Fastest Film Scanner?

[Early Riser]

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.

[Helen B]

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

[Early Riser]

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.

[Greg_E]

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.

[David H. Bebbington]

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

[arigram]

David, I use the EpsonScan software, seems to be the latest version and the only selection I have is ICE, which has no further adjustments.
I don't want a drum scanner like Imacon/Hasselblad's. They are way above the use I need the scanner for. I don't print from scans or need them for fine art purposes. They are usually for clients that need their photos on DVD.
2400dpi gives me about 5000pixels which is pretty much right. I wouldn't want to go lower because there wouldn't be a point in shooting 6x6 and film then.

(I missed the latest responses because I wasn't aware that the grey forum is so well hidden)

[Fotohuis]

Interesting discussion and opinions. I am in the same part for a decision for a 35mm and medium format scanner.
The quality for the new generation flat bed Epson types seems to be reasonable good and fast. But the holders are not really an impressive piece of the instrument.
I will have a look at the Photokina in Cologne this week for an economic solution for my problem.
I want to get rid of all my post processing manipulations due to the USM needed for my actual scanner and the crappy holders. The problem with all these scanners is when you have them a few months then you know if they are suitable to solve efficient your problems.

Best regards,

Robert

[donbga]

Interesting discussion and opinions. I am in the same part for a decision for a 35mm and medium format scanner.
The quality for the new generation flat bed Epson types seems to be reasonable good and fast. But the holders are not really an impressive piece of the instrument.
I will have a look at the Photokina in Cologne this week for an economic solution for my problem.
I want to get rid of all my post processing manipulations due to the USM needed for my actual scanner and the crappy holders. The problem with all these scanners is when you have them a few months then you know if they are suitable to solve efficient your problems.

Best regards,

Robert

For medium format film I would recommend the holders sold on www.betterscanning.com.

[JBrunner]

The fastest film scanner I have is a copy camera.

[donbga]

Someone pass the butter, I can smel lthe corn.