New article by Leigh Perry: Collaborative scanner comparison

[chip_reuben]

First, let me say this source of drum scanner comparisons is EXCELLENT! With that said, I have a few comments and suggestions:

1) I would like to see the Aztec Premier added to the list
2) I would have preferred that in the shadow-brightening examples, that the curve not have been so exaggerated in order to get an example that is closer to or more likely to be a real-world example of shadow brightening.
3) As a writer, I must criticize the conclusions section, which is inadequate. It is ok to allow the reader/viewer to come to their own conclusions, but it is, then, the writer's responsibility to articulate in greater detail here what factors are believed to be of importance in making the evaluation. It is these factors that should have been thought through while designing the experiment.

[John Harvey]

I find the Optronics scanns to be very soft when the sharpening is removed. Did the operator hav the scanner correctly focused?

[John Kelly]

The tests appear to neglect the influence of negative carriers and focus. This is critical with Epsons flatbeds.

I'll simply note that the old Epson 3200 is quite obviously sharper, printed to 11X14 , scanning with a focus-adjusting 3rd party negative carrier rather than the original. http://www.betterscanning.com/ (the non-focusing carriers are better than OEM as well, but not as good as the focusing version)

Focus is critical within a range of less than 1mm. In other words, once one finds a good focus adjustment, if one drifts from the midpoint by more than 0.5mm on is likely to see a loss of sharpness on relatively close inspection. With my particular 3200 the optimum film plane appears to be about 1.5mm from the glass, as contrasted to the general folklore calling for 1mm. 0.5mm difference is visually significant.

[Clay Turtle]

Noted that no HP scanners appear in your list . . . having one I feel that their missing aspect is justified. Purchased scanner software did not function to begin with requiring down of software to be reinstalled . . . with much agro from multiple attempts, finally resolved via Windows support in India somewhere.
Problems: scanning with larger (high resolution?) files seems to default Windos to reboot!
Question: Shooting both 35 mmm & 4x5 formats, it seems ludicrous as capacity of 35 mm scan surpasses file handling ability? Considerations transition into 5x7 format doesn't seem viable? Scanning this mornig of 4x5 slide with TMA adapter with setting of 600% increase in output size @ 200 dpi. & This is the Third time around as system crashes about half way through scanning! So whose running Mac's & do you have these types of problems with adding an HP scanner to a Mac system?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Neat. I had no idea that scanners would render colour so differently...just like different types of film. It was interesting to see Fuji's scanner and how it was slightly "green".

[Faustin Baron]

I have owned two Epson 4990 scanners and on both scanners I have had an issue with the glass. The glass on the scanner always looked like it needed cleaning; but underneath, not on top where you would place your negative. I had it serviced through Epson and the glass was replaced but the new glass was foggy in different places. Epson eventually replace the scanner but the new one has the same foggy look to it and it has become worse over time.

[Harley Goldman]

With regard to the Epson glass, you will have to clean it from time to time. You can google to find instructions how to disassemble the glass. It is quite easy as long as you follow the instructions. I suspect the plastic inside is outgassing and causing the glass to fog.

[Frances Melhop]

hi All ...
I am new to this forum and entirely new to scanning things myself...but i do have 20 years worth of images on all formats of film, transparency ,neg, and polaroid which are in 5 different storage locations around the world and therefore very difficult to access ....

i need to rationalise my library but not knowing what the end use of each image is i need to make the scans at very high quality ......as I am doing all my own postproduction now i need access to my picture s for compositing etc... I dont use stock libraries and prefer to go out and shoot it myself at my own expense if a job needs a certain shot inside the main image....

at this point i would like to thank Leigh Perry and collaborators for the amazing scanner comparison...

I am thinking about a high end flatbed scanner ... (drum scanner is not for me ...spatially... portabilitywise ....and cost wise...unfortunately ... and i have enough to do without learning to be the best scanner operator...)

i found the scanner specs quite confusing.... i think i should be looking for a 16 bit scanner but why do the canon specs say this ?

"The CanoScan 9900F Color Image Scanner from Canon (www.canon.com) features 3200x6400 dpi along with 48-bit depth for over 281 trillion possible colors."

?

my preference in the comparison was the creo eversmart supreme...and i havent been able to find out where this lies in the price market yet ...but it seems to be way above the other flatbeds in quality and the scan had an atmosphere that was as close to filmic as i guess is possible ...

[Keith S. Walklet]

Frances,

The 48-bit refers to 16-bits per channel (Red, Green, Blue) in which the scanner is recording information.

The 3200x6400 refers to manufacturer's claimed resolution (samples per inch) for the scanner, with the smaller number referring to the highest optical resolution, (limited by the number of sensors per inch on the scanning wand (array).

The larger number refers to the claimed sampling interval of the steppor motor that moves the wand in minute increments the length of the image that is being scanned. So, they are claiming that the scanner samples the image data 6400 times each inch that the wand moves.

When evaluating the claimed resolution, it is the smaller number that is of greater importance. If you search the threads here, you'll find quite a few discussions about 1. this subject, 2. a lot of debate about the merit of manufacturers' claims 3. the difference between the various scanning technologies.

[ryanmfritz]

Im a noob that needs an updated scanner (within budget) that is at least 11x17 or larger.

Can anyone offer recommendation for a new scanner for my small business of scanning artwork mainly, and photos and reproducing them in various sizes on a large format 44" HP Designjet Printer. I would appreciate any advice. Budget is secondary, I want a quality product first...

Thanks
Ryan Fritz
www.FargoKids.com