Film scanner suggestions for 35mm microfilm

I see from the archives that it's been a long time since anyone has
asked about the possibility of scanning old rolls of 35mm microfilm.
I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions as to any good file scanners
and if they can be used for this purpose.

I suppose 4000dpi is a minimum, but I've never tried it. Is that going
to work?

Any suggested models to look at?

Do I need to avoid flat bed film scanners?

What about focus?

Any suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks!

Skippy in Hyder

skippy wrote:
I see from the archives that it's been a long time since anyone has
asked about the possibility of scanning old rolls of 35mm microfilm.
I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions as to any good file scanners
and if they can be used for this purpose.

I suppose 4000dpi is a minimum, but I've never tried it. Is that going
to work?

Any suggested models to look at?

Do I need to avoid flat bed film scanners?

What about focus?

Any suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks!

Skippy in Hyder

Any good film scanner will do (I use a Nikon Coolscan V ED). You can
either scan the microfilm as an image and "read" it later or use an
OCR-program directly. Film scanners usually have autofocus (often with
an option for manual focus) so that will not be a problem. As for
resolution 4000 dpi should be more than enough. Of course that depends
on how small the characters in Your microfilm are.
Yes, I would advise You to stay clear of flatbeds.
Usually film scanners read either single 35 mm frames (typically framed
slides) or film strips so You shall need to check that You can feed the
microfilm into scanner.

Väinö Louekari

Väinö Louekari writes:

Usually film scanners read either single 35 mm frames (typically
framed slides) or film strips so You shall need to check that You can
feed the microfilm into scanner.

One example: The standard 35mm film strip holder for the
Konica-Minolta 5400 II can't be used to scan the entire area of a
6-frame strip; it masks the areas in between frames.

Actually I have no idea what 35mm microfilm is like; I assume it's
like normal photographic 35mm film with the perforations and all but
isn't divided into separate 36x24mm areas?

"skippy" wrote in message
s.com...
I see from the archives that it's been a long time since anyone has
asked about the possibility of scanning old rolls of 35mm microfilm.
I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions as to any good file scanners
and if they can be used for this purpose.

I suppose 4000dpi is a minimum, but I've never tried it. Is that going
to work?

Any suggested models to look at?

Do I need to avoid flat bed film scanners?

What about focus?

Any suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks!

Skippy in Hyder


This one accepts filmstrips of up to 40 frames, relieving users of the need
to cut and inster film in short strips. Are microfilm frames the same size
as frames used in 35mm photography?

http://www2.hardwarezone.com/article...?cid=13&id=868

"skippy" wrote in message
s.com...
I see from the archives that it's been a long time since anyone has
asked about the possibility of scanning old rolls of 35mm microfilm.
I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions as to any good file scanners
and if they can be used for this purpose.

I suppose 4000dpi is a minimum, but I've never tried it. Is that going
to work?

Any suggested models to look at?

Do I need to avoid flat bed film scanners?

What about focus?

Any suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks!

Skippy in Hyder

If the "microfilm" just contains printed documents, and not photographs,
then 4000 dpi is overkill.....300 dpi would be enough, and I would advise
going for a flatbed scanner.......

William Graham wrote:

If the "microfilm" just contains printed documents, and not photographs,
then 4000 dpi is overkill.....300 dpi would be enough, and I would advise
going for a flatbed scanner.......

Library microfilm is typically between 18 and 25 times reduction.
For 20 times reduction, 4000 dpi would equal 200 dpi at original
document size. This would hardly be overkill. 300 dpi would be
only 15 dpi at original document size and would be grossly inadequate.

Peter.
--

Yes, they are the same size exactly as 35mm negatives, with perf holes
down both sides. The image of a newspaper (both pages opened) which
measures 18" x 26" takes up an area on my film of 7/8" x 1 3/4". That
makes the compression about 16 times. So if I want to be able to read
these well when they are blown up 16 times does that mean I should scan
them at 16 times 300 dpi? That would be 4800 dpi.

I've never scanned anything at that rate. How long does it take to
scan a single 35 mm negative (or positive) image at 4800 dpi? I'm
looking at the Epson V700. Would that work?

Pete


jeremy wrote:
"skippy" wrote in message
s.com...
I see from the archives that it's been a long time since anyone has
asked about the possibility of scanning old rolls of 35mm microfilm.
I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions as to any good file scanners
and if they can be used for this purpose.

I suppose 4000dpi is a minimum, but I've never tried it. Is that going
to work?

Any suggested models to look at?

Do I need to avoid flat bed film scanners?

What about focus?

Any suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks!

Skippy in Hyder


This one accepts filmstrips of up to 40 frames, relieving users of the need
to cut and inster film in short strips. Are microfilm frames the same size
as frames used in 35mm photography?

http://www2.hardwarezone.com/article...?cid=13&id=868

Thanks Peter,

How long does a 4000 dpi scan of a single 35mm slide size chunk of
microfilm take on a flat bed like a Epson V750 or V700? I have never
done this and have no clue.

Is there a good resale on something like the V750 six months or a year
later in case I want to resell it after my project is finished?

Any other suggestions? How about clearity or focus. Does the
microfilm just drape across the glass when you close the top so it can
stay attached to it's long reels without being cut?

Thanks!

Skippy is Pete in Hyder

Peter Irwin wrote:
William Graham wrote:

If the "microfilm" just contains printed documents, and not photographs,
then 4000 dpi is overkill.....300 dpi would be enough, and I would advise
going for a flatbed scanner.......

Library microfilm is typically between 18 and 25 times reduction.
For 20 times reduction, 4000 dpi would equal 200 dpi at original
document size. This would hardly be overkill. 300 dpi would be
only 15 dpi at original document size and would be grossly inadequate.

Peter.
--

"skippy" wrote:

I've never scanned anything at that rate. How long does it take to
scan a single 35 mm negative (or positive) image at 4800 dpi? I'm
looking at the Epson V700. Would that work?
Pete

I've been using a Nikon Coolscan IV for a number of years. Its maximum
resolution is 2900. It has a published scan time of 52 sec and 15 sec for
a preview if NO adjustments are activated (that is, ICE, ROC or GEM). If
ICE is activated, the scan time increases to 100 seconds per image. If all
the features are activated, the published scan time is 310 seconds. I find
the published times to be pretty close to what I get in real use. I have
recently ordered an Epson Perfection V750-M PRO. It is pretty much the
same hardware as the V700. I'm planning to use it to replace my Coolscan
IV and my old flat bed scanner. An advantage of the V700 scanner you're
considering is that you wouldn't have to cut the rolls. I do not know if
it will be a lot faster than the dedicated film scanners. I'm not counting
on it but it will be a nice surprise if it is. Mine should arrive in a
couple of weeks.

BTW, high contrast, black and white microfilm is bitonal, meaning that when
converted to digital, 2 bit images are all that is needed; not 8 or 16 bit
grayscale. Film scanners are not capable (as far as I know) of scanning in
2-bit mode (B&W). They all scan at least 8 bit grayscale. I assume that
the V700 (like other flat bed scanners) can scan in 2-bit mode (B&W). If
you're going to be scanning a lot of images, you should check into this as
B&W image files are MUCH smaller and faster to load than grayscale.

Mardon writes:

I've been using a Nikon Coolscan IV for a number of years. Its maximum
resolution is 2900. It has a published scan time of 52 sec and 15 sec for
a preview if NO adjustments are activated (that is, ICE, ROC or GEM). If
ICE is activated, the scan time increases to 100 seconds per image. If all
the features are activated, the published scan time is 310 seconds.

I am guessing that the ICE, ROC and GEM are either not available for
scanning microfilm or at least not applicable (ROC). Therefore all the
dust, scratches, dirt etc. will have to be removed manually in image
editing software if so desired.

Also, placing the film directly on the scanner glass will not yield
the best sharpness. The Epsons have their focus fixed somewhere
between 2.5 - 4.5mm.