Scanning medium-format film in Linux?

[Joshua Judson Rosen]

In case anyone else was interested in how this turned out...:

On 05/27/2015 02:16 AM, John Abreau wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:49 AM, Joshua Judson Rosen <rozzin at hackerposse.com <mailto:rozzin at hackerposse.com>> wrote:
> >
> > One of the things I left LibrePlanet 2015 with...
> > was a medium-format camera. Shot a couple rolls
> > of film with it, got them developed, and now
> > I'm wondering what my options are for equipment
> > to digitise photos from (120 format) negatives.
> 
> > Any suggestions?
>
> Depending on how much you plan to use the camera, it may be more cost
> effective to use a service bureau rather than buy your own equipment
> to do it yourself.
> 
> Most dedicated negative scanners I've seen are limited to 35mm negatives.
> 
> A quick google search turns up a blog discussing medium-format
> scanning; perhaps it will prove useful to your search.
> 
> http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Zdeb

Looks like the best bets at this point for cost-effective 120-capable
film-scanners that SANE actually supports well are either a Canon 9000F Mark II
($200, supposedly does up to 9600 DPI when scanning film),
or the Epson Perfection V800 ($600-$900, supposedly does up to 6400 DPI).

Possibly with a ~$100 third-party film-holder, e.g.:

	http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/canon8xxx.html

I found some in-depth reviews that indicate the advertised DPIs
on basically all scanners seem to be grossly inflated, e.g.:

	http://www.filmscanner.info/en/CanonCanoScan9000FMark2.html
	http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV800Photo.html

... so that $200 "9600 DPI" scanner apparently is only really good for 1700 DPI,
and the $600-$900 "6400 DPI" scanner is apparently really good for 2300-2600 DPI.
Not clear how much of the difference between those two is just due to the
film-holders....

At this point it seems like a 1700-DPI scanner is probably worth $200;
partly because the fees to have the people at the lab scan the film
are that high (a $200 scanner could pay for itself after 10-20 rolls of film),
partly because the scans I get back from the lab haven't actually been
all that great (the "high-res" scans, which cost extra, are only 1200 DPI)...,
but mostly because I've been shooting *6x12* which according to the shops
I've talked to is just *too big for them to scan*.

-- 
"Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr))))."