for the slight increase in D max.

I did find however improvements in both highlight and shadow detail with my 646 over the Nikon coolscan 9000. Actually I've gotten better scans with the Imacon than nancy scans did for me on their Heidelberg drum scanner. With the Nikon you really need the ICE feature because with the glass neg holder it has additional glass surfaces that attract dust and you'll get dustier scans. Although for the price the Nikon is very impressive.

I only own Nikon 4000, 5000, 8000 and 9000 scanners. The 949 is rented. Strangely enough I don't find the Nikon 9000 to be behind the Imacon with medium format. When you had the 9000 did you use a glass holder and shim it?

Best,
Helen

Helen, the glass holder for the Nikon coolscan 9000 has been the subject of much commentary on the net. It seems that it has been backordered for months. When I bought my 9000 I had to accept a back order on the glass holder. I did my test scans after having very carefully, and after many attempts at mounting the negative flat in the regular holder. The tightening mechanism can do a good job if you have the patience to repeatedly place and replace the neg and tighten it, this repeated handling of the neg under some force does put the neg at risk. However there were no areas of the nikon scans that were as sharp and as highly resolved as the scans from the Imacon. In addition the Imacon neg holders, which as you know require no glass and therefore less dust, are a pleasure to use, about as easy and foolproof as you can get. With the Nikon glass holder you still have to shim it?

I've been getting drum scans for about 16 years now, Shima seiki, Heidelberg, crosfield,scitex, etc. There were many reasons that lead to me returning the Nikon and biting the bullet and buying the Imacon, one was that it gave me scans that were nearly on par with my better drum scans, and were better than my worse drums scans.

Lowering the resolution from 4800dpi to 2400dpi did not lower the time of scanning at all. Lowering it even more would not be desirable. I am sorry, but do you think that if the solution would be so simple, I wouldn't have thought of it?


You said resolution wasn't important, so drop it down to 300 or 150 ppi and I bet it scans faster. I had no idea that you still want non important high resolution, I though you might be making quick proofs or images for the web.

Sorry.

I can tell you that you DO NOT want a Microtek 9800xl as it is about the slowest beast I've ever used.

Arigram, forgive my for asking what may be an obvious question, but there are of course numerous options for post-processing, namely ICE off/normal/fine and GEM and ROC on or off.

Exactly which of these are you using when your set-up takes 15 minutes for a scan? My set-up is not really state of the art any more, 2.53 GHz Pentium 4. 512 MB RAM, and Epson Expression 1680 Pro flatbed with tranny hood or Nikon Coolscan IV for 35 mm. I use the Epson TWIN software with the Epson scanner, do have SilverFast too but don't like it. My set-up would take 15 mins for a scan (4x5" on the Epson) at 1600 or 2400 dpi only with all the above post-processing set to maximum.

Regards,

David