Scanners

[Grandad35]

I'm in the market for a new scanner. I haven't found a good site with this information and the reviews that are out there don't answer my questions. This scanner will be used for (in this order):
1. Photos
2. 35 mm negatives
3. 4x5 B&W negatives
4. 35 mm slides

Questions:
1. Do today's flatbed scanners give acceptable scans of negatives/slides? The 35 mm negatives/slides aren't professional quality - only family snaps taken with consumer grade cameras. Is a dedicated 35 mm film scanner necessary?
2. Does FARE work as well as ICE, or should I plan on lots of PhotoShopping?
3. What are the advantages of the $450 range scanners over the $150 scanners?
4. What are the differences between LED and fluorescent light sources pertaining to the quality of the scans?
5. Any particular recommendations?

 

[tyamada]

Your questions are a bit hard to answer because there are so many answers.

1. The newest Epson(4990)/Canon(9950) high end scanners get good reviews and will do the jobs listed with supplied adapters. The Flatbed scanners are not as good as a dedicated film scanner because of the optics, resolution and price (usually more expensive).

2. I have read reports that FARE is a little better than ICE.

3. The more expensive scanners have better optics and their native resolution is higher.

4. The LED type of scanner has zero depth of filed, and the fluroscent light source scanner will have a color cast, however the color cast can be corrected by a profile.

5. You might want to check the Epson 4180 price is resonable for a 4800 dpi scanner.

Here is a link to a review of the Epson 4990: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson 4990/Page 1.htm

Here is a link to a review of Vuescan (Epson 4990 and Canon 9950 were use for the test): http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/software/Vuescan/page-1.htm

Here is a link to scanner tips, has a lot of information on scanners and how to use them: http://www.scantips.com/

 

[tyamada]

Here is another link to a discussion on dedicated film scanners vs flatbed scanners: http://groups-beta.google.com/group...060b718c295/d9a6820326c370f6#d9a6820326c370f6

 

[bobglen97]

I'm in the market for a new scanner. I haven't found a good site with this information and the reviews that are out there don't answer my questions. This scanner will be used for (in this order):
1. Photos
2. 35 mm negatives
3. 4x5 B&W negatives
4. 35 mm slides

Questions:
1. Do today's flatbed scanners give acceptable scans of negatives/slides? The 35 mm negatives/slides aren't professional quality - only family snaps taken with consumer grade cameras. Is a dedicated 35 mm film scanner necessary?
2. Does FARE work as well as ICE, or should I plan on lots of PhotoShopping?
3. What are the advantages of the $450 range scanners over the $150 scanners?
4. What are the differences between LED and fluorescent light sources pertaining to the quality of the scans?
5. Any particular recommendations?

The cost for having negatives and slides professionally scanned is about $1.00- 1.50 for a 4000 dpi scan. Cheaper for less resolution....So if you really have a lot that need to be scanned, then the $450 scanner is a must, as you will save so much time (little or no noise from dust etc. in the image file) using digital ice/fare capable scanners.

The lower end scanners (lower hardware resolution) are fine for 4x6 photos. Scan at appropriate resolutions for the desired output, usually 300dpi final output is sufficient......in no case scan higher than the "hardware dpi" of the scanner, resize in PS. Most low end scanners will have a "native" color cast that can be profiled out, or easily corrected in PS. The sweet spot (center) of a lower res scanner will be more "pronounced".....make a cardboard cut-out for the photo size, and you will get better scans, and save time in PS straightening images.

LEDS tend to provide a more consistent lumens, but probably not noticeable in high end scanners.

A high end Epson or canon scanner should suit your needs for negatives and slides.

AT DPR, you will find support for epson scanners/tips/techniques on the Epson board.

 

[drc023]

I'd look at this newsgroup: comp.periphs.scanners and as previously mentioned, by all means go to www.scantips.com. Scantips is an outstanding website. I've had many scanners over the years and they are getting better all the time. I haven't gotten a new one since my Epson 1660 several years ago. I'm sure it's not anywhere on par with the newest Epson scanners, but it still does a fantastic job of scanning. Based on what I've read online, if I was in the market today for a scanner, my first choice would still be Epson, followed closely by Canon.

 

[Nifty]

I'm not a scanner expert, but I hear my brother raving about Epson scanners all the time.

 

[Grandad35]

Thanks to everyone who responded with the helpful information - I now have a headache from chasing down the links. I have it narrowed to 3 choices that have similar specifications:
Epson 4990
Epson 4990 Pro
Canon 9950

1. What are the advantages of the 4990 Pro over the 4990? I can't find anything in the specifications to justify the extra cost.
2. From a few of the replies I see that the Epson scanners seem to be at least slightly preferred over the Canon scanners. Is the 4990 $50 better than the 9950?
3. Does anyone have any personal experience with any of these scanners? I will be profiling the scanner, so a color cast isn't a problem.

 

[tyamada]

The Epson 4990 Photo does not come with Monaco Color managemet software the 4990 Pro does, otherwise the hardware (scanners) are exactly the same. That is the difference in price. I know you have profiling software so you don't need the Pro version.

I have the previous Epson 4870 Photo which is great. The 4990 is supposed to be faster when using ICE and have better shadow detail.

Can't comment on the Canon 9950.

Good luck on making a choice.

 

[Grandad35]

Tyamada,

Thanks for your input. Based on most reports that I read, the Epson 4990 generates sharper image files than the Canon 9950, justifying its higher price. I just ordered the 4990.

Thanks to everyone who responded. It's great to have a forum where you can get this type of information from people you can trust.

 

[Grandad35]

I have been scanning a number of old photos and negatives using the Epson 4990, and I thought that some of you might like to see what is possible when scanning 35 mm negatives on a flat bed scanner. Most of my negatives were taken with P&S cameras on 400 speed film, so the film grain, less than perfect focus and camera lens limitations did not result in negatives that were sharp enough to make a good analysis of the scanner's capabilities. However, I finally found some negatives that were taken by a professional sports photographer on 100 speed film while my family attended a driving school. These negatives were shot while the car was in motion by panning the camera using some very nice equipment, and are as sharp as any negatives that I will ever encounter.

The negative was scanned at 4800 ppi, giving 6650 pixels on the 35mm side of the image. The following image shows 4 versions of a 600x200 pixel section of the image showing a logo on the car door that allowed me to get an idea of the quality of the scan. The top image is "as scanned". The second is after running the "Dust&Scratches" and "Reduce Noise" filters in Photoshop. The third is after running "Noise Ninja" (another noise reduction program), and the last is after sharpening the image with USM.

I was quite impressed with the results - remember that the width of this image is only 9% of the total width, equal to 3.15 mm (1/8") on the film. The final image was resized down to 3600x2400 (8.6 Mpix) and gives a beautiful print on a 12x18 sheet. I understand that a dedicated film scanner will give better results than a flatbed scanner, but I doubt that I would be able to see the difference on any negatives that I have. In fact, I normally scan at only 2400 ppi, as the grain on 400 speed film gives so much noise that any more resolution is meaningless.

You might want to download the image so that you can blow it up to better judge the quality of the finished image from a 4800 ppi scan.