As a red-green color blind person myself, I appreciate hearing Jules' approach to scanning. I purchased a Fuji X-T3 based on their reputation for good, reliable color straight from the camera, and it's funny to hear he had the same thoughts regarding their scanners. With that in mind, I would absolutely love to see Fuji implement some kind of film scanning mode into their digital cameras. They obviously have the expertise when in comes to digital conversion, and even market their digital cameras based on their similarity to shooting film. If they were to add in dedicated settings to capture different emulsions, I think it would make a huge splash.
Back when Nikon discontinued the coolscans I spent the remainder of my student overdraft on a coolscan V ED. Many years down the road I'm glad of my past reckless self.
Not my personal choice, but you are correct. The high point in the technology of film scanning was reached by Nikon and Minolta more than a decade ago. Film scanners have alrgely disappeared from the market, and the few which remain are fairly poor quality Chinese junk. The idea of rephotographing negatives with a DSLR suffer not form the resolution of the camera, but from the resolution of the lens. Very few people have or will afford a high quality macro lens, even then, the resolution of the lens is not going to exceed 100 lines per millimeter deliver at the sensor, which is a fraction of what the sensor of best DSLR can record.
You have an awesome voice! Good video and very helpful. I now have a solid grasp of what's needed and I am never going to be able to afford any of these.
Wonderful video. I've seen it many times. All I want to say is that the actual maximum resolution of the fuji frontier sp3000 and the Heidelberg Nexscan is lower than advertised. I own both. Measured with a USAF card, the fuji frontier sp3000 achieves approx 2800-2900 dpi at 35mm. The Nexscan has a minimally higher resolution for a frame of 35mm, however it allows you to use said resolution in larger sizes, if you scan in strips and join them in Photoshop (although also in that case the real resolution achieved is lower than those announced in the video ). In terms of quality, I think the Nexscan is incredibly better because it produces clean, artifact-free images with much greater chromatic and tonal richness. Resolution is the most attractive quality in terms of marketing, but in my opinion not the most important quality of a scanner. There are scanners with a lot of resolution that are bad scanners.
I have always developed and scanned all my negatives and slide films at a very old photo lab in Sofia, Bulgaria called Dekov Photo. And I just recently decided that I would buy myself a scanner so that I can have full control over the scans. I opted out for a Plustek OpticFilm 7400 - a great little machine that I was able to buy from eBay for around EUR 150. I really love shooting film and it's a sort of an escape for me from my work as a professional automotive photographer, which involves a lot of post processing. HOWEVER, after a sleepless night scanning just two 36 exp. negative films, I developed hatred for the process.. It took me well over 5 hours to scan two films and I encountered numerous problems in the process. First of all - dust and scratches.. that is a real problem, 30% of my photos had scratches on them straight out of the lab and I had a hard time getting rid of the dust even with a blower. Second - the colors.. The color rendering difference between the pro scanner in my lab and the Plustek was pretty distinct. Not that it can't be corrected in post, but as I've said film photography is my escape from the tedious editing process and I do not want to edit my film photos. It is a very time consuming process and for me personally it is not worth the time and effort. The results that I got were far less satisfying than I expected. I ended up selling the scanner a few days later and I am once again a happy develop+scan customer at my local photo lab. Stay safe you all and remember that film is still alive! :)) P.S. Another wonderful video, guys! Hertzlichen dank!
Finally, new Content on my fave Film Photography Channel, Max. The Fuji Frontier SP-3000 was always being a Dream, back into the Day, but mostly being used on "Minilabs" but i could never afford it. My father worked a long time ago with Heidelberg Printing Machines. I am using my slow, old SCSI 35mm Feeder Scanner for Negatives.
It’s a very interesting and good review. I appreciate how you set clearly at the beginning what that review is about and what it wasn’t. I don’t think anyone mentioned on YT Heidelberg and Scitex scanners before which shows the nice effort put into the preparation of that video.
Very informative video!! I found a Fuji 340 Minilab for sale on ebay, for $500. In perfect working order. Only problem was it was local pickup only and I live 1500 miles away from where it is!!!
Nicely done. I'd add that the Nikon CS5000 and CS9000 scanners are worth considering. When new, around the early 2000's, these were basically the best film scanners available to the enthusiast or small volume shop. Next step up would have been the $20k Imacon Flextight. That's a pretty big jump for the $2500 for my then new CS9000. I've been using mine for all this time. Both are worth searching out for.
I went from a higher end Epson “Photo” flatbed to a digital camera mainly because of limitations of my PC (32bit Windows with 4Gb RAM). Being a digital and film shooter I do have old digital cameras and am currently using my older EOS R with the EF 100L. Now I’ve upgraded my PC, I may retry the Epson to see if it performs better but I’m quite satisfied with the digital camera method, even if it is a multi step less automated process.
Obviously you can not talk about every scanner option but a significant missed out unit is the Nikon 9000 I use for the last 18+ years. The option of a glass carrier gives very flat focus and 4000dpi on medium format. Also interesting would be the Imacon series.
Does Jules have a cash cow? 😅 In any case, he knows how to exaggerate. In any case, another super interesting video. All consumer scanners are felt all much too slow compared to dslr scan. As you say, NLP, unfortunately, tends to output the white balance wrong with many images. The colors of the heidelberg are really great compared to the other two scanners. I would never have thought that. Since your channel was one of the biggest influences to start with analog photography and what cameras I should buy I want to thank you. I have now started a film photography channel myself and will publish my first video tomorrow. I hope I can, like you, still convince some people to photograph with film. that would be great. grüße aus Erfurt 😀
DSLR scans have their disadvantages too. You either dedicate a camera to the task and buy an expensive copy stand, all of which is putting the price up towards dedicated film scanner levels, or you use your main camera and fiddle about with aligning tripods etc. My 'Consumer' V850 sits on my desk, is ready to use in an instant and produces fantastic 4x5 scans, excellent medium format and OK 35mm. I can load it, set it going and forget it until it is done. I personally don't use 35mm much at present.
Awesome job, guys! I have enjoyed watching this video a lot. Pretty much of a surprise for me was the Heidelberg flatbed scanner, did not expect such great results from it.
Great job, very practical views various scanning options. For quick previews, I still use a Kodak RFS 3570, which has the best color inversion for C41 film. Kodak had the secret algorithm for C41 film and Silverfast still struggles with C41 inversion. The Kodak HR500 was a great work horse but most machines died by now. The F4100 is a fantastic CCD flatbed scanner especially with wet mounting, and still better than any Epson scanner. The Heidelberg D8200 is a great drum scanner, but the best is a Hell Chromagraph S3400. The best DSLR with a APO macro lens still has too much chromatic abberations at 1:1 when compared to any scanner. Nortisu, Pakon, and Fuji SP3000 scanners are the quick and dirty scanners used by labs, and not worth salt, and why shoot film.
Great video! I bought an Epson flatbed scanner a couple of months ago and have been quite pleased with the results. That said I've only used it for b&w medium format so your mileage may vary.
This is very late but I got a PlusTek 8100 for Christmas and it’s definitely not the best scanner available but, considering the volume of scanning I actually do, it’s way better than my Canon 5600 that I was using before. For colour film it’s good enough that I’m not too worried, even with stuff that expired in 2005 or so. I do think that the approach of creating a digital contact sheet and then going back and scanning just the interesting ones is an approach I need to take, but for now an hour or so per roll once a month or two is a level of time I’m happy with.
This is another great video, Max (and Jules) ... thanks a lot. It is very well structured, provides a lot of interesting information, good examples and therefor a really useful orientation help, that’s s at least my opinion 👍🏼
I have an Epson V600 for colour slides and medium format 6x7 colour negative and colour slide film. Huge files from the colour negatives from my Pentax 67 with a 55mm F4. I have been very pleased with the results. Slow but sure. I print black and white film in my darkroom. Best results ever. Very little equipment. Schneider Componon 100mm f4.5 lens and a Gnome Alpha Rangefinder condenser enlarger. The scanner doesn't get much use now.
As always a 10 out of 10 star Analog Insights episode! This was a very thorough lesson in scanning and the best I’ve seen. Have you compared the screen output after post processing. For example, a high noise (digital) image can be sharpened and de-noised in software. Can an image scanned with the Epson approach the same quality as the Heidelberg?
Good video. Have been going through somewhat of a scanner journey myself. Got the epson v700 first and had decent-ish results but 35mm looked mushy and had minimal detail. 120 looks better, but I still think it is hard to get very strong colours. I now have the Reflecta RPS 10m for 35mm which makes better scans for sure, although does some strange things sometimes e.g. randomly stops, changes the aspect ratio. It scans an entire roll of 35 in one go which is very useful, but often have to do a little adjustment to the white balance..anyway keep up the good work!
Hi Max, again a brilliant video you have produced and I have a question about the desktop scanners. You say that you use the Epson 800 and the F-3200, for this comparison you gave preference to the F-3200. Can you say why and if you have worked with both models, are there big differences in the output? I'm also searching for a small flexible setup and thinking about a v850 with Silverfast, but still not sure. What I love about the F-3200 is the film holder feeder and it's more compact, but it isn't so easy to get one in decent quality.
Fabulous video as always. So informative. My scanner is a dedicated film scanner from Plustek, I have the Opticfilm 120 which cost quite a bit but I wanted something that gave me really good scans, sharpness being my main criteria as I scan to .dng and then covert with Negative Lab Pro, it can scan both 35 and 120. I am happy with my results for the most part, and the scanner is not without it's quirks. It's also quite slow but I don't really worry too much about that, speed is not important to me.
A great video Max and it encouraged me to look online for an Epson 3200. The other two are way out of my pocket money limit. I have found and purchased an example of the 3200 in mint condition. It came with all it's original packaging and looked like new. One slight disappointment was that I couldn't find a Windows 10 driver for it so I wasn't able to use the Epson software. I eventually downloaded a copy of Vuescan though which enabled it to work. It's a shame that I can't seem to get the driver for Silverfast though as I prefer that software.
Thank you for your video on the scanners. Always enjoy your calm and objective approach to your subjects. You touched upon briefly the digital camera/Negative Lab Pro approach which is the workflow I have been using. I use my digital camera gear for work hence just happen to have over 40 MP cameras in hand for the diital camera/NLP/Lightroom workflow. It would be great to see a review of this digital camera approach to see how it compares with the film scanner approach. I am not looking for a winner here but to see how they suit different situations and requirements.
Interesting video and very informative. I use my Sony A7R3 with the Sony 90mm Macro lens tethered to my PC using the Sony remote App, NLP and LR and I get excellent quality scans (around 38Mp) for 35mm colour and B&W, I haven't had any issues with colour casts as lots of folk seem to have.
@Pete Melon You will have to manually remove the dust, using Photoshop's dust removal tool. That can be a pain, so if you film is new, dust it off as much as you can before scanning.
Hi there, I've tried the Epson F-3200 scanner and I did not know that it's a sort of flatbed scanner, because of the glass plate that the film sits on. I believe that's the reason that the scans are so soft. I scan also with an older CanoScan FS-4000 and it's much sharper, even at 2000 dpi. And of course the dust , me oh my THE DUST. Sure, it's small, you have all the plates for different formats, looks nice and it's fast, but no sharpness. Is there anything I can do from Vuescan to make it sharper?
Most people are now using a full frame sensor. I have compared scans made within Sony A7R3 combined with their very good macro lens, with an Imacon virtual drum scanner. Of course Imacon scans are better, but the Sony sensor imaging is better than my Nikon 4000 dpi scanner and a lot faster.
Yes, as mentioned in the video scanning with a digital camera is a really promising alternative which we have used before. But we decided to exclude it from this discussion for the reasons mentioned.
@Pete Melon Totally agree - there are also lots of other issues with DSLR scanning like reflections off the film surface, keeping camera and film truly parallel (a must for stitching shots for medium format) and the total expense of a really good quality setup vs dedicated scanners. I think it's important not to just encourage people to buy old film scanners though, PlusTek and Reflecta still make pretty capable machines that start at reasonable prices and if we want these things to keep being made into the future it's essential to support the manufacturers.
@Pete Melon I have recently finished a collection upwards of 10,000 negatives, and you’re completely right there’s a lot of work. But a couple of points. Not all films stock is equal. Not all film processing is perfect. Not all film was dried in heated, dustless cabinets. But many were. Some films were overheated when they were dried, introducing more curl, and lie perfectly flat. A roll of FP4 processed correctly lies flatter than a Tmax. The thinner the film stock seems to yield better results. You also failed to mention Digital Ice does not work for black-and-white film, so my Nikon scanner picks up just as much dust on that negative as my Sony sensor. The difference in time is astronomical when you have 10,000 negatives. And I have another collection of 20,000 which I have an barely scratch the surface of. My last point is that the Capture One, version 20 has a really good layer touch up tool. Why is it really good? Because it picks the sample. Shows you where it was chosen, and you can move it. I find it extremely fast in my workflow. So when I export a tiff to Photoshop, there is a minimal amount of retouching to do. I’m talking about negatives that are generally clean on a film that’s a generally clean. And flat. I have spent hours and hours cleaning a quarter of a damaged negative. I’m a bit of a fanatic. That’s something that has literally 150 find lines, and numerous scratches and still making it look like it was never scratched sure, so what? I still use my Nikon scanner for slides and colour negatives, partially because I don’t have that many of them, or at least compared to the black-and-white collections. What really impressed me is that I have picked up details in skies that were never apparent in older prints. Or I never knew existed. One example: I have a shot on tech pan 35 mm that I believe is processed in HC110, because that’s what we stored at work. I remember shooting it at my lunch break, and It was over developed. Perhaps six stops or more. If I held it up to the window,and you can barely see anything through it. With the highlights all p blocked. With a digital camera, one I used a slow shutter speed, perhaps 30 seconds, and maybe even 60 seconds, but I could then see the negative through the viewfinder like it was normally processed. And suddenly a completely decent copy has been produced, with all details.
This was a great video! Sadly all of these are well beyond my budget, so I guess I'll need to go the DIY route and use my trusty a7. 3D printing to the rescue! **sigh**
So einen Heidelberg Nexscan F4100 habe ich als Amateur für 3000 € gebraucht und überholt gekauft. Die meisten Bilder haben zu wenig Auflösung für so einen Scanner. Er kann am besten Dias mit hohen Dichten wie Velvia 50 oder Kodachrome. Leider ist der heute nichts mehr für Profis, weil die Scanzeit zu lange ist.
Heidelberg Nexscan is an excellent flatbed scanner, better than SP3000 when scanning negatives or slides. With negatives, even the Kodak RF3570 (5MP) gets better color than the Fuji SP3000 or Noritsu scanners. For your portfolio I'd recommend a Heidelberg D8200 or even better, the Hell Chromagraph S3400.
@@ghosttownsentinel5288 There is a lack in reproducing a good density range to achieve details in shadow areas. A lot of guys are working with Epson 800/850, it's ok for 4x5. The smaller the frame the smaller the capability of showing shadow details. Combined with bad density range it's the worst case. If you compare 35mm scans of flatbed and dedicated ccd-line based film scanners you will throw away your flatbed. For medium format a Minolta or Nikon coolscan beats a flatbed as well. As I mentioned for 4x5 a flatbed maybe is ok, a good compromise for pricing and handling compared to a drum scanner, this of course is the best what you can get. I don't know this Epson F3200 from Max but it looks very interesting, seems to be a good solution for 4x5. The only known competitor in this price range for 4x5 film scanner is Polaroid sprintscan 45ultra. Max' scanner comparison and his thoughts about workflow is very helpful. Scanning is a time consuming process and it makes no sense to go with cheap equipment.
@@Asmoc23 I got a used noritsu Ls-600 for 35mm. Found one for cheap and now I wouldn’t use another scanner for 35mm, works great on my modern windows 10 PC.
Great video summarizing and comparing options. Professional drum scanners and lab scanners are rare and not really a considerable option IMO. They just fill a very small percentage of the applied scanning methods which are commonly used by amateurs and even professionals. Wish you had shown more consumer options starting at 24:35 which are the most used types. Very good are now also different digitizing methods with digital cameras and software systems. I am using Plustek 8200 Ai for 35 mm and Epson V850 for everything else. The V850 scanner has the advantage that the focus point can be adjusted via height of frame holders which I found of high importance for scanning slides and negatives.
@@AnalogInsights thanks, I state corrected - I flipped over this talking section of this long video too quickly obviously. Glad it was mentioned. Nevertheless, focus here was on professional scanning methods which are too rarely applied for regular users.
Definitely, just like film cameras, prices are rising. It’s all supply and demand, a lot of these scanners are at least a decade old, not a huge number made and not a lot of working units.
Softwares are really important part of scanners quality. I use an old Epson 4870 bought around 2005 with Vuescan and there is a huge difference in results with original Epson software, sorry for Epson. No needs for me to buy a newer scanner.
Unfortunately the whole field of film scanning is dead since 15 years. I have not seen any new device making use of state of the art technology since quite some time. The remaining small players are not really innovative and Epson has lost its interest...I really cross the fingers that a larger company will come up with a new solution in future. ☹️
@Pete Melon Correct. I was also more thinking of a system which can be seen as a successor of the Nikon scanner series. The Phase One System has a 60.000€ price tag and several disadvantages for film scanning, as you already mentioned. I‘m also not aware of any commercial supplier providing scan services with this system in Europe.
I use one and I must say it's not a great scanner. For color it's mushy and lack detail. I use it for bnw only and do post editing on a software. I do most of my color scanning in a lab. It does come with templates for 35mm and 120mm. If you are experimenting and shooting cheaper film stocks then it's great which is what I do, but for the more expensive stocks better to scan at the lab.
Oops I now know why loved your presentation just went back to medium format real film cameras.just bought epson v800 should be here next week .now I have other options thanks John
I scanned thousands of old negatives and slides using an Epson V600 Photo scanner. It is an inexpensive flatbed that sadly does a better job than the "professional" scanning done at the time of processing by photolabs.
Really? Because my V600 is terrible for 35mm scans. I bought Lomography Digitaliza trays which helped quite a bit, but I'm still looking for a new dedicated scanner for 35mm negatives.
@Pete Melon i see. its sounds absurdly cos additionally to the worth scanner one have to buy and to maintain an old PC with the out of support in 2014 OS.
@Pete Melon im IT management person and dealing with computers during my dayjob hours, dont be confused - i dont like to replace and to upgrade an OS of PC or my phone every week bcos it become a nonstop challenge of the manufactures but still it was too strange to see the old and forgotten logo. but i know that even banks still use their ATM with tjis outdated OS. so actually if banks, so why not ;-)
My god, less introduction…get to the point!!! FFS, I’m so checked out by the time he finally gets around to the content I end up giving up and moving on. 🤦♂️
Typical for germans who wants to speak more exactly than the original english speakers! Der Heidelberg und der Fuji sind ein Witz! Für niemanden geeignet. Passt noch nicht einmal zum pseudoexklusiven Auftreten. Tip: vieleicht mal mit Humor versuchen und das Gestelze weglassen.
What do you mean by „Witz“? You are blaming the video and get quite personal, but you don‘t bring a single argument to the table. In Germany we Call someone a „Schwätzer“...
@@ytuberization Because the Heidelberg and the Fuji is for industrial use. Nobody can use it really. Deinen Schwätzer, eine Beleidigung bitte auf Dich beziehen, Danke.
@Pete Melon how to find a scanner that fits your needs. totally wrong, they are for industrial use, no normal people use them. but he must speak so correct and without humour.
@@klauspetermann2373 What do you mean by nobody? There are a couple of service providers available providing Scans by Fuji SP3000 and Heidelberg drum scanners...I see this video not only as a buyer’s recommendation but to give an impression how this different models behave.
As a red-green color blind person myself, I appreciate hearing Jules' approach to scanning. I purchased a Fuji X-T3 based on their reputation for good, reliable color straight from the camera, and it's funny to hear he had the same thoughts regarding their scanners. With that in mind, I would absolutely love to see Fuji implement some kind of film scanning mode into their digital cameras. They obviously have the expertise when in comes to digital conversion, and even market their digital cameras based on their similarity to shooting film. If they were to add in dedicated settings to capture different emulsions, I think it would make a huge splash.
Back when Nikon discontinued the coolscans I spent the remainder of my student overdraft on a coolscan V ED. Many years down the road I'm glad of my past reckless self.
Not my personal choice, but you are correct. The high point in the technology of film scanning was reached by Nikon and Minolta more than a decade ago. Film scanners have alrgely disappeared from the market, and the few which remain are fairly poor quality Chinese junk. The idea of rephotographing negatives with a DSLR suffer not form the resolution of the camera, but from the resolution of the lens. Very few people have or will afford a high quality macro lens, even then, the resolution of the lens is not going to exceed 100 lines per millimeter deliver at the sensor, which is a fraction of what the sensor of best DSLR can record.
DAMN! I cannot fathom buying a $15,000 scanner for personal use 😵💫
You have an awesome voice! Good video and very helpful. I now have a solid grasp of what's needed and I am never going to be able to afford any of these.
Wonderful video. I've seen it many times. All I want to say is that the actual maximum resolution of the fuji frontier sp3000 and the Heidelberg Nexscan is lower than advertised. I own both. Measured with a USAF card, the fuji frontier sp3000 achieves approx 2800-2900 dpi at 35mm. The Nexscan has a minimally higher resolution for a frame of 35mm, however it allows you to use said resolution in larger sizes, if you scan in strips and join them in Photoshop (although also in that case the real resolution achieved is lower than those announced in the video ). In terms of quality, I think the Nexscan is incredibly better because it produces clean, artifact-free images with much greater chromatic and tonal richness. Resolution is the most attractive quality in terms of marketing, but in my opinion not the most important quality of a scanner. There are scanners with a lot of resolution that are bad scanners.
I have always developed and scanned all my negatives and slide films at a very old photo lab in Sofia, Bulgaria called Dekov Photo. And I just recently decided that I would buy myself a scanner so that I can have full control over the scans. I opted out for a Plustek OpticFilm 7400 - a great little machine that I was able to buy from eBay for around EUR 150. I really love shooting film and it's a sort of an escape for me from my work as a professional automotive photographer, which involves a lot of post processing. HOWEVER, after a sleepless night scanning just two 36 exp. negative films, I developed hatred for the process..
It took me well over 5 hours to scan two films and I encountered numerous problems in the process. First of all - dust and scratches.. that is a real problem, 30% of my photos had scratches on them straight out of the lab and I had a hard time getting rid of the dust even with a blower. Second - the colors.. The color rendering difference between the pro scanner in my lab and the Plustek was pretty distinct. Not that it can't be corrected in post, but as I've said film photography is my escape from the tedious editing process and I do not want to edit my film photos. It is a very time consuming process and for me personally it is not worth the time and effort. The results that I got were far less satisfying than I expected. I ended up selling the scanner a few days later and I am once again a happy develop+scan customer at my local photo lab.
Stay safe you all and remember that film is still alive! :))
P.S. Another wonderful video, guys! Hertzlichen dank!
Finally, new Content on my fave Film Photography Channel, Max. The Fuji Frontier SP-3000 was always being a Dream, back into the Day, but mostly being used on "Minilabs" but i could never afford it. My father worked a long time ago with Heidelberg Printing Machines. I am using my slow, old SCSI 35mm Feeder Scanner for Negatives.
I mean, this is another amazing video.
It’s a very interesting and good review. I appreciate how you set clearly at the beginning what that review is about and what it wasn’t. I don’t think anyone mentioned on YT Heidelberg and Scitex scanners before which shows the nice effort put into the preparation of that video.
Thanks so much for your comment. Glad you enjoyed it and can appreciate the effort we put into this.
Thanks for the video, one of the most important aspects in film photography.That Heidelberg Nexscan looks like it produces amazing results.
Danke Max einmal wieder :) Perfekter Input & Mood für einen Samstag nachmittag
Very informative video!! I found a Fuji 340 Minilab for sale on ebay, for $500. In perfect working order. Only problem was it was local pickup only and I live 1500 miles away from where it is!!!
Nicely done.
I'd add that the Nikon CS5000 and CS9000 scanners are worth considering. When new, around the early 2000's, these were basically the best film scanners available to the enthusiast or small volume shop. Next step up would have been the $20k Imacon Flextight. That's a pretty big jump for the $2500 for my then new CS9000.
I've been using mine for all this time. Both are worth searching out for.
I went from a higher end Epson “Photo” flatbed to a digital camera mainly because of limitations of my PC (32bit Windows with 4Gb RAM). Being a digital and film shooter I do have old digital cameras and am currently using my older EOS R with the EF 100L. Now I’ve upgraded my PC, I may retry the Epson to see if it performs better but I’m quite satisfied with the digital camera method, even if it is a multi step less automated process.
Good job max, very thorough as usual. I don't think I would have the guts to put together an extensive review like this
Obviously you can not talk about every scanner option but a significant missed out unit is the Nikon 9000 I use for the last 18+ years. The option of a glass carrier gives very flat focus and 4000dpi on medium format. Also interesting would be the Imacon series.
Thanks you for the amount of detail and information you provided in this video and all the effort that must have gone into making this video!
Does Jules have a cash cow? 😅 In any case, he knows how to exaggerate. In any case, another super interesting video. All consumer scanners are felt all much too slow compared to dslr scan. As you say, NLP, unfortunately, tends to output the white balance wrong with many images. The colors of the heidelberg are really great compared to the other two scanners. I would never have thought that.
Since your channel was one of the biggest influences to start with analog photography and what cameras I should buy I want to thank you. I have now started a film photography channel myself and will publish my first video tomorrow. I hope I can, like you, still convince some people to photograph with film. that would be great.
grüße aus Erfurt 😀
DSLR scans have their disadvantages too. You either dedicate a camera to the task and buy an expensive copy stand, all of which is putting the price up towards dedicated film scanner levels, or you use your main camera and fiddle about with aligning tripods etc. My 'Consumer' V850 sits on my desk, is ready to use in an instant and produces fantastic 4x5 scans, excellent medium format and OK 35mm. I can load it, set it going and forget it until it is done. I personally don't use 35mm much at present.
thank you so much for putting all the work in such a fantastic video.
Thanks a lot for your kind comment. We really appreciate it.
Awesome job, guys! I have enjoyed watching this video a lot.
Pretty much of a surprise for me was the Heidelberg flatbed scanner, did not expect such great results from it.
Great job, very practical views various scanning options. For quick previews, I still use a Kodak RFS 3570, which has the best color inversion for C41 film. Kodak had the secret algorithm for C41 film and Silverfast still struggles with C41 inversion. The Kodak HR500 was a great work horse but most machines died by now. The F4100 is a fantastic CCD flatbed scanner especially with wet mounting, and still better than any Epson scanner. The Heidelberg D8200 is a great drum scanner, but the best is a Hell Chromagraph S3400. The best DSLR with a APO macro lens still has too much chromatic abberations at 1:1 when compared to any scanner. Nortisu, Pakon, and Fuji SP3000 scanners are the quick and dirty scanners used by labs, and not worth salt, and why shoot film.
Great video! I bought an Epson flatbed scanner a couple of months ago and have been quite pleased with the results. That said I've only used it for b&w medium format so your mileage may vary.
My exact requirement - 6×6 b&w negs - so looking at the Epson V600
Another great film from Analogue Insights. Thank you, really appreciate the effort and time you put in to making these super informative films.
Glad you enjoyed it! This comment means a lot to us. :)
DSLR direct capture is the way to go. Check out the EFH (essential film holder) get a good copy stand and a high CRI light source and sorted.
Sehr sehenswert, danke für die vielen hilfreichen Infos! Grüße nach München, Seb
Danke für dein schönes Feedback. Freut uns!
This is very late but I got a PlusTek 8100 for Christmas and it’s definitely not the best scanner available but, considering the volume of scanning I actually do, it’s way better than my Canon 5600 that I was using before. For colour film it’s good enough that I’m not too worried, even with stuff that expired in 2005 or so. I do think that the approach of creating a digital contact sheet and then going back and scanning just the interesting ones is an approach I need to take, but for now an hour or so per roll once a month or two is a level of time I’m happy with.
This is another great video, Max (and Jules) ... thanks a lot. It is very well structured, provides a lot of interesting information, good examples and therefor a really useful orientation help, that’s s at least my opinion 👍🏼
I have an Epson V600 for colour slides and medium format 6x7 colour negative and colour slide film.
Huge files from the colour negatives from my Pentax 67 with a 55mm F4.
I have been very pleased with the results. Slow but sure.
I print black and white film in my darkroom. Best results ever. Very little equipment. Schneider Componon 100mm f4.5 lens and a Gnome Alpha Rangefinder condenser enlarger.
The scanner doesn't get much use now.
As always a 10 out of 10 star Analog Insights episode! This was a very thorough lesson in scanning and the best I’ve seen.
Have you compared the screen output after post processing. For example, a high noise (digital) image can be sharpened and de-noised in software. Can an image scanned with the Epson approach the same quality as the Heidelberg?
Good video. Have been going through somewhat of a scanner journey myself. Got the epson v700 first and had decent-ish results but 35mm looked mushy and had minimal detail. 120 looks better, but I still think it is hard to get very strong colours. I now have the Reflecta RPS 10m for 35mm which makes better scans for sure, although does some strange things sometimes e.g. randomly stops, changes the aspect ratio. It scans an entire roll of 35 in one go which is very useful, but often have to do a little adjustment to the white balance..anyway keep up the good work!
Great exploration. Thankyou!
Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for your kind feedback.
Hi Max, again a brilliant video you have produced and I have a question about the desktop scanners. You say that you use the Epson 800 and the F-3200, for this comparison you gave preference to the F-3200. Can you say why and if you have worked with both models, are there big differences in the output? I'm also searching for a small flexible setup and thinking about a v850 with Silverfast, but still not sure. What I love about the F-3200 is the film holder feeder and it's more compact, but it isn't so easy to get one in decent quality.
Fabulous video as always. So informative. My scanner is a dedicated film scanner from Plustek, I have the Opticfilm 120 which cost quite a bit but I wanted something that gave me really good scans, sharpness being my main criteria as I scan to .dng and then covert with Negative Lab Pro, it can scan both 35 and 120. I am happy with my results for the most part, and the scanner is not without it's quirks. It's also quite slow but I don't really worry too much about that, speed is not important to me.
A great video Max and it encouraged me to look online for an Epson 3200. The other two are way out of my pocket money limit. I have found and purchased an example of the 3200 in mint condition. It came with all it's original packaging and looked like new. One slight disappointment was that I couldn't find a Windows 10 driver for it so I wasn't able to use the Epson software. I eventually downloaded a copy of Vuescan though which enabled it to work. It's a shame that I can't seem to get the driver for Silverfast though as I prefer that software.
Thank you for your video on the scanners. Always enjoy your calm and objective approach to your subjects. You touched upon briefly the digital camera/Negative Lab Pro approach which is the workflow I have been using. I use my digital camera gear for work hence just happen to have over 40 MP cameras in hand for the diital camera/NLP/Lightroom workflow. It would be great to see a review of this digital camera approach to see how it compares with the film scanner approach. I am not looking for a winner here but to see how they suit different situations and requirements.
Interesting video and very informative. I use my Sony A7R3 with the Sony 90mm Macro lens tethered to my PC using the Sony remote App, NLP and LR and I get excellent quality scans (around 38Mp) for 35mm colour and B&W, I haven't had any issues with colour casts as lots of folk seem to have.
@Pete Melon
You will have to manually remove the dust, using Photoshop's dust removal tool. That can be a pain, so if you film is new, dust it off as much as you can before scanning.
Really enjoyed the video and especially all those b-rolls - delicious! 🥰
thank you!
Very interesting! If working in black and white......would DSLR be the way to go?
Definitely a good option.
Which film holder was that when you were talking about digital camera scanning?
Just a regular slide cutter like the AP pro mounter
Hi there, I've tried the Epson F-3200 scanner and I did not know that it's a sort of flatbed scanner, because of the glass plate that the film sits on. I believe that's the reason that the scans are so soft. I scan also with an older CanoScan FS-4000 and it's much sharper, even at 2000 dpi. And of course the dust , me oh my THE DUST. Sure, it's small, you have all the plates for different formats, looks nice and it's fast, but no sharpness. Is there anything I can do from Vuescan to make it sharper?
Most people are now using a full frame sensor. I have compared scans made within Sony A7R3 combined with their very good macro lens, with an Imacon virtual drum scanner. Of course Imacon scans are better, but the Sony sensor imaging is better than my Nikon 4000 dpi scanner and a lot faster.
Yes, as mentioned in the video scanning with a digital camera is a really promising alternative which we have used before. But we decided to exclude it from this discussion for the reasons mentioned.
@Pete Melon Totally agree - there are also lots of other issues with DSLR scanning like reflections off the film surface, keeping camera and film truly parallel (a must for stitching shots for medium format) and the total expense of a really good quality setup vs dedicated scanners. I think it's important not to just encourage people to buy old film scanners though, PlusTek and Reflecta still make pretty capable machines that start at reasonable prices and if we want these things to keep being made into the future it's essential to support the manufacturers.
@Pete Melon I have recently finished a collection upwards of 10,000 negatives, and you’re completely right there’s a lot of work. But a couple of points. Not all films stock is equal. Not all film processing is perfect. Not all film was dried in heated, dustless cabinets. But many were. Some films were overheated when they were dried, introducing more curl, and lie perfectly flat. A roll of FP4 processed correctly lies flatter than a Tmax. The thinner the film stock seems to yield better results.
You also failed to mention Digital Ice does not work for black-and-white film, so my Nikon scanner picks up just as much dust on that negative as my Sony sensor. The difference in time is astronomical when you have 10,000 negatives. And I have another collection of 20,000 which I have an barely scratch the surface of.
My last point is that the Capture One, version 20 has a really good layer touch up tool. Why is it really good? Because it picks the sample. Shows you where it was chosen, and you can move it. I find it extremely fast in my workflow. So when I export a tiff to Photoshop, there is a minimal amount of retouching to do. I’m talking about negatives that are generally clean on a film that’s a generally clean. And flat. I have spent hours and hours cleaning a quarter of a damaged negative. I’m a bit of a fanatic. That’s something that has literally 150 find lines, and numerous scratches and still making it look like it was never scratched sure, so what?
I still use my Nikon scanner for slides and colour negatives, partially because I don’t have that many of them, or at least compared to the black-and-white collections.
What really impressed me is that I have picked up details in skies that were never apparent in older prints. Or I never knew existed.
One example: I have a shot on tech pan 35 mm that I believe is processed in HC110, because that’s what we stored at work. I remember shooting it at my lunch break, and It was over developed. Perhaps six stops or more. If I held it up to the window,and you can barely see anything through it. With the highlights all p blocked. With a digital camera, one I used a slow shutter speed, perhaps 30 seconds, and maybe even 60 seconds, but I could then see the negative through the viewfinder like it was normally processed. And suddenly a completely decent copy has been produced, with all details.
the advice your give at the end is almost more valuable than the high quality content you presented in this video
anyone know any U.S. based labs that offer scans using one of the professional flatbed scanners mentioned?
Excellent video
Thank you very much! We really appreciate it.
This was a great video! Sadly all of these are well beyond my budget, so I guess I'll need to go the DIY route and use my trusty a7.
3D printing to the rescue!
**sigh**
Is the Epson F3200 comparable to an Epson V800/850 in terms of final results?
My question too!
I am happy with my Reflecta RPS 10m
I have the US version packaged as the PrimeFilm XA
It's such a pity epson f3200 is nowhere to be found. It would be perfect for my needs
The cheapest way to scan your film is to give them to Jules and have them scanned for free 🤓
what do you mean? because I do not understand
@@mur_80 relax!!! It was a joke!
And fully restore a Leica RF. Though that was not free. Jules is the renaissance man.
@@SteveMillerhuntingforfood and a doctor 😅
The guy is an octopus
So einen Heidelberg Nexscan F4100 habe ich als Amateur für 3000 € gebraucht und überholt gekauft. Die meisten Bilder haben zu wenig Auflösung für so einen Scanner. Er kann am besten Dias mit hohen Dichten wie Velvia 50 oder Kodachrome. Leider ist der heute nichts mehr für Profis, weil die Scanzeit zu lange ist.
Great video!!
Ps. Todd Philips.. is that you? :D
Heidelberg Nexscan is an excellent flatbed scanner, better than SP3000 when scanning negatives or slides. With negatives, even the Kodak RF3570 (5MP) gets better color than the Fuji SP3000 or Noritsu scanners. For your portfolio I'd recommend a Heidelberg D8200 or even better, the Hell Chromagraph S3400.
Thanks for these comparisons!
The only advice I want to give, don't use flatbed scanners for scanning 35mm and smaller frames.
Why?
Yeah, why?
@@ghosttownsentinel5288 There is a lack in reproducing a good density range to achieve details in shadow areas.
A lot of guys are working with Epson 800/850, it's ok for 4x5. The smaller the frame the smaller the capability of showing shadow details.
Combined with bad density range it's the worst case.
If you compare 35mm scans of flatbed and dedicated ccd-line based film scanners you will throw away your flatbed.
For medium format a Minolta or Nikon coolscan beats a flatbed as well.
As I mentioned for 4x5 a flatbed maybe is ok, a good compromise for pricing and handling compared to a drum scanner, this of course is the best what you can get.
I don't know this Epson F3200 from Max but it looks very interesting, seems to be a good solution for 4x5.
The only known competitor in this price range for 4x5 film scanner is Polaroid sprintscan 45ultra.
Max' scanner comparison and his thoughts about workflow is very helpful.
Scanning is a time consuming process and it makes no sense to go with cheap equipment.
@@stephan.scharf
What do you recommend for 35mm scan?
@@Asmoc23 I got a used noritsu Ls-600 for 35mm. Found one for cheap and now I wouldn’t use another scanner for 35mm, works great on my modern windows 10 PC.
Idk if it’s him or his voice so intimidating 😂😂😂
Hi ! Very interestant video ! Please , way you write me woch scanner of Epson are you working on in yuur video ? Thanks !
I live not so far from Konstanz. Please to contact me in case you will be in Baden Wuttenberg , to get some shot together ! All the best !
Great video summarizing and comparing options. Professional drum scanners and lab scanners are rare and not really a considerable option IMO. They just fill a very small percentage of the applied scanning methods which are commonly used by amateurs and even professionals. Wish you had shown more consumer options starting at 24:35 which are the most used types. Very good are now also different digitizing methods with digital cameras and software systems. I am using Plustek 8200 Ai for 35 mm and Epson V850 for everything else. The V850 scanner has the advantage that the focus point can be adjusted via height of frame holders which I found of high importance for scanning slides and negatives.
8:08
@@AnalogInsights thanks, I state corrected - I flipped over this talking section of this long video too quickly obviously. Glad it was mentioned. Nevertheless, focus here was on professional scanning methods which are too rarely applied for regular users.
How does the V800/850 compare to the F3200 in quality/sharpness?
f3200 eBay prices about to skyrocket! lol
I have looked for one for a while, but never seen a listing
Definitely, just like film cameras, prices are rising. It’s all supply and demand, a lot of these scanners are at least a decade old, not a huge number made and not a lot of working units.
What is the device at 8:14 used to advance the film when scanning??
That is a Hamafix RC44 which costs around 1-5 Euros used. I hope this helps.
Softwares are really important part of scanners quality. I use an old Epson 4870 bought around 2005 with Vuescan and there is a huge difference in results with original Epson software, sorry for Epson.
No needs for me to buy a newer scanner.
Klasse!!!!👌🏻
Thanks a lot for the video, very usefull, maybe you have read my brain before doing the video.
Pakon F135 is the way to go for 35mm
es ist schade das Euer Kanal nur Englisch Sprachig ist. Ansonsten gefällt es mir das was ihr macht.
Unfortunately the whole field of film scanning is dead since 15 years. I have not seen any new device making use of state of the art technology since quite some time. The remaining small players are not really innovative and Epson has lost its interest...I really cross the fingers that a larger company will come up with a new solution in future. ☹️
look up phase one ixg
@Pete Melon Correct. I was also more thinking of a system which can be seen as a successor of the Nikon scanner series. The Phase One System has a 60.000€ price tag and several disadvantages for film scanning, as you already mentioned. I‘m also not aware of any commercial supplier providing scan services with this system in Europe.
Does anyone know how Nikon Coolscan 9000ED or Imacon scanner work compare to these scanner?
I use one and I must say it's not a great scanner. For color it's mushy and lack detail. I use it for bnw only and do post editing on a software. I do most of my color scanning in a lab. It does come with templates for 35mm and 120mm. If you are experimenting and shooting cheaper film stocks then it's great which is what I do, but for the more expensive stocks better to scan at the lab.
Did I spot a windows XP computer in the background lol
Oops I now know why loved your presentation just went back to medium format real film cameras.just bought epson v800 should be here next week .now I have other options thanks
John
unfair to compare fully finished files from others compared to epson edit-ready scans
At 6:05 Epson f3200 doesn’t exist.
Well. It does. It is just hard to find these days.
Does’t make sense to talk about F3200 , it is not produce anymore.
I scanned thousands of old negatives and slides using an Epson V600 Photo scanner. It is an inexpensive flatbed that sadly does a better job than the "professional" scanning done at the time of processing by photolabs.
Really? Because my V600 is terrible for 35mm scans. I bought Lomography Digitaliza trays which helped quite a bit, but I'm still looking for a new dedicated scanner for 35mm negatives.
windows XP ??? high end scanner and the ancient PC that is able to run XP ?
@Pete Melon not really. even the drivers and software of my old Epson V500 are working on both W7 and W10.
@Pete Melon i see. its sounds absurdly cos additionally to the worth scanner one have to buy and to maintain an old PC with the out of support in 2014 OS.
@Pete Melon im IT management person and dealing with computers during my dayjob hours, dont be confused - i dont like to replace and to upgrade an OS of PC or my phone every week bcos it become a nonstop challenge of the manufactures but still it was too strange to see the old and forgotten logo. but i know that even banks still use their ATM with tjis outdated OS. so actually if banks, so why not ;-)
@Pete Melon you're right ;-) thank you for the conversation.
My god, less introduction…get to the point!!!
FFS, I’m so checked out by the time he finally gets around to the content I end up giving up and moving on. 🤦♂️
На кой хер эта бесконечная информация, если это нельзя купить для дома!..
Typical for germans who wants to speak more exactly than the original english speakers! Der Heidelberg und der Fuji sind ein Witz! Für niemanden geeignet. Passt noch nicht einmal zum pseudoexklusiven Auftreten. Tip: vieleicht mal mit Humor versuchen und das Gestelze weglassen.
What do you mean by „Witz“? You are blaming the video and get quite personal, but you don‘t bring a single argument to the table. In Germany we Call someone a „Schwätzer“...
@@ytuberization Because the Heidelberg and the Fuji is for industrial use. Nobody can use it really. Deinen Schwätzer, eine Beleidigung bitte auf Dich beziehen, Danke.
@Pete Melon how to find a scanner that fits your needs. totally wrong, they are for industrial use, no normal people use them. but he must speak so correct and without humour.
@@klauspetermann2373 What do you mean by nobody? There are a couple of service providers available providing Scans by Fuji SP3000 and Heidelberg drum scanners...I see this video not only as a buyer’s recommendation but to give an impression how this different models behave.
@@ytuberization Ok, who wants to pay 80€ per frame and how many scan services are now still awaylable...