Is a dedicated film scanner THAT much better than flatbed?

[eIII]

i've been looking at reviews and it seems most prefer a dedicated film scanner for quality reasons. the konica minolta dual scan IV looks to be the price/ performance winner and it has its fans here.

then i see some negative scans done on a flatbed like the epson 3170, (greyhoundman's blog) and the results look very nice!

so, is the difference between the two really that dramatic or is it something only a perfectionist would notice?

i am refering to negative scans, not print.

anyone with experience with both?

thanks.

 

[Richard Black]

I have considered a dedicated film scanner, but most, if not all, my scans are for the web and I just don't think I need something that much better. Do you plan to use the scans to print from? Do you shoot 35mm exclusively? I use an Epson 3170 to scan MF negatives and have success in printing them at a pro shop from the scanns burned to a cd. If you are just loading them on the web, I'd say save money and just get a decent flatbed. If you want prints, then, that is a whole other matter.

 

[GeneW]

A qualified 'yes' -- a dedicated scanner is better. I've scanned the same image both ways and what you see is finer detail showing up in a dedicated scanner, even for web images.

For web work, a flatbed is quite good but a dedicated scanner is better. When you get to larger scans for larger prints, it's no contest.

Gene

 

[djon]

I've not used the later/better Epsons, but my 3200 is distinctly less sharp than my Nikon V for 35mm.

That said, the 3200's great, to a point..color images reliably seem minilab-sharp to perhaps 6X9" or more. Your enlarger will look sharper at that size. Certain images will look good much larger.

If I wanted an inexpensive dedicated 35mm scanner with superb output, I'd go for a used Minolta IV ... no scanner's Ice deals with silver B&W film... my Nikon V wouldn't be significantly better with silver B&W except in large prints, but it would be a LOT better with C41 B&W and with color because Ice is so wonderful.

 

[Byuphoto]

here is my take.
Epson 4990-web, 4x6 or snapshots
High res. scans at a local studio/lab- all my prints larger than 8x10 and all my wedding/studio work. I get them to do Hi-res. scans and burn to CD for me for $15 a roll. They alos make my prints larger than 13x19 on a wide bed Epson commercial printer

 

[Time Freeze]

I have used both an Umax Powerlook II and an Epson 4990 to scan 6x6cm negatives and had them printed 24x36 inch and they came out great. These were vintage negatives, cleaned up in Photoshop, if that makes a difference.

John
www.TimeFreezePhotos.com

 

[schaubild]

Depends on the use and printsize. You talk about the difference of optical resolution between these two technologies, ca. 1600dpi flatbed vs 4000dpi dedicated film scanner. Don't believe the informations from flatbed manufacturers, the 4800 and higher figures are interpolated values.

 

[peter_n]

I have not made the comparisons myself, but everything I've read agrees with what Gene said above. The dedicated scanner is better, even for the web. I have a KM SD IV and love it, the quality is excellent, but the scanner is flaky. Its under warranty so its at KM in NJ for a fix - there are issues in the power supply but I can't wait to get it back. 🙂

 

[djon]

Regarding Byup's "take." I hope he will tell us about the software and equipment he uses regularly with his preferred digital workflow.

I will simply observe that he's wrong about 4990, uninformed. It isn't as remarkable as recent 35mm film-only scanners but is EXCELLENT for large prints from MF and quite good at 11X14 from 35.

If a person is doing high volume work, such as weddings and school photos, he's not going to want to scan his own film. Takes too much time, isn't economical.

From what I've seen, most of the high quality pro labs that used to do wedding packages have quit because their premier photographer clients went digital and their rookie clients are using minilabs.

 

[djon]

I use a Nikon V because two new 5400IIs in a row had to be returned to Amazon, the first failing after a few scans, the second never functioning. Nikon is infinitely better-built: its 4000ppi tests as 4000ppi, just as 5400II's "5400" tests as 4000ppi. Nonetheless, the IV will do extremely fine work, especially with B&W. Vuescan is probably better for Minolta...it's certainly better for Nikon if one does much B&W.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

I use a 2450 epson for MF and a dedicated 5400 Minolta for 35mm film.

Is there a difference between 35mm done on the epson versus the minolta? Absolutely.

But the difference only matters if your end product needs it. Do you generally intend to upload to the web, or do you want to create digital scans for print in larger sizes? If it is the latter, go with a dedicated scannner. They are more expensive and slower, but in head to head comparisions, they do a better job. good luck

 

[djon]

fyi the current Minolta 5400II (when it works) and the Nikon V both take around 2.5 minutes per scan with Ice, assuming a Pentium 4 or equivalent Mac with 1G RAM. I actually timed both machines.

The older 5400 reportedly takes about 6-8 minutes per scan with Ice (is that your experience Tom?). It's reportedly much better built than the newer machine.

With relatively recent flatbeds the only print question is size. Almost any flatbed will make fine 4X6 from 35mm, but Epson's "Perfection" models and similar vintage Canons can be counted on to look darkroom-good with many types of image to about 6X9".

Incidentally, flatbeds can be made to perform much better with wet mounts or with anti-newton glass mounts. Wet mounting eliminates dust and increases Dmax, AN glass is troubled by dust, doesn't increase Dmax, but does ensure absolute flatness (I use AN glass with my 6X9 negs).

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'm with Flyfisher Tom; although I have an Epson 2450 and a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV. I did try Nikon's Coolscan 5000 (I think that's what it was) and was underwhelmed.

I use Silverfast's software with Scratch and Dust Removal (SRD) is amazingly customizable (at first it's a bit frustrating because there are only three controls, but these German engineers, they know what they're doing) and it can help you get that dust and scratches out during scan time.

It takes me about 2 minutes for a full 4-multipass 3200 dpi scan on an AMD 2200 Athlon with 1 GB. It is not a substitute for "ICE", but it is the next best thing, and you save yourself lots of cash (in comparison). If you do your own B&W film and you're careful, this is more than enough. With chromes (slides) this is also more than enough; with color film, it's a great help, but not a silver bullet.

There is, btw, a software plug-in version of GEM (kind of like "ICE") by Kodak (bought by some other company whose name I can't recall at this moment), and it's available for Windoze and Mac. It's for about $100 USD: http://www.asf.com/ I personally don't like it, but you can try the trial version (it puts a watermark on the end result; once you unlock it, it no longer puts a watermark on resulting images).

 

[Socke]

yes it is.

 

[JoeFriday]

when I first got back into shooting film, I was scanning negs with a flatbed Umax scanner.. I thought it was great.. the images were nice and bright.. they had a high 'wow' factor.. but I couldn't print the images as large as I wanted so I looked at dedicated film scanners

I went with a Nikon Coolscan V.. as others have stated, it takes a little under 3 minutes for a high rez scan with ICE.. and yes, that ICE is a godsend

just last night I downloaded Noise Ninja to clean up the scans.. that also makes a huge difference.. you have to be careful with it, tho.. it can rob your image of the details if you overdo it.. but it can really smooth out the look if done properly

another scanning package that people have raved about is VueScan.. I've tried the demo version with the Coolscan but I wasn't sold on it.. I was getting the same quality scans with the Nikon supplied software

 

[DougK]

I'd been lusting after a film scanner for quite some time and finally happened upon a KM SD IV for a great price. As a test, I scanned a set of six or seven slides with the SD IV at 2400 dpi which I had scanned previously with my Epson 2580 flatbed at the same resolution. No contest; the SD IV gave me consistently sharper scans with better shadow detail, better highlight retention, and much more accurate color. I have found the same to be true with B&W and C41 negatives as well. It's also much faster than my flatbed.

I think, though, if most of my shooting was medium format I would have skipped the film scanner and just bought an Epson 4990.

 

[T_om]

There is no contest. The dedicated film scanner will beat the pants off any flatbed going, until (as I have repeatedly posted here) you get into the very lofty range of Hell-Heidelberg scanners and their ilk.

Period.

Anyone telling you different is hereby invited to scan any negative they like up to medium format size on their favorite flatbed and I will scan the same negative on my LS8000.

Then we will compare the two scans.

HOWEVER, having said all that, if your only use of the scans are to post stuff on the web, then by all means... use just about any $39.00 flatbed you come across at your local big box store.. it will answer very well for that usage.

Tom

 

[JoeFriday]

I probably didn't answer your question in my previous post.. the comparison between a flatbed and dedicated film scanner is.. you might honestly think the two photos were taken with different cameras or lenses.. Doug described it well... crisper scans and more details in shadows.. color accuracy is generally much better, as well.. but that can be a personal preference

 

[djon]

Brett/Joe Friday.... I use Vuescan for everything, but I don't think it's better than Nikonscan for E6/C41/Kodachrome. Nikonscan has a simpler, more intuitive front end (as does Minolta-scan).

However, Vuescan has an important edge with B&W silver film:

With Nikonscan, many (including me) advise scanning as positive and inverting in Photoshop/Elements, to eliminate white specks. With Vuescan one scans straight, no inversion ( and no loss of fuzz on peaches, perhaps relating to your caution about Noise Ninja?). Vuescan seems less important to Minolta than Nikon.

Re: 5000 Vs V, I think there's no advantage to the 5000 unless you're a photolab and want to scan whole rolls automatically.

 

[vincentbenoit]

If you are just loading them on the web, I'd say save money and just get a decent flatbed. If you want prints, then, that is a whole other matter.

I second Richard's comment.
Cheers
Vincent