File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hello /p/
I have about 500 dollars to spend- what would be the best film scanner (both prints and negatives) that I could for that money? About how big (in pixels )would the scanned film be?
>> Anonymous
Oops... "that I could buy for that money."
>> Anonymous
COOLSCAN V ED you should get one slightly over 500$ best bang for bucks

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Film-Scanners/9239/COOLSCAN-V-ED.html
>> Grebbin !!M4ehTJKOnNf
Epson v700.
>> Anonymous
>>267728
So let me get this straight, you want him to scan prints with the coolscan?
A dedicated film scanner which can't even take MF negs.

Great idea or greatest idea?
amiritelol?!
>> Anonymous
So wait YOU think that there is a flatbed out there that can do prints and 35mm for 500? GTFO. The Coolscan is the best bet for affordable 35mm. A flatbed for prints costs next to nothing now.
>> Anonymous
I use the epson perfection 4490 photo. It's pretty good.
>> Anonymous
>>267818
Except there are scanners out there who will do both for well under 500
>> Anonymous
>>267818
He wants to buy A scanner (not scannerS) for the max prize of 500 dollars.
Not a 600 dollar scanner and another for at least an additional 100 dollars.

I would suggest the V700.

Even though the dedicated scanners are better doesn't mean flatbeds are bad, they have come a long way, they may not be great but they are good enough as long as your not planing to scan fine grain film for insanely large prints.
>> Anonymous
I've never used a flatbed that can do 35mm acceptably. It is always barely good enough for thumbnail quality. Perhaps others have had different experiences with them?
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
I honestly don't think theres a consumer flatbed alive that can make acceptable film scans. A used coolscan and a cheap flatbed are your best bet. Adorama has some little 80$ film scanner out now, may or may not be worth a shot, I thinking it's crap tho. I get to use a coolscan 9000 fluidmount at school next semester :D
>> Anonymous
>>267724
new canon lide, used coolscan 4000; respectively
>>267834
Not really, others just have different opinions of acceptable quality.
>> This is relevant to my interests! Anonymous
Not OP but I am also in need of a scanner. I already have a decent enough 35mm scanner but I just started shooting 4x5 velvia and need a fairly high res flatbed that wont destroy my bank account. And the scans are mainly used for large-ish prints, any ideas?
>> Anonymous
I once worked at a pre-press company. They had several drum scanners that at one point they were trying to get rid of after an upgrade. Alas I couldn't afford one. Kick myself every time I think about it.
>> SAGE
Microtek M1