Okay...sitting here bored waiting for my film from last night to be developed (20 more minutes) and I started thinking about film scanners again (I'm about 1 month away from being able to get one). Anyway, I thought I'd try to see what I could scan a negative on my flatbed scanner (an Epson perfection 1260). So, a piece of cardboard, some tape, paper, a desk lamp and 10 minutes time produced the above. Used a negative I really didn't care about (just in case). I tell you, I thought it would come out far worse than this (note this was originally scanned at 2400dpi (made it over 3000x2000) and then shrunk down to around 590x373. No real retouching (didn't even remove any dust from it). A slight tweak of the levels to get the gamut across the entire range instead of being 1/3rd. Oh what boredom can bring. :) -=>Donald

It is much better than I thought it would be. Anything to difuse the light?

I used a sheet of paper (standard 8.5x11 sheet of white printer paper) to diffuse the light (a 60W bare bulb). Between the paper and the negative is a cardboard frame with a rectangular hole cut in it (a little wider than 1 frame width and a little shorter than the film height). I'm sure with a better lightsource and better diffuser you could get better results. Not film scanner quality, but not completely horrible either. Of course, dealing with a color neg is probably a whole other ballgame. A little later tonight, I'll scan a neg that I also already have a scan from the print and see how they compare. -=>Donald

Boy am I ever impressed....my flatbed scanner had a transparency adapter attached to it, and I could never get one single good scan from it....damn....!

I don't know why I never tried this before. This seems to work ok for b&w; color is probably a totally different story because of things like dmax and the color correction required. The above is a scan of a print. Had a really hard time metering this when I took it (the only light was what she had on her claws and they were dancing around). I finally gave up trying to get a good scan from it. This is one of the photos that prompted me to start saving for a film scanner. The photo in the next message was scanned from the neg using the cardboard-o-matic setup. Note that the heavy "grain" you see in her face is actually caused by the printer paper used to diffuse the light. Makes me think that those cheap "film scanner" modules they have for flatbeds might not be bad if you have a halfway good scanner and you stick to b&w negs. -=>Donald

Photo scanned from negative.

Impressive. [More so after I just shelled out big bucks to replace my dead LS-1000... ;-( ] The trick is going to be in the light source. [Also maybe a problem with Newton's rings with the glass...] Moving the diffuser back far enough outside the DOF, while still keeping even illumination. [How did you turn off the scanner's reflected illumination?] For B&W, you should be able to handle any D-Max issues by adding more lights, a dimmer, and making multiple scans... The argument is made that film (and drum) scanners will ALWAYS be better than flatbeds, because the lighter mass of the film is easier to move with precision than the heavier mass of the CCD sensor. Sounds like codswallop to me. I think the real value here is you've shown that flatbeds offer a possibility, especially for medium and large format, if they are designed properly for transmissive media. Though a dedicated film scanner is better today, the flatbed technolgy may be improving to a point where the issue will be moot. [I think the new Microtek http://www.microtekusa.com/as1800f.html has been pretty innovative here. But this is also pretty high cost.] Not to really start a flame war, (those flaming claws look imposing), dedicated film scanners today have better resolution, D-max, color precision, speed, repeatability, ruggedness, etc. One can always make a dedicated piece of equipment work better than a general purpose piece of equipment. But the flatbed technology shouldn't be dismissed off-hand. The real question is, is there a consumer market for an excellent flatbed film scanner which will drive the prices down? We've seen huge price decreases in the general purpose consumer flatbeds. It is not clear that manufactureres would break their price structure in order to add a feature only a small number of consumers would find useful.

THAT IMAGE IF PHUCKING CREEPY! AHHH! seriously, VERY CREPIER... lol

I use my flatbed as a digi cam. HAHAHAHA... Scanners are soo kewl. :-)

Misha - I agree. There has to be a middle ground. The problem, I fear, is that there will be so few of us left on the consumer level that it won't be worth the development costs. The consumers they have in their sites, your average John or Jane Doe is a casual photographer who is either perfectly happy with their sub-standard prints from the local grocery store drop box or they have gone digital and don't need photo scanners. Then you have the pros who are willing to shell out $1000-8000 for their own scanners. Us higher end amateurs are left to pick what we can from consumer level and low pro level. Don't really see that changing all that much. I think Microtek has what looks like a great scanner (I read a review of the 8700 Pro a couple months ago). My only problem is, there is no way in "H-E-Double Hockey sticks" I'm shelling out $900 to $1500 for a flatbed scanner (Scanmaker 8700 Pro or Artixscan 1800f, respectively). Heck, before I do that I'll throw another $100-$300 on the prices and get a Canon D30 or Canon D60 Digital SLR. -=>Donald

Slynky - Hehehe..thank you. Now you see why I have to get a film scanner to pull that image out. I want to see if i can save it. :) It's alive!!! Alive!!! -=>Donald

The top pic is in DARN good in my opinion. I would be very happy with a scan like that comming from either a photo or from a negative scanner. What's wrong with it? Bsteph

BSteph - There's nothing wrong with it. It's a scan of a black and white negative done on a flatbed scanner. Was experimenting (ok...I was bored while waiting an hour for my film to be developed) to see how well the neg would scan using a piece of cardboard, a piece of printer paper and a desk lamp to make a scanning jig. Of course, it's not as clear as if I'd done this in a dedicated film scanner; but it is close to the print made from the negative (though not as crisp and tonality is a bit off). -=>Donald