@@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.
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.
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!
I worked in a Lab with the Imacon and Epson scanners. Everything you said about the Imacon rings true, great for that 1% of negs or slides than can use the additional resolution and dynamic range, otherwise not. I used the Epson Perfection (large flatbed) and the V600, similar results, good for medium format, not so good on 35mm. I was at the 1999 trade fair in Las Vegas when the Frontier was introduced, amazing that it is still the choice for most film scanning. I had also color and black and white darkroom printing for many years-best wishes on your use of it but I'll never go back.
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.
I had the same opinion as yours as to the Frontier scanner but I think DSLR scanning with NLP ( which I despised for a long time until I accidentally tried it ) is way better and offers a FAR BETTER option when it comes to resolution and output.. plus, it more flexible.. Frontier, Noristu, Imacon, Minolta lab scanners were made for public service and not for Top of the line quality which Drum scanning is made for and the only thing that can give drum scanning a run for its money now is DSLR scanning..
@@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
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
For today's scanning needs you summed it up well. In the beginning when I was trying to get the best output for prepress, I had a Heidelberg flat bed made by the FPU consrtium Fuji Panasonic and Umax. It had autofucus and three lenses (oh so long ago maybe I'm forgetting). The better scanners of the day were Heidelberg Tango/Primescan, Cross, ICG, Dai Nippon, Scitex, Imacon as you showed, Nikon all the way down to Epson. LAter I had an ICG drum scanner which was fantastic, although the Fuji Frontier could rival it or surpass it. Thing is all the messing about with scans with liquid mylar sheets etc are simply not worth it compared to what a Fuji lab scanner can do. That said I prefer your darkroom print over all the rest! NB, I have an Epson 750 here that I have never really used in case I ever want to scan my archives.
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....
Yeah, in this test he was scanning to jpeg, in (what looked like) just simple photo mode. Not a fair test of the scanner. We always run a test scan to see how much inherent resolution is in the source (no sense scanning at 3200ppi if the source only resolves 2400 ppi) and then we scan to tiff and not a compressed format like jpeg.
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.
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.
Good video. Some excellent examples and well-explained. I found that not all expensive scanners are the best. It depends on what you want as the end result. Just my thoughts. Thanks for sharing.
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)
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.
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.
My scanning method is a Canon R5 and RF 100mm macro lens with negative supply film holders and a strobe for the light source. I have my own software I wrote for converting the images to positives that is very fast, and the digitizing part is also very fast. I can have a full 36 exposure 35mm roll digitized and be looking at positive images in LR in less than 10 minutes, and medium format is even faster because it's less exposures. It's excellent resolution, excellent speed, and very good color.
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.
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!
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 😊
I think V600 is more than enough scanner. But I want V700 because of larger scanning area! You are brave intelligent young man! I cannot believe you are printing in color so effortlessly!
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 now have a V600 that I used with the holder for the first time today (I tried without the holder just to make sure it worked). Once I figured out that the scanner is fussy about the position of the holder it worked great with some 120 negatives that were also scanned at the lab. I'm a complete amateur so it all looked good to me, but I'm sure a pro would criticize the results and want to correct it. I used the Epson Scan 2 software. For my use it will be all that I need. I'm not a photographer, nor do I post on social media so perfection isn't required anyway. I cranked the settings to 4800dpi and it looked good, but it did at 2400 also. I tried the dust removal setting but it still was present, and didn't try to physically remove it in any way.
@@RandyPollock That's what I settled on. It too is fussy. One thing Silverfast needs is a way to clear all settings and start over. Even a prescan leaves the old frames which to me makes no sense at all, after all you don't start a Word or Excel document based on what you last did. Even exiting Silverfast doesn't clear it. And also a way to save all settings and name them. It just doesn't work the way all other programs work, but I find that with a lot of photo software. All the editing options may be there but the mechanics of it always seem weird.
I use an older 24MP DSLR, 60mm macro lens and a 3D printed rig I made. I can scan a roll of 35mm in about a minute and get a batch of RAW files. I shoot 200+ plus rolls of film a year. Sometimes 8+in a day. Scanning for me needs to be fast, full DR and resolution. This method works for me and it was relatively inexpensive. Cheers
The comparison was made at only 1500ppi, if it were made at 3200ppi (maximum resolution for medium format films. Even if with a simple trick you can also get to 3600ppi for medium format film) the differences in favor of the Imacon would increase.
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 couldn't get over the fact you dropped $15K on the Imacon in the year 2000! WOWZERS. That aside nice video. The Frontier is a beauty. If I was independently wealthy thats the one I'd be scanning with.
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've an Epson V600 and find it very good, far better than me for 35mm or 120 negatives. You can crank the resolution up to 9600 dpi but I usually use it around 3200 dpi as not notices any significant difference except it takes ages at a the high resolutions.
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.
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
What if you put a flatbed scanner under the print project machine and scan the projection image? Curious to know how's image quality and even if works at the first place.
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.
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 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
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!
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 had the Epson 600 and found it to be "OK" but not great. Since it could not render the same level of detail that the cameral lenses were capable of, it wasn't useful to me. I switched to DLSR scanning for my final images and never looked back. Color balance with scanners is tricky. If you know the exact film type, you can create preset profiles to adjust for the base mask color. If the film was processed properly the preset profiles should be almost dead-on.
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
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 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 ❤
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
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
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.
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.
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 worked in a Lab with the Imacon and Epson scanners. Everything you said about the Imacon rings true, great for that 1% of negs or slides than can use the additional resolution and dynamic range, otherwise not. I used the Epson Perfection (large flatbed) and the V600, similar results, good for medium format, not so good on 35mm. I was at the 1999 trade fair in Las Vegas when the Frontier was introduced, amazing that it is still the choice for most film scanning. I had also color and black and white darkroom printing for many years-best wishes on your use of it but I'll never go back.
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 🎉
I had the same opinion as yours as to the Frontier scanner but I think DSLR scanning with NLP ( which I despised for a long time until I accidentally tried it ) is way better and offers a FAR BETTER option when it comes to resolution and output.. plus, it more flexible.. Frontier, Noristu, Imacon, Minolta lab scanners were made for public service and not for Top of the line quality which Drum scanning is made for and the only thing that can give drum scanning a run for its money now is DSLR scanning..
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
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.
you can even see it looking at those fashion billboards up close when shopping etc. It's all blured out. It's not that sharp
I wish I had the space to own one of those fuji Frontiers.
Oh, and the money too.
For today's scanning needs you summed it up well. In the beginning when I was trying to get the best output for prepress, I had a Heidelberg flat bed made by the FPU consrtium Fuji Panasonic and Umax. It had autofucus and three lenses (oh so long ago maybe I'm forgetting). The better scanners of the day were Heidelberg Tango/Primescan, Cross, ICG, Dai Nippon, Scitex, Imacon as you showed, Nikon all the way down to Epson. LAter I had an ICG drum scanner which was fantastic, although the Fuji Frontier could rival it or surpass it. Thing is all the messing about with scans with liquid mylar sheets etc are simply not worth it compared to what a Fuji lab scanner can do. That said I prefer your darkroom print over all the rest! NB, I have an Epson 750 here that I have never really used in case I ever want to scan my archives.
ugh i love frontier so much, but also the last method is so amazing!
Equipment that has survived 10 years. My Epson, my iPhone, my heart operation.
I love the colors on the frontier scan.
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.
Yeah, in this test he was scanning to jpeg, in (what looked like) just simple photo mode. Not a fair test of the scanner. We always run a test scan to see how much inherent resolution is in the source (no sense scanning at 3200ppi if the source only resolves 2400 ppi) and then we scan to tiff and not a compressed format like jpeg.
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.
Been scanning with an epson flatbed for years. Can’t wait to get my own printing darkroom set up
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.
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.
professional lab scanners don't have profiles though
Good video. Some excellent examples and well-explained. I found that not all expensive scanners are the best. It depends on what you want as the end result. Just my thoughts. Thanks for sharing.
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)
The v600 is such a throw back to the early Willem days. Got me to get one for the low price of $175
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.
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.
the imacon scans are GORGEOUS
My scanning method is a Canon R5 and RF 100mm macro lens with negative supply film holders and a strobe for the light source. I have my own software I wrote for converting the images to positives that is very fast, and the digitizing part is also very fast. I can have a full 36 exposure 35mm roll digitized and be looking at positive images in LR in less than 10 minutes, and medium format is even faster because it's less exposures. It's excellent resolution, excellent speed, and very good color.
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
frontier and upscale if you need to print large. I have big prints from 35mm landscapes and they look great
I got an enlarger recently but haven’t been able to use it yet. Super excited to try it out
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!
love the video! what did you use to scan the c prints to put onto your website, etc?
My valoi 360 and the new filmomat automatic setup is great
Frontier looks great, possibly the closest to the c print if you compensated for the white and black points.
People often forget about the Nikon Coolscan series. One of the best mid-level options in my humble opinion.
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 😊
I think V600 is more than enough scanner. But I want V700 because of larger scanning area! You are brave intelligent young man! I cannot believe you are printing in color so effortlessly!
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.
Bro said it was a skill issues with the Epson, that had me cracking up but I feel it. 😂
I now have a V600 that I used with the holder for the first time today (I tried without the holder just to make sure it worked). Once I figured out that the scanner is fussy about the position of the holder it worked great with some 120 negatives that were also scanned at the lab. I'm a complete amateur so it all looked good to me, but I'm sure a pro would criticize the results and want to correct it. I used the Epson Scan 2 software. For my use it will be all that I need. I'm not a photographer, nor do I post on social media so perfection isn't required anyway. I cranked the settings to 4800dpi and it looked good, but it did at 2400 also. I tried the dust removal setting but it still was present, and didn't try to physically remove it in any way.
Try using Silverfast software with your v600, you'll love it
@@RandyPollock That's what I settled on. It too is fussy. One thing Silverfast needs is a way to clear all settings and start over. Even a prescan leaves the old frames which to me makes no sense at all, after all you don't start a Word or Excel document based on what you last did. Even exiting Silverfast doesn't clear it. And also a way to save all settings and name them. It just doesn't work the way all other programs work, but I find that with a lot of photo software. All the editing options may be there but the mechanics of it always seem weird.
This reminds me of the time you and McDougal dropped Night Photography technique vids the same week 😂
I use an older 24MP DSLR, 60mm macro lens and a 3D printed rig I made. I can scan a roll of 35mm in about a minute and get a batch of RAW files. I shoot 200+ plus rolls of film a year. Sometimes 8+in a day. Scanning for me needs to be fast, full DR and resolution. This method works for me and it was relatively inexpensive. Cheers
Please show all software settings with proper screen recording.
Not using advanced mode for the Epson?
JPG file format for comparing sharpness?
The comparison was made at only 1500ppi, if it were made at 3200ppi (maximum resolution for medium format films. Even if with a simple trick you can also get to 3600ppi for medium format film) the differences in favor of the Imacon would increase.
would be interesting if you can upload the files for us to compare...
or even compare with DSLR scan
Hey Willem, I'm in love with the darkroom method! Can I ask what paper you use?
Heh, I worked as a lab tech keeping flextight running for a photo lab back in college. We thought it was old then…
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.
Epson v850 and SilverFast that's all you need, silverfast does a great job with color, dust and controlling the scan.
Great video. Very informative.
I couldn't get over the fact you dropped $15K on the Imacon in the year 2000! WOWZERS. That aside nice video. The Frontier is a beauty. If I was independently wealthy thats the one I'd be scanning with.
I was 1 year old in 2000
Noritsu and Frontier are great choices for speed and quality without the hassle 👌
What paper did you use for the prints, if you don't mind me asking?
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.
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
Calibrate the white balance on your imacon like it says on the manual using a white sheet of paper
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"
Thoughts on Nikon Coolscan IV?
Would have been interesting to see a drum scanner thrown into the mix!
They results are usually outstanding.
The best, easiest and fastest way to digitize films is to reshoot them with a digital camera.
I've an Epson V600 and find it very good, far better than me for 35mm or 120 negatives. You can crank the resolution up to 9600 dpi but I usually use it around 3200 dpi as not notices any significant difference except it takes ages at a the high resolutions.
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.
2:50 Sir, the specks on the screen cannot be removed in software...
the skin tones on the c print
i want to know which scan did you use to scan the c-print?
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 epson scanner with silverfast software and that software is a game changer
Flextight X1. And absolutely love it. Only thing is Polaroids… so I’m considering a flat bed scanner as well :-/
What if you put a flatbed scanner under the print project machine and scan the projection image? Curious to know how's image quality and even if works at the first place.
I have a v600 I've been using for years. Can't beat the price. I get decent scans from it.
What a great video. Thank you very much!
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.
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!
EPSON V600 + Negative Lab Pro.
The results are fantastic.
What do you think about the Nikon coolscans?
(I like very much the C print with the film camera guy)
Linus, that lightbox table.. i need it
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?
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
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!
Agreed to that, print quality is just outstanding, which I was considering impossible to do at home.
Ok… but what scanner did you use to digitise dark room printed photos? 😅
1:52 Spirited man!
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 had the Epson 600 and found it to be "OK" but not great. Since it could not render the same level of detail that the cameral lenses were capable of, it wasn't useful to me. I switched to DLSR scanning for my final images and never looked back. Color balance with scanners is tricky. If you know the exact film type, you can create preset profiles to adjust for the base mask color. If the film was processed properly the preset profiles should be almost dead-on.
How do you adjust color on color enlarger?
Can you make a video about how you make videos (film, edit, upload, etc..)?
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
I agree
Great video!
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
Hi Willem! Does your Epson scanner work good with black and white negative? /Lukas
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?
Interesting topic!
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 ❤
I use an 8x10 camera and I scan with the Epson V850. I use a BenQ monitor.
Casually owning a frontier got me like zamn
Is there a way to get the epson software working in windows 11?
Excellent video
Great video
Man I miss seeing your videos
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 love my Opticfilm 120
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