This page is a brief comparison of scanning techniques. I've got sample scans of one image taken in three ways:
These scans all produce similar-sized scans, although the Epson negative scan is a bit smaller than the rest. The source image was taken on Agfa ISO 200 color print film using a Kristall 35mm SLR camera and its Industar-50 50mm lens. Here are the results. I didn't manipulate the images in any way after scanning. First, the full images, reduced in size to approximately 600x400 (click an image to see the full-sized scan):
The Umax 1220U flatbed print scan:
The Epson RX500 flatbed print scan:
The Epson RX500 flatbed negative scan:
The Polaroid film scanner negative scan:
The Minolta film scanner negative scan:
Aside from the Umax print scan, which looks awful in part because of poor scanner color settings, these look fairly similar. The Polaroid scan also looks a bit washed out, but that can be changed by kicking up the color saturation in a graphics program. (Color saturation can also be influenced by scanner software settings, and I didn't try to match the colors between scanners.) A more subtle difference can be seen in close-ups of the full-scale images:
The Umax 1220U flatbed print scan:
The Epson RX500 flatbed print scan:
The Epson RX500 flatbed negative scan:
The Polaroid film scanner negative scan:
The Minolta film scanner negative scan:
The Polaroid and Minolta film scanners clearly produce much sharper images than the others. Note in particular the detail in the insect's wings. The Polaroid and Minolta are pretty similar in sharpness. (From these scans, the Polaroid might seem to have a slight edge; however, the Polaroid is fixed-focus, whereas the Minolta has a focus adjustment, and I didn't expend much effort in getting the focus just right on this shot, so the Minolta's output might be improved on this score.) Although it's not shown in this shot, the Minolta copes much better with areas that are dark in the film (that is, which scan to light areas when using negative film). The Polaroid suffers from video noise that produces streaks in such areas; the Minolta and Epson do not, or at least aren't nearly as susceptible to such problems. The Minolta can also scan at an even higher resolution of 5400 dpi, supports infrared dust-removal, and has lots more features. Of course, this is hardly surprising; I bought the Polaroid used for $25 on eBay, then later upgraded to the Minolta for $560 -- and that's the price for a refurbished unit!
Still, for sharp scans, it seems that a true film scanner beats out a flatbed with transparency adapter or a flatbed scanning prints -- at least, based on my very limited sample and test. The noise deficiencies with the Polaroid can be a major problem, though, perhaps offsetting its scan sharpness when compared to a flatbed. For the best of both worlds, a newer scanner is hard to beat, but they can be pricey. (My Minolta is pricier than most consumer-level scanners, though -- many good models can be had for much less than I paid.)
I am making every attempt to keep these web pages viewable from any web browser. Of course, not all browsers support all features used by these pages, but I've tried to make such items harmless to these browsers. These pages have been checked using weblint, as well as with a variety of browsers. If you encounter a problem accessing these pages from your browser, please notify me.
Copyright © 2004 Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com