Polaroid SprintScan 4000

Guide to 4x5 scanners (as well as film scanners for 120 and 220 film) Nikon LS-4500, Polaroid 4x5 film scanner, Leaf 45 film scanner, Minolta Dimage Scan Multi, comparisons with Agfa and Microtek flatbed scanners, Linotype-Hell Heidelberg CPS scanners.

For serious professionals in graphic arts, for artists who want to enlarge their images in Fine Art Giclee prints, and for museums who plan exhibits requiring posters, banners, or enlargements, a good quality scanner is a wise investment in quality.

Design and graphics shops, advertising agencies, and pre-press service bureaus have led the recognition of the value of drum scanners.

Several CCD scanners approach the capabilities of a drum scanner. Notice the word "approach." If you need drum scanner quality a Umax 3000 is not what you want. I would prefer an Imacon, Heidelberg Topaz, or Fuji Lanovia C-550 flatbed. Since 6x6 cm (120 and 220 film) and 4x5 inch formats represent most professional photography in the big leagues, it is worthwhile to have a special scanner for these formats.

Durst	Durst Digital Copy 450, basically a copy stand with lighting; you provide a digital camera; shots only film (up to 4x5).
Imacon	several models, over 4800 dpi, my favorite non-drum film scanners
Leaf	fortunately this model was retired from the market; it was one of the earliest of its kind and advances in hardware and software were not kind to it.
Minolta	Dimage ScanMulti 35mm (2820 dpi) up to 6x9 film (1128 dpi)
Nikon	LS-4500 Multi-Format film scanner (3000 dpi for 35mm, only 1000 dpi for 4x5)
Polaroid	we tested Polaroid's original 4x5 scanner and none of my scanner staff would use it. They said the holders were awkward and the results indifferent. Polaroid came out with an improved 4x5 scanner that we have not yet tested.

The winner is Imacon. We visited the Imacon booth at Photokina and learned a lot about the Imacon scanner. Their marketing manager remembered that we had previously visited his office in Copanhagen.

In May 1999 I had an opportunity to test an Imacon at the Center for Advanced Imaging (Meramec campus, St Louis Community College). I like the idea of not having to put goo all over my slides (required for most drum scanners). I like the idea that my chrome will not slide around on a glass surface of a flatbed or get Newton's Rings sandwiched between two glass plates.

Since I scan mainly to reproduce on a wide-format printer, I like the abundant dpi that the Imacon delivers.

Why not a Nikon LS-4500, Polaroid Sprintscan 45 Pro or Minolta Dimage ScanMulti? Because their advertised dpi ratings are only for a 35mm slide. If you can a 4x5 on a Nikon LS-4500 you get only a measly 1000 dpi. You can get better than that on a LinoColor Saphir Ultra2 at one third the cost. The Polaroid can do at least 2000 dpi but offers Binuscan, which is not considered as good as either LinoColor or SilverFast. The previous model of Polaroid 4x5 scanner that we tested was so awkward to use that the review staff refused to bother with it. At least Polaroid acknowledged the problems with the first generation by making changes for a second generation. But again, compare the price of a dedicated 4x5 scanner with how much of a flatbed scanner you can get at that same price. With a flatbed scanner you can probably handle at least two 4x5 chromes down the sweet spot. Besides, if you are shooting and scanning 4x5 chromes you should be earning enough profit to be able to afford a better scanner, namely an Imacon, or the sophisticated Heidelberg Topaz or Fuji Lanovia.

Thus, if you do not have $80,000 or even $38,000 for a drum scanner, you can't do better for the prices of the Imacon. Do not be deceived by so-called "drum scanners" which actually do not have a PMT but instead use the same CCD system as in a normal flatbed.

Also, do not be deceived by advertising claims that of "...quality comparable to more expensive drum scanners..." Umax got badly burned by making that claim. If you want a super quality scan from a CCD scanner you need to understand all the parameters of quality. The rated dpi is only one factor. Since we tested a Lanovia and have not yet had a Topaz available, we can't say more about the Topaz, but can sure remember the fabulous scans of the Fuji Lanovia.