Is a dedicated film scanner THAT much better than flatbed?

[Ukko Heikkinen]

Good evening, everybody

I found this comparison for you online.

Ukko Heikkinen

 

[Ukko Heikkinen]

Oops! Cannot understand why the attachment was not posted.

Trying again.

I had no "uploaded" it, just selected.

Ukko Heikkinen

 

[DougK]

Brett, you're right about the personal preference with regards to color accuracy. What I probably should have said is "the scanned colors more accurately match those of the original slide."

 

[peter_n]

Great shot G'man!

 

[T_om]

G'Man that is a real stunner, I think that scanner has just increased it's sales multiple 🙂

Huh?

Why? It is 660 pixels wide and soft as mush.

Sorry to be critical of the image, it is a nice photo... but the scan is terrible. You would want to actually buy a scanner like that? Based on that photo? Amazing

Tom

 

[Kin Lau]

Thank you.
There are about 600 birds flying loose. They are free to land wherever.
No flash is allowed. So, it's just the light from the large windows.
I can spend hours in there.🙂

Very lovely... I spend hours chasing after the ones in the wild 🙂

 

[T_om]

Tom I have seen the full blown tiff image.

Fine, I'd like to see it also. If this scan, which is 660 pixels wide at 300PPI, is merely the jpg conversion of the tiff, then the tiff is going to produce a poor result as well.

Also with the amount of scanning I used to do can transpose the stuff we see on the web into what it looked like before jpeg got hold of it.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are saying here.

The scanner is good and well worth the money.

Not to be confrontational about it, but it is not worth the money if that is an example of the scans it produces.

It's always interesting how the same image can be seen on different screens with different eyes in different light ... no wonder we see different things

So true. I am looking at it on a color calibrated (every two weeks) NEC 21" Multi-Sync CRT using PhotoShop CS2. The same one I look at when I prepare files for my clients.


Tom

 

[Biber]

Here's another side by side comparison of a flatbed (Epson 3170) and a dedicated film scanner (Minolta SE 5400). The file from the dedicated film scanner was reduced to the same size as the flatbed, otherwise nothing was done with the files.

 

[Nikon Bob]

For scanning 35 mm I think a dedicated film scanner does beat a flatbed. I used to scan 35mm negs with an HP flatbed and was not really impressed with the output especially after I got a Minolta 5400. For web use and just sharing photos the flatbed may be fine. If you want to be able to get prints done up to 16 X 24 inch then the Min 5400 will allow that quite nicely. I guess it just depends on your end use and I like being able to have the option to get a large print done on ocassion.

Bob

 

[Nick R.]

No contest. Unless you're doing medium format, buy a dedicated scanner.

I recently reaquired a Minolta Scan Elite II which I gave away when I got my Epson. While I have both, I'll scan some negs and slides and post the results here.

 

[eIII]

valuable input as always. thanks all!

"I recently reaquired a Minolta Scan Elite II which I gave away when I got my Epson. While I have both, I'll scan some negs and slides and post the results here."

cool, i'd love to see more comparisons. Biber's comp was dramatic, and if that is a typical result then there is no contest.

 

[djon]

eIII ...

I use a 3200 Epson flatbed and a Nikon V, both with Vuescan. The samples shown here are IMO valid, but you must remember that they are huge magnifications of critical detail. Yes, the Nikon's a lot sharper than the Epson, but the Epson's a fine tool, fun.

The difference from the same 35mm films at 6"X9" on 8X10 paper might not be as immediately apparent if post processing was better than what we've seen here. Depending on goal and image, you might frequently be happy with a flatbed scan, full frame on 8.5X11. Epson's 4990 would take you larger and would hint at grain sharpness. But I routinely print to my maximum size, 12X18, scanned Nikon V...and the prints are grain-sharp (easily seen with NPZ800 and silver B&W)...which means the Nikon scans would print much larger, continuing to look ultra-sharp.

Much of the outcome has to do with the user's skills with sharpening tools (all scans need sharpening and there are plenty of subtleties to learn...it takes time). My 3200 Epson is readily capable of leading to better prints than many of the traditional enlargements I see hung by hobbiests/students in public spaces, since they are often satisfied or stuck with mediocre enlarging lenses.

 

[T_om]

Tom, For G'mans use and many others that simply want to post to the web it's a perfectly good scanner.

Maybe so, but that is not what you said.

Here is what you said:

G'Man that is a real stunner, I think that scanner has just increased it's sales multiple

That anyone would objectively consider that scan a 'stunner' is over the top, and the "increased sales multiple" statement is completely unwarranted praise. Let ANYONE competent to do so look at it and I will be willing to bet large sums of money they will tell you the same thing.

Many people do not want to print large or even print at all if they have the original negs as they can print from those themselves or have pictures printed for them at far better quality than most consumer available scanners and printers.

Fine, and I never said otherwise. However, from the results POSTED HERE, you would get a better result by taking the negative to a one-Hour photo place and having them scan it for output.

You say you don't want to be confrontational but how many people here have a screen which is calibrated at all, never mind "a color calibrated (every two weeks) NEC 21" Multi-Sync CRT using PhotoShop CS2"?

Beats me, but doesn't matter one bit. I posted that to clear up any questions that might arise out of what level of equipment I am using to make my critique and state my case.

What matters is that some unknowing soul may see that scan and think it is the best he/she could hope for... and it most certainly is not.

What you consider is good or bad is fine, what I consider is good or bad is also fine. However don't tell me that what I think is right or wrong which is what you did by addressing your reply by directly quoting me

What you think, is indeed, up to you and no one else. However, we have BOTH passed out of the 'thinking about it' phase and into the realm of public statements.

Public statements do not get a free pass, they are subject to challenge. Erroneous public statements cannot go unchallenged else no one reading them is properly served.

If I have said something in the above interchange that is objectively incorrect in any way, please... be my guest at correcting my error.

Tom

 

[T_om]

OK, the mushy pic is deleted. Now you all can find something else to argue about..😉

There is ALWAYS something else to argue about... 😀

Here is an offer for you though. If you will send me the negative, I'll scan it for you and return it to you along with a CD containing the scan.

All it will cost you is postage to me, I'll pay the return.

That way you will at least see what a good scan can produce then you can make up your own mind.

Tom

 

[djon]

" If I have said something in the above interchange that is objectively incorrect in any way, please... be my guest at correcting my error. "

Tom[/QUOTE]

Wait! Wait! Let me have the pleasure:

Cheap flatbeds can be a lot of fun, and the one in question obviously has provided pleasure both to the owner and to others on this thread. Therefore Tom, you are "incorrect" in the extreme (but not absolutely, because "absolute" is a jiveass engineer-type concept). 😉

 

[T_om]

" If I have said something in the above interchange that is objectively incorrect in any way, please... be my guest at correcting my error. "

Tom

Wait! Wait! Let me have the pleasure:

Cheap flatbeds can be a lot of fun, and the one in question obviously has provided pleasure both to the owner and to others on this thread. Therefore Tom, you are "incorrect" in the extreme (but not absolutely, because "absolute" is a jiveass engineer-type concept). 😉

Good... Someone picking up the gauntlet. 😉

I said correct me if anything I said was objectively incorrect. Nowhere in this thread (or in any other) did I say cheap flatbeds were not "fun", nor that they had not given "pleasure".

If "fun" and "pleasure" are the goals, then have at it with all your might. You don't even need a scanner at all to reach those goals.

If producing the best images from scans is the goal, then it is an entirely different ballgame.

The title of the thread begs the scanner comparisons, not anything I have posted. Objectively, the comparison is a "no brainer" as these things are called. 😀

Tom

 

[sooner]

Because of its limitations, the slide scans on my Epson flatbed (an older model) only get shown on the web. I'd like a film scanner and thought the Konica Minolta IV was in my price range. You all talk about the resolution, but what about the dmax? My Epson can't get the shadow detail, and even a neighbor's Nikon LS2000 didn't do a great job with an underexposed slide. Will the KM IV capture the detail on less than perfect slides and in the shadows?

 

[John Robertson]

The main trouble I had with a flatbed was Newtons rings, the film scanner avoids that!

 

[djon]

Tom, "objectively' is a fraudulent concept. No scientist believes there's such a thing as objectivity. You're announcing what is and what isn't, and you're wrong, even about your own intentions.

 

[djon]

Sooner, you're right that Minolta IV will improve Dmax over most flatbeds, though not over 4990 from what I've heard from people who use them. None of these scanners will save us from bad slide exposures or the wrong slide film (especially Kodachrome or Velvia). I'm shooting Astia for that reason.