Epson 3200 review

The Epson Perfection 3200 scanner

Page 7.

pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Film scanning ...2

OK so were all moving to digital capture within the next year or two, but what about the hundreds of negatives and transparencies that we have shot over the years. One option would be to have them all professionally drum scanned, but this can be an expensive option. Another option would be to buy a dedicated film scanner, but these are expensive items costing £2000+. The third option is to use a flatbed scanner with a Transparency unit.

I have always shied away from the last option, after all flatbed scanners are great for scanning documents but not that great with film. At a pinch I have scanned 120 and 5x4 film, but never 35mm. So why am I making such a big fuss about this scanner? Technology moves on in leaps and bounds and when I first saw the results of the 3200 I was lost for words. I have included a selection of pictures and details from those pictures, I think the results speak for themselves.

© Michael Jones photographer 2003

The original 6x7 transparency 177.23mb at 3200 dpi

Professionally scanned with a Flextight Precision 2 scanner at 3200dpi

Scanned with the Epson Perfection 3200 at 3200dpi

Although the Epson scan does not quite have the sharpness of the Flextight scan, it still puts in an excellent performance. Considering the Flextight scanner costs approx.£4000 and the Epson has a RRP of £349, I don't think there is £3651 worth of difference between the two. Obviously there is, the Flextight has a 4.2 Dmax whereas the 3200 is >3.4 Dmax, this means the Flextight is going to give you more detail in the dark areas, although you are going to have to look hard to see it. The Flextight had USM applied by the lab, so I also applied the Medium USM to my scan. Even high end drum scans need some USM applied. If the above picture was printed at 300 dpi it would produce a 27.5 x 22.5 inch print. The Epson scan took 4 minutes 35 seconds.

35mm

My next sample is a mounted 35mm Transparency. This was scanned on my ageing Nikon Coolscan LS-1000 (not a current model, but still a high performance scanner) and on the 3200. I lowered the scanning resolution on the Epson to match the Nikon (2,700 dpi), this produced a file size of approximately 27mb, a full resolution scan on the 3200 would give a 38.64mb file. At a resolution of 300 dpi it would produce a 15 x 10 inch print. The Epson scan took 1 minute 30 seconds.


Nikon Coolscan at 2700 dpi	Epson 3200 at 2700 dpi

Top button (Nikon)	Top button (Epson)

Yes, I have got the correct picture captions under each picture and yes this came as a surprise to me too. The Epson flatbed scanner has produced a superior scan than the dedicated film scanner. The colours on the Epson are also livelier and the gold on the tunic looks like gold. Look at the edges of the button and you will see the Nikon scan has started to pixelate, whilst the Epson keeps a smooth edge. Bear in mind the Epson still has more resolution up its sleeve than I have shown here, I think this is a remarkable achievement for a flatbed scanner.

More pictures to follow shortly