Re: filmscanners: Do I need Digital ICE? & Scanner selection Advice

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

dbdors wrote:
> 
> I am in need of a film scanner.  As I have a low budget, I have
> narrowed my choices down to the Canon 2710, the Acer 2720S, the
> Acer 2740s or the Minolta Scan Dual II.
> 
> My first Choice is the Acer 2720 as it is the cheapest.  My second
> choice is the Acer 2740.  Although the 2740 is a little more
> expensive than the Minolta or Canon, the Acer has Digital ICE.
>
> Thus the question in the subject line, Do I need Digital ICE?
> 
> I will be mostly scanning 35mm slides that are fairly new.  They
> may have some dust of particles on the slides, but no old slides
> with major scratches.  I will certainly try and make sure the
> slides are as clean as possible, but I don’t want to spend a lot
> of time trying to clean up the scans using software.  I have
> Photoshop LE, so my software tools are limited.
> 
> I will likely be scanning no more than 10-12 slides a month, (thus
> the need for a cheap scanner) but again, I don’t want to spend a
> lot of time cleaning up slides.
> 
> I have heard many Pro's for getting a scanner with Digital ICE,
> but I am also reading some CON's, i.e. no improvement when using
> ICE, not needed if no scratches on slides, ICE not needed if using
> Vuescan (which I am considering buying).

Although 10-12 slide a month, principally for web use does not scream
out for digital ICE, your posting gives me the sense that you are not
one to suffer extra tedium kindly.  ICE is a feature, not a necessity. 
It saves time in reducing the need for spotting of dirt, dust and
scratches, all of which exist to some degree on film.  Some people, who
have abused or mishandled film will find this feature much more helpful
than others who have good labs, and carefully handled film stock, and
who live or work is an area low in dust, dirt and have high enough
humidity to avoid static "cling".

I've not owned a scanner with dICE, but I've noticed that the Minolta
Dual Dimage II has enough resolution to make spotting more of an issue
than, say, my HP S-20 demanded.  So, if you are unwilling to take the
time to do the necessary spotting, or consider dust spots enough of an
issue at screen resolution, then digital ICE is a "quick fix" for that. 
What you need to understand is this is not a free ride.  As ingenious as
dICE is, there are some setbacks with it.  One, it doesn't work well
with some Kodachrome film stocks and it certainly is not useful with
true silver based black and white films, since they are infra-red
opaque. Further, those areas with dirt, holes, scratches, etc, need to
be filled in when those spots are removed, and this is done via an
interpolation process, meaning anywhere the IR scan shows something, the
image gets somewhat softer.

On the Acer 2740, the ICE scan is completely separate from the color
(visible light) scan so registration needs to be exact, and it does slow
down the scanning process due to two scans being needed.  Multiscanning
with the ACer 2740, with ICE on, means doubling the scan time over
having it shut off.  This is not true of the Nikons using dICE since
they do all four scans (R,G.B, IR) per line at the same time before
moving on, adding a smaller time increase.

The Acer 2720 is a well built design, but there are some reports or
streaking problems and this model lacks certain exposure controls to
alter hardware exposure ranges.  It is certainly the best low middle end
value in the market today, especially with that resolution.

Both the Minolta Dual Dimage II and the Canon 2710 will benefit from
Vuescan.  They both suffer with problems with shadow noise that seems to
be reduced with Vuescan (an extra $40 US expense).  This noise appears
as random green speckles, usually and can get severe in dark slides, for
instance. Some of the Minoltas have calibration, software or hardware
problems which are reduced with Vuescan, but not always fully resolved.
I've had a problem with lazy CCD sensors which create one pixel wide
lines through the scan.  I should say that many units seem to be defect
free, but enough reports have surfaced to indicate at least there might
have been a bad production run.  
 
Since you sound to be easily frustrated by waits, I should mention that
the Minolta DImage II (which, as an aside, uses a USB connection) is
very slow in the way it functions.  THe film carriers move slowly, the
scanning is relatively slow, and it shuttles the carrier back and forth
several times for each scan due to the manner it deals with things like
prescanning, calibrating and focusing.  The focusing routine using the
Minolta drivers is absolutely silly (up to 30 secs and lots of clicks
ticks and grunts), while Vuescan handles it is a few seconds.

The Canon 2710 (which, as an aside uses SCSI interfacing, usually
included with the scanner) is considerably faster in handling the
scanning process.  However, it does suffer from more noise and slightly
softer images than the Minolta Dimage, in my limited comparison.

>My main reason for doing the scans myself is that I have been
> spending a fortune on Photo CD scans and the results are not very
> good.  Many of the scans will be used on the web but several will
> be used to print from.  I have been seeing many who scan
> themselves and get great results.  My total spend on the scanner
> will be $500 USD or lower.

You have probably picked a good time to get a film scanner. Due to the
new crop of 4000 dpi models, the lower res units (2700-2800 dpi) are
dropping in price.  I have heard of the Canon 2710 being sold for as
little as $300 US. 

At these prices, and considering the potential for defects or broken
units, I cannot suggest buying a used unit at this time.  You probably
can pick up used Nikons within your $500 budget, but unless you get some
type of meaningful warranty, I would be cautious going that route.

Art