FLATBED MEME

File: DSC00622.jpg (264KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1536x2048px

bump

damn I can't still decide which one to take

neither, lab scanning is the way to go

>>3121054
you don't know what you're talking about.

OP: I have the v500 and it's fine. Just don't expect to print huge from 35mm using it.

>>3121055
yes I do. v500's suck. time consuming and you're not even saving that much money if your lab scans for 5$.

>>3120572
however OP if you still want to scan for some reason, v550 is the way to go IMO.

Can't you just use a DSLR instead?

>>3121072
>>3121054
I own a D800 but I have tons of film material I would like to have in good quality scanned. Would be too expensive to scan in the lab.

>>3121064
Can you post some samples of your scans with the v550?

I have heard the REAL optical resolution is only about 2800dpi or something, which gives only 4mp picutres...
I am eyeing some real photo scanners like from plustek but its too expensive

>>3121063
The films are already deleveopped. They are in a archive box.
The lab asks 1euro for one picture. that would be 36 euro for the whole film. Fuck that.

Its cheaper to scan them by myself

Also another question :

what is this with IT-8 color calibration about?

Do I have to purchase some color sample in order to calibrate?

I got the canoscan. amazing machine. Easy to use and worth the moneh if youre use it often. I use it for work and its splendid.

>>3121114
Post full resolution samples pls

>>3121105
>I own a d800

Are you fucking stupid? You have a FF nikon body just buy a fucking micro lens and a slide copier. Do you really think pressing the shutter will take longer than scanning on a shitbed meme?

>>3121107
Holy shit fuck that. My lab costs 6$ a roll Canadian

>>3121184
no thanks, too much work

Do you realize the scan sensor is smaller than a m43 camera?

>>3121258
yes if you would have read the thread I said it here : >>3121105

So what do you suggest? Going for a real photo scanner? Plustek? What experience did you make with that.

>>3120572
Epson V550.
But that too is still a piece of crap so don't expect much from it when it comes to printing your scans.

If you need a flatbed then look at the Epson V800 or V850. A used V750 is also decent. The Plustek scanners are great too but the reasonably priced ones only scan 35mm. If anything I'd recommend saving your money and getting a Plustek 8200i if you only do 35mm. A used 7600i is also an alternative.

>>3121398
Thanks.
Do you have any experience with the plusteks?

>>3121565
Yes, I own a Plustek 7600i that I bought back in 2012.
Its probably the best 35mm film scanner available if you can't afford a Coolscan. I've made 24x16 inch prints from my scans and they look decent, albeit with a lot of sharpening in post. Much better sharpness compared to a flatbed like the Epson V750. Don't bother getting the model without infrared cleaning unless you want to spend hours cleaning up the dust and scratches in post for your colour negatives.
If you shoot a lot of film I'll warn you that manually pushing the film holder through the scanner frame after frame is the most soul sucking thing I've ever done.

>>3121245
>he thinks flatbed scanners are less work than a DSLR scan rig

lmfao, whatever you get I'm gonna be fucking glad I'm not in the same house as you when you're 3 hours in and still haven't got a single high quality scan suitable for archive.

File: 4.jpg (378KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 450x600px

>>3121598
yeah scanning with a DSLR looks so much more time saving

Fucking retard, kill yourself

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	450
Image Height	600

>>3121592
>If you shoot a lot of film I'll warn you that manually pushing the film holder through the scanner frame after frame is the most soul sucking thing I've ever done.

Yeah but it's sitll better than shooting each negative frame with a DSLR one by one. Must be truly soul sucking.

What about the colors? Do you need to calibrate the plustek? Also how much did you buy it for?

>>3121592
Also could you post some full res samples?

>>3121605
Once you set your rig it's just as fast as you press the shutter and go to the next frame.

With a light table and a film holder is even faster.

What you don't realize is that many of /p/ posters already have a DSLR and a macro lens so that's the most effective and faster way to get good quality scans. 300 bucks you spend on a shitbed scanner you could invest on a macro lens or even film.

>>3121605
I mean, I can post a video of my top of the line flatbed scanning a single 35mm frame, it takes around 4 minutes per frame and if anyone walks on the same floorboard the desk leg is on then it needs to be restarted, unless you like wavy wiggles in your shots.

If you want to get rid of dust and scratches, double the time it takes to scan.

And this doesn't include the preview scan, level checking, manual dust removal, levelling, white balance correction, cropping and sharpening.

But of course, you know more, that's why you're here asking zero experience questions.

Stay mad, it won't scan your images any faster though.

>>3121607
I bought mine from B&H. Can't remember the exact amount since I bought it back in 2012 but it was a few hundred dollars. I checked their site and the current model (8200i) seem to be in that ballpark as well.
Yes, you can do IT8 calibration if you really want to be anal about it. It works fine for most users out of the box.

>>3121608
You can easily find full res samples floating around the internet. I'm at work and don't have access to my hard drives. I scan in uncompressed TIFF and my colour scans are usually around 300MB each.

File: silverfast_bird_16x.jpg (2MB, 3629x2431px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3629x2431px

>>3121615
Okay thanks.
The jpeg samples I found so far look promising, pic related

What software you use to scan? Silverfast? Vuescan?

>I scan in uncompressed TIFF and my colour scans are usually around 300MB
I read that it's unnecessary to scan that large files as the real optical resolution will stay the same (around 3500dpi)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2010:02:15 19:14:15
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3629
Image Height	2431

>>3121605
>pressing the shutter is slow
>transfering the images from the card is slow
TOP KEK!

>>3121617
Damn, that shit is sharp as fuck I almost cut myself.

>>3121614
Well I tried to scan it with my DSLR already and I found it a pain in the arse to be honest.

Which flatbed you have? Are the colors, dymanic range as good as when you scan it with a DSLR? Or even comparable to lab scanning?

File: plustek scan.png (373KB, 730x476px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 730x476px

>>3121619
Yeah these scanners seems to be the shit.

>>3121615

I scanned mine as raw 48 bit uncompressed tiff, and they all came out uninverted, even though they were inverted in the scanning app.

I need to mess with it more.

>>3121620
I have an epson 4990

In comparison to a ff ilc, old enlarger lens, bellows and a sturdy rig with an led panel;
Sharpness/resolution is shit
Color depth is shit
Noise is shit
Dynamic range is shit

They are not comparable in the slightest.

>>3121617
Id avoid scanning in jpeg. No point buying a Plustek if you're gonna scan in jpeg. I'm also aware of the true optical resolution but 3500dpi will still give you tiff files that are a couple hundred MB.
If you have no idea what you are doing its possible to get shitty scans. With some practice you can get really good at it.
I personally am used to VueScan but some people absolutely hate it. Try both SilverFast and Vuescan and see which one you like more, they are both capable software.