Digital BW, The Print

Randy --

I presume by "others" you mean a high-resolution flat-bed scanner. I 
believe that a properly used film scanner -- one dedicated to scanning film 
-- will provide scans superior to those made with a flat-bed scanner of 
similar specifications. Part of this may be superior optics; part may be 
the interface of hardware and software that's been designed for a specific 
purpose.

This being said, there are several reasons why I consider the Polaroid 
SprintScan120 (available used on eBay and elsewhere) or the similar 
Microtek ArtixScan 120tf (currently available from retail sources such as 
www.bhphoto.com for $1700) to provide superior 4000 dpi scanning for 
black-and-white negatives. These are:

1. The Polaroid and Microtek scanners use a diffuse light source; the Nikon 
uses a highly collimated source. A diffuse source reduces the appearance of 
dust and scratches. Nikon includes "Digital Ice" with their scanner which 
is highly effective with dye-based films such as chromogenic 
black-and-white films, but DOES NOT WORK with silver-image black-and-white 
negatives (or incidentally with Kodachrome) . This may be the best reason 
to prefer a Polaroid or Microtek scanner to the Nikon.

2. The Nikon scanner uses a dimmer light source than the Polaroid or 
Microtek so that its lens must work at a larger aperture. However excellent 
the Nikon optics may be, the large aperture provides less depth of field so 
that unless the film is held flat in a glass film holder, normally buckled 
film is likely to show some loss of sharpness at its edges or corners. The 
smaller aperture lens in the Polaroid or Microtek scanners provides a 
satisfactorily sharp image all the way to the corners even with film held 
in a glassless carrier. The advantage of a glassless carrier is that you 
only have the two surfaces of the film to keep clean instead of the six 
surfaces of film plus two pieces of glass. The dust that may appear on a 
Nikon scan is additionally problematic since the Nikon's collimated light 
source will project it more sharply than would the Polaroid or Microtek's 
diffuse source.

3. There have been reports that scans made with the Nikon 8000 may show 
banding in areas of even tonality if the scanner is used in its high-speed 
mode which I believe scans three lines at a time. I don't know if Nikon has 
remedied this in the 9000. The banding is eliminated if you turn off the 
high-speed mode so that scans are made one line at a time, but then a scan 
takes three times as long. There is no such problem with the Polaroid or 
Microtek scanners.

4. A few more mundane considerations: the Polaroid or Microtek scanner is 
smaller, quieter, and cheaper. My Polaroid SprintScan 120 came with the 
full version of SilverFast AI software which I've updated to the latest 
version. The current version of SilverFast is stable and powerful and 
includes remarkably satisfactory dedicated profiles of dozens of 
black-and-white films.

I went through a similar decision process prior to buying my Polaroid 120. 
Even though Polaroid has discontinued their line of scanners, my SprintScan 
120 continues to provide superior scans; it has never required warranty 
service; and I remain satisfied with my purchase.

Hope this has been useful.

-- Victor Landweber


At 07:34 PM 2/18/2004, randyrancier wrote:
>Well, from what I have been able to gather from those of you that
>work with MF film, is that there is a clear advantage to using a
>4000 dpi scanner over others.  Sounds like most of you prefer the
>Nikon (8000) scanners.  Are there any other contenders or is there a
>clear advantage that the Nikon has over the others?  Does Nikon make
>any other MF 4000 dpi scanners or is the 8000 & 9000 it?
>Thanks again,
>Randy