minolta scandual III vs new flatbeds

[jon_sak]

I have a minolta scan dual III (2800dpi) and I have been hapily using

it for a few years now. Recently I picked up a epson 3490 (3200dpi)

to scan recipts and documents. To my surprise it came with masks for

35mm negaive slide and film. So I decided to try it out, but I

figured that I would never actually use a cheap flatbed for scanning.

After giving it a test run I am finding it hard to distinguish the

output of files. The Epson 3490 appears to be just as good as the

minolta scandual III and in some scans a little better. I know the

scandual III is an old model, but I thought flatbeds didn't scan film

at thier full dpi. Are my observations coorrect?

[clinton_abe]

The newer flatbed scanners can do a very good job of scanning negative and slides. The Canon 8400F ($149 MSRP) has a resolution of 3200 X 6400 DPI, and the 9950F ($399 MSRP) has a resolution of 4800 X 9600 DPI. Only the top of the line dedicated film scanners like the KM Dimage Scan Elite 5400II, has better resolution (5400 DPI). I believe the Canon 9950F can do 30 slides at a time, plus it can scan medium format negs, something the KM 5400II cannot.

 

I have the older Canon 9900F flatbed which has a resolution similar to your Epson.

[ilkka]

The main differences are found in dark areas of the film and sometimes in critical sharpness. Film scanners can better extract detail from dark areas (better dynamic range) and they can be focused or have autofocus that can significantly improve image sharpness compared with a fixed focus flatbed. But you are right, the new flatbeds offer very good value for money.

[nate_macdonald]

It's not just about the resolution, dedicated film scanners exhibit a greater dynamic range than flatbeds and as such, will produce more accurate results.

[clinton_abe]

Microtek has a flat-bed scanner that has a dynamic range of 4.0, almost as good as the best dedicated film scanner.