Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Choice of medium format desktop scanner  (Read 6516 times)
artobest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2013, 05:50:47 AM »
ReplyReply


Find the plane of sharpest image. Cumbersome and lengthy process. To go higher with the plane is easy. You can add spacers to the 4 screws that hold the top chassis of the scanner. To go lower is more complicated. You have to add spacers to the glass mount. If you do so, you avoid additional glass holders/surfaces. I optimized mine for 8x10. If you optimize for 6x6, you don't have to lower the scanner glass. Finding the right hight is enough.


Surely it's far easier to buy a film holder from Betterscanning.com. You will need to do this anyway, as the Epson holders are complete rubbish. The betterscanning holders allow continuous height adjustment - the difference is amazing, and as a V750 user, it is clear to me that most of the bad reports about this capable machine are a consequence of the poor design of the OEM holders.

BTW, if you place the neg directly on the glass, you will get an out-of-focus image and Newton rings. No need to do that.
Logged

KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2013, 09:03:43 AM »
ReplyReply

My technique for removing the possibility of Newton rings is to warm the glass with a hairdryer, also cleaning the film with film cleaner helps. Anti Newton glass has a texture which can effect the image.
I also have some anti-newton spray left over from when I had a drum scanner, this also can effect the image so I don't recommend it.
I had a demo once on a fuji flatbed, he put acetate on the glass then added mounting fluid, placed the film on the fluid then more fluid on the film and another acetate sheet on top of that. This made a film fluid sandwich. Shutting the lid spread the fluid. It worked really well, cleaning the film took longer than mounting.
I had a fluid mounter with my flatbed and that was a black art. You could mount and spend an age scanning only to find on enlarging the image was covered with tiny pinprick bubbles.
I've had less problems with my Coolscan glass carrier and warming the glass, cleaning the film scenario. One day a Flextight will find it's way in my studio.
The other alternative is the Microtek scanner, no glass to contend with.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2013, 12:48:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Surely it's far easier to buy a film holder from Betterscanning.com. You will need to do this anyway, as the Epson holders are complete rubbish. The betterscanning holders allow continuous height adjustment - the difference is amazing, and as a V750 user, it is clear to me that most of the bad reports about this capable machine are a consequence of the poor design of the OEM holders.

BTW, if you place the neg directly on the glass, you will get an out-of-focus image and Newton rings. No need to do that.

I wet scan 8x10 on the flat bed glass of the v750 and there is no focus problem. You just have to choose the wider scanning area. This corresponds to the
focus plane of the glass on the flatbed and hot the focus plane of the holders or the wet mount holder. The V750 has two lenses. One for the holders and one for the glass flatbed.

Also the so so Epson film holders have some focus adjustment to them.

The better scanning holders are better.

It's also quite quick to set them up. However wet scanning is the best approach, especially if there are surface problems
on the film.
Logged
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 428


« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2013, 01:26:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Surely it's far easier to buy a film holder from Betterscanning.com. You will need to do this anyway, as the Epson holders are complete rubbish. The betterscanning holders allow continuous height adjustment - the difference is amazing, and as a V750 user, it is clear to me that most of the bad reports about this capable machine are a consequence of the poor design of the OEM holders.

BTW, if you place the neg directly on the glass, you will get an out-of-focus image and Newton rings. No need to do that.

I try to scan with the least number of surfaces. Consequently I use only an AN glass above the neg for holding it flat with a mask of the same thickness of the negative.

I tried everything with this scanner, also the betterscanning approach; but they are of no help with 8x10 inch film. And it is easier to add 4 spacers between the tread and the plastic top cover of the scanner pos. 165, see image attached. And it is much cheaper and works for all smaller formats. And I can work faster in this configuration.

I admit, if you add the spacers to lift the original scanner glass to the plane of focus for scanning 6x6 negatives, you have to remove them to scan reflective media. But with my approach you have to clean much less surfaces and can optimize everything to get the most out of the V750 for a special film format.

Best,
Johannes
Logged
ThisIsGregers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14



WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2013, 01:33:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you all for your insight on this - very much appreciate it!
Will be interesting to see a proper test of the Plustek 120.

With reagards to banding on the Nikon 9000, how many of of you have experienced this issue with 6x6 and VueScan on that machine?

Best,

G

Logged
ThisIsGregers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14



WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2013, 01:43:24 PM »
ReplyReply

The bulb is not Minolta-specific, but a standard-issue part readily available from a number of electronics component retailers.

It's also available on eBay from a Chinese seller. I very recently bought one from him myself without any transaction or shipment issues.

Apart from that, +1 for the Minolta. Like the much more expensive Imacon/Hasselblad, everything has been said, ranted, researched, and optimized about this scanner 10 years ago, therefore no surprises, firmware fixes, reinventing the wheel or having to play guinea pig/early adopter as in the case of the Opticfilm Plustek 120. The Minolta has a glass holder! It's got autofocus! It works with Vuescan! Take that, Plustek...   Roll Eyes

Hey NightFire,

Thanks also to you for your input. Do I understand you correctly: It IS possible to find a sparre bulb for this scanner quite easily? This scanner is the most appealing to me, but I'm afraid to be left in the cold if something mayor like the bulb breaks/dies.

Thanks
Logged
nightfire
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90



« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2013, 05:56:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey NightFire,

Thanks also to you for your input. Do I understand you correctly: It IS possible to find a sparre bulb for this scanner quite easily? This scanner is the most appealing to me, but I'm afraid to be left in the cold if something mayor like the bulb breaks/dies.

Thanks

I got mine from this Chinese seller on eBay at a premium since I was unable to find the specifications of the lamp on the net myself and I only became aware of the Yahoo Minolta forum (see below) later. Since he had no auction running at the time, I simply contacted him and he put one up for sale.

The bulb issue has also been discussed several times over the years on the Yahoo forum dedicated to the Minolta DSMP (registration required). There have been reports that a standard CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent lamp) could be used (sold here at CCFLwarehouse, for example), and that the built-in scanner calibration procedure would compensate for any potential difference in color temperature etc. to the original Minolta bulb. The required lamp dimensions are 2.0mm (diameter) x 110mm (length).

I have not ordered through CCFLwarehouse et al. myself yet, but I'll eventually get there once I blow through the current bulb AND the Chinese replacement I bought on eBay. Since my scanner is still running on its first bulb, this may possibly take quite a few years  Roll Eyes At this point I'm not so much concerned about lamp failure or even mechanical failure (I'm quite confident I could fix most moving part problems), but rather about some failure of the electronic circuit board components. Because these (as opposed to the lamps) are REALLY unique and virtually impossible to replace. Still, I've also got a Canon A-1 with red LED display from the 1970s and a Rollei SL35E which both work without a hitch (impossible, according to most forums) and so on, so I'm using this scanner in the same spirit without any concern about what might or might not happen in the future. If you can get your hands on a Minolta in cared for condition for a reasonable price, you might consider taking the leap of faith. The results speak for themselves!
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 02:05:00 AM by nightfire » Logged
ThisIsGregers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14



WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2013, 07:03:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi NightFire,

Wow, thanks - again - for all that super input. I've written the Chinese seller to see if he has any in stock. Also, I couldn't find the Yahoo forum - I did many different searches, but no forum conversations came up that had anything to do with a Minolta scanner.

I'll try communicate with CCFL warehouse if it's a negative from the Chinese seller.

I know this is a hard question to answer ("collector's item") but... When you say "priced fairly", how much would you max. spend on this scanner if you were me? I've seen them trade anywhere from $1.800 to $2.900.
A Nikon 9000 in good condition with a late serial trade from $3.000 and up and doesn't (normally) include the "scanhancer" holders that everyone seem to be raving about. Also, the Nikon seems to have banding issues with med format (when scanning with all three sensors).
So I would really like to get my hands on a Minolta - if I can get a spare lamp... :-)

Thanks again for your time - it's much, much appreciated!

Best,

G
Logged
ThisIsGregers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14



WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2013, 07:04:55 PM »
ReplyReply

With the glass holder, in the box with everything it came with, $3300.

I sold it because I hadn't used it in a while, finding the Epson to be faster for proofing and smaller print sizes.  When everything hits, meaning the film is flat, the negative has enough density on the emulsion side to thwart Newton's Rings on the glass holder's non-AR coated side, the scans were amazing, on par with the Imacon.  It just takes work and patience to get there, while the Epson gives consistent, if lower quality, results very easily.  Perfect for 16"x16" prints from a 6x6 neg.

Thanks!

G
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2013, 09:41:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you all for your insight on this - very much appreciate it!
Will be interesting to see a proper test of the Plustek 120.

With reagards to banding on the Nikon 9000, how many of of you have experienced this issue with 6x6 and VueScan on that machine?

Best,

G



I've never seen banding on the 9000.  The Microtek 120tf had banding.
Logged
nightfire
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90



« Reply #30 on: March 05, 2013, 11:16:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I know this is a hard question to answer ("collector's item") but... When you say "priced fairly", how much would you max. spend on this scanner if you were me? I've seen them trade anywhere from $1.800 to $2.900.
A Nikon 9000 in good condition with a late serial trade from $3.000 and up and doesn't (normally) include the "scanhancer" holders that everyone seem to be raving about. Also, the Nikon seems to have banding issues with med format (when scanning with all three sensors).
So I would really like to get my hands on a Minolta - if I can get a spare lamp... :-)

Personally, I'd go even lower. Used items appear on the market frequently, so there's no need for panic. For example, I got my Minolta for $1.700, and recent eBay auctions ended at $1.225, $1.458, $1.644, $1.691 (excluding the "Buy it Now" auction for $2.899 where someone obviously needed to start scanning the same evening Grin). So, for me $1.700 at most.
Logged
ThisIsGregers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14



WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 05, 2013, 04:59:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

if you don't have the budget for an Imacon, I would go with the V750. But Imacons have their issues too.

With the V750 some things are vital. If you don't want to do this don't use the V750:
Check whether your scanner is good. With my first V750 a good scan was not possible, because it was out of spec and broken. It was difficult to find that out. It switched for example not between the two possible planes of focus physically but said so in the software menu. It was sent in few times. Finally I got an other one from Epson. Service was horrible. It is not easy to deal with Epson. I was able to compare to different V750ies and could demonstrate the problem with the one I had, by delivering scans of the same neg with different scanners almost with scientific accuracy. The one I use now is fine. In my opinion many of the bad reputation of this scanner comes from scanners which are actually out of spec or broken in any way already on arrival.
Find the plane of sharpest image. Cumbersome and lengthy process. To go higher with the plane is easy. You can add spacers to the 4 screws that hold the top chassis of the scanner. To go lower is more complicated. You have to add spacers to the glass mount. If you do so, you avoid additional glass holders/surfaces. I optimized mine for 8x10. If you optimize for 6x6, you don't have to lower the scanner glass. Finding the right hight is enough.

Ohter things which are important during usage:
Clean scanner glas. Top and bottom, as mentioned by FredBGG.
I put the neg dry to the glass. Around the neg I have a mask with the same thickness of the negative. Atop of this I put a AN glass from an enlarger. That adds minimal pressure to the neg to keep it flat, by doing so, the tendency to Newton rings is decreased.
Being careful you can wet mount directly on the scanner glass.

You can optimize your "dust" workflow:
I develop myself with an Jobo CPA/CPP (very easy) and use only demineralized water (clean). I dry the film without a dryer. Just hang them. If dry I scan at once without putting the film in sleeves or anything. I almost have no dust spots to clean. With b&w film you can go to higher densities. This reduces the tendency to newton rings.

Fun with your Hasselblad 503 cw. I'm such an idiot that I sold mine in the year 2000.

Hope that helps.
Best,
Johannes

Thanks, Johannes, for sitting down and share your insight on this. Much appreciated.

G
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #32 on: March 06, 2013, 07:38:09 AM »
ReplyReply

About the V750 and QC issues:  My 750 was one of the first in the States.  No problems at all.  Later ones seem to have issues as they ramped up production.  I believe that my 750 was made in Japan.  I don't want to move it around to check, but that is what I remember last time I moved it around.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad