Re entry level film scanners - "lab" data.

[Paul Freeman <free1000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Check out this URL if you want to find out how a variety of film
scanners perform. You will see that the HP Photosmart performs as
well as many more expensive options.

http://www.cix.co.uk/~tsphoto/tech/filmscan/menu.htm#index

Be careful how you interpret the results. I tried both the cheapest
(EPSON filmscan 200) which really isnt worth bothering with except
for home/snapshot use as well as the HP. I found that the difference
in resolution was substantially greater than that exhibited in the test
shot results on this site.

John Pham cited dust/scratch removal as a good reason for buying a
more expensive scanner. Interestingly enough I saw a lab test in a
French magazine called "Chasseur des Images" last week. This compared
the cheaper Nikon coolscan III and the more expensive Nikon coolscan
2000. Both of these feature the amazing ICE mechanism which removes
dirt specks etc.   What was really interesting was that the lower priced
model caused very noticable softening of the image when this feature is
used. More remarkably, the expensive model worked perfectly, with
no apparent image softening.  So yes. In an ideal world I'd buy a Nikon
Coolscan 2000! In this ideal world I'd also be able to drive an Aston
Martin and take Sharon Stone to dinner.

The only problem I have personally had with the scanner is some
flare with backlit subjects. I have not experienced the noise problems
mentioned at all (Scanner situated 20cm on desk over tower PC).

Regards

Paul Freeman.