While I still process my own film at home, I no longer have a darkroom available and have decided to go "dry" and so I'm am shopping for a scanner. I've read about dedicated film scanners, specifically the Canon 2720U and the Nikon Coolscan IV, but I'm considering the Espon 2450 for its versatility. Is there a appreciable difference in scan quality between the film scanner and a flatbed? Any experiences or opinions are much appreciated.

Thank you.

For some of you this may not be specific enough to the forum. Others, hopefully will recogize me as an occassional contributer here and that I shoot Leica. My apologies for the disclaimer...

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), January 08, 2002

Answers

You must be a mind reader. I just read a test report of the Epson 2450 in Shuttertbug and was wondering if I could get similar results to the Coolscan IV and save a LOT of money. The ability to scan medium format is another advantage. Does anyone know if the Epson hase something similar to Digital Ice?

-- gerald (sanford@usa.com), January 08, 2002.

I'm interested in this also. My Polaroid 45 isn't state-of-the-art resolution any more, and my fax machine is on its last leg. A flatbed scanner that'll take 6x6 and 35mm and give film-scanner results would be something I'd definitely ask the Easter Bunny for.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 08, 2002.

I have both Minolta Scan Dual II and Epson 2450. Depending upon your needs, the Epson can do a good job with 35mm, but not for presentation printing in my estimation. See my page, http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/ photostuff/epson2450test/e2450.htm for details.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), January 08, 2002.

Jeff et al:

As Godfrey's samples show, TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free...you get the idea) If the Epson could deliver film-scan quality comparable to a Nikon 4000 (or whatever) it would be priced like a Nikon 4000 (or whatever).

nnnrrrrf!

Hey, I paid $1800.00 for a film-only, 35mm-only scanner 5 years ago. Now for that $1800.00 I could get a film scanner AND a flatbed that's sharp enuff for 6x6 AND a CD burner and get back change.

Don't be cheap - be good!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 08, 2002.

I get excellent results with the Canon D2400U. It cost less than $500 at B&H, and has great resolution and color rendition for a flatbed. A few gripes. The negative carrier is small, reveals only three or four frames at a time. Ditto for the slide window, which holds no more than two mounts. But the dust removal software is reliable, and the scans are suitable for 10x14 prints. (I use the Epson 1280). The key, I've found, is not to fret over the scanner. Get used to the idea that an hour after you make the purchase, something better and cheaper will come along.

-- Eve Hessler (evehessler@hotmail.com), January 08, 2002.

I have to agree with the "free lunch" comment above.

I bought the 2450's predecessor, the 1640 after reading rave reviews on the net from a variety of people, and also seeing positive magazine reviews. Not that long after I bought it, some of the reviewers started talking about what I had found out fairly quickly. It wasn't as good as the somewhat lower resolution (and much more expensive) UMAX PowerLook III I bought it to replace.

It didn't focus that well (this was a common complaint), it had banding in solid areas like sky, the film holders were pathetic (especially if your negs have some curl) and it has a terrible driver. I'm not saying the 2450 is a repeat, but it's another cheap flatbed with transparency capability.

In the end, I bought a SprintScan 120 and can't say I regret it, despite the nearly 10x cost.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 08, 2002.

The lure of flatbeds for me is the notion that I could use them for fast proofing. But, the only one that I tried to do this with really didn't work so well (a cheaper UMAX Astra).

So my question would be, how fast can something like the Sprintscan 120 scan 3 120 frames or 6 to 12 35mm frames?

I'm thinking that the 2450 and a cheaper 35mm film scanner might be the most cost effective combo...

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), January 08, 2002.

I've been researching this myself.

LINK #1

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 08, 2002.

LINK #2

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 08, 2002.

To answer Pete's question...

Neither the Sprintscan nor the 2450 is good for proofing. A flatbed that can handle a whole roll, like the PowerLook III (which is much better than the Astra), in one shot. There are film scanners that will handle a whole roll, but I'm not sure which ones, but I don't know of any that handle 120.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 08, 2002.

LINK #3

Note the author demonstrates that this scanner is not as sharp as his dedicated film scanner, even though the stated resolution is almost as high. So, as Jeff Spirer pointed out, there must be a focus problem. High digital resolution apparently does not mean that the unit will be optically sharp. Nevertheless, I think it would be a good entry level scanner. I plan to get one to get my feet wet with digital. I think Pete is on the right track with the idea of pairing it with a decent dedicated scanner for 35mm. I figure on probably a Nikon Coolscan ($1500) or the Minolta Dimage. The 2450 can be used for 6x6 and for scanning prints. For 35mm, the evidence is that it's limited.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 08, 2002.

The Epson 2450's transparency illuminator is 4x9" in length, which means that if you're willing to sacrifice some quality in color balance and exposure, eschew use of the negative carrier and deal with HUGE scan files, you can proof several film strips of 35mm and 120 format at once.

I don't find this to be terribly useful, although I've done it. I find that I can understand a 120 format negative well enough that I don't bother proofing them, I just scan the ones I believe will be good photos. For 35mm, if I want positive proofs, I use the Minolta Scan Dual II and scan them quickly at low resolution, one frame at a time but automated. A full roll of 36 exposures is then available as modest resolution scan files and can be composited together to print a proof sheet (much better than any single-exposure proof sheet from the darkroom!).

It's challenging to figure out the best way to go. The 2450 is quite a good scanner, I don't know about the Epson software because I only use it with VueScan. Similarly, the Minolta SDII is an excellent low-cost scanner and I don't know how Minolta'ssoftware is any more because I use VueScan. The pair of them, for about $900, gives me all the resolution I need for the film end of my digital darkroom.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), January 09, 2002.

Try www.imaging-resource for scanner reviews.

The new Minolta Dimage Mutli Pro scans 35mm at 4,800dpi and medium format at 3,200 dpi. Its probably worthwhile taking a look at it. I've seen reviews which rate flatbeds quite poorly against high resolution film scanners.

I'm seriously considering the Minolta based on reviews and also customer feedback that Nigel Skeet (owner of Beverley Hills Camera Centre) has been receiving on the Nikon CoolScan 8000 ED - probably the only close competitor to Minolta's new device.

-- Phil Allsopp (pallsopp42@home.com), January 09, 2002.

For three months , I have had the same problem you did . After a bad experience with the scan dual ii ( I only use tri-X and hie ), I went with the coolscan iv ed . A bit pricy at 895 , but it handles b+w tones beautifully . I cannot even begin to imagine how good the coolscan 4000 is !

leonid

-- leonid kotlyar (kotlyarl@mail.nih.gov), January 09, 2002.

Has anyone seen the Microtek Artixscan 4000t? It costs $800 at B&H, has 4000x4000 dpi like the Nikon. If it's any good, that's a lot of bang for the buck.

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), January 09, 2002.

Another question concerning high quality flatbeds. If you limit your size (6x9 inch for full frame) do they work for 35mm? I'm talking flatbeds at or about 1200-1600 dpi (Acer scan premio, Umax Powerlook 3, Epson 1680xl Pro). Does the higher quality scan (hopefully, for the money you spent over a cheap flatbed) allow better-interpolated prints(at say, 8x12)?

-- JDR (jrivera@vapop.ucsd.edu), January 09, 2002.

Pat,

I recall reading somewhere (can’t find it at the moment) that the Microtek 4000 has the same internals as the Polaroid SprintScan 4000. The promo photos for the M look identical to the P other than the positions of some switches & lights. The specs are identical as well.

If it is the same, then it is indeed a good performer, especially with slides. I have the Polaroid and like it alot. I see it for $750 - $200 rebate at B&H which is a lot of scanner for the money. This includes the Silverfast plugin for Photoshop which is pretty nice too. Only does 35mm, but then so does my M6.

Cheers,

-- Jeff Stuart (jstuart1@tampabay.rr.com), January 09, 2002.

You could always get your film scanned with a (top-of-the-range, absurdly expensive) scanner onto a $10 photo CD, then lash out on a top quality printer. OTOH (On the other hand) the latest Epson 1650 Photo Scanner and Stylus Photo 810 printer both have got good reviews, and would be worth checking out. I'd be interested to know how you get on.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), January 10, 2002.

My advice would be to go for a second hand Nikon LS2000 and install Vuescan. If you need to do a lot of scanning you can then add the SF- 200 (I think) batch scanner. This combo will give you around 20 to 40 immaculate 2700 dpi scans an hour depending on scan settings, proccessor etc.

I think the LS200's are pretty cheap now, so it's a good deal, and Vuescan really does give extraordinary scan quality (for $40 registration).

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 10, 2002.