Are any flatbed film scanners any good?

[Still A Film Photographer]

I normally get my film scanned by a lab, but the cheap lab I've been using
has had a change in management, and have raised their price to be on par
with every other expensive place in town, plus they will no longer do the
higher quality option which gives images about 3300x2200. Now they will only
do the basic 1800x1200 option.
So, I'm now looking for a scanner to scan my own film. I'm thinking of
either a Minolta Dualscan 4 or Primefilm 3600, that I can get at reasonable
prices. I am also in need of a new flatbed scanner, so was thinking of
killing two birds with one stone and getting a flatbed with film
capability - but only if there is a decent one. A friend has a HP 3670, and
I found it delivers terrible quality scans - colours are woeful and even
with heaps of photoshop fiddling I can't get anything vaguely close to what
it should be like. Plus the fact that it can only accept 2 negs at a time
was a pain in the butt - I get my negs cut into 6's, so I'd have to cut them
again to use the middle 2 shots. My mounted slides wouldn't fit into the
film holder on it, so I couldn't test it with slides. The images were also
somewhat blurry.
My father has an Epson RX510 multifunction, which I thought was a very nice
machine until I tried it's film scanning - colours were spot on, but the
images were incredibly soft - it was like it didn't focus properly. The
scans looked like you were viewing them through fogged glass (yes I did
check everything was clean). The colour neg holder worked well and holds
strips of 6 which is good, but the slide holder was a pain - it took forever
to get the slides sitting on it properly.
So my question is, are any flatbed scanners any better? I was considering
the RX510, but not anymore. I'm now considering the Epson 4180, which is
about the same price as the above dedicated film scanners, but also offers
higher resolution and the option to do 120 format. Does anyone know if this
scanner is worthwhile? Are any of the Canon/HP offerings any good for film?

 

[hpowen]

The short answer is no. I have never been happy with 35mm film scans
from a flatbed because they are just too soft. For that matter, I am
only *reasonably* happy with scans from my Coolscan 4000.

If you must have both, but a cheap flatbed and put your money into a
film scanner.

 

[-]

The 4180 will most likely be better than the RX series but its 35 mm initial
sharpness is still not going to be as good as a Dual Scan IV. A lot depends
on what is "good enough" for you. We can't really help you there. Do some
googling and look for test examples and reviews. . If you aren't even
doing medium format yet, you might as well go for the Minolta now. It is
not a huge investment.

Doug

 

[One4All]

See discussions under Flatbed vs Film Scanners in this group.

 

[Tom Ellliott]

Well, at the risk of getting FLAMMED! and since the temperature today in
Miami has dropped below 70 I can use the warmth, here is a link to my
solution untill I got the Epson Perfection 2450 for $19.00 at a Goodwill
store:
http://www.tom-elliott-photography.com/hp-scanner.html
I now use, with very good results, the Epson, for newsletters, brochures,
and ... my portfolio.
I did a comparison with my "wet darkroom" prints and the prints made with
the combo of the Epson 2450 scanner and the Epson 1280 and a viewing
distance one is hard pressed to tell the difference. Now under closer look
with an 20 power loop, yes there is a difference.
The real test is when I eventually send my scanned negs/slides to a service
bureau for a wet print.
I already know that the Kodak PRO Photo CD scans are perfect. 16x20
retouched prints are perfect. Then only way one can tell the difference in
the CD scans is my lack of some areas of retouching.
Other than that, if one is carefull with the latest flatbed
reflective/transparencies scanners you can get away with alot. The other
most import area is calibration.
Have fun and make pictures.
Yours,
Tom