WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY????

  • Thread starter Thread starter Don R.
  • Start date Start date
D

Don R.

Thanks, again, for all the good input concerning scanning old 35 mm
color slides.

I checked out the Epson Perfection 3170; it's only available in the US
and I'm currently in Canada for some time.

Has anyone any expertise in the following scanners? If so, would
appreciate your input concerning how well it does 35 mm color slides.

NIKON SUPER COOLSCAN 4000 ED 35mm film scanner 4000 dpi

Canon CanoScan FS2710 Film Scanner (35 mm)

Canon CanoScan 3000F Scanner

CanoScan 8400F


Thanks.




Don R.
<[email protected]
 
Thanks, again, for all the good input concerning scanning old 35 mm
color slides.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I posted this link or not, but it might be of help.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm

I checked out the Epson Perfection 3170; it's only available in the US
and I'm currently in Canada for some time.

Has anyone any expertise in the following scanners? If so, would
appreciate your input concerning how well it does 35 mm color slides.

NIKON SUPER COOLSCAN 4000 ED 35mm film scanner 4000 dpi
Click to expand...

I have the LS 5000 ED which I think is a newer version which replaces
the 4000. They are different though.

I like the 5000. It's fast and accurate. For what it does the prices
is not bad, particularly if you shop around. I purchased mine off the
net using price comparisons and service comparisons of the dealers.
I could have gotten it a bit cheaper, but I chose to go with a dealer
that had a better rating.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Canon CanoScan FS2710 Film Scanner (35 mm)

Canon CanoScan 3000F Scanner

CanoScan 8400F


Thanks.




Don R.
<[email protected]
Click to expand...
Roger
 
Canon's slide scanning quality suffers greatly from the complicated
optical path and very poor quality CCD of their tiny film scanners.
The hardware quality is comparable to the PIE scanning products.

They mask their problems by pumping up the contrast and sharpening.

You are probably already convinced that a Canon is in your future, so
get the best price on the one you can afford and enjoy.

Michael
 
"Canon's slide scanning quality suffers greatly from the complicated
optical path and very poor quality CCD of their tiny film scanners"

Does this statement include the Canon FS4000US? Also, if one scans
with Vuescan, there is no sharpening applied.
Can you elaborate on your statement as I use this scanner (with great
results for negatives and mixed results for slides).
 
Yes, it applies to the fs4000US.

How do you think they got it *that* small? They have a bunch of
mirrors and an indirect lightpath back to the CCD that seriously
compromise capture quality.

A direct light path would make a scanner that's too big for nearly all
consumers, so they make you something you will buy. That you don't
observe the poor quality has to do more with software engineering
prowess than anything else.

What matters is you get great results.
 
"A direct light path would make a scanner that's too big for nearly all

consumers, so they make you something you will buy. "

So how is this different from any other scanner?
 
Because there really *are* scanners on the market that deliver far
better results. Imacon (hassel-something?) and Polaroids old 4"x5"
film scanner are two examples.

Hell, even polaroid's 35mm film scanner is better than the popular
models. (much higher MTF) For reason's unknown to me, no one buys
them.

My point being, in Canon/Nikon/Minolta's case Marketing claims have
nothing to do with the actual performance of the devices they sell. It
saddens me every time I see it. The popular $1000-2000 film scanners
do not resolve 4000ppi and have terrible MTF.

I understand that this may be bad news to photography enthusiasts, but
it's the current state of affairs until something better comes along.
 
Yes, it applies to the fs4000US.

How do you think they got it *that* small? They have a bunch of
mirrors and an indirect lightpath back to the CCD that seriously
compromise capture quality.
Click to expand...

Well, only one mirror. However, it may be one too many. I have
wondered about modifying my FS4000 but it is a serious and risky
modification.
A direct light path would make a scanner that's too big for nearly all
consumers, so they make you something you will buy. That you don't
observe the poor quality has to do more with software engineering
prowess than anything else.
Click to expand...

Such a scanner would be an ugly monstrosity and a nightmare for the
marketing department. Still, it wouldn't worry me if it produced better
scans. Do you think the mirror is a significant problem ? I think the
accuracy and consistency of the CCD-ADC step (converting light into
digital readings) is the major problem which is why I stopped worrying
about the mirror.

-- Steven
 
mp said:
Because there really *are* scanners on the market that deliver far
better results. Imacon (hassel-something?) and Polaroids old 4"x5"
film scanner are two examples.

Hell, even polaroid's 35mm film scanner is better than the popular
models. (much higher MTF) For reason's unknown to me, no one buys
them.

My point being, in Canon/Nikon/Minolta's case Marketing claims have
nothing to do with the actual performance of the devices they sell. It
saddens me every time I see it. The popular $1000-2000 film scanners
do not resolve 4000ppi and have terrible MTF.

I understand that this may be bad news to photography enthusiasts, but
it's the current state of affairs until something better comes along.
Click to expand...

This is disconcerting news! To me at least. Are there any examples that
confirm the difference in quality?
Greetings, Alex
 
SNIP
The popular $1000-2000 film scanners do not resolve 4000ppi
and have terrible MTF.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate? Which scanners, and what is their resolution. What
is in your opinion a terrible MTF, compared to what? Any links to
support your claim?

Bart
 
mp said:
Yes, it applies to the fs4000US.
Click to expand...
How do you think they got it *that* small? They have a bunch of
mirrors and an indirect lightpath back to the CCD that seriously
compromise capture quality.
Click to expand...

Looking at mine, I see a single fold mirror that bounces the image
coming through the film into a lens that (presumably) focuses onto the
linear CCD. I've never had it apart, so there may be more mirrors, but
I don't see the need for them, and somewhat doubt they exist.
A direct light path would make a scanner that's too big for nearly all
consumers, so they make you something you will buy. That you don't
observe the poor quality has to do more with software engineering
prowess than anything else.
Click to expand...

While I agree that just about every scanner/camera/printer/etc. sold
today is build to a price point, I'd like some proof of the FS4000's
optical shortcomings. Clearly, the low end ccd noise could be better,
but I have doubts regarding the 'cheapness' of the optical system.

At any rate, two passes with Neatimage (one for chroma, one for
luminance; running different filter parameters for each task) fixes most
of the shortcomings.

Living in AZ, I get much more CCD noise in the hot summer months. I'm
on the verge of installing a blower that will pump filtered, peltier
cooled air into the scanner... Anyone else done something similar??

-Greg
 
Don said:
Thanks, again, for all the good input concerning scanning old 35 mm
color slides.

I checked out the Epson Perfection 3170; it's only available in the US
and I'm currently in Canada for some time.

Has anyone any expertise in the following scanners? If so, would
appreciate your input concerning how well it does 35 mm color slides.

NIKON SUPER COOLSCAN 4000 ED 35mm film scanner 4000 dpi

Canon CanoScan FS2710 Film Scanner (35 mm)
Click to expand...
I am no expert, but here is a bit from my experience with FS2710:

I've had this one for several years. It is OK to scan for printing up to,
I'd say 8"x10", providing your slides are not very dark. It has problems
with high density areas (its specified density range is only 3.2) and
tends to bleed from bright to dark areas, which I find very annoying.

It has a rather good registration, so there is no problem with multiple
scans, at least when using VueScan (which I like much better than the
original Canon software). It is reasonably fast (after all, it is only
2720 ppi - wonder why they call it 2710).

It has no ICE (no IR channel), so you have to make sure your slides are as
clean as possible. Some dust removal can be done in VueScan and there is
a fairly good (in my opinion) dust removing freeware from that can be
downoaded from Polaroid.

I doubt that you still could buy it new; second hand it should be almost
for free, since it is quite obsolete by now and there is, AFAIK, no more
support for it from Canon. Also, it may be difficult to find a driver for
more recent OS. I am running it on W98SE. If you do try to acquire it,
make sure that it comes with its dedicated scuzzy board.

Pavel
 
The scanner bakeoff tests show the FS4000US doing reasonably well
against all of the competition. The original test did measure MTF as
well. I have found the scanner has a lot of trouble with dark or
contrasty slides.

Greg, I thought you were sticking to your DRebel? I haven't noticed
more noise in the summer and it gets up to 80F in my room, but it might
be a subtle increase.
 
Such a scanner would be an ugly monstrosity and a nightmare for the
marketing department.
Click to expand...
Ask Imacon about that. The big pre-press flatbed scanner manufacturers
too. Their customers feel differently about it.
Do you think the mirror is a significant problem ?
Click to expand...
Yup. They lose 30%+/- of their light. Better mirrors are way too
expensive to use at $1000 price point. The other significant problem
is the CCD. It calculates out to about 4000ppi, but the noise and
accuracy is very low. Most of the budget on that device goes to
advertising, not the hardware.

The information provided here and links away from the pages are
excellent. Watch that clipping!
http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results_numbers.html

I really regret contributing. I had no idea the products in question
were so favored despite their technical deficiencies.

Good luck and sorry.
 
Roger said:
The scanner bakeoff tests show the FS4000US doing reasonably well
against all of the competition. The original test did measure MTF as
well. I have found the scanner has a lot of trouble with dark or
contrasty slides.
Click to expand...

Yes, limiting noise is fairly high, although I haven't tried a direct
shootout with any other scanners. I've got a few night time lightning
shots with lots of very low level detail. I might have them scanned by
the local shop's Minolta 5400.
Greg, I thought you were sticking to your DRebel? I haven't noticed
more noise in the summer and it gets up to 80F in my room, but it might
be a subtle increase.
Click to expand...

Wrong Greg! ;)

FWLIW, I'm still shooting film with FD Canon, waiting for SOMEONE to
make a digital back for my T-90! (I know, "good luck, sucker!")

-GRC
 
Oops, that was Greg Chappell- it looks similar and you both used the
FS4000US, how was I to know? ; )
I'm waiting for a Minolta manual lens compatible camera (or for DSLRs
to come down in price even more).
 
I really regret contributing. I had no idea the products in question
were so favored despite their technical deficiencies.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you regret posting. I was interested that you
mentioned the mirror as I had thought about it and figured it was less
than ideal. At one stage I was considering hardware mods but then I
found some software by Dave Burns and decided to build on that instead.

-- Steven
 
"I really regret contributing. I had no idea the products in question
were so favored despite their technical deficiencies."

What are you talking about? Contributing to the bakeoff or to this
thread? The spreadsheet in the 2004 bakeoff doesn't have any polaroids
at the top of the pack and there is an Imacon in the middle below all
the Canon FS4000US scanners when sorted by MTF. All of photography
involves some compromises, from the lens design to film choice,
scanning, and then printing. Technically inferior products can be good
enough for the job at hand, just look at HCB's antiquated film and
outdated equipment and the wonderful photos he produced.
 
"I really regret contributing. I had no idea the products in question
were so favored despite their technical deficiencies."

What are you talking about? Contributing to the bakeoff or to this
thread? The spreadsheet in the 2004 bakeoff doesn't have any polaroids
at the top of the pack and there is an Imacon in the middle below all
the Canon FS4000US scanners when sorted by MTF. All of photography
involves some compromises, from the lens design to film choice,
scanning, and then printing. Technically inferior products can be good
enough for the job at hand, just look at HCB's antiquated film and
outdated equipment and the wonderful photos he produced.
Click to expand...
I would guess Canon obsoleted this scanner because it is a smallish
market and they needed to re-engineer the interface. It has a slow USB
1.1 interface and a SCSI interface, which while fast enough is not what
people want today. Also the noise performance on dense slides is not as
good as others available. They were losing to Nikon and Minolta, so
I guess they chose to focus their efforts on the main DSLR game.

While I'm sure the FS4000 would be better without a mirror, especially a
dirty mirror as inevitably eventually happens, mine is still OK after 4
years of light use carefully covered between each session. I also think
the rest of the optics are very good. Apart from Imacons and the like,
don't all the consumer scanners have mirrors in the optical path? We know
we don't get an 8000dpi drum scan from our little scanners, but they get
pretty much all of the info off the average neg.

To the OP, don't regret posting - you made me think about mirrors and
their problems, even if I do think your own argument is clipping a bit
too.

Bruce Graham
 
Back
Top