I am someone who is seriously interested in getting into the digital end of this hobby but I want to continue shooting film because of 1) I know film and 2) significant money tied up in equipment.

Perhaps someone out there can give me the lowdown on the differences between the two types of scanners listed in the subject line other than the fact that one scans film and the other paper and one tends to be much cheaper than the other.

Is resolution the only big advantage of a film scanner?

-- Frank Shepherd (franks@netdoor.com), June 18, 2001

Answers

There used to be a lot of difference. Until a year ago or so, a mid price filmscanner would've easily beaten even a high-end flatbed for 35mm scans, but things have changed a lot lately. The main difference wasn't so much in resolution, but in dynamic range, and in the basic contrast and sharpness of the image.
Flatbeds have come on by leaps and bounds in the past few months, and now the latest flatbeds from HP, Canon, and even Epson are pretty good by all accounts.
If you want to scan MF or LF as well as 35mm, then I think a flatbed is a better all-round bet in terms of value for money.
Try to get a look at the new Canon 2400U. First reports are reasonably favourable, but there's no substitute for actually trying something out for yourself. I'm anxious to see one of these in the shops myself. I already have a dedicated 35mm scanner, but I want to be able to scan MF and LF as well.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), June 18, 2001.

same as above

Thank you for the reply!

I did forget to mention dynamic range. I noticed Nikon's newest has a 4.2, but what does this mean exactly? How does it translate to better picture or scan quality?

-- Frank Shepherd (franks@netdoor.com), June 18, 2001.

4.2D dynamic range! Yeah, yeah! We all believe Nikon when they say that, don't we children?

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), June 19, 2001.

Frank, I think this topic/questions requires quite a bit of research to correctly answer. One of the things to consider is what kind of film are you planning on scanning. From what I read, the consensus still seems to be that film scanners work best with color film and chromogenic b&w film, although some of the new b&w films claim to be formulated for film scanners. I am still making prints and scanning them, and for a little while longer that may be the most cost- effective way to go to make a good digital b&w image.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), June 19, 2001.

Well.... the question is what are you trying to do?

Are you going to do digital editing. end result.... Print

or

Are you going to do web publishing... end result.... on a web site

If you are going to do print. a little Epson flatbed isn't going to cut it. and The nikon film scanner would be a good start. if money is no object, a nice drum scanner would be nice. but you are looking at $5-10K. Plus a nice dye-sub printer, another $2K.

If you are doing web type low res work. or just to make contacts a cheap $90 Microtek flatbed w/ photoshop would be more than enough.

Bottom line. How much money can you spend. $300 or $10K.

Alex

-- Alex Siu (Alex_s2@yahoo.com), August 01, 2001.

Anybody tried the latest HP Scanner that has a optical os 2400DPI?

-- Michael Seah (surfer18@pacific.net.sg), September 27, 2001.