Scanners - current status

[swifty]

I was wondering what's the word on the current status of scanners now that we're in 2010.
I know all the R&D are in DSLRs or similar but I was just wondering whether there's much progress in scanners.
I'd love a dedicated film scanner but seemingly flatbeds are the go for the price/performance equation these days and the last I looked, the Epson V700/V750's seem like top dog.
Is that still the case or have there been developments with other manufacturers I'm not aware of.
I'm mainly interested in scanning film, including medium format.
Cheers
Dave

[Prashanthb]

Mee too looking at buying a scanner. Hope they keep the R&D going on in the film department.

[77seriesiii]

chalk me up as one looking at scanners...ours just died. ugh.

./e

[Rudeofus]

I've played the "looking for a good film scanner" game a few months ago. At the moment I see only Nikon and Epson making anything worthwile, with Nikon gradually retreating from the scene (Coolscan V ED and 5000 gone) and Epson further expanding in the entry level area (new V600). Popular alternative seems to be photographing slides with a DSLR, but AFAIK no professional solution for this exists in this field, only ebay adapters and the like.

Note that there are still high end and drum scanners out there, but at prices which make owning them pointless for amateurs. Most common practice seems to be to scan in slides/negs with a medium end flat bed scanner and have only the very best shots scanned by a professional scanning service.

[mrred]

I have a 4490 which the v500 replaced. I use it for mf and it does a good job. I am glad that I don't have to use it for 35mm, as those limits are too stretched. My guess that even the cheapest dedicated film scanners do a much better job than flat beds.

[Worker 11811]

Most common practice seems to be to scan in slides/negs with a medium end flat bed scanner and have only the very best shots scanned by a professional scanning service.

This is what I'm doing.

I know it's not the very best thing to use but the Canon "Canoscan 8800F" is serving me well for the level I use it at. I wanted to be able scan photos and printed material as well as negatives and slides. I thought about buying a film scanner but then I would have to make two purchases and, at most, I'd use any given one of them half the time. Therefore, I'd be spending twice the money and throwing half of it away.

The Canoscan 8800F lets me scan film, slides, photos and documents, almost interchangeably. I just have to take off the cover from the lid and put the scanning frame in place then I'm off to the races. The thing can scan 9600 dpi. which is more than I can ever imagine needing, even if I'm cropping down to a small part of a negative. The light source is a white LED array so there is no warm up time and no change in color temperature as the lamp ages. (i.e. From scan to scan, it stays reasonably consistent.) Any changes or inaccuracies in color can easily be adjusted for, either in the scanner profile or directly in Photoshop.

The Canoscan has digital (infrared) scratch removal similar to Epson's ICE. It does a good job. (Canon's trademark is "FARE" vs. Epson's "ICE".) Personally I don't use FARE/ICE very much. I prefer to retouch the spots myself.

Canon's software is pretty good if you want a quick, easy way to scan images but I prefer to use VueScan from Hamrick Software. It gives me good control of exposure, contrast and color but isn't as expensive as SilverFast.

The Canoscan 8800F lists for $199.00 (US$) but it can be had for approx. $150.00

Again, I know the Canoscan is not "top notch" equipment but I don't need it to be just yet. Maybe some day, I'll upgrade to better equipment but this is serving me well for the foreseeable future.

[rnwhalley]

If you want to use top notch equipment, consider renting time on an imacon. There are a few companies out there that do this e.g Calumet. It's worth costing out and comparing with how much you would need to invest.

[Rudeofus]

That's right, Worker 11811, I totally forgot about the Canon, which is also said to be a nice scanner. Just don't be too sure about 9600 dpi the scanner claims, other users have guestimated the effective dpi to be around 1600. For MF frames that's still not bad.

@rnwhalley: renting a scanner makes sense if you have rare occasions where you need to scan a lot of material.

[Worker 11811]

How do you mean that? The scanner does produce output at 9600 dpi. I have done so, just to prove to myself that it works. Are you saying that it only scans actual resolution up to 1200/1600 dpi then interpolates up to 9600, thereby giving you the illusion of a hi-rez scan?

The specs that I read on the device say that its hardware sampling will produce 4800 X 9600 dpi. I assume that means that it has 4800 pixels per inch across the scanning bar and the stepping motor can produce 9600 steps per inch. To get 9600 X 9600 dpi it simply subsamples the horizontal pixels to double the output. So, I guess I should only expect 4800 X 4800 true resolution. Correct?

Now, Canon's specs say that the scanner can produce a software-interpolated resolution of 19,200 X 19,200 dpi. Of this, I AM skeptical.
That would mean that the software is quadrupling the horizontal bits and (at least) doubling the vertical bits. I have yet to even find a way to get the scanner to do this, let alone to see what quality of output this would produce.

90% of my work would be output to one of the following destinations:
1) HP Photosmart inkjet printer.
2) Sent to a magazine or newspaper for advertising purposes. (Part of my job.)
3) Sent to a TV station for broadcast. (Also part of my job.)
4) Use on the internet. (Both for work and pleasure.)

Most commercial printing destinations won't need anything better than 300 dpi and very few of them will even use better than 1200 dpi. Broadcast and internet would hardly ever need more than 7200 dpi.
The only time I would need to have higher than that would be if I was going to print out larger than what my consumer grade inkjet printer can print. (Max size 8-1/2' X 14' Legal)

If I ever need any printouts bigger than that I would have to take my files to the local photography shop and have them print it out on the large format printer or a dye-sub printer. (The largest size a dye-sub can print is about 12" wide and most only go as wide as 8" or 10". Correct?)

So, the highest resolution I would ever really "need" to scan at would be 2400 or 4800. Right? The only time I would ever "need" to go higher than that would be if I was zooming in on a small part of a negative or slide.

Given that, the Canoscan 8800F is all the scanner I need 99% of the time. If I ever need more than that I would have the material professionally scanned.

[Loris Medici]

Worker11811, to my knowing, the best consumer flatbed scanner around (which is Epson V700/V750, undoubtly) will give you a "real/actual" resolution of only 2300ppi. (Tested with a resolution target - from a very reliable source...) Which is (kinda) OK for MF (7-8x magnification) but pretty non-impressive for 35mm format. (Roughly 7Mp files from 35mm film...)

Regards,
Loris.