May 05 Consumer Reports

[Mike Fox]

I really have trusted Consumer Reports in the past--BUT---

They say about scanners, and I quote:
"Our tests show that the best flatbeds are now a match for pricey film
scanners when it come to digitizing slides and negatives." For one,
they recommended the Epson Perfection 4180 Photo, $200, 4800 dpi
optical, 48 color-bit, w slide and negative adapter.

WOW! Is it true? I've been longing (lusting?) for a Nikon Coolscan
5000 but couldn't afford one. Has anyone any experince comparing a
high end film scanner and a quality 4800 dpi flat-bed? If the
flat-bed came even close, I'd probably go for one.

However, I have an old, old HP Photosmart Photo scanner (2400 dpi) and
a fairly new Microtek Scanmaker 4900, (2400 dpi) flat-bed, and I ran a
comparison of them on a good quality slide. The flatbed did a
noteably poorer job on the slide, so I don't feel like running out to
buy an Epson 4180 without some independent recommendations based on
experience.

Anyone have such experience they'd like to share?

Mike

 

[One4All]

I really have trusted Consumer Reports in the past--BUT---

They say about scanners, and I quote:
"Our tests show that the best flatbeds are now a match for pricey film
scanners when it come to digitizing slides and negatives." For one,
they recommended the Epson Perfection 4180 Photo, $200, 4800 dpi
optical, 48 color-bit, w slide and negative adapter.

WOW! Is it true? I've been longing (lusting?) for a Nikon Coolscan
5000 but couldn't afford one. Has anyone any experince comparing a
high end film scanner and a quality 4800 dpi flat-bed? If the
flat-bed came even close, I'd probably go for one.

Mike,

See my March 31 posting under topic, Flatbed vs Film Scanners. Not
trusting my own eyes, I took the prints to a knowledgeable friend, who,
not knowing which print was from which scanner, noted that the print
from the Epson was sharper and had better detail in the shadows than
the Dimage. However, he concluded, "The two are awfully close." At a
$1,600 difference, it's a no-brainer.

Dave

 

[hpowen]

You might want to check the results of the 2004 Scanner Bake-Off. The
first Epson flatbed on the list came in at 60th place (if I counted
correctly), behind 58 film scanners and 1 HP flatbed. Analysis was done
by software and not by eyeball.

Remember that the detail required to make a passable print (especially
a 4x6) is minimal. Try making a sharp 4x6 print out of a 30% crop and
see how your flatbed fares. Here is an example, a 4x6 @ 300ppi that is
30% of the original 35mm image area.

<a
href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1cZhW9kjzfQOCA6MXGtPYRAm66lu"/><img
src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1cZhW9kjzfQOCA6MXGtPYRAm66lu_thumb.jpg"
border="0"/></a>

If the thumbnail doesn't show up, you can try the direct link, but it
may not be compatible with the No Hot Linking rules.

http://www.pixentral.com/pics/1cZhW9kjzfQOCA6MXGtPYRAm66lu.jpg

 

[Frank]

You might want to check the results of the 2004 Scanner Bake-Off. The
first Epson flatbed on the list came in at 60th place (if I counted
correctly), behind 58 film scanners and 1 HP flatbed. Analysis was done
by software and not by eyeball.

Remember that the detail required to make a passable print (especially
a 4x6) is minimal. Try making a sharp 4x6 print out of a 30% crop and
see how your flatbed fares. Here is an example, a 4x6 @ 300ppi that is
30% of the original 35mm image area.

<a
href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1cZhW9kjzfQOCA6MXGtPYRAm66lu"/><img
src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1cZhW9kjzfQOCA6MXGtPYRAm66lu_thumb.jpg"
border="0"/></a>

If the thumbnail doesn't show up, you can try the direct link, but it
may not be compatible with the No Hot Linking rules.

http://www.pixentral.com/pics/1cZhW9kjzfQOCA6MXGtPYRAm66lu.jpg

You know I kind of have trouble with..."Analysis was done
by software and not by eyeball", seeing as how I only sell prints to
humans with eyeballs. Is there a big market for selling prints to
software? Am I missing a money making opportunity?
Please, let me know.
Frank

 

[hpowen]

LOL@Frank.

The point was that an effort was made to minimize human subjectivity.
Still, the test was not rigorously scientific for a number of reasons.

The good news is that the scanner output can be viewed and compared (by
eyeball) here:

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

I really have trusted Consumer Reports in the past--BUT---

They say about scanners, and I quote:
"Our tests show that the best flatbeds are now a match for pricey film
scanners when it come to digitizing slides and negatives." For one,
they recommended the Epson Perfection 4180 Photo, $200, 4800 dpi
optical, 48 color-bit, w slide and negative adapter.

WOW! Is it true? I've been longing (lusting?) for a Nikon Coolscan
5000 but couldn't afford one. Has anyone any experince comparing a
high end film scanner and a quality 4800 dpi flat-bed? If the
flat-bed came even close, I'd probably go for one.

However, I have an old, old HP Photosmart Photo scanner (2400 dpi) and
a fairly new Microtek Scanmaker 4900, (2400 dpi) flat-bed, and I ran a
comparison of them on a good quality slide. The flatbed did a
noteably poorer job on the slide, so I don't feel like running out to
buy an Epson 4180 without some independent recommendations based on
experience.

Anyone have such experience they'd like to share?

Mike

Everyone would like to belive that inexpensive flatbeds are just as good
as expensive dedicated scanners.

It's just not true.

Good film scanners are sharper, more uniform in their focus, have less
noise, greater dymanic range, more accurate color reproduction than
flatbeds.

Are there many people who will NOT see the difference. Yes. Just as
disposable cameras are great for lots of people.

Consumer reports is NOT reviewing items for the enthusiast but for the
mass market whose photo quality expectations are fairly low.

 

[David Chien]

the short answer, no. Film/Slide scanners are still far, far better at
scanning film & slides in vs. any flatbed consumer level scanner
available.

You'll be better off spending even $300 on a Minolta Scan Dual IV vs.
the flatbed, and if you're really wanting a top-notch scanner, then the
Minolta 5400 I/II models for ~$700-900.

 

[One4All]

Are there many people who will NOT see the difference. Yes. Just as
disposable cameras are great for lots of people.

If many people cannot see the difference, this doesn't say much about
film scanners. If the difference were that great, then film scanners
would obviously shine. On the other hand, it's highly likely that
flatbeds have caught up with film scanners.

Consumer reports is NOT reviewing items for the enthusiast but for the
mass market whose photo quality expectations are fairly low.

Presented with two identical images, it doesn't take an expert to
notice the better image if that image is, indeed, better. If a flatbed
scan turns out better than a film scan, which happened in a run-off
between my Dimage Multi II and my Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, well,
there it is.

To answer an earlier posting in this thread, if a comparison between 8
x 10 images shows a slight difference, or no difference, in terms of
sharpness and range of tonality, what's the use of magnification? If a
flatbed scan that looks better at 8 x 10, or at least is no different
from a film scan, what's the use of magnification? Especially, if it
looks better?

Remember, we're talking about a roughly $1K difference. It's not true
that paying $1K less for a flatbed scanner, nowadays, produces inferior
results. For example, the film holder for my Dimage is no better than
the film holder for my Epson. It doesn't hold the film flatter; it's
the same glassless, plastic type of holder.

 

[Anoni Moose]

Remember, we're talking about a roughly $1K difference. It's not true
that paying $1K less for a flatbed scanner, nowadays, produces inferior
results. For example, the film holder for my Dimage is no better than
the film holder for my Epson. It doesn't hold the film flatter; it's
the same glassless, plastic type of holder.

Are flatbed scanners THAT much more expensive than a film scanner?

My Minolta 5400 film scanner does a spectacularly great job (compared
output with a friend's flatbed, and the film scanner blew it away, not
even close). My Minolta was only about $600. $1K less means they give
me $400 along with giving me the flatbed. I think I'd take that deal.


Note that some film scanners can blow away other film scanners (my
Minolta 5400 blows away my previous Polaroid). They're not all
equivalent. Some also are spendy because they're MF scanners, not
because they're that much better (well, it's valid if one is scanning
MF, but most folk aren't).

Mike

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

If many people cannot see the difference, this doesn't say much about
film scanners. If the difference were that great, then film scanners
would obviously shine. On the other hand, it's highly likely that
flatbeds have caught up with film scanners.



Presented with two identical images, it doesn't take an expert to
notice the better image if that image is, indeed, better. If a flatbed
scan turns out better than a film scan, which happened in a run-off
between my Dimage Multi II and my Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, well,
there it is.

To answer an earlier posting in this thread, if a comparison between 8
x 10 images shows a slight difference, or no difference, in terms of
sharpness and range of tonality, what's the use of magnification? If a
flatbed scan that looks better at 8 x 10, or at least is no different
from a film scan, what's the use of magnification? Especially, if it
looks better?

Remember, we're talking about a roughly $1K difference. It's not true
that paying $1K less for a flatbed scanner, nowadays, produces inferior
results. For example, the film holder for my Dimage is no better than
the film holder for my Epson. It doesn't hold the film flatter; it's
the same glassless, plastic type of holder.

Well there you go. You can't tell the difference, so enjoy the less
expensive flatbed!

 

[David J. Littleboy]

If many people cannot see the difference, this doesn't say much about
film scanners. If the difference were that great, then film scanners
would obviously shine.

You'd have to be blind not to see the difference here:

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original

Whether that difference is enough to make US$2000 worth it over US$499.95 is
a different question.

On the other hand, it's highly likely that
flatbeds have caught up with film scanners.

It's not a matter of likelihood, it's a matter of objective reality that
they're not even close.

Presented with two identical images, it doesn't take an expert to
notice the better image if that image is, indeed, better. If a flatbed
scan turns out better than a film scan, which happened in a run-off
between my Dimage Multi II and my Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, well,
there it is.

It sounds like you are failing to get the best from your Multi II. I've not
seen any tests that indicate that it's significantly worse than the Nikon
8000, which is a lot better than the 4870.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[One4All]

My Minolta 5400 film scanner does a spectacularly great job (compared

output with a friend's flatbed, and the film scanner blew it away, not
even close). My Minolta was only about $600. $1K less means they give
me $400 along with giving me the flatbed. I think I'd take that deal.

Ok, so we're down to a $200 difference. Given that the flatbed is more
versatile (ability to scan flatwork), advantage to flatbed. You don't
mention the capabilities of your friend's flatbed.

To be fair, a film scanner capable of 5400 dpi is obviously superior to
a flatbed capable of 4800 dpi, just as a flatbed of 4800 dpi is
superior to a film scanner capable of 2820 dpi. That's my argument:
Compare apples to apples, regardless of whether flatbed or film
scanner. Look at output of the scanners. My argument is that a flatbed,
at less cost, at the same specs as a film scanner, produces the same,
maybe better output, than a film scanner.

If all you want to do is scan 35-mm transparencies and negatives, go
for the film scanner you can afford. But, with flatwork and medium and
large format film capability, your 35-mm film will not suffer with a
quality scanner like the Epson Perfection 4870 Photo.

Yes, one can have both a quality 35-mm film scanner and a quality
flatbed scanner for $1K. Question is, how many can afford both?

 

[One4All]

You'd have to be blind not to see the difference here:

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original

Not sure that this Website is nothing other than a promotion of your
photography. I have no time to decipher the coding, etc. of the various
images.

It's not a matter of likelihood, it's a matter of objective reality that
they're not even close.
BS.

It sounds like you are failing to get the best from your Multi II.

Tell me how to do that.

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

My Minolta 5400 film scanner does a spectacularly great job (compared



Ok, so we're down to a $200 difference. Given that the flatbed is more
versatile (ability to scan flatwork), advantage to flatbed. You don't
mention the capabilities of your friend's flatbed.

To be fair, a film scanner capable of 5400 dpi is obviously superior to
a flatbed capable of 4800 dpi, just as a flatbed of 4800 dpi is
superior to a film scanner capable of 2820 dpi. That's my argument:
Compare apples to apples, regardless of whether flatbed or film
scanner. Look at output of the scanners. My argument is that a flatbed,
at less cost, at the same specs as a film scanner, produces the same,
maybe better output, than a film scanner.

If all you want to do is scan 35-mm transparencies and negatives, go
for the film scanner you can afford. But, with flatwork and medium and
large format film capability, your 35-mm film will not suffer with a
quality scanner like the Epson Perfection 4870 Photo.

Yes, one can have both a quality 35-mm film scanner and a quality
flatbed scanner for $1K. Question is, how many can afford both?

I own both a flatbed and a film scanner - horses for courses. Actually I
have two film scanners - a Nikon 4000 and a Minolta Multi I (for medium
format). The flatbed is a Umax 2200.

If you want to believe that the output of a flatbed is equal to that of
a decent film scanner, go ahead. If you're happy with the flatbed
output, by all means continue. There is no reason for you to spend more.

However, the truth is that "specs" don't tell the whole story. I can
tell you from personal experience that the output of a 4800 dpi flatbed
is NOT superior to that of a 2820 dpi film scanner. I've seen the
results side by side, and the film scanner output is superior. Its
sharper, has greater dynamic range, less noise, and better color
fidelity and saturation.

I've compared the epson output over the years to various film scanners.
The epsons are good. Better than my current flatbed. No where near the
film scanners.

In fact, the last year's epsons at highest resolution were no where near
the quality of my minolta multi I at 1000 dpi with medium format
transparencies. And the minolta is at least 5 years old. And my Nikon
4000 is significantly better than my Multi I on 35 mm.

As are the Nikon 40, 50, the $500 canons and the $500 minolta film
scanners and a host of other current film scanners.

I don't think its a stretch to say that this year's latest and greatest
epson is marginally better than last year's, but still no where near
decent film scanners.

One day flat beds may be equal to film scanners. That day is not now.

Again, believe what you want. I do thousands of scans a year and I know
that film scanners are better.

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

David J. Littleboy wrote:




Not sure that this Website is nothing other than a promotion of your
photography. I have no time to decipher the coding, etc. of the various
images.



Tell me how to do that.

David posted side by side's of the flat bed you are interested vs. a
current high quality Nikon film scanner. The epson is ot in the same
league.

And yes, you will get similar high quality results from significantly
less expensive film scanners than the Nikon 8000. The less expesive
Nikons and canons and minoltas are no less sharp or saturated - they
differ in other features.

 

[David Chien]

Not that expensive! Don't know why nobody is using the price search
engines like shopper.com and pricegrabber.com to find the lowest online
prices:

eg
Page computer - minolta scan dual iv : $215
http://newsite.pagecomputers.com/st...&category_name=26gc162s1405&product_id=440482

dimage scan 5400 II : $525
http://newsite.pagecomputers.com/st...&category_name=32gc302s1287&product_id=738309

 

[jefflaw]

Couple things here....

First of all the Microtek 4900 is a sub $150 scanner at its height and
was not designed for scanning slides/negatives, etc. It is a home
flatbed scanner primarily designed for text and photos to email, post
on the web, print out, etc.

Second, if you are going to be scanning large volumes of positive or
negative material then I would implore you to purchase a dedicated
slide/negative scanner. The output is far superior to any flatbed
scanner. If you do want the versatility of having both then look for
scanners that have a glassless bed for scanning slides/negatives. The
Microtek i900 does a great job at both, and has enough power to produce
images for those who casually use the scanner for a wide variety of
purposes. I personally own one and am pleased with it. I also own a
dedicated slide scanner as well, for those jobs which require special
attention.

 

[ian lincoln]

I believe what may be happening is that high end flatbed scanners are of
this year are catching up or overtaking the cheap end of the dedicated film
scanners, Bearing in mind that you can pay over £300 for flatbeds and
cheaper dedicated film scanners are £150 upwards. I agree with another
poster who said halve the flatbed stated resolution and that is the
dedicated film scanner it really measures up to. Its a matter of space. A
seperate flatbed, film and medium format is alot of deskspace. Medium
format scanners aren't cheap. Because of the inherent quality of medium
format you could probably use an expensive flatbed and gain an acceptable
result equal to a £500 35mm film scanner. As for the rest it is wishful
thinking.

 

[One4All]

Consumer Reports says, "Our tests show that the best flatbeds are now

a match for pricey film >scanners when it comes to digitizing slides
and negatives." If the flatbed came even close, I'd >probably go for
one.

Mike, it comes down to this: Theoretically, you have $500 to spend on a
scanner. If all you want to scan are 35-mm slides & negatives, buy a
film scanner. If you want to scan a variety of film formats larger than
35-mm and flatwork (prints, etc.), buy a flatbed. Your 35-mm will be
very close, nowadays, with a flatbed costing less than $500 (but not
too much less!). I recommend the Epson Perfection 4870 Photo flatbed.
There is a Pro version of this scanner, but I understand the difference
is in the software you get.

Search websites for reviews of the 4870 and similarly priced film
scanners. A lot of professional photographers out there are happy with
their 4870's. A lot of professional photographers out there are happy
with their film scanners. I'm not a professional photographer, but I'm
very happy with my 4870.

 

[Frank]

Mike Fox wrote:



a match for pricey film >scanners when it comes to digitizing slides
and negatives." If the flatbed came even close, I'd >probably go for
one.

Mike, it comes down to this: Theoretically, you have $500 to spend on a
scanner. If all you want to scan are 35-mm slides & negatives, buy a
film scanner. If you want to scan a variety of film formats larger than
35-mm and flatwork (prints, etc.), buy a flatbed. Your 35-mm will be
very close, nowadays, with a flatbed costing less than $500 (but not
too much less!). I recommend the Epson Perfection 4870 Photo flatbed.
There is a Pro version of this scanner, but I understand the difference
is in the software you get.

Search websites for reviews of the 4870 and similarly priced film
scanners. A lot of professional photographers out there are happy with
their 4870's. A lot of professional photographers out there are happy
with their film scanners. I'm not a professional photographer, but I'm
very happy with my 4870.

Me too!
Frank