Need Flatbed Scanner Recommendation

[Ken Bennett]

Greetings,

I have been using an Epson 3200 Photo flatbed scanner at the studio for general purpose scans. I have been able to make nice prints from 6x6 negatives (chromogenic b+w negs), and they look great printed on 17x22-inch paper. But the scan quality is not consistent, and it doesn't have the Digital ICE technology found in my Nikon 4000 film scanner. That makes dust spotting something of a PITA.

So, I'd like to upgrade without spending a huge wad of cash. I have seen good reviews on the Epson 4990, but it doesn't seem to be available anymore. The Epson V700 and V750 are more than I'd like to spend. There is the Epson V-500, about $250, and the Epson 4490, about $175. Both will scan medium format film, and both appear to offer Digital ICE when scanning film.

Does anyone have any comments on either of these scanners? (No, I can't afford to buy an Imacon.)


Thanks in advance.

--Ken

[mcfoto]

Hi
Buy the V700 scanner, it is easy to use and very flexible. I did a lot of research in July this year & I could not believe how many scanner makers have dropped out. There are only 2 dedicated film scanners left, Imacon (HB) & Nikon. I have seen used Imacon scanners from about $1500.00 USD on ebay.

[Ken Bennett]

Thanks, Denis. Unfortunately, I just dropped about two grand on a 3800 and a bunch of paper and ink, so I don't have $500 for a scanner. That's why I asked about the two less expensive models.

Cheers,

Ken

[Jeremy Roussak]

Thanks, Denis. Unfortunately, I just dropped about two grand on a 3800 and a bunch of paper and ink, so I don't have $500 for a scanner. That's why I asked about the two less expensive models.

Cheers,

Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150320\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In the 80's, before it was possible to listen to music CD's without grimacing, I was very interested in hi-fi audio. The conventional wisdom then was that you should break the bank to buy the best turntable/tone arm/cartridge combination (spending money in that order), and worry about getting expensive preamp, amplifier and speakers later. The rationale was that once the signal was off the disc, it could at best not be made worse by any subsequent stage. Excellent speakers, for example, would merely show up the deficiencies in the earlier stages of the system. It seemed to make sense to me then, and certainly the Linn turntable that I bought in 1981 for the then staggering sum of £400 sounded fantastic (still does, though it's in need of a service), even through relatively cheap amplification and speakers.

There are some differences, of course, perhaps the most obvious being that all the stages in that setup were analogue, but it seems to me that the same principles apply here. Is there any point in having a fantastic printer if you can't get the best-quality scans to feed to it? Won't it just show up the lack of ability of the scanner?

Not much help to you, I appreciate. Comments, anyone?

Jeremy

[Kirk Gittings]

The other scanners you mentioned will not outperform the 3200. Watch the Epson clearence site to see if a refurbished 4990 shows up. Othewise I agree with Jeremy, this is not a place to skimp, try and afford a refurbished 700. It is a much superior machine to what you have. Also Microtek has a new one coming out which may have some improvement over the competition with auto focusing etc.

[PSA DC-9-30]

I'm looking for a good all-purpose (film / reflective) scanner for the lab I work in. Specifically, I need something that will work well with Kodak 4489 film (I am currently using this for imaging with a transmission electron microscope.) Would the Epson V700 be a good choice for this? (I assume it will scan reflective as well as film?)

Also, it says it has a USB 2.0 connection. Would it be possible to get a firewire connection? Do you think firewire would be significantly faster than USB 2.0 with this scanner?

[Ken Bennett]

Thank you for all the replies. I'll keep looking at the V-700 and -750, and stick with the 3200 Photo for now.

I should probably mention that I am scanning 6x6 negatives shot with a Holga camera (a toy camera with a single-element plastic lens). I'm not all that worried about showing deficiencies in the *scanner*. <grin> Mostly I'd like to avoid the time spent spotting out dust.

Thanks again.

--Ken

[jerryrock]

Thank you for all the replies. I'll keep looking at the V-700 and -750, and stick with the 3200 Photo for now.

I should probably mention that I am scanning 6x6 negatives shot with a Holga camera (a toy camera with a single-element plastic lens). I'm not all that worried about showing deficiencies in the *scanner*. <grin> Mostly I'd like to avoid the time spent spotting out dust.

Thanks again.

--Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150448\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The V750 comes with a wet mount film tray for older negatives that are not in great shape. It also has digital ice technology that works great for automatically eliminating dust spots. It uses an infrared secondary scan to spot dust on the film. This takes longer to scan each image, but is well worth not having to manually remove dust & spots.

[KAP]

Thanks, Denis. Unfortunately, I just dropped about two grand on a 3800 and a bunch of paper and ink, so I don't have $500 for a scanner. That's why I asked about the two less expensive models.

Cheers,

Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150320\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Cart before the horse?
Decent scanners are fetching very littke on ebay, even Creo models go cheaply, but they still require more cash than $500. I think you need to rethink the budget if you want a worth while improvement. The scanner will have more effect on final outcome than camera or lenses used or printer. No point in having the best printer and paper if the scans lack DR are soft and noisey.

Kevin.

[Ken Bennett]

Cart before the horse?

Well, no.

All of my professional work is shot with professional digital cameras. So I'm getting very good image quality from the printer.

I do have some older 35mm transparencies, and some current work shot with an X-pan, which I scan with the Nikon 4000 film scanner. Nothing wrong with those files.

The flatbed is used to scan 6x6 b+w negs from a toy plastic camera. (I probably should have made that clear in the original post.) As I wrote above, I've been getting decent scans from the 3200 Photo scanner, but I'd like to cut down on the dust spotting. The Nikon 4000 uses Digital ICE, and the Epson 3200 flatbed doesn't. I'm looking for a flatbed that uses Digital ICE, but I don't need to spend a ton of money to scan Holga negatives. Seriously.

Thanks again for all the replies. I'm still looking for someone who uses, say, a V-500 to tell me if the Digital ICE works well when scanning negatives (C-41 process chromogenic b+w negs, specifically).

Cheers,

Ken

[Kirk Gittings]

Digital Ice does not work on silver based b&w negatives. It has to do with the way the film blocks the transmission of infrared light, which DI utilizes to differentiate between physical defects in the film and details in the photo.

I haven't tried it on chromagenic b&w films, but it should, I think, if scanned in RGB. However a big part of the efficiency is the software. About two years ago I did some extensive testing, and Silverfast did a superior job, Viewscan was second and the native Epson software was third. This may not be true today. This was based solely on measuring the effectiveness of removing dust and scratches vs. loss of detail.