What should I look for in a scanner for digitising 35mm film and documents?
Asked 8/29/2010
2 views
2 answers
0
I want to digitise about 2,000 old 35mm frames, but I’d also like the scanner to handle sketches, children’s drawings, and other documents. I’m not necessarily looking for brand-specific recommendations so much as the key features that matter.
In particular:
- If I’m unlikely to print larger than A4, what level of scanning resolution is realistically useful for 35mm film?
- Are dust-removal features genuinely worthwhile?
- What else is worth paying extra for when choosing between a flatbed and other options?
I’m also open to knowing when it makes more sense to use a scanning service instead of buying a scanner.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
16y ago
2 Answers
17
If you want to use it for documents as well, you're looking at a flatbed scanner, and there are a few options. The two I hear recommended most often are Epson's v-series (in particular the v700 and up) and PlusTek. I have a slightly-older Epson 4990 (the immediate predecessor to the v700s), and have been perfectly happy with it.
For printing, most flatbed film scanners should give you adequate scans of 35mm film for printing at A4 sizes. I wouldn't do gallery/portfolio prints from them, but for anything else they've been fine for me. With the right image and a bit of care in post-processing, I've printed up to 11x14 from flatbed scans and been happy with the results.
Resolution is partly the reason; despite flatbed scanners being labelled with high numbers for dpi (e.g., my Epson is 4800dpi), their optical resolution is somewhat lower; topping out around 1500dpi. Above that, you get more pixels, but not really any extra detail. This does have a bit of a silver lining, as sizing down (e.g., scanning at 4800dpi, reducing the resulting image by 50%) is a quite effective way to reduce the noise in the scan and smooth out some gradients in the result. Some of the higher-end scanners have a liquid-mounting option that improves results, but is definitely not something you'd want to do on a mass basis, nor would I think it gains you much advantage for A4-sized prints.
Of slightly more importance than resolution for me is the scan area. Some scanners can only scan film in a narrow strip; sometimes just one 35mm strip. Others can scan much larger areas and so can do more strips of film at once, or larger formats. Again to my 4990, it can scan up to 8x10 film, which means 4 4x5 negatives, four 35mm strips in the holder, and pretty easily six if I put them directly on the glass (which does hurt quality, but is good for making a "contact sheet" for review).
Software can obviously play a role; unfortunately there's no clear winner. In terms of ease-of-use, none are spectacular, and all are serviceable. Personally, I've always been happy with the default Epson software, but VueScan is a popular choice, especially if you're trying to get the absolute most out of your scans.
Dust removal comes in two flavours: software, which isn't worth bothering, and hardware (commonly "digital ICE"). The difference is in how it works: software-only methods just look for sharp lines of high contrast, and will often blur a lot of general detail. Hardware methods use an infrared channel; color films are transparent to infrared, dust is not, so it can tell which defects are from the dust, and which are part of the image.
I don't have much direct experience (I shoot mostly B&W film, the silver is IR-opaque, so doesn't work with ICE-like methods), but the general consensus seems to be that software methods aren't useful, and ICE/hardware methods are useful at least sometimes. A further wrinkle is that depending on the scanner, ICE processing time can be very high (3-5 times the normal scan time, or even more).
Dmax is potentially something to be aware of, depending on what you need to scan. This doesn't really enter into the equation for negative films, but some transparency films can have very dense shadows that are difficult to scan well (Kodachrome and Velvia in particular). Unfortunately, like dpi, these ratings aren't very reliable if the manufacturers even make them available. It's better to rely on reviews and user feedback.
Originally by user496. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user496
16y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
If you want one device for both film and paper originals, a flatbed with film capability is the practical choice. Models in Epson’s V series are commonly recommended for this kind of mixed use.
For 35mm film, many flatbeds are good enough for A4-sized prints and general archiving, but they’re usually not the best option for the highest-quality enlargements. Manufacturers’ quoted dpi figures can be optimistic, so real optical performance matters more than headline resolution numbers.
Dust-removal features can be worthwhile, especially when scanning a large volume of film, because they reduce cleanup time. They’re not just marketing, though results depend on the film and scanner.
The main trade-off is convenience versus ultimate quality: a flatbed is versatile and useful for documents and artwork, while a dedicated film scanner or a professional lab can produce better scans from negatives and slides. Given you have around 2,000 frames, it’s also worth considering a scanning service if image quality and time are more important than owning a scanner.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI16y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Can the Canon CanoScan LiDE 400 scan 35mm negatives well?
How do scanner dust-removal features work on film and prints?
What should I look for when buying a scanner for film negatives?
How should I clean dust from 35mm negatives before scanning?
What’s the best way to digitize 1,000–2,000 35mm slides quickly with good color and even lighting?