MF-Scans on Epson Perfection 3200 better than 35mm on Dual III?

[peter_bongard]

Hi!

I currently have a Minolta Dimage Dual III 35mm filmscanner and take

my pictures on an eos 3. I'm planning to start MF-Photography with a

Mamiya C330. Since I develop my negs at home (b/w only), edit them on

PC and print them on my Epson 1290 with MIS-Hextone-inks, I'd like to

maintain this workflow with MF-negs. The problem is that scanning MF

is very expensive (3000 Euros for a MF filmscanner), so I thought

about buying the Epson Perfection 3200 flatbed-scanner, since it can

scan MF-negatives. My question is: I think the true resolution of the

3200 is only somewhat around 1500 ppi (the dual III has 2820), so

scans of 35mm-slides look better on the Minolta. But MF-slides are

bigger than 35mm-scans, so would a MF-negativescan on the epson

deliver better results than a 35mm-scan on the Minolta (especially in

terms of resolution, sharpness)?

Thanks so much for your answers!

 

Peter

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

IMHO, you'll probably find them very close. I found that although I could make very nice A4 prints from 645 with the 2450, they just weren't better than the D60 sample images I downloaded and printed. If you are unhappy with the grain in your A4 and larger prints from 35mm, you may find MF with the 3200 somewhat nicer, but I don't think you'll see much difference in resolution and sharpness. From the samples I've seen, it seems that the 3200 is not a whole lot better than the 2450, and I think your 1500 dpi estimate is about right.

 

IMHO 6x7 or 6x9 with the 3200 would be quite a bit better than 35mm with the Minolta, but 645 and 6x6 would be pretty close. If you haven't purchased your C330 yet, you might consider a Fuji GW690III to go along with the 3200.

[leonard_evens]

From everything I've read about the two scanners you mention, I have to agree with David. You can see some examples of what resolution is possible with the 2450 from 6 x 7 negatives at

 

math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html

 

The 3200 should be a bit better, but not by a whole lot.

 

Your description of the 3200 as having a "true resolution" of 1500 is I think misleading. The 3200 has a true scanning resolution of 3200 pixels per inch or about 126 pixels per mm. According to digital sampling theory, the best resolution in the usual sense of lp/mm that you could obtain from such a scanner would be half or 63 lp/mm. In fact, the actual resolution (in the usual sense) is about half that. So from that point of view, you could say that the Epson 3200 functions as a perfect scanner with a scanning resolution of about 1600 ppi. However, there is no such animal. Every scanner falls short of the theoretical maximum. The Minolta has a scanning resolution of 2820 ppi or about 111 pixels per mm. Its theoretical maximal resolution would be about 55 lp/mm. I don't know how close it gets to that, but I would be surprised if it were much above 40 lp/mm.

Say it is even 45 lp/mm. A 35 mm frame has to be enlarged at least twice as much as a medium format frame, so the Epson 3200 even at 30 lp/mm should be able to hold its own. But you see from such estimates why David's comment is relevant. The less you have to enlarge for the same size final print, the more the advantage of medium format.

[david_f._stein]

If you work with SCSI, the professional level Linocolor Saphir2 or UMax Powerlook III

are still availabe at attractive prices$300-500-1200 hardware dpi; full 8x10

transparency area. The firewire version of each would be a bit more expensive. You

can set out 6 or so 6x9 negatives and work off that "desktop." These are not the

quietest scanners in the world but excellent. ANOTHER WAY TO GO.............

[franciszek_czekala]

There are some comments on Norman Koren website regarding Epson 3200 scanner which clearly say that its resolution can be described as 1600 dpi IN COMPARISON WITH Minolta Dimage Dual III. That is the 35 mm scans coming from Epson have much less sharpness and detail then the same scans produced by Minolta dedicated scanner. It does not matter what the Epson specs say, the truth is that its optics is much worse (probably because the lense is much bigger) then that of Minolta. My opinion is that it simply does not make sense to shoot MF and scan it on a flatbed scanner. The cost of equipment, film, processing, etc. will not translate sensibly into picture quality. Medium format is horribly expensive in general and it makes sense only if you can take advantage of the extra quality it can give you. So prepare to spend extra bucks for a dedicated MF scanner or forget MF. Another point is that you are shooting B/W films only, which are supposed to have much smaller grain than color films. Am I right? In this case Minolta Dual III will give you enough resolution to make beautiful A3 prints anyway. I cannot see how you can make use of increased resolution of MF without buying a large-format printer - around 5000$ perhaps? By the way I have Minolta Dual III and Fuji Provia 100F scans reveal so many details with virtually no grain that it makes my jaw drop. I guess it can only improve with fine grain B/W film. And you can easily control any remaining grain with a program like Neat Image. Cheers.

[david_millier]

Peter

 

I recently purchased a 3200 to use for MF/LF black and white landscape work and to complement my D100. The first thing I did was to carry out some comparative testing. I compared 18 x 12 inch epson 1290 prints from D100 raw images, 35mm FP4 images (scanned on 2700dpi neg scanner) and Mamiya C330 images scanned on the 3200. Conclusion?

 

The most detailed were the 3200 scans, followed by the 35mm scans then the D100 images. The D100 were the smoothest.

 

The difference in detail between the D100 and the 35mm was marginal but the difference between 35mm and the cropped 6*6 scans was quite noticable.

 

I'm sure you would be able to get even better detail from 6*9 or from a better scanner but the 3200 is better than some of the posts in this thread have suggested.

 

regards

 

Dave Millier

[peter_bongard]

Hi!

What about the Minolta Dimage Scan Mulit II? The price should be around 1000$ by now, so it's cheaper than the multi pro. Does it deliver significant better scans than the epson 3200?

[britt_park]

I've just recently got an Epson 3200. In my unscientific tests, scanning 6x4.5 Tri-X,

I'm getting a "real" resolution of slightly less than 2400 dpi. That is, scans at 2400

dpi, when USM'd, show a very close to sharp edge at the single pixel level. So in

practice I think you'll find the 3200 quite adequate for anything but really enormous

enlargements. My medium format scans are close to a full order of magnitude more

detailed than my 35mm scans on my Dual III.

[leonard_evens]

About Norman Koren and the Epson 3200.

 

I couldn't find anything on his web site comparing the Epson 3200 to the Minolta Dual III. I did find a comparison of both the Epson 2450 and 3200 with the HP S20, and he found the last superior for 35 mm to either of the Epsons. I have an Epson 2450 and an HP S20. For 35 mm they are comparable. We may be using different criteria or our units may be different. It is also possible he was more familiar with the S20 and could pull more out of it. In any event, I don't think the S20 and the Epsons are substantially different for 35 mm. Although some people have claimed they get excellent 35 mm scans from the 3200, I am skeptical about it. I think that for 35 mm the Minolta Dual II or III is definitely going to be better than either Epson.

 

But the relevant question is whether the Epson for medium format is going to be better than the Minolta Dual III for 35 mm. As David Littleboy said, this is to some extent dependent on the specific medium format being used, but generally the answer is yes.

 

Again, I warn against mixing up the scanning resolution and the ability of a scanner to resolve detail. No scanner will live up to its theoretical potential based simply on scanning resolution. So the question is what its actual resolution is in lp/mm. The answer for the Epson 3200, from all reports, appears to be about 30 lp/mm, depending on contrast level and related factors.

[peter_bongard]

So my conclusion so far would be that it's going to be "better" (deliver sharper, detailed prints) on 6x6, but not a whole lot. The question is: How big are the difference between a MF-Scan from the epson 3200 to another mid-range (Multi pro) or high-end-scanner (drumscanner)? I've read somewhere that (after USMing the picture) there is hardly any difference between an Epson 2450 (!) and a Nikon 8000 for $4000. So- could anybody post some blow-ups of comparison-pictures in which the details/differences between the scans become evident?

And what about the Minolta Dimage Multi II (cheaper than the pro, perhaps an alternative to the epson?!?)? Any good? Any other alternatives?

Peter

[jason_cheng2]

I had a similar question to Peter's posting. I currently scan 35mm negatives and slides with a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 which scans at 4000 dpi. The images are very sharp and detailed with the limiting factor seeming to be the grain of the film being used. I had some old wedding negatives scanned by a friend of mine on an Epson 2450. Much to my surprise the medium format (6x6) scans were noticeably less sharp and crisp (visible on the digital files but born out by 11x17 enlargments made from these files on an Epson 1270 printer). Is this a function of the sprintscan being a dedicated film scanner versus the 2450 being a flatbed scanner? The medium format negatives were from approx 15 years ago. I know film emulsions have improved quite a bit over the years and perhaps that is the problem? Any ideas? I am thinking of buying a Bronica 645 RF but would only do so if I could scan the negatives and slides myself and get better results than with my 4000 dpi scans of 35mm negatives and slides. Any comments welcome!

 

Jason

[franciszek_czekala]

There is a review of Multi Scan Pro on Luminous Landscape with further links and sample images. Scan Pro is compared there with a flatbed Epson 1640SU Photo scanner and the scans from the flatbed scanner look like enlarged 35 mm images. The difference is noticeable. But the flatbed technology might have improved since then and such a test might yield different results for new models. Anyway I feel the most interesting application of flatbed scanners concerns scanning 4x5 large format negatives, if you shoot them, that is. It seems to me that MF is all about quality and this quality costs. If you cannot afford to buy the equipment that will squeeze out everything that MF can give you then perhaphs you are aiming too high.

There are further links in the above mentioned article on LL that lead to another article comparing scanned MF and 35 mm negatives and digital photographs. I think it may be interesting in making the right decision. I must say that my first impressions are such that it really does not make sense to invest in MF unless you are a professional and you are required to work with such equipment. Cannon 1DS is the way to go if you are looking for the highest quality and want to work digitally.