|
Rangefinder
Magazine
November 2002
Tech Review: Scanners—How Low Can You
Go? by Peter Kotsinadelis
 |
 |
| Image of model Sarah Anderson was taken on Fuji Reala
film. Camera: Canon EOS 3 with Sigma 70–200mmf/2.8 EX HSM lens.
Exposure: 1/60 at f/8. |
|
With a growing number of scanner models coming to market
in the last few years, many offering features previously found in pricier
models only a year ago, it would seem that today’s scanners offer
a more cost effective means of going digital than ever before. So the
question becomes, can this new breed of low-priced scanners produce high-quality
results? Another question would be, just how easy are they to install?
We decided to take a few scanners for a test drive and see for ourselves.
Why Consider a Scanner?
Although scanners have certainly taken a back seat to the photographer’s
new passion, the digital SLR, there are still a large number of photographers
who shoot film. A scanner offers a means to digitize images originating
on film and store those images for easy access. Additionally, photographers
can benefit from digitizing their archives of negatives and transparencies
to make them more accessible for a wide range of uses.
Rather than simply listing a number of scanners and their associated features
we decided to look at a small segment of inexpensive scanners available
on the market today. We selected two flat bed scanners—Epson Perfection
2450 Photo Scanner ($379)and Microtek ScanMaker 8700 ($899)—both
capable of scanning film as well as prints. We also looked at two film
scanners, the BenQ (formerly Acer) ScanWit 2740S ($449)—also sold
as the UMAX 270—and Canon’s FS4000 ($999) film scanners. This
group allowed us to see for ourselves how flatbed and film scanners compared
and just as important but often overlooked, how easy they are to install
or the “out of the box” experience.
Making the Connection
Connections used for scanners include USB (Universal Serial Bus), FireWire
(IEEE 1394), and SCSI (Small Computer System Interface). USB and FireWire
are native to many PCs and Macs today and require little more than connecting
a wire from the scanner to a port on the computer. While SCSI may be found
on some models of Macs, it is not an interface that is typically found
on PCs and requires the installation of a SCSI interface card.
 |
 |
|
 |
BenQ ScanWit 2740S |
Canon’s FS4000 film scanners |
Epson Perfection 2450 Photo Scanner |
Microtek ScanMaker 8700—both
capable of scanning film as well as prints. |
A popular interface, SCSI has been around for nearly
two decades and provides a transfer rate that ranges from 20 to 40 MBps
(Mega [million] bytes per second) with Ultra SCSI capable of speeds up
to 320 MBps. Although considerably faster than standard USB 1.1, which
operates at a 12 mbps (Mega bits per second), USB 2.0 can operate at 480
Mbps, or the equivalent of 60 MBps. FireWire with a transfer rate of 400
Mbps and one that is expected to increase to 800 to 1600 mbps by the end
of the year, is one technology that will clearly give SCSI a run for its
money.
While each media has its technical pros and cons, and proponents of any
one of the three can tell you why theirs is best until your head spins,
using each and comparing for yourself is another story. In setting up
several scanners over a 4–6 week period, my experience with SCSI
was not a good one. For those not familiar SCSI cards, let me mention
that you must first install the card in your system and load the proper
software so the system recognizes it. Most SCSI cards are made by third-party
manufacturers, none of whom I found offered any “live” support,
something that added to the frustration of installing the scanner. Now
I am certain there are readers who have had little problem with SCSI installation,
but my “out of the box experience” using SCSI was “plug
and pain” while USB and FireWire installation was simple and straightforward.
We had wanted to include additional high-end scanners in this article,
but problems with SCSI installation led to the decision to simply leave
them out.
For photographers who are less technically inclined, or who prefer spending
time shooting images rather than troubleshooting, I would advise that
you bypass SCSI in favor of a USB 2.0 or FireWire-equipped scanner. The
one exception to this in our test drive was the BenQ ScanWit 2740S film
scanner. This scanner came with its own SCSI card and a single CD—others
had a separate CDs for the SCSI drivers and scanner software—that
loaded the SCSI drivers and application software all at one time. If you
follow their installation directions this scanner is very simple to install
and operate.
Software, Resolution and Keeping Things Clean!
One of the more interesting discoveries was how far scanner software has
come in recent years. Not only does the scanner manufacturer provide product
specific features to help differentiate them in the marketplace, but all
the software tested had the ability to adjust brightness/contrast, curves,
levels, color balance, hue/saturation, sharpness, and much more. Having
this set of controls is like having a subset of PhotoShop before you complete
the scan.
Software for the BenQ 2740S and Microtek ScanMaker 8700 include available
profiles for color negative films. While this is a great idea, I found
that these choices did not always yield the best color scans for the specific
film type. In most cases leaving the setting to one of the Kodak film
types yielded the best result. Out of the box the Epson and Canon software
produced the most accurate color scans of the four. Microtek offers a
version of the 8700 that includes Genuine Fractals, LaserSoft’s
SilverFast Ai Software, plus two Kodak Q-60 calibration targets for even
greater flexibility.
When scanning multiple images, a great deal of time may be saved using
batch scanning. Batch scanning allows you to select multiple images for
scanning and then let the software scan them individually, one after another,
until all are complete. All but the Microtek ScanMaker 8700 have this
feature.
Last, but not least, is the ability to remove surface defects (dust, scratches,
fingerprints) from scanned images without loss of detail, or “keeping
things clean.” This tool is invaluable whether scanning negatives,
transparencies, or prints. Of the four scanners the BenQ 2740S was the
only one to include Applied Science Fiction’s Digital ICE. The Canon
FS4000 uses their own FARE technology (Film Automatic Retouching and Enhancement)
to improve image quality during scanning, but the drawback is that it
does not work with black & white or Kodachrome films. Both work well
and once you grow accustomed to this feature it is very hard to give it
up. Microtek’s newly announced ScanMaker 6800, which was not yet
available for review at the time of this article, will be the first flatbed
scanner to incorporate ASF’s Digital ICE and should be in the stores
by the time you are read this.
So, Which is Best for Me?
So how good are these scanners in terms of resolution? All produced very
good scans, but of course some did better than others. While the Epson
2450 and Microtek ScanMaker 8700 flatbed scanners did an excellent job
scanning prints, both did not do as well with transparencies and negatives.
The Epson 2450 has twice the optical resolution (Epson refers to it as
“hardware resolution” and informed me it is the same as optical
resolution) of the Microtek ScanMaker 8700, giving it a bit of an edge
when you need a higher scanning resolution. (See images that compare photo
and the right eye of it as scanned by each scanner). It holds true that
film scanners are still the best choice for scanning film, since they
are specifically designed for that purpose. All images were scanned at
2700 dpi, except for those scanned with the Canon FS4000, since it only
allows preset dpi selections, limiting our choices at the high end to
2000dpi or 4000dpi with nothing in between. To be as fair as possible
we chose 2000 dpi and even at 2000 dpi it was clear that the scans produced
by the Canon were smoother and sharper.
Generally speaking, higher priced scanners will scan images faster than
lower priced scanners. The Canon FS4000 is twice the price of the BenQ
and was clearly the faster of the two, even with the Canon FS4000 was
operated via USB 1.1 and the BenQ 2740S via SCSI, and of the flatbed scanners
the Microtek was faster than the Epson. The Microtek’s media draw
was very easy to use and for both reflective and film scanning. The benefit
here is that you get images directly from film thereby eliminating Newton
Rings. Microtek has templates for 35mm slides and film, 6x9cm, and 4"x5"
film that are included with the scanner. Epson, on the other hand, is
a bit clumsier to set up for negative or slide scanning. You first have
to remove the pressure pad from inside the cover to allow a secondary
light source to shine down through the media. Then lay plastic film holders
on the scanner glass much like a print. However, once set in place the
Epson worked perfectly and the software was the easiest of all to use.
For someone on a budget this scanner is a terrific value.
So what is the bottom line? Basically if you plan to do a lot of scans,
make large prints, and want to save some time, consider the more expensive
scanners and those with greater optical resolution. These scanners will
also typically come with added tools and/or software allowing you to adjust
your scanned images to a greater degree than lower priced models. If you
are more the occasional user when it comes to scanning images, and generally
make 5x7 or 8x10 prints, some of the lower priced will more than suit
your needs and budget.
Peter Kotsinadelis is a freelance writer
and photographer living in Pleasanton, California. A frequent contributor
to photography-related publications he may be reached by e-mail at peterk@iname.com.
|
