HuubL
hunter-gatherer
Hi All,
I need a new scanner after my cheapo film scanner died. I've studied the pros and cons of the various possibilities on scanners. I gather that for best results and speed, a dedicated film scanner does a (much?) better job than a (dedicated?) flatbed. However, I'm at a loss as far as resolution is concerned. What makes a cheap Canoscan LiDE 600F (125 euro) so much worse than a more expensive Epson Perfection V700 (550 euro) or a 4990 (500 euro). Why is a 4000 dpi Nikon Coolscan V ED (650 euro) to be preferred above these 4800-9600 dpi flatbeds. I understand that the software (automatic dust removal) is very important, but both film and flatbed scanners have dust removal software.
I've read many threads here, but I'm still at a loss.
Please help me out....
Thanks
I need a new scanner after my cheapo film scanner died. I've studied the pros and cons of the various possibilities on scanners. I gather that for best results and speed, a dedicated film scanner does a (much?) better job than a (dedicated?) flatbed. However, I'm at a loss as far as resolution is concerned. What makes a cheap Canoscan LiDE 600F (125 euro) so much worse than a more expensive Epson Perfection V700 (550 euro) or a 4990 (500 euro). Why is a 4000 dpi Nikon Coolscan V ED (650 euro) to be preferred above these 4800-9600 dpi flatbeds. I understand that the software (automatic dust removal) is very important, but both film and flatbed scanners have dust removal software.
I've read many threads here, but I'm still at a loss.
Please help me out....
Thanks
femto
Established
hi Huubl,
1.) flatbed scanner never reach the promised resolution! I've been told that you can be happy with a 50% resolution.
2.) film scanners have a hardware (IR) based dust removal system, which is much more effective than the software-based ones in the flatbed scanners.
maybe this Wikipedia article may give you some insight into the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_scanner
~HD
1.) flatbed scanner never reach the promised resolution! I've been told that you can be happy with a 50% resolution.
2.) film scanners have a hardware (IR) based dust removal system, which is much more effective than the software-based ones in the flatbed scanners.
maybe this Wikipedia article may give you some insight into the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_scanner
~HD
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Well, I wouldn't say that flatbeds get _half_, but they don't get as much resolution as they claim. But they get the job done depending on the job they are being asked to do.
Hardware dust removal, if you're shooting c41 or slides, is far superior to the software-based ones. But there are some flatbeds that have ICE, too, though they are slower than dedicated scanners.
allan
Hardware dust removal, if you're shooting c41 or slides, is far superior to the software-based ones. But there are some flatbeds that have ICE, too, though they are slower than dedicated scanners.
allan
lZr
L&M
One must have the idea about the size of negs and slides in time. I use Epson 4990 for 35, 120, 4x5 negs and slides. The ICE can do it with compromise for the final image.
kully
Happy Snapper
I have the Nikon V ED and am happy with it. I bought it in March and at the time I took some 35mm film to the shop and tried the Nikon, a Canon 9500F and Epson something (it was a bit more expensive than the Canon). The Nikon was definitely the better of the lot.
The bad things with the Nikon is you're limited to putting in strips of 2-6 frames at a time. With some flatbeds you can put 36 frames in the holder, set it off and then go watch a film.
Bad things with flatbeds apart from quality are dust (I have a Canon flatbed and there is dust under the glass after one year of use) and speed (the canon and epson were soooo slow at max quality - I can't remember exactly but for one frame scanned with ICE I had a chat with the manager, had a look around their 2nd hand stuff, had another chat with the manager then went for a 10 minute walk around town and then had to wait a few minutes...).
Another thing to consider is different film formats, I've started using 6x6 and I can't scan it in. Some flatbeds let you do different sizes as lzr points out. Once you get to 6x6 I've heard flatbeds are cool anyway because you don't need to try and pull as much information per square inch as with the small 35mm frames.
It's all about what you want quality wise really, I made do with a Canon 3200F and scanning from prints and occasionaly frames for a while - absolutely fine for the web. You can check the results from that scanner here: http://superkully.com/wpblog/?page_id=37
(The V ED results are here: http://superkully.com/wpblog/?page_id=38)
Also, have a look at this: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22719, a huge scanner test carried out here on RFF.
The bad things with the Nikon is you're limited to putting in strips of 2-6 frames at a time. With some flatbeds you can put 36 frames in the holder, set it off and then go watch a film.
Bad things with flatbeds apart from quality are dust (I have a Canon flatbed and there is dust under the glass after one year of use) and speed (the canon and epson were soooo slow at max quality - I can't remember exactly but for one frame scanned with ICE I had a chat with the manager, had a look around their 2nd hand stuff, had another chat with the manager then went for a 10 minute walk around town and then had to wait a few minutes...).
Another thing to consider is different film formats, I've started using 6x6 and I can't scan it in. Some flatbeds let you do different sizes as lzr points out. Once you get to 6x6 I've heard flatbeds are cool anyway because you don't need to try and pull as much information per square inch as with the small 35mm frames.
It's all about what you want quality wise really, I made do with a Canon 3200F and scanning from prints and occasionaly frames for a while - absolutely fine for the web. You can check the results from that scanner here: http://superkully.com/wpblog/?page_id=37
(The V ED results are here: http://superkully.com/wpblog/?page_id=38)
Also, have a look at this: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22719, a huge scanner test carried out here on RFF.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
femto: the Epson flatbed V700 has hardware based dust removal (ICE, the real thing!). It works very well but it is extremely slow. A 6x6 frame at 2400 dpi and ICE on, takes 20+ minutes to scan.
The dynamic range is (supposed to be) better for film scanners. The sharpness of the scan is compromised in flatbeds too, although much detail will be back with some USM applied.
If you need the scanner for medium format or large format too, flatbed is the way to go (unless you can afford a multiformat scanner). If you only use 35mm, makes no sense, you are better off with a film scanner - you can even try to find a second-hand minolta elite or dual IV.
The dynamic range is (supposed to be) better for film scanners. The sharpness of the scan is compromised in flatbeds too, although much detail will be back with some USM applied.
If you need the scanner for medium format or large format too, flatbed is the way to go (unless you can afford a multiformat scanner). If you only use 35mm, makes no sense, you are better off with a film scanner - you can even try to find a second-hand minolta elite or dual IV.
lZr
L&M
Epson flatbed is brilliant scanner for medium format negs and slides. Amazing for b&w 6x9, 6x7 and 6x6 formats.
beethamd
Unix-like
I've spent a bit more time with the 750 pro this week - I'm now more impressed with the quality of the Bronica RF lenses as well as the scanner's resolving power. Here's one of the first shots I took with the Bronica, in Wales.
