Hi Francis,
I want to thank you for the detail and thought you put into your
question and concerns. It is SOOO much easier to answer a question like
this than one where no information about what the person is needing
their scanner for than when people query "I wanna buy a scanner to make
picture with my computer, which one should I get" ;-)
So, first let me say I do not own an Epson 3200. I do own a Minolta
Dual II.
The Epson 3200 is a great flatbed scanner. However, as good as it is,
it will not compare with a dedicated film scanner, for several reasons.
The first one is that the scanner uses a piece of glass between the film
and the sensor, and the optical path is much more complex. Besides
that the glass has internal refraction, and distortion which on a 35mm
film gets pretty enlarged, due to the small film area, you also may have
problems with film flatness and Newton rings which can occur when two
glossy surfaces contact each other, causing a rainbow pattern of
irregularly shaped bulls eyes
Secondly, the light sources used for flatbed scanners tend to not be as
bright, meaning dense images may not be captured as well. Lastly, don't
assume just because the specs look similar, especially in the area of
dynamic range, that that is meaningful. Often scanner manufacturers
use the theoretical idea of the math formulas based upon the A/D
converter used, rather than the real output which is effected by things
like the quality of the CCD sensor and other components. Film scanners
manufacturers, knowing that they must be able to deliver decent results
on dense color slide images design with tighter tolerances in general.
Unless you are really itching to scan your larger format images right
away, I'd wait and go film scanner, and consider a flatbed as prices
continue to drop.
Now, as to which film scanner. This is a bit tougher decision. You are
correct that real silver (not chromagenic) black and white films cannot
be used with dICE. The reason is simply that the way dICE works is that
a infrared scan is taken to identify all the non-image aspects (dirt,
dust, surface scratches, etc). Color films (other than some Kodachrome
dyes) are basically transparent to IR, so only the defects are captured
in the IR scan, and then they can be "removed" using algorithms to look
at things around them, and fill in the missing information. The silver
image on true B&W film is opaque to IR light, so dICE would attempt to
remove the whole image as a bunch of dirt.
There are three reasons that the Nikon L40 is a poor choice for black
and white and one reason why it may be.
The Nikon uses non-diffused LED lighting sources, which are
uncollimated. This means the light waves are very vertical with little
randomness. This tends to cause considerable emphasis of surface
defects, dirt, dust and grain. Further adding to this problem is that
the resolution of this scanner is in a range that tends to cause
something called grain aliasing, which has to do with the size of grain
versus the size of the sensors and spacing used. So, unless you like to
really see grain, in fact, larger than it actually is, this is a bad choice.
Yet another problem is that, again due to the LED lighting source, which
isn't as bright as some cold cathode types used in other scanners, is
that Nikon had to design this scanner with a larger lens aperture. As is
always the case in optics, a larger aperture means less depth of
field. Since we are speaking hyper macro in a film scanner, the
slightest bit of flex in the film can therefore lead to out of focus
areas, and this is a regular complaint about this scanner. You have a
choice of getting the center or the edges in focus, but not both. The
only way around this is to either compromise with a middle setting
leaving both out of focus or go with glass mounts, and suffering with
even more dust and dirt due to the extra four surfaces, and possibly
Newton rings again.
The Minolta Dual Scan is cheap, and it isn't a bad little scanner BUT,
it suffers from a few similar problems the Nikon has. It's light source
is rather collimated, although not to the extent the Nikon is, it is
also in the same resolution grouping, meaning grain aliasing occurs more
obviously. For black and white, I don't think you will notice a big
difference between the Minolta Dual II and Dual III in terms of
rendition. Some Dual II suffered with "lazy sensor" where one or more
sensors in the CCD didn't calibrate the same as the rest, and this could
be critical for B&W, since I think only one sensor line/channel is used
(probably the green). If you are working only B&W, the blue sensor
noise in the Dual II is probably not an issue, as you can use just the
green or red channel. The Dual III has a much faster interface (USB 2.0
versus 1.1) I'm suspicious that the 16 bit A/D converter makes much if
any difference versus the 12 bit version in the Dual II. SO you may be
able to save something more buying the Dual II, if you are willing to
put up with slower scans.
Between the two scanners (Nikon LS40 and Scan Dual II or III), the Dual
will give you all the features you need (for black and white especially)
less of the problems, and save you big bucks.
Further, there is a guy who has developed a diffuser for the Minolta Pro
which has the same problem with "hard lighting". It seems to have
resolved that problem, but it has not yet been tested on the Dual, or
for black and white, but it may work, and it costs about $20, I think.
Now, having said all this, I can't help but plug one of the better
scanners for black and white film. It is the Polaroid SS4000 and
SS4000+. Polaroid is no longer making these (they are out of the
scanner biz, but there may still be some hanging around in liquidation
or used. The are still being produced under the OEM, Microtek, but
several people have reported quality control issues and poor customer
service, so I don't know what to say about that.
The reasons I suggest this scanner are:
It has a very diffused lighting source that lessens grain and surface
defects from showing up.
It is 4000 dpi which very much reduces grain aliasing.
It has good depth of field meaning you get good focus throughout the image.
You aren't paying for dICE which you cannot use with B&W anyway.
You might also consider the Canon FS 4000.
If you would like (and you have broadband) I can send you a sample scan
of a part of a 35mm scan at full res from my Dual II if that will help.
Art
Francis Tang wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I really asked the following question to the pentax-discuss mailing list but
> have since learnt that this might be a better forum for the question.
>
> I am considering purchasing either a Nikon LS40 or Epson Perfection 3200 for
> scanning, primarily 35mm black and white negatives. I also own a 6x6 camera
> but I don't use it a much as I would like. However, when I have time, I
> would like to put many black and white films through it.
>
> So my thoughts are: right now I'd be better off with a dedicated 35mm film
> scanner. However the thought of being able to scan MF without upgrading is
> tempting, and on paper the 3200 looks at least as good as the LS40. Can
> someone give me a comparison of speed/quality I can expect from the Epson
> versus the Nikon? The Epson is cheaper than the Nikon too!
>
> Also, I'm thinking of buying the Nikon over something cheaper such as a
> Minolta Dimage Scan Dual because of the ICE feature. I remember when I used
> to use a LS1000 at school: I spent an awful lot of time rubber stamping away
> dust specks. I hear that ICE is no good for black and white films (I use
> mostly FP4+, HP5+ and Delta films). Is this really the case? If I scan
> mostly black and white, is there still any point in choosing the LS40 over
> the Dual Scan (which is _very_ cheap at the moment).
>
> I look forward to hearing your replies, comments and suggestions.
>
> Thanking you all in advance.
>
> Francis Tang.
>
> --
> Francis Tang,
> An elegant weapon for a more civilized time. For over a thousand
> generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice
> in the Old Republic. Before the dark times, before the Empire.
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
