Older 6x7 film scanner versus newer flatbed scanner

[harryo]

I would like to know your opinions on the following. I want to scan

my 6x7 slides and have two options:

 

1. Get an older Dimage Multi scanner ( not the current version )

which provides I believe 2800 dpi without any digital ICE

 

 

2. Get a newer generation of flatbed scanner such as the Epson 4870

which has ditital ICE.

 

My slides are landscape and I want to produce prints up to 20x24.

 

Any experience with either of these would be greatly appreciated.

 

thanks harry

[John Crowe]

Read the fine print with respect to Digital Ice in flatbed scanners, the last time I looked it does not work on slides, only on scanned prints. The Digital Ice guys are smart keeping the technology available for slides only in the top end expensive dedicated units. If you have Kodachrome or Velvia your main problem will be getting shadow detail to show, but I know the Dimage units are supposed to be good at that. I have the much older Minolta Quickscan Plus 35mm scanner, also at 2800 dpi, that I just bought used. I have not attempted printing from it yet, but I do notice the loss in shadow detail, although resolution seems quite good. As I said the Dimage is better technology and 6x7 works in your favour as well. Good luck!

[michael_young3]

As I understand it, dICE has problems with silver images: Kodachrome and B&W. Silver blocks IR, which ICE uses to identify scratches. Chromogenic dyes have a different signature, and can be distinguished from surface artifacts.

[ken_lee11]

I had a DimageMulti Pro and now regret selling it. Dedicated film scanners out-perform flatbed scanners, such that even for medium format, the difference will be quite discernable. I have posted to this forum with sample images in the past. If you can't find them, and want to see for yourself, let me know.

 

A flatbed that claims 2800 ppi will generally deliver 60% of that, when compared to a dedicated film scanner. But a *real* 2800ppi scan, and printing out at 300 dpi, allows you an enlargement factor of 2800/300, or 9.3x - which should be perfect to make 20x24 images.

[gary_ferguson1]

For slides you'd be better off with a dedicated film scanner, especially if you're digging deep into the shadow areas of Velvia. If you try a good colour negative instead, like Reala, you may well get all you want from the Epson plus a useful ICE option. One big issue with flatbeds is the quality of the film holders, you should check you get corner to corner sharpness from a 6x7 neg or slide.

[bob_rannells]

I own the Minolta Scan Multi II scanner which is a software upgrade from the Scan Multi. Both the scan Multi and Scan Multi II scan 35mm at 2820 dpi. The Scan Multi and Scan Multi II scan medium format optically at 1128 dpi. With the software upgrade of the Scan Multi II you can scan up to 2820 dpi by means of interpolation with medium format. Don't be scared off by this as it is a very good method of interpolation. It doesn't look interpolated. I've printed many 20X20" prints from 6X6 negatives and transparencies with great results. I'm sure I could go up to 20X24 with a sharp negative or transparency. So, I think you would get great results from 6X7. I have an Epson 2450 and the Minolta is much sharper.

[mark_muse]

I realize the Nikon 8000 and 9000 were not mentioned as options, presumably because of

cost. But they would be my strong recommendation. They offer effective digital ICE in

a high quality dedicated film scanner. In addition to dust/dirt removal they also provide

very good noise/grain suppression at very little to no cost in image sharpness, depending

on the degree applied.

 

I shoot 6 x 9 negs and have had an 8000 for quite a while and I am very pleased with it.

 

Though I have not used one the reports of the Minolta at the time I bought my Nikon were

that while it was sharp it was quite noisy. Noise, if you are not familiar with it, is sort of

the digital equivalent of film grain.

 

Just don't expect production speeds with any of these scanners. They might offer

professional quality results (I can only speak for the image quality of the Nikons and the

Epsons) but you would have to spend a great deal more money, say 5 figures, to get

professional production speed too.

 

And as with any piece of gear/software you will have to learn how to use it properly to get

the best results.