Reflecta Proscan 7200 test & comparison with Epson v500

I used to scan my negatives with my trusty Epson v500. Now that I am more and more getting into 35mm instead of 120 film, I am a bit disappointed by the lack of sharpness in the Epson v500. After reading many reviews, I decided to order the Reflecta Proscan 7200.

My first tests are not so positive: I can get the same resolution with my Epson v500 as with the Proscan. Also, the Epson v500 seems to have a higher Dmax than the Reflecta. It turns out my 35mm sharpness problems were caused by curved negatives in the flimsy Epson film holder and not by a sharpness problem of the scanner itself. So as a first step in improving the quality of your 35mm scans on an Epson flatbed, I recommend you get a film holder which can hold your negatives 100% as close to the glass as possible.

I'll show you the details of my tests below, but the conclusion is that the Reflecta is not bad: it delivers a sharps 3600dpi scan with effective ICE and reasonable auto-everything. The workflow is quite fast, since I just make 1 preview scan to position the cropping selection and then I make subsequent full resolution scans of all negatives using the button on the scanner. Switching to the next negative is just moving the negative holder to the next notch and pushing the button. Postprocessing is faster on the Reflecta than on the Epson, since I trust the auto settings more so I can automate postprocessing in Photoshop with an action (appy curve, boost saturation, unsharp mask, switch to 8 bit mode, save as jpeg). For the Epson I need to tweak the prescan settings for each individual negative. But the Epson has the advantage of being able to hold and scan all images on 2 negative strips in one go.

Below are the results of my tests. First we'll look at the features of the Reflecta Proscan 7200, then we'll compare the scanner to the Epson V500. All images are full resolution 3600dpi scans.

1. ICE test

The first image clearly shows how effective ICE is for dust removal. The second images shows how ICE helps to remove scratches. The Proscan has a very good ICE implementation.

2. GEM

This function is supposedly a software algorithm (whereas ICE is a hardware feature) to reduce film grain. The first image shows how it is effective in the highlights and midtones. The second image shows how GEM is introducing noise in the shadows instead of smoothing out grain. I guess this is because the Proscan has a limited dynamic range and loses quite a lot of shadow detail. (in both examples the top image is without GEM and the lower is has GEM enabled).

3. ROC

The ROC feature is supposed to restore colors on old negatives. I used it on a brand new negative and found it boosts saturation and contrast by eliminating more of the negative base color  Whilst some people claim it causes image artifacts, I have not noticed any negative effects of using the ROC feature. (bottom image has ROC applied)

Comparison between the Epson V500 and the Reflecta Proscan 7200

1. Color

These are the color negative we'll use to compare both scanners. They are shot on Ektar 100 and should be sharp and low grain. (all other images below are full resolution 3600dpi crops)

The image below shows a lot more color noise in the shadows for the Proscan (under the breast). We also notice in the background that the Proscan captures more green in the shadows. This means the color balance of both images doesn't match, so the color noise can simply be a consequence of this.

In the image above you also see that the Epson applies more sharpening than the Proscan. In the image below I compensated the Proscan image using an unsharp mask filter. We now see similar sharpness, but of course even more pronounced noise.

The image below shows another crop where it is clear that the Proscan manages to get more shadow detail out of the negative then the Epson. (look at the top lef) This is somewhat contradictory to the more limited dynamic range (in the Epson software I have a lot of room to the left and right of the histogram whilst configuring the scanner settings, in the Proscan there is clipping on both sides even when the histogram sliders are at their maximum).

Let's switch to the other testimage to check for sharpness. In the small branches, you notice sharpness is just a tiny bit better on the Proscan than the Epson. But the difference is marginal, contrary to what my expected/hoped.

The color balance on both scans of this image is much more similar than in our previous testimage, so let's compare noise again in the picture below. We see the Epson now has more midrange noise (look in the blue band). The shadows in the black are clipped so there is no visible noise in both images. Looking at the green leaves on the left we notice again that more dark greens are detected by the Proscan than by the Epson, leading to the perception of more color noise.

2. Black & White

The black and white image we used for our comparison is shot on Tmax 100 and should be sharp and feature low grain. This is the image we used (all other images are full res crops at 3600dpi).

When we compare sharpness, the Proscan is again slightly sharper than the Epson. But not by much. 

When we look at the shadow detail, this time the Epson wins from the Proscan. (look at the tree on the left) I guess this proves that the overall Dmax of the Epson is better than the Proscan, but the proscan has better separation in the low density areas of the negative (=shadow areas of the positive image), leading to more color in the shadows.

CONCLUSION

I regret buying this scanner. Not because it is bad, but because it is only marginally better than my Epson v500, which was only about €50 on eBay. The Proscan is slightly sharper, has better autoscan settings, has slightly better ICE and more color detail in the shadows. I was expecting a bigger difference, based on the reviews on http://www.filmscanner.info (I also bought the scanner on their http://www.scandig.com/site for a good price and hasslefree service). Maybe I want to try a Plustek OpticFilm 8200i. According to filmscanner.info this scanner has about the same measured resolution as the Proscan, but maybe the extra pixels will show a higher perceived resolution. You can't express everything in numbers.