Flatbed better than FILM Scanner

[Mike Fox]

The April copy of PCWorld, page 138, says the $200 Epson Perfection
3170 flatbed does a better job than two $600 plus dedicated film
scanners. This goes against conventional wisdom. Has anyone had
similar experiences? I'd dearly love to get a flatbed that handles
slides well too.

Mike

 

[degrub]

ROTFLOL !

well it is PCWorld after all....

It really depends on what one is trying to do. IF you just want scans
for web images, then it might be good enough. If you are just wanting to
capture the image and don't really care about the dark areas of your
slides and getting the last bit of detail out, it is probably ok. If you
are not trying to enlarge the image 10X it may be ok. If its all you
can budget, then it is good enough. Bottom line, this level of flatbed
just doesn't have the true optical resolving capability and optical
density range that a current generation film scanner has. Read the posts
by Kennedy and others for all the technical details.

Frank

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

The April copy of PCWorld, page 138, says the $200 Epson Perfection
3170 flatbed does a better job than two $600 plus dedicated film
scanners. This goes against conventional wisdom.

Check the number of Epson adverts in recent copies of PC World - never
bite the hand that feeds...

 

[Leonard Evens]

The April copy of PCWorld, page 138, says the $200 Epson Perfection
3170 flatbed does a better job than two $600 plus dedicated film
scanners. This goes against conventional wisdom. Has anyone had
similar experiences? I'd dearly love to get a flatbed that handles
slides well too.

Mike

This runs counter to reports from users. I have an Epson 3200, which
uses similar technology to the 3170. It is fine for medium and large
format, but I don't find it truly acceptable for 35 mm. I don't know
which dedicated film scanners they compared it to, but user reports
suggest that the Minolta lower prices series I,II,III, and now IV do
better than the Epson 3200/3170. They cost about $300. Part of the
problem is that a quick test for a magazine article is testing both the
hardware and the provided software, without separating out the two.
Often, until you've learned to use the software properly, you can't get
optimal results from your scanner. It is quite possible the reviewers
just didn't know how to use the software in the dedicated film scanners.

Most people feel that for 35 mm, you are better off getting one of the
Minoltas and an inexpensive flatbed which doesn't do film.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Part of the problem is that a quick test for a magazine article is
testing both the hardware and the provided software, without separating
out the two. Often, until you've learned to use the software properly,
you can't get optimal results from your scanner. It is quite possible
the reviewers just didn't know how to use the software in the dedicated
film scanners.

Sadly, its much more likely, in that particular rag, that the reviewers
didn't even bother to test either the flatbed or the film scanner they
compared it to, but just quoted the manufacturer's hype and compared the
specifications of some film scanners! :-(

 

[David Napierkowski]

Bottom line, this level of flatbed

just doesn't have the true optical resolving capability and optical
density range that a current generation film scanner has. Read the posts
by Kennedy and others for all the technical details.

That might have once been true but the Epson 4870 does an outstanding job on
35mm transparancies and B&W and negatives as well as medium and large format.

Zero loss of shadow detail

Trust me.

David N..

 

[PJx]

The April copy of PCWorld, page 138, says the $200 Epson Perfection
3170 flatbed does a better job than two $600 plus dedicated film
scanners. This goes against conventional wisdom. Has anyone had
similar experiences? I'd dearly love to get a flatbed that handles
slides well too.

Mike

It's true. The improvement in 35mm slide scanning by flatbeds has
been fantastic. Almost every new model now has support for slide
scanning built in and produces absolutely beautiful results.

Pj

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

It's true. The improvement in 35mm slide scanning by flatbeds has
been fantastic. Almost every new model now has support for slide
scanning built in and produces absolutely beautiful results.

Pj

Tripe! There are scanners which are considerably better than this
budget model in the Epson range, but even they do not compete on
performance terms with even modest dedicated film scanners. Whilst the
3170 may be good, it certainly isn't anywhere as good as the PC World
article claims. Note the date of the magazine!

 

[Douglas MacDonald]

I think the real difference between a moderately good film scanner and a
very good flatbed with film capabilities is not so much the quality but the
scan times. Typically it takes nearly 15 minutes to complete a (175 MB file)
35mm scan with what is IMHO the best flatbed - Epson 4870 at 4800 dpi and
with Digital ICE. A dedicated film scanner does this in half the time. The
software indicates it will take 6 minutes... So much for accuracy!

Douglas
-----------------

 

[David C Miers]

And what about focus? Do any of the flatbeds today have focus adjustments?
To the best of my knowledge the epsons do not.

 

[-]

And what about focus? Do any of the flatbeds today have focus
adjustments?

To the best of my knowledge the epsons do not.

The complexity of a optical system that focuses drives the price of a
flatbed up quite a bit. The Epson 1680 has active focusing. Other
manufacturers also make flatbeds with active focusing but they too are
pricey.

Doug (a different Doug)

 

[Leonard Evens]

And what about focus? Do any of the flatbeds today have focus adjustments?
To the best of my knowledge the epsons do not.

The lower priced Epsons such as the 2450/3200/4870 have fixed focus and
rely on depth of field. Tests show that there is a best distance to
have the film from the glass, but it is not specially critical for
normal use.

The Epson 1680 and similar higher priced Epson flatbed scanners do allow
for focusing.