Best in your price range may be what I just got – The Epson Perfection 3170 Photo. A lot of people feel it is nearly identical to their top level consumer models, at about half the price.
I’m very happy with mine.
I also have the 3170, got it for $199, very happy with it and it came with a coupon to upgrade elements to photoshop 7. I used the coupon to upgrade to CS for $299. Very happy all the way around.
I have the HP Scanjet 3570c and I would warn anyone against it. I bought a 3570c in August and have had to call technical support at least ten times. My original unit had a bad ccd that produced colored lines on scans, and then the replacement unit they sent me had the same problem. Now I am trying to get another replacement from them but have been waiting over a week for a "rush" replacement after they "escalated the case" to a case manager.
I am thinking about dumping the HP and buying another brand of scanner. Sounds like people are happy with the Epson. Will the Epson 3170 work in the Windows environment as well?
Nanny Goat, (your yes!)
You are usually to the point and accurate but that "yes" is the shortest answer I have ever seen from you 🙂
Pete
(smiling)
I kind of liked that ‘yes’ :)…some posts are just way too long 😉
Jodi, I resemble that remark….
😉
Chuck
Chuck, na….i was sort of kidding….it’s mostly the quotes that take up the space 😉
I have the HP Scanjet 3570c and I would warn anyone against it
I have had an HP 5470c scanner for over a year, and I think it’s great. It comes with a very nice user interface and a very capable OCR software package which I have used extensively to scan a typewritten draft of a novel into a Word document. I have also used it to scan both color and B&W prints, and it comes with an external slide/negative adapter which enables you to scan 35mm slides or negatives. HP has a newer model now for about the same price ($300).
The consensus in this forum is that Epson scanners are best. I won’t dispute that, but when I bought mine, the equivalent Epson scanner was more expensive. I don’t know if that’s still true or not.
Bert
Duo,
My vote is for the Epson Perfection 3170. Bought my Perfection 3200 back in May before the deal for upgrading to the full PS was available. I passed over the Canon S9000 at the same resolution and price because of a review about their flimsy film carriers.
So far I am quite happy with the Epson scanner which I use more for film scanning. Only fault is the lack of the ICE dust removal "tool".
Shan
Only fault is the lack of the ICE dust removal "tool".
Shan,
Do those things really work? I always use an anti-static brush before I scan slides or negs anyway, and often the older ones still require cleanup of specks and discolorations which are in the emulsion and would not be removed by the ICE.
I’m surprised you are happy with a flatbed scanner for film scanning, though. Even a low-priced film scanner should give you better resolution, greater dynamic range, lower noise in the dark areas of slides, and faster, more convenient scanning workflow.
Bert
Bert, I have a Pacific Image Electronics slide/negative scanner, which scans at 1800 dpi. At the time I bought it, this was significantly higher than any inexpensive flatbed scanner.
Newer flatbed scanners, however, seem to be going very high in the number of … of … of … dpi (aaaghh! I said that word!)
Is an 1800 dpi dedicated film/slide scanner still better than a new high-dpi flatbed scanner with a slide/negative mount?
Bert,
I was going to get a mid-price film scanner until I can across Norm Korem’s artical on the Epson Perfection 3200. The comparison done by Korem showed little or no difference in resolution between that Epson flatbed and a mid-price dedicated film scanner. Also reviews in photo magazine tend to favor the Epson over the Canon Canoscan S9000. I took the plunge and I am glad I did.
I haven’t had the chance to try out the 48-bit depth at the max. 3200 dpi(sic) yet, because I read somewhere that Elements only supports 24-bit. From 6×7 and 6×9 cm negatives and on a 24-bit 3200 dpi scans, the images come out around 130 to 170 MB’s! Speaking for myself, those are really big file with very nice tonal range, rich colors and not a lot of noice. Of course, I have to spend a lot on canned air and time with a fine sable brush on the negs. 😉 When I get a chance to get out the slides, I’ll be able to see if there’s excessive noice from the scanning.
The only thing I need is a better scanning software. The Epson software that came with the disk is just adequate, and the bundle cutdown version of Silverfast is clumsy to use and not intuitive. There is no manual for either.
Shan
Shan, thanks for the review of the 3200. I’m going to have to look into that one. I’m eager to get back into slide photography and I was just beginning to consider scanning alternatives. Good timing!
Chuck
For anybody who is a Costco member, I just saw the Epson 3200 Pro on their website. The price is $524.99, and then there’s a $100 Costco rebate. I’ve had great experience with Costco rebates, so a AR price of $424.99 is really good for this scanner. I think it’s usually up around $600 to $700. I’d been looking at it myself a few days ago, and it was one of the three on my short list. They’ve also got a good price on the Canon 9900, I think. Gotta go now and add a couple of things to my Christmas list! 🙂
Shan,
I’m not familiar with the Epson 3200 Pro. That’s higher resolution than my Minolta Dimage Scan II film scanner (2820 ppi max). Dynamic range is usually the weak point in flatbeds. Try scanning some slides with some really dark areas, and then blow it up and see how much "colored confetti" you see in the black.
That’s a pretty pricey scanner, but if it really does double duty, it sounds like it’s worth it. Bert
EDIT: Sorry I took so long responding to you. I apparently failed to bookmark or subscribe to this thread. DUH!!
Chuck,
I am sure you would find Norm Korem’s "the Epson 3200 Scanner: User Impression 1" illuminating. It’s under his review of Epson printers.
So far I am quite happy with the result scanning 120 roll film negatives. But as I said before, the true test will be when I get around to digging up my 35mm slides. I will report when I’ve done some scanning and printing.
Bert,
Don’t remember where I read about it before. I seem to recall reading something about what you said regarding flatbed scanners having a narrower Dynamic Range tha film scanners.
When I bought the scanner in May, it’s sole purpose was to scan photo prints firstly and then the negatives when they become available. My son and his bride hired a pro photographer for their wedding, and this yo-yo had all his film processing, rough proofing and finished prints done overseas to save on his costs. The guy didn’t even spring for airmail express both ways! So the first proofs took nearly 4 weeks, and it’s another two months before the final prints and the negatives were returned. they were slow boats to China indeed. 🙂
The scanner was bought so I could make prints from the proofs, as a stopgap to send "interims" to friends and relatives. In the end, the finish final prints came in extremely high contrast with color cast of various shades for each print! I supect the negatives had not been properly neutralized and washed. Once again the scanner was called on to do it’s duty. Quite a few of the negs had crystalline particles even in the mid tone areas. You can see the crystalline reflectins on the emulsion side against angled reflected light. I also had the same experience with onboard processing on cruice ships. Fortunatlely, with PSE and hours of painstaking work, prsentable 8×10 and even 11×14 prints became possible.
Noice was present in the dark areas of the negs, but I suspect no more than usual. I’ll look into this question in greater detail when I get a chance to do more scanning with my 35mm slides.
Shan
Beth,
$424.99 is a real deal! Paid $500 for my 3200 last May. I suggest to take a good look at the Canon S9000 before you buy mail order. I recall at least two reviews that had unfavorable comments on the flimsy Canon film carriers. I imagine if the carriers are bent or twisted, the film plane would not scan normal to the light path.
Had myself a look at both at the local CompUSA, and regretably gave up the Canon although I much prefer its software with Canon’s dust-busting function kind of like "ICE".
Shan
I am confused now. While I was researching the compatibility of the Epson with the newest operating system for Mac, I spotted a news release about a replacement for the 3200 Pro that will be out Feb 1. It sounds even better, and it will come with that ICE software Microtek has had in their 6800 for a while. I’m sure that’s why the Epson 3200 now has a $100 rebate available – they want to clear them out!
Every time I think I’ve decided on something a new wrinkle emerges. 🙂 Alas, all I wanted was a new toy, and it’s getting so complicated.
I saw that, Chuck, which is what caught my attention this morning when I went back there after seeing a notice of a new model. That rebate wasn’t there last week when I was looking at them. (Good thing I didn’t buy then, huh? I would have been ticked!)
Shan,
It seems to me that I have read that color slides are the biggest problem on flatbeds…negatives are not, and I can’t remember why. I’ll see if I can find anything on that. Might have been in Wayne Fulton’s book, which I have. Anyway, if I had known about the Epson 3200, I might well have bought it instead of my HP flatbed and Minolta film scanner. The two of them cost me almost $600.
Bert
EDIT: I really like the Minolta, though. Very easy to use, and the quality is very good with the VueScan software. I’ve scanned about 2500 color slides and negs with it so far.
Beth,
Please double check whether Epson new scanner comes with ICE for BOTH prints and negatives/slides. The Microtek’s ICE is only for PRINTS! I know the feeling of new wrinkle cropping up at every turn. It’s gotten to the point that I have come to accept new toys changing into instant antiques the moment the brown truck drops them off. 🙂
Shan
It’s gotten to the point that I have come to accept new toys changing into instant antiques the moment the brown truck drops them off
Ain’t that the truth! I have the same feeling.
Bert,
Thanks for the headsup on the Minolta film scanner. If that is 2780dpi, it was the model I was considering before getting the flat bed. If the slides don’t scan out the way I like, I might have to get a bigger desk (:)) and invest in a film scanner.
Does the Vuescan software come with any dust removal function? I remember there was one post on the Nikon scanner. The software comes with both ICE and ROC. Will have to search the archives when I need to buy one. But then the Niken IV (?) is aroung $$700, which may be too much for me.
Shan
I have an issue with that brown truck….and its counterparts of other color schemes. They used to deliver expensive items only if they got a human and a signature; now they just drop the package at the door, push the doorbell and run for their truck…. Been lucky so far, but one of these days a camera, scanner, printer, or lens is going to ‘walk away’ from my front door…
Wow, Chuck, is your comment ever apropos right now for me! I ordered a telescope for my grandson for Christmas a few days ago, and it arrived today…I didn’t hear the UPS truck arrive, and just happened to check the front porch…two big boxes just sitting there! Anybody could have walked off with them.
Bert
Thanks for the headsup on the Minolta film scanner. If that is 2780dpi, it was the model I was considering before getting the flat bed
Shan,
It’s 2820 dpi. I have the Minolta Dimage Dual Scan II. The Scan III has replaced mine. It has USB 2.0 which speeds up the file transfer considerably. I paid $250 for mine. You can buy the Scan III for about the same price now, I think. I’m very happy with mine, even though the transfer is via USB 1.1 which is a little slow. Scanning at max resolution takes about 2 minutes per slide in batch mode using VueScan.
Bert
EDIT: There is no dust-removal function in VueScan. You gotta use the Clone Stamp. If you brush all the images first, it isn’t that much of a problem.
Chuck, found this;
11:30 am: UPS leaves large box of toys and movies at my house, inside my front gate, out of sight from the street.
sometime later: Airborne Home leaves small package at my house, inside my front gate, out of sight from the street.
5:00 pm: I come home, hop in the shower immediately, put on formalwear and get ready for the party, forgetting to check the front door for packages. I leave my house at 5:30, in formalwear, thus advertising to everyone in the neighborhood that I’m not planning to be back for at least a couple hours.
sometime between 5:30 pm and 11:00 pm: Some fucking no-Christmas-spirit-havin’ grinch lowlife decides to trespass on my property and steal my packages. Just because I’ve never had this problem before (or since–three packages have arrived in the last two days) doesn’t mean it can’t happen, I guess. I just thought I lived with a better sort of folks. So much for trusting my neighbors.
No matter, though. The bottom line in this, unfortunate though it may be, is that I ordered something that I didn’t receive. They released the packages without a signature, so I don’t think I’m liable. Either UPS insurance will cover it, or amazon will. But since they can’t get it to me by tomorrow, I am going to have to buy another copy of Rudolph for the gift exchange, dammit. And that PISSES ME OFF.
At least they’re still ringing my doorbell! Of course, around here the dog starts barking when the truck comes around the corner, so my notification process is pretty good. If I’m home, which is an entirely different issue.
I’m really sorry about you having your packages ripped off, Jodi. It’s always so sad to realize that the people living around us have to little respect for the property of other people.
My front porch is surrounded by a tall hedge of bush roses, so anyone who had larceny in mind would have to come right up to the porch to see the packages. Still…I was home and didn’t hear the doorbell…dunno if they rang it or not.
Bert
Beth…it wasn’t me !!! I copied this from someone elses site. She had more ‘bleeping’ words to say about UPS but I couldn’t copy that …anyways, my husband ordered a large package and I’ve been sitting home for 2 days waiting for the brown truck.
Oh! Plagerizing, are we?! 🙂 Well, I’m sorry I was so dense as to miss that was something you were passing along as having happened to someone else. I’m NOT sorry to hear it wasn’t you! That was just about my last post of the day. See why I turn in early? I get dumber and dumber as the day goes on.
Beth and Jodi,
I missed it too…I thought it happened to you, Jodi.
DUH…
Bert
Re Epson 3200, I assume I don’t need to ask this question, but will anyway. Will it work on Windows XP Home?
If you scan 35mm negatives at Epson 3200’s highest resolution, what file sizes will you be getting, and how enlargeable is it for quality prints? 11 x 14; 16 x 20; 20 x 24?
I have umpteen million lifetime negs stashed in boxes in the basement. Each one was a masterpiece when I shot it. Am considering the possibility of spending the rest of my life going back through them.
Leave my heritage for the grandkids, who no doubt have other things on their minds and will probably never look at them.
Al
Well, Al, I’m a little ahead of you on the family photo archive. I’ve been working on it for about a year now. I have about 4500 images in my Photoshop Album database so far, and I’m just getting started.
Re your questions on image size and quality:
A 35mm frame is 24 x 36 mm, about 1 x 1.5 inches. So, it’s really easy to calculate the image size you will get at 3200 ppi. 3200 x 4800 pixels, about 15 megapixels. That’s more than twice as many pixels as you get from most high-end digital SLR’s. Also, most high-end scanners will do 16 bit color. That’s 6 bytes of memory for each pixel, so you are talking about some big image files, 90 megabytes or more uncompressed. To put that in perspective, my database of 4500 images would require disk space of over 400 gigabytes! If you backed it up on CD-ROMs, it would take almost 700. You can reduce that by about one-third by using LZW compressed TIFF files. LZW compression is non-destructive…no image data is lost. The only disadvantage of LZW compression is slightly longer loading time.
Another issue is "color depth." As I said, scanners are capable of 16 bits per "channel." There are three channels: R, G and B. Photoshop Elements is incapable of dealing with more than 8-bit color. Full Photoshop can use 16-bit color for some operations. Many of the pros in this forum say that 16 bit color is far superior. Others…and I am among the latter…say that the difference is not discernable to the eye in most cases. If you decide to limit your images to 8-bit color, the file sizes are cut in half!
Now let’s talk about print quality. Most people in this forum would say that you need between 200 and 300 ppi for a top quality print. Your 4800×3200 images would yield a 16 x 10.7 print at 300 ppi and a 24 x 16 print at 200 ppi, assuming no cropping. Of course you will have to crop any 35mm image to fit on the paper (or accept some white space) because the proportions are different.
So, before you start this project, you need to think about what you are trying to do. If you really want ALL your images to be capable of making giant prints, then you need to scan at max resolution. That’s probably a good idea anyway. Next, you need to decide about color depth and file format. Saving in JPEG format would greatly reduce file size, but JPEG uses a lossy compression method and is not recommended for archival storage generally.
I hope all this helps you get started at least thinking about the decisions you have to make before plunging into the project.
Bert
Useful information Bert. i’m still considering a film scanner to ressurect twent odd years of negatives – and I hadn’t really considered the implications of storage space…..seems like the desirable size of the firewire drive that’s on my Christmas list just got bigger!
Susan S.
Wow, Bert! 4500 already.
Great technical info in your post. Basically, of course, there’s no need to think of large enlargements in all or even any substantial portion of them. Just a few masterpieces here and there. I would adopt a much lower resolution procedure and, having my own film scanner, go back and redo those I really want bigger.
The Epson 3200 sounds good to me, about the price range I’m willing to pop for. By the way, is there a carrier for 120 size negatives? At one point in my travels through this veil of tears I shot Rollei size, 6 x 6 cm, and still use a Pentax 645.
Wow! 4500. What else do you do in your spare time?
Al
While you will indeed get 4535 x 3024 pixels from a 35mm frame at 3200ppi with this scanner, note that in actual resolution, you’ll be getting around the equivalent of about half that. The 2400 gave about 1200 effective and the 3200 about 1600 equivalent (if that). Some have demonstrated that the 3200 doesn’t increase resolution at all over the 2400, since the same optical system is used.
This according to some of the higher end users who have reported (and posted) their tests on comp.periphs.scanners. Done by shooting line pair charts and then scanning them.
Flatbeds, regardless of their "resolution", continue to lag well behind dedicated film scanners, especially for 35mm. Just the nature of the sensor array and optics.
Mac
Bert,
Thanks for the info. $250 doesn’t sound too bad. But does it come with ICE? I had a shop put in the USB 2.0 for the epson Scanner. It’s a little quicker than 1.1, but not by that much. Seems like the "so many X times faster" claimed may be for a better puter than mine.
Shan
Bert,
Thanks for the info. $250 doesn’t sound too bad. But does it come with ICE? I had a shop put in the USB 2.0 for the Epson scanner. It’s a little quicker than 1.1, but not by that much. Seems like the "so many X times faster" claimed may be for a better puter than mine.
Shan
Al,
RE: Epson 3200
The highest resolution of the scanner is actually 6400 dpi. I have only used up to 3200 dpi for 35mm negs.
The original is nominally 1"x1.5" and the scanned image size is user selectable. The purpose of my scans were for 8×10 prints. So I stay with a scanned size of 1×1.5. The 1" nominal (actual around 0.94~0.97") dimension expanded to 8" gives me around 360~380 dpi (3200/8"). Allowing for a small amount of cropping and pixel loss due to PSE enhancement, pretty good prints can be made, easily to 8×10 @ 300 dpi, and even 11×14 if you view from about 3 to 4 feet away.
The collection of old photos and film material is a headache. I got them in cartons stashed in my older son’s basement storage. All labeled "Prints, Negs & Slides" with a number, and I have no idea what they are. I am afraid to open them up and find that I have to look thru them and have to deal with them! 🙂
Shan
The highest resolution of the scanner is actually 6400 dpi.
The highest rez is actually 3200.
The 6400 is only stepper motor discrete stops. Same as any flatbed. Only the lower number is optical resolution. Anything higher is interpolated, same as you can do in Elements with upsample.
The real killer though, as I stated in earlier post, is that even though you do get "3200ppi", meaning that many pixels, the actual usuable resolving power OF those pixels is still much less than obtainable from dedicated film scanner, due to inferior optics and sensor array compared to the way film scanners are designed.
3200ppi on a Nikon 4000 for example, will resolve almost twice the actual line pairs that the Epson will.
Pixel totals from different devices do not necessarily reveal the same information equally.
Mac
$250 doesn’t sound too bad. But does it come with ICE?
Shan,
Were you referring to my Minolta film scanner? If so, it does NOT have ICE. You have to go up to the next model which I think sells for about twice that to get ICE.
Bert
By the way, is there a carrier for 120 size negatives?
Al,
Sorry it took so long for me to respond. The website crashed in the middle of my post and I lost the whole damn thing, and then I couldn’t get back on…it said the website was down.
I didn’t see anyone else responding to your question about a 120-size carrier for the Epson 3200. I don’t know. Hopefully, someone will answer your question.
As for your other comment about time spent scanning slides, I use a software package called VueScan which has a handy Batch mode. It prescans each slide, sets the levels and contrast and then does the full scan and stores the image with an autoincremented filename. All I do is load up the carrier and turn ‘er loose and go do something else for about ten minutes. I can scan a 36-exposure roll of slides in about 90 minutes, but most of the time I’m on the other computer or reading or doing something else. It’s not much of a chore, really.
Bert
EDIT: Preparing the slides for scanning takes some time. I use an anti-static brush. That probably takes more of my time than refilling the slide carrier during scanning.
Wonderful discussion for decision and shopping for scanner. Thanks to all for your participation.
No doubt a film scanner would be superior to flatbed for negatives. Another whole subject, and could be the way to go, except cost being the main barrier. Also, then what do you do for the jobs that require a flatbed. It’s not just one or the other, but two contradictory purposes.
Shan, those boxes in the basement are indeed formidable, are they not?
Al
Well, Al, now you know why my den is so crowded. 🙂
Mac,
Thanks for the info. Manufacturers claims being what they are, spurious figures are usually the norm. I suspected that when I bought the flatbed scanner that seem likely to do a job for what I need. It’s pretty much like buying a sports-truck. Anyway, you get what you pay for.
I guess some pixels are more equal than others. 😉
Shan
Al,
Sorry i missed seeing your question on the roll film carrier. Yes, the Epson 3200 does come with a carrier for 4.4×6, 6×6 and up to 6×9 mm negs. There is also one for 4"x5", another for mounted sldes in addition to that for 35 mm.
The carriers for larger formats were considerations that finally clinches the deal for me. Not that I have such a large collection of roll film negs and slices, but just enough that It would be costly to have them commercially scanned. Most of my 120’s are in black and white taken way back. Someday when I can afford a 7-cartridge printer, those B&W negs will get to be re-explored.
Shan
Al,
I thought I posted to your querry on the roll film carrier earlier on, but I still don’t see it here now.
Anyway, here it is again. Carriers that come with the Epson 3200 include one for 35mm film strips (2 side-by-side strips each holding up to 6 frames), one for 35mm mounted slides (for 4 slides), one for larger format with one lift up gate for 120 rolls (from 4.5×6, 6×6 and up to 6×9 mm) and one gate for 4"x5".
The carriers are well made and the capability for the larger formats are the two last factors that made up my mind.
Hope this helps.
Shan
EDIT: Oops, now I see the previous post. 🙂
Bert,
Re: your #46
If it’s needs a stepping up to the next model and higher price, may be I would get a Nikon IV when I can afford it. Seem to remember a post here last year that suggested ICE is a must for scanning large quantities.
Shan
Seem to remember a post here last year that suggested ICE is a must for scanning large quantities
Shan,
Well, I don’t know…having never had it and having scanned an awful lot of slides…I always brush them down with an anti-static brush before scanning, and that seems to remove most of the dust. Many of the older slides still have specks and spots in the emulsion, but as I understand it, the ICE would not detect them…only surface particles that heat due to the infrared. I really can’t tell you how useful it would be…maybe someone else can.
Bert
Scanning has been part of my living …
Film scanning would have been pretty much impractical without infrared cleaning capability of my scanner.
Mac
Thanks all for all the great information…. I have just purchased an Epson 3170 and trying out on the film scanning…. but due to large number of negative and limited space, I will need to keep each file size to be less than 500K….. parton my knowledge, but would it be better to scan in higher dpi and compress more (on jpg), or should I go for a lower dpi (and faster too) and a lower compression rate on the jpg? which one will yield better result?
also, the scanner can do 12 negative at a time with the film holder, however it will still take the scanner 12 passes to scan all of them, takes a long time. is that normal? why can’t it scan the whole thing in one go?
advice appreciated…..
david
wrote in message news:…
Seem to remember a post here last year that suggested ICE is a must for scanning large quantities
Shan,
Well, I don’t know…having never had it and having scanned an awful
lot of slides…I always brush them down with an anti-static brush before scanning, and that seems to remove most of the dust. Many of the older slides still have specks and spots in the emulsion, but as I understand it, the ICE would not detect them…only surface particles that heat due to the infrared. I really can’t tell you how useful it would be…maybe someone else can.
Bert
Mac,
Thanks for the headsup on infrared cleansing. I’ll certainly bear that in mind if I get to buy a film scanner.
Shan
