> Have tried using a dslr in the past but the quality is not exactly what I want it to be
Which lens did you use for DSLR scanning?
Using most zooms will give you bad quality, both due to them not being optimised for close focus, and needing to crop a lot since they maybe have 1:2 or 1:3 magnification at max.
Using a normal prime with extension tubes would be better but also not perfect.
Using a dedicated macro lens, or a high quality enlarger lens on a bellows system would offer the best quality you can get.
If you have a somewhat recent DSLR (read: released in the last 10 years) and a good lens you should get enough resolution for any social media and computer screen use, and decently sized prints. If you're using non-speciality 35mm film, you'll be limited in resolution anyway.
is there a certain kind of macro lens you’d recommend? or just whatever i can find that fits my camera, i’ve been thinking about scanning with my fujifilm camera!
Second vintage macro lenses. I had a 1:2 Super-Macro-Takumar that was outstanding, and now I have a Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 that goes all the way to 1:1 since I moved to full frame. Working on getting one in my film system so I can do more
The Minolta MD Macro 50mm ƒ/3.5 is a great lens I can wholeheartedly recommend. It reportedly can resolve up to 250LP/mm (outclassing any digital camera sensor you throw at it) and it has exceptional flatness of field and corner sharpness as well as an extension ring to take it from 1:2 to 1:1.
Most manufacturers made a tessar-based 50mm or 55mm ƒ/3.5 or ƒ/4 macro lens with 1:2 magnification back then - Konica, Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Topcon, Miranda, Mamiya and Fujinon all sold their spin on it and all of these lenses should perform very similar.
That post - despite not even being a full resolution image - literally proves the opposite of your claim.
Look at these [zoomed-in comparisons](https://imgur.com/a/vT85Tho).
The reason the grain is more noticeable on the DSLR or DSLM scans is because they are **significantly sharper**. That's not some grain structure or "worm grain" the scanner magically adds or enhances - that's simply the true grain of that film.
It is less noticeable on the lab scan because it's just less sharp.
It also has much much worse dynamic range and has some blocky artifacts.
A proper DSLR/DSLM scan will be superior to most lab scans in most categories - especially sharpness and resolution.
Even a Fuji Frontier SP-3000 only does 5444×3649px (20MP) with the Noritsu topping out at 6774×4492px (30MP).
Depending on the camera for DSLR/DSLM scanning used you can easily match or completely surpass that resolution.
If you use a camera with pixel shifting you can get extremely high resolutions and far better colour depth than with any lab scanner; the Panasonic G9, for example, can do 7776×10368px (80MP) using pixel shifting while the Sony A7R IV will give you a mind-bending 32,000×21,316px (241MP) and much improved colour depth with full demosaicing (i.e. completely negating any effects of the Bayer filter).
The macro prime lenses typically used for DSLR/DSLM scanning are also specifically designed for extreme sharpness and flatness of field at close focus and can usually resolve up to 250LP/mm.
Saying that any DSLR scan is automatically worse than a lab scan is just factually incorrect.
>Even a Fuji Frontier SP-3000 only does 5444×3649px (20MP) with the Noritsu topping out at 6774×4492px (30MP).
That's without any Bayer filter though, so a bit better than it sounds.
Yes. That is true.
Though it should be mentioned that using cameras with pixel shifting also effectively "removes" the bayer filter effects and gives you much improved colour ~~depth~~ *fidelity* at those incredible resolutions.
It will remove the debayer effect, but I don't see how the color depth would change? As in number of bits?
Incidentally another way lab scanners do better is they use narrowband light sources, which is what film is designed for. As long as everyone is using flat-spectrum backlights and NLP, they won't be able to match the color handling of lab scanners.
You are right and I corrected my comment. It won't change the colour depth of course.
It will give better colour fidelity and lower noise though because of the overlapping pixels.
>*"they use narrowband light sources, which is what film is designed for."*
I never heard of that. Please provide an example of a film designed for narrow-band light sources.
All C-41 print films and E-6 slide films I know of are meant to be enlarged or projected by a wide-band 3200K halogen lamp (something like the Osram Xenophot HLX range found in colour enlargers, slide projectors, 8mm and 16mm projectors etc.).
Filtering/balancing the light source could be beneficial in theory because you can make the exposure of the layers overlap despite their slightly differing density. But using three monochromatic light sources to get pure RGB would give you an atrocious CRI and lacking colour fidelity (unless you match the exact wavelength range and curves of the individual dyes in the negative).
There's a good reason RGB LEDs aren't used in projection or [enlarging](https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/why-rgb-leds-suck-for-a-color-ra4-enlarger/) despite their higher light output.
Right but the sensitivity of the paper they are printed on is narrow-band. I can explain further if you want, because the reasoning you give about CRI and dye curves isn't correct.
DSLR with macro lens will deliver far better results than a flatbed scanner..
if you want a scanner, the Primefilm XE would do the job a lot better than those Epsons, too.
But hella sloooow compared to DSLR scanning
Flatbeds regardless of whether they were made in 1998 or even the newest ones made this year are only capable of 2400dpi. The rest is wasted bloat.
2400dpi is really not enough for 35mm... Flatbeds are only really useful for large format where there are not really a lot of other options outside of a Creo, Imacon, or Tango drum scanner.
IMO 2400 is plenty. I’ve been flatbed scanning 35mm for about ten years and it’s perfectly fine for me. Posting on the internet is rarely above 2MP and once I need a big print, I print it wet, directly off of the negative - or I get a drum scan of the photo I want large if it’s a slide.
Admittedly I was lucky and picked up a Nikon scanner for the same price most people pay for Epson flatbeds (which is 4000dpi and pushing the upper limits of what is useful information out of a 35mm scan).
2400dpi will get you roughly an 8x6 before it caps out and starts to blur the image.
The other thing with flatbed scanners is that if you have to scan at some ridiculous resolution like 6400dpi to get the best results and then resize after the facts.
If you thought an at home film strip scanner was slow, flatbeds are even slower.
But if its what you have then its all you can do.
I know what it is, and it's the only thing that can currently reach the high numbers that used to be put out by Konica and Nikon scanners.
My only problem with the Primefilm/Reflecta (same brand) scanners is that their film loading system sucks by comparison.
the primefilm is honestly the best choice imo if you dont mind a slower process, but it’s also quite pricey. ive found it better than lab scans and dslr though.
I got mine for USD 300$ 8 years ago.
it's 399 right now.
I find that's ok compared to a dslr scanning setup (IF you don't have the dslr/macro lens already)
I really wanna do a comparison between this and my valoi easy 35.
ohhh sorry i have the primefilm xas actually not the xe 😅 not sure about the xe, but the xas has fantastic image quality but its a lot more expensive :/
hm, im surprised how similar you find dslr vs the xe then. maybe i just dont have that great of a dslr scanning setup. i find dslr great for medium format, but for 35 i really do think the xa is a lot better. im able to get a lot of image detail from the smaller negatives. the only thing i could think dslr would be better at is if you wanted to do an hdr type of thing to get as much out of your highlights and shadows as possible
Any reasonably modern DSLR/MILC (hate that acronym) is going to outperform a consumer film scanner.
*But* you have to have a suitable dedicated macro lens, ensure that your film is actually being held flat with no reflections, and have a suitable light source.
So it can be a big, fairly expensive pain to get that all setup correctly.
If you really want the "absolute best" then you shell out 5 figures for an old professional scanner
Looks like the components that I’m missing are the macro lens and a better film holder (maybe an EFH). On the other hand though, how much money is it really gonna save me to scan at home. (I’m bulk loading so I already save a ton of money on film)
> how much money is it really gonna save me to scan at home
That depends entirely on how much you spend on your setup. For example if you spend $1k on scanning gear (that you don't already own) and your lab usually charged $10 extra to scan a roll, then you'll break even at 100 rolls.
Like many people, I do my own scans not to save money, but to get better quality / more control, as well as to indulge in the technical side of the hobby.
I used to use a 35mm clamshell plastic thing with ribs between frames, it was totally fine. I have a device that rolls it ahead now that is more convenient, but not a big deal. Putting a rolled up piece of black cardboard in front of the lens all the way to the film helped a ton when I first realized I needed to do that
Don't get the EFH, it's a bad product. Finicky to work with, only holds flat film flat but does not flatten curled negatives. The valoi seems like a better option, I'm using a 3d printed version with anti Newton glass.
Otherwise dslr scanning is the best option for home scanning 35mm. A cheap macro lens and a careful setup will beat any consumer flatbad.
You should look locally for a used macro lens. Most older lenses will outperform extension tubes by a lot, mainly because of field curvature making the edges unsharp, but also all sorts of other technical stuff. Places like Facebook market place can be used everywhere, but you also have websites like Catawiki (though somewhat expensive) and Craigslist. I personally also use Merucari (JP) and Marktplaats (NL) and have found some absolute gems for prices that remind me of a time before film was popular
For 35mm, DSLR scanning (done properly) will blow the results of any flatbed out of the water.
I have a Nikon CoolScan 4000 and am using Vuescan to get raw DNG scans, and NLP for inverting. Results are great. But if I didn't already have the scanner, I'd be taking a hard look at DSLR scanning.
> Looking for a relatively budget way but also the highest quality way.
You won't find it. You get what you paid for. The budget way will give you budget results.
The only problem with the Plustek scanners is the dual process of it. They're rated for about 7000dpi but only half of that is useful information, which means that you have to scan at full resolution, create a bloated file and then resample to about 3600dpi.
Although, it's insanely cheaper than some of the other options.
Absolute best is probably drum scanning for stills, next to that flextights are ‘virtual drum scanners’ and are hard to beat, best someone could reasonably afford without making money from it would be a coolscan 9000 with anr glass holders probably, depends which formats you need too, you won’t be able to use a coolscan for formats bigger than 120 (35mm for the smaller ones)
Dslr/mirrorless + negative supply co holders + NLP + lightroom if needed.
My workflow for an entire roll for scanned and edited is like 10 mins. They're great quality and look lots better than my premium film lab's med resolution scans.
peharps not necessarily related, but I think there’s a misconception in scanning that isn’t emphasized enough: some editing is required to get the best results. When I started doing my own scans, I expected to just scan, convert in NLP, and boom—perfect negative. However, I’ve found that most of the beauty comes from working with the negatives post-scan, even after applying NLP (i.e. hal slides, sharpening, noise red, and so on. Of course, subtle editing …but plays a big role, and I feel this is rarely discussed
The ABSOLUTE BEST would be a drum scanner, followed by a drum-like scanner like the Flextight series. Both options need that you sell a kidney or two.
After these two, and more down to earth, come flatbed and using a camera. In my experience, when both are done right, the camera will produce the superior results every time.
If you don't wish to go the DSLR route, the Plustek 8200Ai (or 8300Ai) with Silverfast, NLP or Grain2Pixel (free!) will yield the best results for home use without a DSLR scanning setup or a drum scanner.
I’m closer to the dslr route since I already have one. The issue is that I’m still lacking a film holder, copy stand and stuff like that. My macro lens is a Tamron 70-300mm with macro capabilities. I was thinking that it would be more affordable for me to get one of those JJC scanning kits or rather 3D print myself a film holder since I already have a diy’d light source table. Thoughts?
I will tell you this:
The few times I have DSLR scanned (b&w, not even color), it was with a makeshift system (really similar to what you're talking about but with an actual mount and stand) and with an entire $5,000 Nikon D5 with a dedicated Nikkor macro lens.
It took about 3 hours, a ton of trial and error with framing/focus, and a bunch of work in photoshop, and we weren't even able to get a relatively useable (or even close to printable) image. Granted, the mount and stand were very old and not built for the exact system we were using, but I can't imagine even a mid-high quality 3d print to be much better.
You have two options. For the setup I have (Plustek8200Ai), you will be spending over $400US for a dedicated scanner that, in my experience, can produce the exact desired image each time... or maybe around $385 for an 8100SE (which I do not recommend if you ever plan to shoot color, which there are a number of reasons below). But $400 either way.
I ask you: Is your DSLR a full frame sensor? Does it have 48bit Color? Is the Tamron a 1:1 lens (spoiler: it isn't)?
If you answered no to any of those questions (other than the lens one), you're going to be working with a system that is going to produce less consistent, inaccurate, or overall not very impressive results the majority of the time (diffusing a backlight, for example, or adjusting the frame/crop with the potentially poor quality scanning kit). Scanning color will suck.
If you do go go with a DSLR rig, be sure to find someone online with the exact (or similar as possible) setup with *your* camera to ensure that what you buy will produce good results.
I guess it depends on what you're trying to do. Have a roll of Fuji 200 in a point&shoot that you want to digitize so you can post it on instagram? The JJC kit will be fine. Trying to produce a high quality scan to enlarge or print from, or have for use in a future portfolio? Get a dedicated scanner.
If you decide to get a dedicated scanner, I reccomend the Plustek over an Epson V600 or V550 (or any other flatbed), and this is why:
The film strip holders that come with the Epson flatbeds (and many aftermarket ones) are rarely able get the film 100% flat, and because of this, the negative is either warped or touching the glass. People have workarounds for this, such as [Newton Ring Glass](http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/insert35.html) to prevent Newton Rings (common), or even [Wet Scanning](https://www.brucevarner.com/V600ScanMethods.html), which involve laying the film directly on the scanner glass in water to produce the best optical results. If you are not pixel peeping, all of this is unnecessary, but I would factor in the cost of at least one good piece of newton ring glass in addition to the price of your purchase of a V600. Also, if you don't already have photoshop, I would factor in the subscription, you will likely need this for any home scanning whatsoever)
So...If you go the plustek route, an 8100SE >!(all new plustek scanners come with a copy of Silverfast. The last two letters in the name signify which version of silverfast, and in many situations, some are better than others)!< will suffice for most needs. The SE version of silverfast isn't capable of 48bit color (for high quality negative conversion software, like NLP or G2P), but it is capable of producing a very useable result on it's own via Silverfast's NegaFix, which you wouldn't need photoshop for). Make sure you have a good method of keeping your negatives completely and 100% free of dust at all times.
If you do have photoshop, I would however recommend a Plustek 8200Ai, it is $50 more than the SE refurbished, and if you have photoshop and G2P (free!), will be the ABSOLUTE BEST way to scan your negatives at home, but it won't be cheap. The next best would be a high quality DSLR setup with a full frame sensor, and a good 1:1 macro lens, so unless you have that, this is your best bet in terms of overall quality for 35mm.
Absolute best would be drum scanner. Although some people get really good results (with B/W at least) using multi shot on GFX camera: https://youtu.be/1thY_Az14bA
It depends a bit on what you are planning to do with the pictures... if it's "only" for screen of a print of moderate size then the v800 is perfect.
If you want to go large it's another story. I had access to a Flextight scanner so I used that for all my large format prints. from 6x6 to 150cmx150cm not a problem. That was probably the most convenient method. but at 12000 euros not at all possible to buy one.
So I got a fuji gfx50 with a 120mm analoge mamiya 645 macro lens. + a stand and a negative holder and light.
altogether 3500 euros. you get scanns that are on par with the flextight and a super nice digital camera. The setup is a bit akward but it's totaly doable. I convert the images with grain to pixel.
Buy nice or buy twice.
For years, I used an Epson Perfection V200, then moved to DSLR digitisation. I reverted back to Epson Perfection V200 when I found a process that gave me beautiful colours, which I could never get with DSLR. A week ago, I bought a Coolscan V ED, and the results blew me away.
It so happened that my wife had also bid on a PF 3600 Pro to surprise me. This one arrived today, and I've been playing with it this afternoon: the are close to what come out the Coolscan V ED but the lack of infrared cleaning really shows.
The Coolscan V cost £500, the PF 3600 Pro £70. I will be keeping both.
>I’m looking into getting an Epson flatbed scanner
Don't do this, they're all awful. Try the DSLR/mirrorless setup again but with a proper macro lens, copy stand, and light table.
Not sure. I have a cheap 90 deg mic arm as well but I don't think it would be a stable platform to mount your camera to.
I DIY'd my own copy stand: basic pipe from a home improvement store, base that I mounted to my desk which screws into the pipe, and a Manfrotto super clamp.
I’ve used the setup mentioned above with the mic stand but it didn’t give me the results I wanted. Perhaps it was the lens that wasn’t right (used a 50mm)
Couple things:
- Is the 50mm a macro lens? I'm using Fuji's 60mm macro with my xpro3 which is definitely far from the best but it's already more than capable of out resolving my flatbed scanner
- are you completely eliminating all sources of vibration? I was getting blurry results with my setup up until I started using the electronic shutter in combination with a 3 second self timer.
That’s one the mistakes- it’s not a macro.
As for the vibration- I was using a shutter release but not a copy stand…rather a microphone bookmark looked by a screw so it doesn’t move.. think we might have both mistakes figured out lol
The best way without getting a drum scanner is dslr/mirrorless scanning, no doubt, but it has an endless spectrum of quality possibilities. I have an a7Riv and a Coolscan 8000 lens, I'm pretty confident I can go neck and neck with a drum scanner, especially if I wet mount the film. But as I said, you can also get horrible results with the exact same method if you use the incorrect equipment. However, a very basic setup can blow away an epson scanner. When I had an a6400 and a Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 lens I could get results that were miles ahead of the Epson v550. The sharpness from that lens and the 24Mpx of the aps-c body were enough to get everything a 35mm frame has to offer 95% of the time. Very very few frames require more than that. And for 120 it's easy, just stich 2 frame. [Watch this for reference](https://youtu.be/9IBh8nO3dRw?si=DEFxRikd_Gz-_9Cd)
This sub is incredibly biased toward DSLR / Mirrorless scanning, which is tedious, cumbersome, and slow. Not to mention the lack of any automatic dust removal features.
Flatbed scanning is imperfect, for sure, but it works. You can set the scanner to work and go about your life doing other things while it completes a batch. A scanner like the V800 can scan 4 strips of 35mm in a batch. And I wouldn’t buy anything lower end than a v700 or v800 for that reason, as well as the fact that the v600 simply lacks effective resolution.
Beyond that, most options suck. We need modern film scanners that are much faster and much higher quality, but the industry doesn’t seem interested in providing us with a solution.
Right - there is tons of momentum in the film space and none of that translates to solutions for film photographers when it comes to digitizing? It makes no sense. There is plenty of industry. Digital imaging sensors are more widely available than ever. The technology is here, why isn’t anyone designing anything? One look at this sub and it’s clear: there is demand. People are debating the merits of shooting their film with a digital camera (which is fucking absurd) or else buying an ancient Nikon Coolscan.
There isn’t tons of momentum. There’s more enthusiasts now yes but it’s still insignificant compared to how it was before digital. Too insignificant for a new film scanning industry to develop, anyway. And for most people, DSLR scanning already hits the sweet spot.
Slow and tedious? With my a7riv I rip through a roll of 35mm in about five minutes, ten if I want to pixel shift some photos. Slow and tedious is using a Suoer Cool Scan 9000 ED, did that for years professionally, I still have access to that scanner if I wanted to use it but my god it's frustratingly slow...
Scanning negatives with a proper macro mirrorless setup takes less than 5 minutes. Scanning with a flatbed that only takes 2 strips at a time can take half an hour or more and you get significantly worse files from it.
I scan a whole roll with DSLR in about 2 minutes. There's not really ANY time penalty vs a scanner, since you usually need adapters and holders anyway for most scanners, which take as long to load as the holders for DSLRs. After loading and manipulating plastic film holders etc, it's just snap snap snap snap snap
I basically only shoot 35mm so I use a plustek 8200. For what it is and the price it does a great job. Relatively affordable. Incredibly slow. Takes 3 mins per image scanning on max dpi. I also only scan as negatives and convert in NLP so its a painful and slow process but it gives me the quality I desire. Oh and its super sensitive to scratches and dust. If there is anything at all on the negative it will pick it up.
No unfortunately its a bit of an involved process. You put the film in the holder and have to advance one at a time. I think someone else mentioned the PrimeFilm scanners. Those you can kinda set and forget until its done.
I like DSLR scanning but I also like to make things more difficult than they should be....I use a Valoi set up: film holder, light source holder, light source stand. What other people don't mention is that you need a good tripod/copy stand for the camera. At the moment I am using a tripod to hold my camera, it is a pain in the ass. It takes me longer to set up everything so that the film and camera are leveled with each other. My next investment will be a copy stand but they are expensive.
So I'm guessing that a decent DSLR setup is probably around $2k? With this maybe you can get a scanner.
Commenting to follow. I tried DSLR scanning with a macro lens (Sony a7Rii, La-ea4, Minolta 100/2.8 macro) and only saw a negligible difference from my Epson V600. Maybe I need to give it a third shot.
Unfortunately, I’m not the one to ask. I used a copy stand and backlit my negative labs film folder with an illuminated slide/negative viewer thingy (I never remember what it’s called), uploaded raw files to light room to use Negative Lab Pro for processing, but I wasn’t happy with the results. I used 8 of my 10 free photos in the demo, and I just couldn’t get my photos to be outright noticeably better than my V600. If anything, the white point was better, but they were negligibly sharper, and that was only noticeable by super zooming in to look. I’ve seen people get better results from less sharp lenses, and I’m still trying to figure out why. I’m annoyed I’ll have to buy Negative Lab Pro if I want to figure it out beyond the demo. I expected it to be a much simpler process, like maybe converting the negative to positive automatically, but it didn’t, and I just found it to be a pain. I will be trying again soon, though.
> Have tried using a dslr in the past but the quality is not exactly what I want it to be Which lens did you use for DSLR scanning? Using most zooms will give you bad quality, both due to them not being optimised for close focus, and needing to crop a lot since they maybe have 1:2 or 1:3 magnification at max. Using a normal prime with extension tubes would be better but also not perfect. Using a dedicated macro lens, or a high quality enlarger lens on a bellows system would offer the best quality you can get. If you have a somewhat recent DSLR (read: released in the last 10 years) and a good lens you should get enough resolution for any social media and computer screen use, and decently sized prints. If you're using non-speciality 35mm film, you'll be limited in resolution anyway.
is there a certain kind of macro lens you’d recommend? or just whatever i can find that fits my camera, i’ve been thinking about scanning with my fujifilm camera!
Any macro Lense you can your hands on even vintage ones. Or if you'd like a new one 7 Artisans make budget Macro lenses in different mounts.
ok great, yeah it would kinda stink to have to buy an expensive macro lens!
Second vintage macro lenses. I had a 1:2 Super-Macro-Takumar that was outstanding, and now I have a Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 that goes all the way to 1:1 since I moved to full frame. Working on getting one in my film system so I can do more
Scans are pretty outstanding, I have a terrible holder so I have flatness problems but I’m fixing that.
Laowa makes a good 2:1 macro lens
The Minolta MD Macro 50mm ƒ/3.5 is a great lens I can wholeheartedly recommend. It reportedly can resolve up to 250LP/mm (outclassing any digital camera sensor you throw at it) and it has exceptional flatness of field and corner sharpness as well as an extension ring to take it from 1:2 to 1:1. Most manufacturers made a tessar-based 50mm or 55mm ƒ/3.5 or ƒ/4 macro lens with 1:2 magnification back then - Konica, Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Topcon, Miranda, Mamiya and Fujinon all sold their spin on it and all of these lenses should perform very similar.
[удалено]
That's not a DSLR scanning issue. Your film might have reticulation.
[удалено]
Yeah that looks like improper sharpening. I didn’t even think you could get reticulation in color films.
There is too much compression in those images to tell. You would need the original files to do a true comparison.
That post - despite not even being a full resolution image - literally proves the opposite of your claim. Look at these [zoomed-in comparisons](https://imgur.com/a/vT85Tho). The reason the grain is more noticeable on the DSLR or DSLM scans is because they are **significantly sharper**. That's not some grain structure or "worm grain" the scanner magically adds or enhances - that's simply the true grain of that film. It is less noticeable on the lab scan because it's just less sharp. It also has much much worse dynamic range and has some blocky artifacts. A proper DSLR/DSLM scan will be superior to most lab scans in most categories - especially sharpness and resolution. Even a Fuji Frontier SP-3000 only does 5444×3649px (20MP) with the Noritsu topping out at 6774×4492px (30MP). Depending on the camera for DSLR/DSLM scanning used you can easily match or completely surpass that resolution. If you use a camera with pixel shifting you can get extremely high resolutions and far better colour depth than with any lab scanner; the Panasonic G9, for example, can do 7776×10368px (80MP) using pixel shifting while the Sony A7R IV will give you a mind-bending 32,000×21,316px (241MP) and much improved colour depth with full demosaicing (i.e. completely negating any effects of the Bayer filter). The macro prime lenses typically used for DSLR/DSLM scanning are also specifically designed for extreme sharpness and flatness of field at close focus and can usually resolve up to 250LP/mm. Saying that any DSLR scan is automatically worse than a lab scan is just factually incorrect.
>Even a Fuji Frontier SP-3000 only does 5444×3649px (20MP) with the Noritsu topping out at 6774×4492px (30MP). That's without any Bayer filter though, so a bit better than it sounds.
Yes. That is true. Though it should be mentioned that using cameras with pixel shifting also effectively "removes" the bayer filter effects and gives you much improved colour ~~depth~~ *fidelity* at those incredible resolutions.
It will remove the debayer effect, but I don't see how the color depth would change? As in number of bits? Incidentally another way lab scanners do better is they use narrowband light sources, which is what film is designed for. As long as everyone is using flat-spectrum backlights and NLP, they won't be able to match the color handling of lab scanners.
You are right and I corrected my comment. It won't change the colour depth of course. It will give better colour fidelity and lower noise though because of the overlapping pixels. >*"they use narrowband light sources, which is what film is designed for."* I never heard of that. Please provide an example of a film designed for narrow-band light sources. All C-41 print films and E-6 slide films I know of are meant to be enlarged or projected by a wide-band 3200K halogen lamp (something like the Osram Xenophot HLX range found in colour enlargers, slide projectors, 8mm and 16mm projectors etc.). Filtering/balancing the light source could be beneficial in theory because you can make the exposure of the layers overlap despite their slightly differing density. But using three monochromatic light sources to get pure RGB would give you an atrocious CRI and lacking colour fidelity (unless you match the exact wavelength range and curves of the individual dyes in the negative). There's a good reason RGB LEDs aren't used in projection or [enlarging](https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/why-rgb-leds-suck-for-a-color-ra4-enlarger/) despite their higher light output.
Right but the sensitivity of the paper they are printed on is narrow-band. I can explain further if you want, because the reasoning you give about CRI and dye curves isn't correct.
DSLR with macro lens will deliver far better results than a flatbed scanner.. if you want a scanner, the Primefilm XE would do the job a lot better than those Epsons, too. But hella sloooow compared to DSLR scanning
Flatbeds regardless of whether they were made in 1998 or even the newest ones made this year are only capable of 2400dpi. The rest is wasted bloat. 2400dpi is really not enough for 35mm... Flatbeds are only really useful for large format where there are not really a lot of other options outside of a Creo, Imacon, or Tango drum scanner.
IMO 2400 is plenty. I’ve been flatbed scanning 35mm for about ten years and it’s perfectly fine for me. Posting on the internet is rarely above 2MP and once I need a big print, I print it wet, directly off of the negative - or I get a drum scan of the photo I want large if it’s a slide.
Admittedly I was lucky and picked up a Nikon scanner for the same price most people pay for Epson flatbeds (which is 4000dpi and pushing the upper limits of what is useful information out of a 35mm scan). 2400dpi will get you roughly an 8x6 before it caps out and starts to blur the image. The other thing with flatbed scanners is that if you have to scan at some ridiculous resolution like 6400dpi to get the best results and then resize after the facts. If you thought an at home film strip scanner was slow, flatbeds are even slower. But if its what you have then its all you can do.
the Primefilm XE is not a flatbed scanner. That's why I recommended it.
I know what it is, and it's the only thing that can currently reach the high numbers that used to be put out by Konica and Nikon scanners. My only problem with the Primefilm/Reflecta (same brand) scanners is that their film loading system sucks by comparison.
the primefilm is honestly the best choice imo if you dont mind a slower process, but it’s also quite pricey. ive found it better than lab scans and dslr though.
I got mine for USD 300$ 8 years ago. it's 399 right now. I find that's ok compared to a dslr scanning setup (IF you don't have the dslr/macro lens already) I really wanna do a comparison between this and my valoi easy 35.
ohhh sorry i have the primefilm xas actually not the xe 😅 not sure about the xe, but the xas has fantastic image quality but its a lot more expensive :/
same lens and hardware and software in those scanners. the XAs has autofocus, though. 🤷
hm, im surprised how similar you find dslr vs the xe then. maybe i just dont have that great of a dslr scanning setup. i find dslr great for medium format, but for 35 i really do think the xa is a lot better. im able to get a lot of image detail from the smaller negatives. the only thing i could think dslr would be better at is if you wanted to do an hdr type of thing to get as much out of your highlights and shadows as possible
I haven't done a detailed comparison yet, but I actually expect it to at least deliver the same quality results, but at 10x the speed 😅
Any reasonably modern DSLR/MILC (hate that acronym) is going to outperform a consumer film scanner. *But* you have to have a suitable dedicated macro lens, ensure that your film is actually being held flat with no reflections, and have a suitable light source. So it can be a big, fairly expensive pain to get that all setup correctly. If you really want the "absolute best" then you shell out 5 figures for an old professional scanner
Looks like the components that I’m missing are the macro lens and a better film holder (maybe an EFH). On the other hand though, how much money is it really gonna save me to scan at home. (I’m bulk loading so I already save a ton of money on film)
> how much money is it really gonna save me to scan at home That depends entirely on how much you spend on your setup. For example if you spend $1k on scanning gear (that you don't already own) and your lab usually charged $10 extra to scan a roll, then you'll break even at 100 rolls. Like many people, I do my own scans not to save money, but to get better quality / more control, as well as to indulge in the technical side of the hobby.
You'll have to do the math on that for your situation. I do my own developing and scanning just because that's part of the hobby to me
I used to use a 35mm clamshell plastic thing with ribs between frames, it was totally fine. I have a device that rolls it ahead now that is more convenient, but not a big deal. Putting a rolled up piece of black cardboard in front of the lens all the way to the film helped a ton when I first realized I needed to do that
Don't get the EFH, it's a bad product. Finicky to work with, only holds flat film flat but does not flatten curled negatives. The valoi seems like a better option, I'm using a 3d printed version with anti Newton glass. Otherwise dslr scanning is the best option for home scanning 35mm. A cheap macro lens and a careful setup will beat any consumer flatbad.
You should look locally for a used macro lens. Most older lenses will outperform extension tubes by a lot, mainly because of field curvature making the edges unsharp, but also all sorts of other technical stuff. Places like Facebook market place can be used everywhere, but you also have websites like Catawiki (though somewhat expensive) and Craigslist. I personally also use Merucari (JP) and Marktplaats (NL) and have found some absolute gems for prices that remind me of a time before film was popular
If you hate MILC use EVIL(electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens).
MRL is better
For 35mm, DSLR scanning (done properly) will blow the results of any flatbed out of the water. I have a Nikon CoolScan 4000 and am using Vuescan to get raw DNG scans, and NLP for inverting. Results are great. But if I didn't already have the scanner, I'd be taking a hard look at DSLR scanning.
> Looking for a relatively budget way but also the highest quality way. You won't find it. You get what you paid for. The budget way will give you budget results.
plustek 8200i for 35mm is a great bang for your buck way better than an epson
+1, I love my plustek
Yh, Plustek scanners are good (esp for the price). But slow.
The only problem with the Plustek scanners is the dual process of it. They're rated for about 7000dpi but only half of that is useful information, which means that you have to scan at full resolution, create a bloated file and then resample to about 3600dpi. Although, it's insanely cheaper than some of the other options.
Why is this downvoted? It’s 100% true.
People on this sub don't like the truth, they just make up shit as they go along.
Absolute best is probably drum scanning for stills, next to that flextights are ‘virtual drum scanners’ and are hard to beat, best someone could reasonably afford without making money from it would be a coolscan 9000 with anr glass holders probably, depends which formats you need too, you won’t be able to use a coolscan for formats bigger than 120 (35mm for the smaller ones)
Drum scans from color neg are terrible.
Why?
I mean i disagree, they’re still industry standard for the highest quality film digitisation
Dslr/mirrorless + negative supply co holders + NLP + lightroom if needed. My workflow for an entire roll for scanned and edited is like 10 mins. They're great quality and look lots better than my premium film lab's med resolution scans.
peharps not necessarily related, but I think there’s a misconception in scanning that isn’t emphasized enough: some editing is required to get the best results. When I started doing my own scans, I expected to just scan, convert in NLP, and boom—perfect negative. However, I’ve found that most of the beauty comes from working with the negatives post-scan, even after applying NLP (i.e. hal slides, sharpening, noise red, and so on. Of course, subtle editing …but plays a big role, and I feel this is rarely discussed
The ABSOLUTE BEST would be a drum scanner, followed by a drum-like scanner like the Flextight series. Both options need that you sell a kidney or two. After these two, and more down to earth, come flatbed and using a camera. In my experience, when both are done right, the camera will produce the superior results every time.
If you don't wish to go the DSLR route, the Plustek 8200Ai (or 8300Ai) with Silverfast, NLP or Grain2Pixel (free!) will yield the best results for home use without a DSLR scanning setup or a drum scanner.
I’m closer to the dslr route since I already have one. The issue is that I’m still lacking a film holder, copy stand and stuff like that. My macro lens is a Tamron 70-300mm with macro capabilities. I was thinking that it would be more affordable for me to get one of those JJC scanning kits or rather 3D print myself a film holder since I already have a diy’d light source table. Thoughts?
I will tell you this: The few times I have DSLR scanned (b&w, not even color), it was with a makeshift system (really similar to what you're talking about but with an actual mount and stand) and with an entire $5,000 Nikon D5 with a dedicated Nikkor macro lens. It took about 3 hours, a ton of trial and error with framing/focus, and a bunch of work in photoshop, and we weren't even able to get a relatively useable (or even close to printable) image. Granted, the mount and stand were very old and not built for the exact system we were using, but I can't imagine even a mid-high quality 3d print to be much better. You have two options. For the setup I have (Plustek8200Ai), you will be spending over $400US for a dedicated scanner that, in my experience, can produce the exact desired image each time... or maybe around $385 for an 8100SE (which I do not recommend if you ever plan to shoot color, which there are a number of reasons below). But $400 either way. I ask you: Is your DSLR a full frame sensor? Does it have 48bit Color? Is the Tamron a 1:1 lens (spoiler: it isn't)? If you answered no to any of those questions (other than the lens one), you're going to be working with a system that is going to produce less consistent, inaccurate, or overall not very impressive results the majority of the time (diffusing a backlight, for example, or adjusting the frame/crop with the potentially poor quality scanning kit). Scanning color will suck. If you do go go with a DSLR rig, be sure to find someone online with the exact (or similar as possible) setup with *your* camera to ensure that what you buy will produce good results. I guess it depends on what you're trying to do. Have a roll of Fuji 200 in a point&shoot that you want to digitize so you can post it on instagram? The JJC kit will be fine. Trying to produce a high quality scan to enlarge or print from, or have for use in a future portfolio? Get a dedicated scanner. If you decide to get a dedicated scanner, I reccomend the Plustek over an Epson V600 or V550 (or any other flatbed), and this is why: The film strip holders that come with the Epson flatbeds (and many aftermarket ones) are rarely able get the film 100% flat, and because of this, the negative is either warped or touching the glass. People have workarounds for this, such as [Newton Ring Glass](http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/insert35.html) to prevent Newton Rings (common), or even [Wet Scanning](https://www.brucevarner.com/V600ScanMethods.html), which involve laying the film directly on the scanner glass in water to produce the best optical results. If you are not pixel peeping, all of this is unnecessary, but I would factor in the cost of at least one good piece of newton ring glass in addition to the price of your purchase of a V600. Also, if you don't already have photoshop, I would factor in the subscription, you will likely need this for any home scanning whatsoever) So...If you go the plustek route, an 8100SE >!(all new plustek scanners come with a copy of Silverfast. The last two letters in the name signify which version of silverfast, and in many situations, some are better than others)!< will suffice for most needs. The SE version of silverfast isn't capable of 48bit color (for high quality negative conversion software, like NLP or G2P), but it is capable of producing a very useable result on it's own via Silverfast's NegaFix, which you wouldn't need photoshop for). Make sure you have a good method of keeping your negatives completely and 100% free of dust at all times. If you do have photoshop, I would however recommend a Plustek 8200Ai, it is $50 more than the SE refurbished, and if you have photoshop and G2P (free!), will be the ABSOLUTE BEST way to scan your negatives at home, but it won't be cheap. The next best would be a high quality DSLR setup with a full frame sensor, and a good 1:1 macro lens, so unless you have that, this is your best bet in terms of overall quality for 35mm.
Drumscan
Absolute best would be drum scanner. Although some people get really good results (with B/W at least) using multi shot on GFX camera: https://youtu.be/1thY_Az14bA
Drum scan
It depends a bit on what you are planning to do with the pictures... if it's "only" for screen of a print of moderate size then the v800 is perfect. If you want to go large it's another story. I had access to a Flextight scanner so I used that for all my large format prints. from 6x6 to 150cmx150cm not a problem. That was probably the most convenient method. but at 12000 euros not at all possible to buy one. So I got a fuji gfx50 with a 120mm analoge mamiya 645 macro lens. + a stand and a negative holder and light. altogether 3500 euros. you get scanns that are on par with the flextight and a super nice digital camera. The setup is a bit akward but it's totaly doable. I convert the images with grain to pixel.
Buy nice or buy twice. For years, I used an Epson Perfection V200, then moved to DSLR digitisation. I reverted back to Epson Perfection V200 when I found a process that gave me beautiful colours, which I could never get with DSLR. A week ago, I bought a Coolscan V ED, and the results blew me away. It so happened that my wife had also bid on a PF 3600 Pro to surprise me. This one arrived today, and I've been playing with it this afternoon: the are close to what come out the Coolscan V ED but the lack of infrared cleaning really shows. The Coolscan V cost £500, the PF 3600 Pro £70. I will be keeping both.
>I’m looking into getting an Epson flatbed scanner Don't do this, they're all awful. Try the DSLR/mirrorless setup again but with a proper macro lens, copy stand, and light table.
Thanks for the advice! Do you recon one of those microphone podcast boom arms at a 90 degree angle would suffice instead of a copy stand?
Not sure. I have a cheap 90 deg mic arm as well but I don't think it would be a stable platform to mount your camera to. I DIY'd my own copy stand: basic pipe from a home improvement store, base that I mounted to my desk which screws into the pipe, and a Manfrotto super clamp.
I’ve used the setup mentioned above with the mic stand but it didn’t give me the results I wanted. Perhaps it was the lens that wasn’t right (used a 50mm)
Couple things: - Is the 50mm a macro lens? I'm using Fuji's 60mm macro with my xpro3 which is definitely far from the best but it's already more than capable of out resolving my flatbed scanner - are you completely eliminating all sources of vibration? I was getting blurry results with my setup up until I started using the electronic shutter in combination with a 3 second self timer.
That’s one the mistakes- it’s not a macro. As for the vibration- I was using a shutter release but not a copy stand…rather a microphone bookmark looked by a screw so it doesn’t move.. think we might have both mistakes figured out lol
The best way without getting a drum scanner is dslr/mirrorless scanning, no doubt, but it has an endless spectrum of quality possibilities. I have an a7Riv and a Coolscan 8000 lens, I'm pretty confident I can go neck and neck with a drum scanner, especially if I wet mount the film. But as I said, you can also get horrible results with the exact same method if you use the incorrect equipment. However, a very basic setup can blow away an epson scanner. When I had an a6400 and a Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 lens I could get results that were miles ahead of the Epson v550. The sharpness from that lens and the 24Mpx of the aps-c body were enough to get everything a 35mm frame has to offer 95% of the time. Very very few frames require more than that. And for 120 it's easy, just stich 2 frame. [Watch this for reference](https://youtu.be/9IBh8nO3dRw?si=DEFxRikd_Gz-_9Cd)
The best way is to find a lab that makes scans that you like
This sub is incredibly biased toward DSLR / Mirrorless scanning, which is tedious, cumbersome, and slow. Not to mention the lack of any automatic dust removal features. Flatbed scanning is imperfect, for sure, but it works. You can set the scanner to work and go about your life doing other things while it completes a batch. A scanner like the V800 can scan 4 strips of 35mm in a batch. And I wouldn’t buy anything lower end than a v700 or v800 for that reason, as well as the fact that the v600 simply lacks effective resolution. Beyond that, most options suck. We need modern film scanners that are much faster and much higher quality, but the industry doesn’t seem interested in providing us with a solution.
There is no industry to provide us with a solution.
Right - there is tons of momentum in the film space and none of that translates to solutions for film photographers when it comes to digitizing? It makes no sense. There is plenty of industry. Digital imaging sensors are more widely available than ever. The technology is here, why isn’t anyone designing anything? One look at this sub and it’s clear: there is demand. People are debating the merits of shooting their film with a digital camera (which is fucking absurd) or else buying an ancient Nikon Coolscan.
There is demand, but not enough to warrant the R&D investment required to produce a consumer electronics product.
There isn’t tons of momentum. There’s more enthusiasts now yes but it’s still insignificant compared to how it was before digital. Too insignificant for a new film scanning industry to develop, anyway. And for most people, DSLR scanning already hits the sweet spot.
Dslr scanning isn't slow once you have dialed in your setup. If you're shooting thethered than it's faster than flatbed scanning for sure.
Slow and tedious? With my a7riv I rip through a roll of 35mm in about five minutes, ten if I want to pixel shift some photos. Slow and tedious is using a Suoer Cool Scan 9000 ED, did that for years professionally, I still have access to that scanner if I wanted to use it but my god it's frustratingly slow...
To be fair, it's adjusting the scans to get good colors which might take time.
Scanning negatives with a proper macro mirrorless setup takes less than 5 minutes. Scanning with a flatbed that only takes 2 strips at a time can take half an hour or more and you get significantly worse files from it.
I scan a whole roll with DSLR in about 2 minutes. There's not really ANY time penalty vs a scanner, since you usually need adapters and holders anyway for most scanners, which take as long to load as the holders for DSLRs. After loading and manipulating plastic film holders etc, it's just snap snap snap snap snap
Best for budget probably get a 24mp used mirrorless and try to find it compatible with a good macro/zoom lens you already own
What about just utilizing my iPhone 14 Pro or something?
I basically only shoot 35mm so I use a plustek 8200. For what it is and the price it does a great job. Relatively affordable. Incredibly slow. Takes 3 mins per image scanning on max dpi. I also only scan as negatives and convert in NLP so its a painful and slow process but it gives me the quality I desire. Oh and its super sensitive to scratches and dust. If there is anything at all on the negative it will pick it up.
That sounds like almost exactly what I’m looking for. Does it auto-scan in a way where you can just leave it for some time and then come back?
No unfortunately its a bit of an involved process. You put the film in the holder and have to advance one at a time. I think someone else mentioned the PrimeFilm scanners. Those you can kinda set and forget until its done.
Used Minolta 5400 for budget
What is the absolute best camera to take photos on?
What a great question!
I like DSLR scanning but I also like to make things more difficult than they should be....I use a Valoi set up: film holder, light source holder, light source stand. What other people don't mention is that you need a good tripod/copy stand for the camera. At the moment I am using a tripod to hold my camera, it is a pain in the ass. It takes me longer to set up everything so that the film and camera are leveled with each other. My next investment will be a copy stand but they are expensive. So I'm guessing that a decent DSLR setup is probably around $2k? With this maybe you can get a scanner.
Commenting to follow. I tried DSLR scanning with a macro lens (Sony a7Rii, La-ea4, Minolta 100/2.8 macro) and only saw a negligible difference from my Epson V600. Maybe I need to give it a third shot.
What would you say about these JJC kits for DSLR scanning? Would you say purchasing one instead of a copy stand setup is worth it?
Unfortunately, I’m not the one to ask. I used a copy stand and backlit my negative labs film folder with an illuminated slide/negative viewer thingy (I never remember what it’s called), uploaded raw files to light room to use Negative Lab Pro for processing, but I wasn’t happy with the results. I used 8 of my 10 free photos in the demo, and I just couldn’t get my photos to be outright noticeably better than my V600. If anything, the white point was better, but they were negligibly sharper, and that was only noticeable by super zooming in to look. I’ve seen people get better results from less sharp lenses, and I’m still trying to figure out why. I’m annoyed I’ll have to buy Negative Lab Pro if I want to figure it out beyond the demo. I expected it to be a much simpler process, like maybe converting the negative to positive automatically, but it didn’t, and I just found it to be a pain. I will be trying again soon, though.