Re: "Photo scanner" vs real film scanner?

[Mark Erickson]

I personally have gotten results that I like scanning 35mm film with an 
Epson 4870.  I previously owned a 2450 and a Minolta dedicated film scanner, 
and I found that the 4870 has better practical dynamic range than either the 
2450 or my old Minolta.  I find that setting the 4870 scan resolution higher 
than 2400 dpi does not yield better final resolution, so I generally scan at 
2400 dpi.  All of the images at the page below were scanned with a 4870: 

http://www.westerickson.net/gmb2005noflash 

These are reduced-resolution web images.  I really like the print quality at 
8"x10", but I wouldn't print them much larger than that.  Your mileage may 
vary. 

If you want to see a head-to-head comparison between a 4990 and a Nikon 
Coolscan 4000, go here: 

http://photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204990/Page%208.htm 

My interpretation is that the Coolscan resolution exceeds that of the 
scanned film (you can see the color dye clouds) and the Epson doesn't quite 
get there.  That said, the Epson shadows are clean, and it's not that far 
behind the Nikon in resolution. 

I would suggest that if you are ok with 2400 dpi and judicious application 
of post-scan unsharp masking, a high-end Epson like the 4870 or 4990 may be 
good enough for you.  Your best bet is to get access to one, try it out, and 
see if you like the results. 

Hope these links helped, 

--Mark