srt101fan

"But then, I'd need to have both to really physically compare the results, not just believe it because it's a "pro" scanner."

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yup, I said I'd have to compare the results, ie. to see "the difference". AKA- prove it. Never said that weren't different.
And of course that would be relative to my needs. >> Who's to say that the scanners that I have with the drivers that they use won't be as good or almost as good.<< Simply because one is a PRO and one is not? For one to be better, there has to be a comparison, that's all I'm saying.
And how much better? 20%?, 80%? 300%?
Do I NEED 300%? ME?, no...
I'll guess that a 5D mark IV is better than a T1i. but to see how much, one would have to compare results of each for the same shot under the same conditions.
But pixel peepers need to get the best of everything, no matter what. Can't take a chance on anything not being the best.
Best is relative.

So what's the "best" scanner???

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

And now we're requiring a quantitative comparison. In addition, we need a quantitative definition of 'better'. Using different tools we will expect different results. The question is how do we measure the difference?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Perception....

Yours will be different than both mine and Mortimer Snerd's

TimmyKnowles Loc: Gallup, New Mexico

Look for a used scanner. I bought an Epson 2450 scanner which does large photos. Cost maybe $25 plus shipping and has Firewire and USB. Works with newer VueScan and scans quickly and easily, allowing you to bump up the resolution, etc. You can use some of the HP printers/scanners that scan to a USB flash drive. Those are quick and easy. If you had to pay a firm to do it, it would be somewhat costly.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Best is the enemy of "good enough."

I spent part of my career in systems project management. One of the more important principles of designing a system is to eliminate bottlenecks, but it's very easy to go overboard — to go the other way, and spend too much on part of a system. There is no point in optimizing just one function if the whole system is subsequently unbalanced. It's wasteful.

For example, if you're making 24" by 36" framed gallery prints, you probably want to eke out every little bit of detail from your slides and negatives as is possible, so pixel peepers will marvel at it. A poster that size at 300 PPI requires about 78 Megapixels. Something like an OM-Systems OM-1, or a Lumix G9 II and a macro lens would work (in pixel-shift high resolution mode). But if you're putting images on smartphones or making 4x6 inch prints, you can get by with fewer megapixels. You won't need a camera or scanner capable of 100 Megapixel files. A 4x6 at 300PPI is 1200x1800 pixels, or about 2.2 Megapixels!

The question becomes, "Will I ever need to print something as big as X by Y at super-high resolution? If so, how often? What is the most logical level of detail to strive for in a do-it-myself environment? When do I just call a film scanning lab or service bureau for a few high res scans?"

Maybe you just want something close to what is in an old photo album. That is relatively simple to do with a very inexpensive setup.

OldCADuser Loc: Irvine, CA

Working nearly 50 years in engineering, it was critical to always keep in mind that 'Perfect is the Enemy of Good Enough'. Granted, I never worked where we were designing and manufacturing something like airplanes or spacecraft, but then most things in the world are not aircraft or spacecraft. That being said, we did have customers who expected to get their moneys worth, but then many of them were working under that same assumption when they were specifying what they were looking for.

And of course, this was doubly true when buying something for my on use, including cameras, printers, scanners, etc.

And one other thing, speaking of personal expenditures, on more than one occasion in our 56+ years of marriage, I've had to quote that same sentiment to my wife when she was shopping for something.

lmTrying Loc: WV Northern Panhandle

Correct. All in one printer, scanner, fax machines will not do as good a job as a decent flatbed scanner that has a "professional mode". I found a 1-1/2" x 3/4" tin type photo of my great, great, great grandmother. I made several attempts to scan it using my combo printer. The results we're terrible black blobs. I called a fellow club member for help. He invited me to his home. His arsenal includes an Epson flatbed scanner with several modes. Watching it work and seeing the image it produced made me see the light. I came home, ordered an Epson V600, and started over.

Removing the white border from the scan makes a BIG difference. Cropping out a bright window or light from a photo makes a big difference. Letting the scanner correct the faded color is usually amazing. Zooming in on a face by cropping can give one a real "WOW" moment. It also has a small slider capability and a curve adjustment capability. It will save in three jpeg values and two tiff values. Plus scan from something like100 to 3600+ dpi. So yes, that $225 price, to me, has been worth every penny.

And considering my goal of adding photos of my family members to Family Search, this flatbed scanner lets me crop and customize faces from group photos.

Just letting you know. It's like the difference between a Brownie and my Canon RP.

Course I do not know what combo scanner you have or it's capabilities. Just telling you what I know from the combo printers and scanner I have. And there are scanners that cost over $1000. I assume they will do more than what mine will. But then I'm a Chevrolet Impala kind of guy, not a Cadillac guy.

kpsk_sony

Send them out to a professional lab. They'll do a better job and more consistently. It does cost money but doing it manually costs more time!