@@WillemVerb Please more videos with you both. You two are just wonderful to watch because of your calm persona and your honest friendship. It's just so nice to see. Keep up the work, love it! c:
For 120 on the Fuji press PRESSURE on the keyboard when you have the neg in place. That engages the magnets to hold it in place before you slide the tray into place. Less headaches from film possibly sliding around.
My two main scanning tips are as follows: (1) The main source of dust in a clean room is your clothes, so at least have short sleeves, and better to have no shirt at all. (2) The easiest way to get the colour balance about right is to scan the first part of a film which has both some totally exposed material, and the unexposed borders of a frame. Use this to set the black and white points automatically using the sampling tool over a few dozen pixels. Then, examine the histogram for each channel and narrow the gamut slightly. If possible, also try scanning a whole strip of several frames at low resolution, including frame borders, and again adjust the gamut on each channel to be slightly less than the full width of the respective histogram. Finally, save the settings for that film, and scan!
What about microscopic dust? The negatives always look clean, I always use rocket blowers, even compressed air cans, lint free gloves, aircon turned on with lowest fan speeds, air purifier on, and I still get dust.
@@jasontaycs7195 Did you put out the cat? 🙂 There will always be some dust, but stripping down to your underwear is a simple way to reduce the amount significantly. You could go further, such as wear a plastic shower cap. Another possibility would be to construct a small tent from plastic film over your workspace.
i believe tony and chelsea northrup did a video on this years ago, and they came to the realization that billboards, unless viewed upclose, only need about 2MP images
The Frontier uses 3 relatively narrow-band LEDs to take individual images for each channel, giving the cleanest extraction from the dyes on the film. It's designed to mimic the physical process of negative to print. The Epson and Imacon use either fluorescent tubes or white LEDs with colour filter arrays that have more overlap. This makes the extraction of the dyes less pure and leads to crosstalk issues. It's unlikely that the software is doing much to impact the final result.
The Kodak HR-500 does not use an RGB light source, and in my opinion the color reproduction quality is even better than that of the Fuji Frontier or Noritsu.
@@lukj9373 The filters in the KLI-6013 have greater separation than typical CFAs but less than individual RGB LEDs. The Frontier and Noritsu aren't perfect either. The LEDs chosen aren't optimal with respect to the dye peaks, but still provide good colour purity that enables harmonious per-channel adjustments.
@@lukj9373 No, you would not have to reproduce the "tricolor technique" in a modern superb digital sensor, like a a7rV, to beat these machines. What you're saying has no root in reality. There is absolutely no test or study to back what you're saying at all. There are however tons and tons and tons of examples of camera scanning outperforming ANY dedicated old film scanner.
I've been using the V600 for years. SilverFast software works much better (for me) than Epson's. Also, I scan 3200 dpi tiff (yeah, a bit of overkill), which results in roughly 60MP 16x16" files from 120 film taken with my Bronica SQA (although I typically print no larger than 8x8"). I find using High Pass Filter in Photoshop works well for sharpening. An interesting comparison video today. Thanks for putting the effort into all this.
What do you use to scan 120 film? The regular holder? I find I achieve more sharpness using a DSLR setup instead of flatbed scanning for my 120 film....
I use Sony mirrorless camera to scan. The new a7r5 has pixel shifting which can give you a huge resolution size that’s not quite needed but really cool nonetheless and the power of having a raw image is really cool and gives you a lot of flexibility. I’m new to film photography so utilizing gear I already have is a huge plus for me and it’s not that hard to do. It does take a lot of trial and effort but to see your scans come to life is worth it imo. Have been watching your videos for the past year and just wanted to say thank you for the inspiration and knowledge you’ve shared with all of us. I know how much time and effort comes into making these videos and I feel like I’ve learned more from your UA-cam videos than I did in my thousand dollar college courses. Thanks again willem ❤
For everyday film shooting, Epson will be more than adequate for 90% of people…it offers the best cost/quality ratio. In my opinion, Frontier produces the best output…no matter what.
@@chicagoanglerit's faster overall but requires 100% attention the entire time. I went with flatbed because I only need to mess with it between scans for a couple seconds per roll I can walk off and do chores. High-pass sharpening in PS does wonders
Nikon coolacan 8000 has been my go to for years paired with viewscan. The Nikons are so sharp and the speed is amazing. I’ve really loved that workflow
Happy Sunday when Willem drops a new video of any topic! I got the dslr scanning kit from Negative Supply almost a year ago, but have yet to set it up to use it. This lights a fire under me Willem, thanks!
What about using an LED backlight, a film carrier, and a high res digital camera on a tripod? That's how I and many film photographers that I know do it, and it produces some pretty great results.
Would love to see if you try any other methods with the same photos. Like adding to this comparison with more methods. Especially interested in seeing how a 50mp gfx with a good macro would look, if you had the opportunity to borrow something like that. (Honestly I’m happy with the video as it is. I’m mostly commenting to help a little with the algorithm. Don’t take me too seriously. :P)
Nice video. The best scanner is the one that you have already! :) For film not sure it's a big enough difference to justify the $15K but hey if you have paying clients that want that then go to town!
I am good with my 3D printed adapter using digital camera with a macro lens, then Negative Lab Pro plugin in Adobe, regarding speed, it is pretty fast too. My local labs tend flop their scans so often I have even given up asking them to scan them. There are usually problems, dust, scratches. Also some labs don't adjust profiles if you do some more rare film stock, basically I have to do it myself either way.
When it comes to C-Print I want to know so much more about that organic less technological approach - if there’s a video you already have I’m gonna find it but if not, I look forward to one in the future from you!
v600 is all i use, it was within my budget, and since moving to primarily 120 where the negative is bigger i see no reason to upgrade, it does a great job, maybe if i was a professional but for my personal use and social media it does the trick, plus you get to save those high fees the lab charges for scanning.
Interestingly, Flexcolor gives me the best colors of all scanning software I've tried. It's the main reason I have my Hasselblad Flextight. I don't understand why you get whacky colors. In my experience, Flexcolor gets me closest to what I get when printing in the darkroom which I do quite a lot. I would strongly advise scanning 3F files, though, and not using the TIFF scanning function. That way you have the raw scan and don't have your colors fixed and you can always "develop" it with a different setting later. And if you have one frame on the roll where you got the color right, you can just copy and apply those settings to all the other frames.
@@chris_jorge also, isn't some of the negative in the calibration strip up top? in some scanners, this little strip has to be empty or it will throw colours off quite a bit.
to the flextight in general: like willem said, this scanner isn't meant to be having a lot of output and isn't optimized for speed like the frontier is. it is a virtual drum scan after all and the only scanner that delivers more sharpness and resolution than a x5 for instance, is an actual drum scanner like the heidelberg tango or such. additionally, the frontier is a 'look' by itself. it has kind of a in-built preset that makes every scan more or less look like a frontier scan. the noritsu colour science does the same. I think it is pretty obvious that willem prefers these colours - which is an absolutely valid preference. like he said, it is, for him, like a darkroom print - which is an interpretation of the negative. the imacons on the other hand strive for a much more 'neurtal' interpretation as to give you as much flexibility to interpret afterwards. like willem said, it is for small editions of gallery and exhibition prints - not for digitizing whole rolls of film. the repair cycle of these things is quite different to a frontier's or noritsu's. in the end: every one has their preference and or budget reasons and there's arguments to be made for and against each of these options. like with camera gear as a whole: as long as it serves your vision and ideally helps you create more and have more fun while doing it - there is no right or wrong.
@@chris_jorge That was my thougth, too. In that case I would try switching out the light tray bulb with the internal bulb (afaik it's the same one) and see if things get better.
@@plutomond- The X5 is quite fast and is made for high volume scanning, though obviously not as fast as a minilab scanner. At 1600ppi it's about 30 seconds for a frame of 6x7. The "virtual drum scan" is just marketing speak and refers to the fact that the negative bends during the scanning process to keep it perfectly flat. It's still just a lens and a CCD sensor and doesn't use a photo multiplying tube, so it has little in common with an actual drum scanner. A drum scanner will not necessarily produce a higher resolution picture, though. For 35mm the newer Flextights already surpass the resolution limit of most commonly used films. The Flextights do not "strive" for a neutral interpretation. They just produce a scan of the negative which is commonly converted to a positive using the FlexColor software but you could also just do the conversion in photoshop for a different result. FlexColor has a bunch of presets that are anything but neutral but you can also make your own. In my somewhat extensive experience working with (albeit newer) Flextights and FlexColor, it's not difficult to get the colors right. If Willem's having a hard time then it's quite possible that there's a technical issue somewhere so it's normal that people try to troubleshoot the problem. Nobody's taking issue with his preference for Frontier scans. I like Frontier scans, too.
Love the video as always. Personally, I’m using a GFX 50R and an old pentax 645 macro lens + Negative Lab Pro. I’ve been plenty happy with the results, but it can be a bit slow.
I prefer silverfast ai with the v600 it seems to get the most out of it. Unless you're printing massive from scans the v600 isn't bad at all really. I agree with you on the darkroom printing it's just a really nice experience and I wish more people tried it 😊
with regards to the Imacon, I had much better success by not doing any colour adjustments in the software itself and just scanning in a wide of an exposure latitude as possible and then correcting colours and contrast in photoshop, just don't feel like the Imacon software was made for the same level of precision or colour accuracy
i use the v600, and while i do use my local lab if i have specific frames i reeeeally want to print super large or something, you can get much better results from it than willem is. yes i get the point is for him to show how simple it *can* be, but if youre going to use the v600 dont use the stock film holders. i use a piece of anti glare glass i got from a local frame shop (NOT the super overprice photo ANR glass) that i tape my negative to so they lay completely flat - something the film holder does not do.
Would love to see this done again with the Plustek OpticFilm 120 Film Scanner, and Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120 Pro Plus Scanner. Sort of more "affordable" options but would love to hear your feedback on those!
You could have cropped even more if you had used the maximum ppi, but what is the point of comparing if you do not use the maximum settings of each scanner (8:20). But I have to agree that the Flextight produces strange colours, the scans get a sort of orange-teal.
Great video, thanks! Very interesting to see the different techniques and results. I'm new to analog photography and I decided to use DSLR scanning because it's simply the best solution for me. I also just published a video of my DSLR scanning process if anyone is interested.
Great video! Very interesting to see the differences. My local photo lab uses a frontier scanner. It blows my canoscan 9000f mark II out of the water. Tbh that Canoscan never produces a great look.
One thing you could have done is to test the scanners on 35mm since thats where you would find the biggest difference in quality and most people shooting film shoot on 35mm.
I use an Epson V800 and it works well and provided nice sharp detail once I figured out how to adjust the film frames for focus. Yes this is possible but it's not illustrated anywhere I could find and Epson Customer Service had not a clue that this was possible. BTW, it's 4 sliding tabs at each corner that slide on a ramped surface. It did not come with a frame for 8x10 so I have no idea of how you could get those scans in focus but I have no incentive to shoot 8x10.
The V850 comes with a t shaped piece of plastic meant as a guide for placing 8x10 directly on the scanner glass. 8x10 is not scanned in a separate holder.
I'm using a Minolta 5400 für 35 mm and a Epson F-3200 (that's a film scanner, not the Perfection 3200 flatbed!) for medium format up to 4x5". Software is Vuescan.
I recently started working at a lab and we use the same Frontier. The downside is the preview scans on the monitor look pretty awful, but the end result always look good. I scan my 35mm in our highest resolution option which is 5444x3649 and the amount of detail is insane. However scanning 120 film at its highest res (I’m pretty sure) is actually smaller than the 35 despite the bigger format. I haven’t tested it to know but I think for 120 film a good camera scan might be better in terms of resolution output/fine detail.
@ it’s not the monitors, it’s just the hardware/software limitations of 20+ years ago. You’d be surprised, the scanners get the colour pretty spot on and you need minimal changes 9 times out of 10. For someone like you or myself that’s super picky about how our photos look, that’s where getting high res scans comes in so you can edit them to your liking.
I've bought a epson v550 scanner long time ago and never thought I'd use it to scan 35mm film. Do you think it will do fine like your v600? Really love your videos, watching them all since a couple months.
It depends what your standards are. Flatbed scanners aren’t that good for 35mm. He was scanning medium format film. But as long as you don’t zoom in too much or want to make larger prints you will be fine.
Whats your all opinion on the plustek scanner? I acquired one for work as a wedding photographer and i handle over 500 rolls a year from 15+ shooters. During busy season of course i use my lab which uses a noristu and the results are immaculate. The plustek is a bit hard to use IMO to get decent results
Plusteks are fantastic for clean 35mm film. I find them letdowns with regard to dust removal. With Silverfast, they produce the best colours I’ve seen.
The Plustek is fine. It struggles a bit to extract maximum shadow detail, or when the negatives are too dense and the colors are not their absolute best but it is unbeatable for the price. With something like a Nikon Coolscan you get 10-15% more performance for a much higher price.
I scan with my Epson 4490 which I bought new like 16 years ago. For medium format it definitely is good enough, for 135 less. I made a print last weekend i took with a 14mm lens. I didnt like what i seewhen I look at scans taken with that lens: it looked unsharp. Maybe because the details with ultra wide angle are smaller than the noise in the scan
I’m curious to know what do you think about the negative lab pro system. I usually scan all my negatives using the V600 but not converting them. After that I convert them using nlp directly on lightroom. For me now it’s the best way if we are talking about price and quality tbh. I’d love to know your thoughts about this.
from my understanding the software was updated till 2011 but the scanner can only connect through SCSI, so its just easier to use seomthing like the Mac G2 as adapters for SCSI are super complex and aren't produced anymore.
Wish the flatbeds were still only around 200. Nowadays they’re more like 300-500 Wait you said you can pick up one for 375 new? Here in Germany there are literally no new ones and that’s the price for a used v550
it can't be that expensive for fuji film to make an updated one.. especially when people are buying this old one for 10k plus. They're missing out on a bag
I feel like Ill wind up using my main a7r3 and a macro lens to scan film when I get into it. I already have the most expensive piece of equipment with the camera and lens
I had my film scanned on Reflecta Proscan 7200 and Fuji Frontier and what I can say is that good photo is good photo by itself and at the end scanning is the secondary.
Uhm no? I mean I get what you’re saying and you’re right but especially with film and how expansive it’s gotten you’re throwing away much of films nuances by not getting the right scans. And a good photo might be a great photo if these nuances were carefully tuned during scanning.
@@VariTimo I understand what you mean, but at a certain level of scanning it doesn't matter. Of course, if the scans are fucked up then they are fucked up
@ Especially at a certain level scanning matters as you’ve seen in this video. Two of the scanners are extremely high end and if used by a lab technician will produce tremendously different results. The image isn’t just the images and nuances are very important.
I have an Epson V550 - and while it does an ok job I dislike how finicky it is, and it is really slow. It basically gathers dust these days as I scan with a Lumix G9 w/ Olympus 30mm Macro on a home-made stand and a Sunray Box III & holders . I camera-scan every format I shoot (110, 35mm, 645, 6x6, and 4x5) and have been really happy with the results.
I don't know man I find camera scanning to be the best for me. Of course I'm not including darkroom printing here because that's a very different thing
I have never worked with scanners - I always photograph my negatives with a macro lens (Canon R6 Mark II + Canon RF 100mm f/2.8). Does anyone know how a scanner compares to my method?
I haven’t camera scanned myself, but use the Frontier in this video at work. From what I’ve seen camera scanning is probably a close second in terms of quality and speed. You might spend more time afterwards editing the photos to look how you want, but in terms of resolution and sharpness a good camera scan should do the trick. The upside of a frontier is that it knows how to convert a film negative into a positive and give you pretty accurate colours immediately.
@@URBONEDyeah, Fuji has all the insider knowledge on their RA-4 paper curves, the film curves, and so on, so they can make the best match to it and modifications of it that might not be possible in physical process for perfect inversion.
i like the frontier scans tbh
30 seconds after the video goes live
@@WillemVerb Please more videos with you both. You two are just wonderful to watch because of your calm persona and your honest friendship. It's just so nice to see. Keep up the work, love it! c:
So the newer macs can still use Epson scan and not Silverlight?
@@WillemVerb HE DIDNT EVEN LOOK 😭
For 120 on the Fuji press PRESSURE on the keyboard when you have the neg in place. That engages the magnets to hold it in place before you slide the tray into place. Less headaches from film possibly sliding around.
My two main scanning tips are as follows: (1) The main source of dust in a clean room is your clothes, so at least have short sleeves, and better to have no shirt at all. (2) The easiest way to get the colour balance about right is to scan the first part of a film which has both some totally exposed material, and the unexposed borders of a frame. Use this to set the black and white points automatically using the sampling tool over a few dozen pixels. Then, examine the histogram for each channel and narrow the gamut slightly. If possible, also try scanning a whole strip of several frames at low resolution, including frame borders, and again adjust the gamut on each channel to be slightly less than the full width of the respective histogram. Finally, save the settings for that film, and scan!
You heard the man, willem. Take the tarp off.
What about microscopic dust? The negatives always look clean, I always use rocket blowers, even compressed air cans, lint free gloves, aircon turned on with lowest fan speeds, air purifier on, and I still get dust.
@@jasontaycs7195 Did you put out the cat? 🙂 There will always be some dust, but stripping down to your underwear is a simple way to reduce the amount significantly. You could go further, such as wear a plastic shower cap. Another possibility would be to construct a small tent from plastic film over your workspace.
It's a bit of a myth that billboards need a high resolution image. At the size they are intended to be viewed at they only need to be 2 megapixel big.
i believe tony and chelsea northrup did a video on this years ago, and they came to the realization that billboards, unless viewed upclose, only need about 2MP images
@@AdamHansen95
And the Nikon D1 of 1999 was 2.7 megapixels and did indeed do billboards. Billboard sized landscape prints, maybe.
The Frontier uses 3 relatively narrow-band LEDs to take individual images for each channel, giving the cleanest extraction from the dyes on the film. It's designed to mimic the physical process of negative to print. The Epson and Imacon use either fluorescent tubes or white LEDs with colour filter arrays that have more overlap. This makes the extraction of the dyes less pure and leads to crosstalk issues. It's unlikely that the software is doing much to impact the final result.
The Kodak HR-500 does not use an RGB light source, and in my opinion the color reproduction quality is even better than that of the Fuji Frontier or Noritsu.
A7rV with a good macro would crush ANY of these machines.
@@laurencewhite4809 In terms of color reproduction from color negatives, unfortunately not. You would have to scan using the tricolor technique.
@@lukj9373 The filters in the KLI-6013 have greater separation than typical CFAs but less than individual RGB LEDs. The Frontier and Noritsu aren't perfect either. The LEDs chosen aren't optimal with respect to the dye peaks, but still provide good colour purity that enables harmonious per-channel adjustments.
@@lukj9373 No, you would not have to reproduce the "tricolor technique" in a modern superb digital sensor, like a a7rV, to beat these machines. What you're saying has no root in reality. There is absolutely no test or study to back what you're saying at all. There are however tons and tons and tons of examples of camera scanning outperforming ANY dedicated old film scanner.
I've been using the V600 for years. SilverFast software works much better (for me) than Epson's. Also, I scan 3200 dpi tiff (yeah, a bit of overkill), which results in roughly 60MP 16x16" files from 120 film taken with my Bronica SQA (although I typically print no larger than 8x8"). I find using High Pass Filter in Photoshop works well for sharpening. An interesting comparison video today. Thanks for putting the effort into all this.
What do you use to scan 120 film? The regular holder? I find I achieve more sharpness using a DSLR setup instead of flatbed scanning for my 120 film....
@@mister-monkeyman Yeah, regular holder. I've been happy with the results as they work well for what I do with my images.
I use Sony mirrorless camera to scan. The new a7r5 has pixel shifting which can give you a huge resolution size that’s not quite needed but really cool nonetheless and the power of having a raw image is really cool and gives you a lot of flexibility. I’m new to film photography so utilizing gear I already have is a huge plus for me and it’s not that hard to do. It does take a lot of trial and effort but to see your scans come to life is worth it imo. Have been watching your videos for the past year and just wanted to say thank you for the inspiration and knowledge you’ve shared with all of us. I know how much time and effort comes into making these videos and I feel like I’ve learned more from your UA-cam videos than I did in my thousand dollar college courses. Thanks again willem ❤
For everyday film shooting, Epson will be more than adequate for 90% of people…it offers the best cost/quality ratio. In my opinion, Frontier produces the best output…no matter what.
Depending on what you have, Camera scanning is also a great option, it has a steeper learning curve though
Agreed! Epson does the job ! Very happy with my scanner 🎉
was actually hoping to see your opinion on DSLR scanning
It’s super efficient , faster, cheaper and better. Hopefully he makes the change soon. But he bought all this stuff to make a video
Me toooo
@@chicagoangler Its not better, just different
With a Frontier scanner at home I think that's the only opinion you need.
@@chicagoanglerit's faster overall but requires 100% attention the entire time. I went with flatbed because I only need to mess with it between scans for a couple seconds per roll
I can walk off and do chores.
High-pass sharpening in PS does wonders
Nikon coolacan 8000 has been my go to for years paired with viewscan. The Nikons are so sharp and the speed is amazing. I’ve really loved that workflow
Happy Sunday when Willem drops a new video of any topic! I got the dslr scanning kit from Negative Supply almost a year ago, but have yet to set it up to use it. This lights a fire under me Willem, thanks!
How have you had it for that long and never used it?
I wish I had the space to own one of those fuji Frontiers.
Oh, and the money too.
Would have been interesting to see a drum scanner thrown into the mix!
They results are usually outstanding.
What about using an LED backlight, a film carrier, and a high res digital camera on a tripod? That's how I and many film photographers that I know do it, and it produces some pretty great results.
Would love to see if you try any other methods with the same photos. Like adding to this comparison with more methods. Especially interested in seeing how a 50mp gfx with a good macro would look, if you had the opportunity to borrow something like that.
(Honestly I’m happy with the video as it is. I’m mostly commenting to help a little with the algorithm. Don’t take me too seriously. :P)
Nice video. The best scanner is the one that you have already! :) For film not sure it's a big enough difference to justify the $15K but hey if you have paying clients that want that then go to town!
I am good with my 3D printed adapter using digital camera with a macro lens, then Negative Lab Pro plugin in Adobe, regarding speed, it is pretty fast too. My local labs tend flop their scans so often I have even given up asking them to scan them. There are usually problems, dust, scratches. Also some labs don't adjust profiles if you do some more rare film stock, basically I have to do it myself either way.
Been scanning with an epson flatbed for years. Can’t wait to get my own printing darkroom set up
When it comes to C-Print I want to know so much more about that organic less technological approach - if there’s a video you already have I’m gonna find it but if not, I look forward to one in the future from you!
v600 is all i use, it was within my budget, and since moving to primarily 120 where the negative is bigger i see no reason to upgrade, it does a great job, maybe if i was a professional but for my personal use and social media it does the trick, plus you get to save those high fees the lab charges for scanning.
Same and i still got some really nice prints from it too. Haven’t printed really big yet tho
I love my Plustek Opticfilm scanner. It makes my life so much easier and produces files with enough data to really edit the color the way I want.
ugh i love frontier so much, but also the last method is so amazing!
The v600 is such a throw back to the early Willem days. Got me to get one for the low price of $175
Interestingly, Flexcolor gives me the best colors of all scanning software I've tried. It's the main reason I have my Hasselblad Flextight. I don't understand why you get whacky colors. In my experience, Flexcolor gets me closest to what I get when printing in the darkroom which I do quite a lot.
I would strongly advise scanning 3F files, though, and not using the TIFF scanning function. That way you have the raw scan and don't have your colors fixed and you can always "develop" it with a different setting later. And if you have one frame on the roll where you got the color right, you can just copy and apply those settings to all the other frames.
Look carefully at how he mounts his negative. I think it’s possible that his imacon doesn’t have the original bulb
@@chris_jorge also, isn't some of the negative in the calibration strip up top? in some scanners, this little strip has to be empty or it will throw colours off quite a bit.
to the flextight in general:
like willem said, this scanner isn't meant to be having a lot of output and isn't optimized for speed like the frontier is. it is a virtual drum scan after all and the only scanner that delivers more sharpness and resolution than a x5 for instance, is an actual drum scanner like the heidelberg tango or such.
additionally, the frontier is a 'look' by itself. it has kind of a in-built preset that makes every scan more or less look like a frontier scan. the noritsu colour science does the same. I think it is pretty obvious that willem prefers these colours - which is an absolutely valid preference. like he said, it is, for him, like a darkroom print - which is an interpretation of the negative.
the imacons on the other hand strive for a much more 'neurtal' interpretation as to give you as much flexibility to interpret afterwards. like willem said, it is for small editions of gallery and exhibition prints - not for digitizing whole rolls of film. the repair cycle of these things is quite different to a frontier's or noritsu's.
in the end: every one has their preference and or budget reasons and there's arguments to be made for and against each of these options. like with camera gear as a whole: as long as it serves your vision and ideally helps you create more and have more fun while doing it - there is no right or wrong.
@@chris_jorge That was my thougth, too. In that case I would try switching out the light tray bulb with the internal bulb (afaik it's the same one) and see if things get better.
@@plutomond- The X5 is quite fast and is made for high volume scanning, though obviously not as fast as a minilab scanner. At 1600ppi it's about 30 seconds for a frame of 6x7. The "virtual drum scan" is just marketing speak and refers to the fact that the negative bends during the scanning process to keep it perfectly flat. It's still just a lens and a CCD sensor and doesn't use a photo multiplying tube, so it has little in common with an actual drum scanner. A drum scanner will not necessarily produce a higher resolution picture, though. For 35mm the newer Flextights already surpass the resolution limit of most commonly used films.
The Flextights do not "strive" for a neutral interpretation. They just produce a scan of the negative which is commonly converted to a positive using the FlexColor software but you could also just do the conversion in photoshop for a different result. FlexColor has a bunch of presets that are anything but neutral but you can also make your own. In my somewhat extensive experience working with (albeit newer) Flextights and FlexColor, it's not difficult to get the colors right. If Willem's having a hard time then it's quite possible that there's a technical issue somewhere so it's normal that people try to troubleshoot the problem. Nobody's taking issue with his preference for Frontier scans. I like Frontier scans, too.
Love the video as always. Personally, I’m using a GFX 50R and an old pentax 645 macro lens + Negative Lab Pro. I’ve been plenty happy with the results, but it can be a bit slow.
That’s a winning combination. The weak point is just the holders. I really hope that gets figured out very soon.
I prefer silverfast ai with the v600 it seems to get the most out of it. Unless you're printing massive from scans the v600 isn't bad at all really. I agree with you on the darkroom printing it's just a really nice experience and I wish more people tried it 😊
This reminds me of the time you and McDougal dropped Night Photography technique vids the same week 😂
love the video! what did you use to scan the c prints to put onto your website, etc?
Frontier looks great, possibly the closest to the c print if you compensated for the white and black points.
EPSON V600 + Negative Lab Pro.
The results are fantastic.
with regards to the Imacon, I had much better success by not doing any colour adjustments in the software itself and just scanning in a wide of an exposure latitude as possible and then correcting colours and contrast in photoshop, just don't feel like the Imacon software was made for the same level of precision or colour accuracy
i use the v600, and while i do use my local lab if i have specific frames i reeeeally want to print super large or something, you can get much better results from it than willem is. yes i get the point is for him to show how simple it *can* be, but if youre going to use the v600 dont use the stock film holders. i use a piece of anti glare glass i got from a local frame shop (NOT the super overprice photo ANR glass) that i tape my negative to so they lay completely flat - something the film holder does not do.
I love the colors on the frontier scan.
Would love to see this done again with the Plustek OpticFilm 120 Film Scanner, and Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120 Pro Plus Scanner. Sort of more "affordable" options but would love to hear your feedback on those!
You could have cropped even more if you had used the maximum ppi, but what is the point of comparing if you do not use the maximum settings of each scanner (8:20). But I have to agree that the Flextight produces strange colours, the scans get a sort of orange-teal.
I got an enlarger recently but haven’t been able to use it yet. Super excited to try it out
Great video, thanks! Very interesting to see the different techniques and results. I'm new to analog photography and I decided to use DSLR scanning because it's simply the best solution for me. I also just published a video of my DSLR scanning process if anyone is interested.
Great video! Very interesting to see the differences. My local photo lab uses a frontier scanner. It blows my canoscan 9000f mark II out of the water. Tbh that Canoscan never produces a great look.
I have a Nikon Coolscan 9000 and its awesome
My valoi 360 and the new filmomat automatic setup is great
One thing you could have done is to test the scanners on 35mm since thats where you would find the biggest difference in quality and most people shooting film shoot on 35mm.
I use an Epson V800 and it works well and provided nice sharp detail once I figured out how to adjust the film frames for focus. Yes this is possible but it's not illustrated anywhere I could find and Epson Customer Service had not a clue that this was possible. BTW, it's 4 sliding tabs at each corner that slide on a ramped surface. It did not come with a frame for 8x10 so I have no idea of how you could get those scans in focus but I have no incentive to shoot 8x10.
The V850 comes with a t shaped piece of plastic meant as a guide for placing 8x10 directly on the scanner glass. 8x10 is not scanned in a separate holder.
frontier and upscale if you need to print large. I have big prints from 35mm landscapes and they look great
I'm using a Minolta 5400 für 35 mm and a Epson F-3200 (that's a film scanner, not the Perfection 3200 flatbed!) for medium format up to 4x5". Software is Vuescan.
I recently started working at a lab and we use the same Frontier. The downside is the preview scans on the monitor look pretty awful, but the end result always look good. I scan my 35mm in our highest resolution option which is 5444x3649 and the amount of detail is insane. However scanning 120 film at its highest res (I’m pretty sure) is actually smaller than the 35 despite the bigger format. I haven’t tested it to know but I think for 120 film a good camera scan might be better in terms of resolution output/fine detail.
Yes, I don't get how you can do accurate color balancing on those horrible workstation monitors?
@ it’s not the monitors, it’s just the hardware/software limitations of 20+ years ago. You’d be surprised, the scanners get the colour pretty spot on and you need minimal changes 9 times out of 10. For someone like you or myself that’s super picky about how our photos look, that’s where getting high res scans comes in so you can edit them to your liking.
@@URBONEDNo color management in windows 2000 I guess? You'd think a monitor with an sRGB profile would be fairly accurate.
@@mikafoxx2717 as far as I know the monitors are calibrated. As I said, colour is fine to work with - it’s just the detail that suffers.
I've bought a epson v550 scanner long time ago and never thought I'd use it to scan 35mm film. Do you think it will do fine like your v600?
Really love your videos, watching them all since a couple months.
Yes, you will get great results with your Epson V550, with practice.
It depends what your standards are. Flatbed scanners aren’t that good for 35mm. He was scanning medium format film. But as long as you don’t zoom in too much or want to make larger prints you will be fine.
Noritsu and Frontier are great choices for speed and quality without the hassle 👌
Whats your all opinion on the plustek scanner? I acquired one for work as a wedding photographer and i handle over 500 rolls a year from 15+ shooters. During busy season of course i use my lab which uses a noristu and the results are immaculate. The plustek is a bit hard to use IMO to get decent results
Not good
Plusteks are fantastic for clean 35mm film. I find them letdowns with regard to dust removal. With Silverfast, they produce the best colours I’ve seen.
The Plustek is fine. It struggles a bit to extract maximum shadow detail, or when the negatives are too dense and the colors are not their absolute best but it is unbeatable for the price. With something like a Nikon Coolscan you get 10-15% more performance for a much higher price.
You're the reason I'm going to buy a RZ67 honestly. Have you ever used Topaz Ai for your photos?
if the colors are off on an imacon it's not the fault of the imacon. Use 3F and you'll have all the latitude needed to get the "right colors"
I have that LG monitor and I gotta say it’s the worst screen in the entire house.
Hey Willem, I'm in love with the darkroom method! Can I ask what paper you use?
would be interesting if you can upload the files for us to compare...
or even compare with DSLR scan
I scan with my Epson 4490 which I bought new like 16 years ago. For medium format it definitely is good enough, for 135 less.
I made a print last weekend i took with a 14mm lens. I didnt like what i seewhen I look at scans taken with that lens: it looked unsharp. Maybe because the details with ultra wide angle are smaller than the noise in the scan
I’m curious to know what do you think about the negative lab pro system. I usually scan all my negatives using the V600 but not converting them. After that I convert them using nlp directly on lightroom. For me now it’s the best way if we are talking about price and quality tbh. I’d love to know your thoughts about this.
What a great video. Thank you very much!
Bro said it was a skill issues with the Epson, that had me cracking up but I feel it. 😂
Please show all software settings with proper screen recording.
Not using advanced mode for the Epson?
JPG file format for comparing sharpness?
Great sharing! Used to scan by V600 and now move to C print. Btw, any way to purchase "On the Sunny Side of the Street" if available? Thanks
(I like very much the C print with the film camera guy)
I use the epson scanner with silverfast software and that software is a game changer
11:45 Imagine modding this with a porcelain mechanical keyboard
Great video!
all you need, is a NIKON FILM SCANNER. then you will understand!!!!!
Calibrate the white balance on your imacon like it says on the manual using a white sheet of paper
Equipment that has survived 10 years. My Epson, my iPhone, my heart operation.
Very interesting! You're using an older Mac for the big scanner; is that because the software hasn't been updated in a long time? Thanks!
from my understanding the software was updated till 2011 but the scanner can only connect through SCSI, so its just easier to use seomthing like the Mac G2 as adapters for SCSI are super complex and aren't produced anymore.
@@deckerharris6571 Ah, got it!
Carmencita film lab & Malvarossa lab; use Frontier and Noritsu, I dont want any other scanner than that :)
Excellent video
The best, easiest and fastest way to digitize films is to reshoot them with a digital camera.
Curious why you cant make the darkroom copy scanned and made bigger than the original? Should work good on a flatbed, or am i tripping?
Can you make a video about how you make videos (film, edit, upload, etc..)?
Interesting topic!
Ok… but what scanner did you use to digitise dark room printed photos? 😅
Wish the flatbeds were still only around 200. Nowadays they’re more like 300-500
Wait you said you can pick up one for 375 new? Here in Germany there are literally no new ones and that’s the price for a used v550
Linus, that lightbox table.. i need it
Your videos ignite my passion for film even more.
it can't be that expensive for fuji film to make an updated one.. especially when people are buying this old one for 10k plus. They're missing out on a bag
I feel like Ill wind up using my main a7r3 and a macro lens to scan film when I get into it. I already have the most expensive piece of equipment with the camera and lens
2:50 Sir, the specks on the screen cannot be removed in software...
Man I miss seeing your videos
I had my film scanned on Reflecta Proscan 7200 and Fuji Frontier and what I can say is that good photo is good photo by itself and at the end scanning is the secondary.
Uhm no? I mean I get what you’re saying and you’re right but especially with film and how expansive it’s gotten you’re throwing away much of films nuances by not getting the right scans. And a good photo might be a great photo if these nuances were carefully tuned during scanning.
@@VariTimo I understand what you mean, but at a certain level of scanning it doesn't matter. Of course, if the scans are fucked up then they are fucked up
@ Especially at a certain level scanning matters as you’ve seen in this video. Two of the scanners are extremely high end and if used by a lab technician will produce tremendously different results. The image isn’t just the images and nuances are very important.
@@VariTimo yeah, but when you scan at your own and then inversion for yourself what's the diffrence between resolution for printing A4?
@@zgRemek Since when are we talking about resolution?
SP3000's are 15K now? I bought mine for $2500 2 years ago.
not sure about this imacon scanner. Our studio use triple fff methods and convert the color with NLP or photoshop.
I have an Epson V550 - and while it does an ok job I dislike how finicky it is, and it is really slow. It basically gathers dust these days as I scan with a Lumix G9 w/ Olympus 30mm Macro on a home-made stand and a Sunray Box III & holders . I camera-scan every format I shoot (110, 35mm, 645, 6x6, and 4x5) and have been really happy with the results.
Van Neistat cameo!
1:52 Spirited man!
I don't know man I find camera scanning to be the best for me. Of course I'm not including darkroom printing here because that's a very different thing
Is there a way to get the epson software working in windows 11?
Too bad no Nikon Coolscan 9000.
Casually owning a frontier got me like zamn
love it
It's awkward that you would describe things like contrast or color science as "awkward" lol
nah u scanned on the imacon wrong
I don't know anyone that uses a DSLR or digital camera with a macro lens to scan but that's another option. Would the quality be similar to the Epson?
What about for scanning 35mm 🤔
Willem Verbeeck
I was thinking the same thing
I have never worked with scanners - I always photograph my negatives with a macro lens (Canon R6 Mark II + Canon RF 100mm f/2.8). Does anyone know how a scanner compares to my method?
I haven’t camera scanned myself, but use the Frontier in this video at work. From what I’ve seen camera scanning is probably a close second in terms of quality and speed. You might spend more time afterwards editing the photos to look how you want, but in terms of resolution and sharpness a good camera scan should do the trick. The upside of a frontier is that it knows how to convert a film negative into a positive and give you pretty accurate colours immediately.
@@URBONEDyeah, Fuji has all the insider knowledge on their RA-4 paper curves, the film curves, and so on, so they can make the best match to it and modifications of it that might not be possible in physical process for perfect inversion.
I like your demonstration but in the end all digital format , on computer or on your phone all digital files,👍🏻😊
Epson V series are not that basic 😉
Мне понравились фотографии с EPSON