-east-to-use software -resolution (2400 DPI) -colour reproduction

-grainy shadow detail (slides) -underexposure (slides) -inability to choose filename

This was my first film scanner, and 3 years after purchasing it I'm still very happy. -Software: The software is easy to use, and seems less "bloated" than some other HP software. The colour and exposure correction work well, especially with overexposed film. A rotation tool can also be used, and it does not adversely affect the sharpness of the image. Multiple scans from one film strip are possible by holding CTRL and clicking on the preview images. My only (minor) complaint is that it gives a "Scan####" filename to every image. I correct this when doing post-scan touch-up, but it's a bit annoying not to be able to give images filnames right away. -Scans: Without correction, the colours match those on the actual film. Sharpness is very good; the grain of Fuji Reala 100 print film, for example, is clearly visible in full-resolution (2400 DPI) scans. A bit of colour separation is visible (thin vertical lines will have a bit of red on one side and a bit of green on the other) but it is not apparent without zooming in. Shadow detail on negative film is fantastic. The scans from negatives tend to be better than those of slides. Scans of slides usually appear underexposed, and there is some shadow noise. But since most of my scanning involves negatives, that's not an issue. I've never scanned prints with it, since I bought it solely to scan film. -Overall: Niggles aside, this scanner gives a lot of bang for the buck. Although I would not recommend as strongly for slide use, it nevertheless is a good all-around performer and a suitable entry-level film scanner.

Customer Service

Not Required

Similar Products Used:

None

Sharpness od scans: excellent Color: excellent The image adjustment controls (contrast, darkness, gamma, color balance, hue, saturation) are easy to use. Quite intuitive software user interface in general.

Masking of slides is a bit tricky and does not work to perfection. Sometimes you end up with having masked with an unintentional bias of +/- 10 pixels, meaning that a post processing in picture software is needed to get rid of dark frames. Slides can be rotated (+/-1 degree resolution) but the results don’t always match the expectation, so better not use it. The handling of slide selection and file naming text boxes could work better, error-prone in particular when scanning strips of slides or negatives, risk is that you only will scan one slide even you wanted to scan several. Slides with underexposed shadows: If you compensate the shadows to the lighter, you will get noise. Better leave the shadows underexposed imo. Areas with dark details of vertical shape against light background, such as tips of branches against a light sky, or high grass in sunlight. Often you get color aberration, areas a few pixels wide, purple color to the left, green to the right of the branch. This has no impact in practice, pictures look good when printed or viewed at screen size, but I wanted to mention it. FYI the HP does not support APS, which is not a concern in my case

I chose between the HP and the Minolta Dimage. My choice went for the HP because I own a few HP products since before and I have a high confidence in HP making good quality hardware and software. Generally speaking, the scanner has worked without problems for a year now. I have processed about 1500+ slides and a few negatives and I am quite happy with the results. I use the scanner connected to a 350 Mhz PII with 128 Mb RAM, which is a bit slow. Films used: Fuji Velvia and Kodak Extra Color (both 100 ASA slide films). Installation: no problems Operation: without major problems Software: good Quality: good Performance: good Scanning a slide in highest resolution (2400 dpi) takes about 45 seconds on my computer. The post-processing takes about a minute per slide. Here, a faster computer would be nice. Since it is likely that you will have a photo processing software open at the same time, I would strongly recommend 128 Mb as a minimum RAM, and 300-500 Mbyte free disk workspace.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

Used with Ulead Photo Impact software for processing, and HP deskjet 950C for prints.

Scan quality with Vuescan

mechanical quality

It took great pictures as long as it was working. After 2 years and about 200 scans it suddenly started to separate blue, red, and green so badly that it is useless. Don''t use it''s own software.

Similar Products Used:

None

inexpensive
reasonable performance
easy USB connex

green specks in shadow areas of slides

Don't mean to be hogging the forum here, gang, but I have to tap dance out of something dumb I said earlier. After you have your scan, blow it up in Photoshop to see the noise in the shadow areas and use the levels or curves in Photoshop to eliminate as much of the green specks as you can. Use the middle slider until it looks right overall. Sometimes I'd wished I laid out the money for the Nikon, but I'm hearing disturbing reports about their lack of support services. Also, I'm testing Ed Hamrick's (hamrick.com) scanning software which, for a mere 40 bucks, has a dust spotting function just like the Nikon. It comes with really cryptic help pages, but I think it's worth the effort to learn. It's designed for scanning batches of stuff with a minimum of fiddling. If you want to know more about this, ask Ed or me.

Customer Service

fine so far

Similar Products Used:

10,000 buck Kodak at work

inexpensive
USB connex
does what it says it does

awkward film handling
shadow details have green specks

I didnt give the scanner afair shot at first, but used like like the HP flatbeds at work, just let it scan. The HP software is actually quite good, and gives you control over the black and white points. Yes, it does give you noise in shadow areas, but if you get the best scan you can using the hP software, go into Photoshop (even LE!) in 16 bit mode, take the middle slider in levels down until the noise in the shadows is gone,then go to 8-bits, you'll be pleased with the result. You'll take a hit in the shadows, just as inexpensive stereo speakers can't give you the lowest organ notes, but you' re getting a nice balanced image overall. It's only 500 bucks, for Pete's sake.

Customer Service

Not an 800 nr, but HP has been great. My first S20 gave green streaks, so HP replaced it. They have referred me to websites that have taught me alot (scantips.com).

Similar Products Used:

no film scanners, use HP and UMax flatbeds

Inexpensive, normally good quality scans (precise 2400dpi, not always great colors), 36 bit output to photoshop for example, and capability to scan prints.

1) Even if the colors are normally quite ok, I have experienced problems with skin tones using Fuji Superia negative film (to simplify, let's say too much magenta). I had to use lot of time to create appropriate filter in photoshop to correct this. Using other negatives that's not a problem. Why don't HP make driver that supports different film types? (Vuescan supports this)
2) Shadow noise (typically green) may be problem, when scanning from slides. Typical automatic (smart) exposure correction scanning slides is enermous. It feels like scanner could use light that would have more intensity. I mean, without correction the scan would be really dark, but with correction you will see much noise. As a conclusion you should have slides, that are overexposed to get good scans in this sense. This is not problem with negative films (not always).
3) Dust removal from scans would be feature I would like to see. I have also concern about dust getting into scanner itself.
4) noisy operation (not a problem for me)

Very attractive scanner for average use. The scanner unit itself seems to be very precise, but noise might be a problem, especially in green channel. Colors are neutral (a bit cool but ok). Even if I had problems with fuji superia negative film I am satisfyed with results. A great scanner for its price.

Customer Service

I haven't have to contact. I have heard about some problems in general.

Similar Products Used:

earlyer version of photosmart S20. (I suppose, it was called just photosmart)

Inexpensive
USB interface (no SCSI card required)
High quality scans from slides/negs.
Good, easy to use software.
Low relative cost

Not able to save custom crop settings - you must set this up for each scan - not a big deal though.
Does not support APS - although of no concern to me.

Unlike another reviewer here, I did not experience any "flare" with this unit. Instead, what I saw was flare from the camera lens. The lens in question is a 28-105 third party lens on a Canon EOS body. Scans at 2400 dpi of 25 yr old Yosemite slides using high quality fixed length lenses yielded superb results - sharp and contrasty - corner to corner - no flare. I compared these to scans of recent slides of the Grand Canyon taken with the 28-105 using Fujichrome Velvia and voila - a small amount of flare showed up upon close inspection. This flare appeared on other slides taken with the 28-105 as well. I thought maybe this was a fluke so I checked other slides taken with the fixed lenses and all were sharp as a tack - no flare. My conclusion - if there is any flare in the scans from this unit, it was in the original slide to begin with.
After running about 500 slides through the S20, I can say that I am quite pleased with the results. Others who have seen scans from this unit are positively impressed as well.
The fact that the flat bed capabilities are limited to 300 dpi should be of little concern since there is little more than 200 dpi of data in a paper print anyway. Any more than 300 dpi and you're just picking up the paper texture.
(see http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/HPS20/S20A.HTM )
You would have to spend 2-3 times what this unit costs to get marginally better results. If you need to print large posters from your 35mm slides/negs and can afford $1500 to $2000 for one of the Nikon units then go for it, otherwise the HP S20 should satisfy most serious amateur's needs for far less money.

Customer Service

Not used for this device

Similar Products Used:

HP 3C flatbed scanner
HP 4300 flatbed scanner
Various Epson flatbed scanners

Inexpensive to purchase
No supplementary interface (it's USB)
Good quality results for average use
12 bit samples (with noise)
Acceptable MS Windows based software

Film strip insertion is finicky, several attempts are usually needed.
Unit is easily de-dusted with canned air but that task is needed every couple of months (no shield).
Lens has significant flaring (red bleds from bright to dark on one side, green on the other). This is a serious problem with good quality film images.
The flatbed scanner feature has mediocre resolution (300 dpi), much less than a cheap larger flatbed.
Film strips hang loosely outside the unit, gathering lots of dust.

The HP S20 scanner has a well deserved reputation for producing good results at a very reasonable price. But "good" does not mean "excellent" when one looks carefully at images which will be enlarged to say 8x10 inches. The problem is the lens has marked "flare" which yields red/green spillover from bright to dark areas, and hence also reduces contrast at fine scales for all images. Many camera lenses do too, so this may not be a problem with negatives made by such cameras.
The HP software is rather basic, not intended for doing many images in one sitting. It also unfortunately adds lots of visual "punch" and which squashes high and low lights. Vuescan from Ed Hamrick (www.hamrick.com) is much better. But the HP software does quite an amazing job in guessing color balance for various kinds of color negative and slide film. Hand tweaking of that balance is still needed in most cases if and when one is particular.
The 12 bit sample depth is a triffle optimistic since there is noticable sampling noise. However, the unit does vastly better than the ancient Nikon 8-bit LS-10 unit.
The flatbed scanning facility lacks resolution compared to cheap large flatbed units, but it's present if needed for postcards and smaller material.
Scanning cardbroad mounted slides is not terribly reliable about feeding, but it works. Glass mounted slides are not recommended, but they work fine if thin.
Film strip alignment is generally good, but there is enough slack to require hand tweaking of image borders. Also the scanner tends to overscan and see the interior of the box.
Focus of images is remarkably good, even with cardboard mounted slides, due to the long optical path (those mirrors again). No adjustment is provided nor needed.
Keeping the many mirrors clean is easy; just use canned air now and then. The unit has no cover door to protect it against dust accumulation. Opening the top and squirting air is trivial (no tools needed).
The Xeon lamp provides diffuse illumination which reduces the effects of dust spots, and also softens images. This softening can be a bonus when very grainy images are used.
USB can be a major headache with some computers, but once working it has been reliable here (Win98SE). No power switch on the unit, so unplugging is recommended now and then to prevent rememberance of electrical power glitches. Win2K driver support is still somewhere on the distant horizon, so visit HP's web site for current details.
Overall, the S20 has given good service for me through many hundreds of color negatives. But once I used better camera optics then the scanner's limited optics became apparent and an obstacle to better digital prints. Output intended for web viewing will not be limited in this way (final resolution will be too low for flare to matter).

Customer Service

Not used

Similar Products Used:

Nikon LS-10

36 Bit, can also scan 4x6 prints, preview options are simple, Scans are good (1-10 a 7)

kind of cheap construction, the feed for slides, film is "touchy" (does not activate the auto feed). If you cancel a slide or neg it closes the program just to be opened again for the next slide. just annoying..but why do this.

I bought this a week ago. I will return it. I am going for the cannon f2710(?) or SL 30 coolscan nikon. 250 more . The HP S20 I see sells for as low as 420 (7/5/00). It should be 250 or 299 max. This would be a "fair" price for this.

Customer Service

A joke, normal for HP

Similar Products Used:

HP 5200 Flatbed scanner

Very easy to install
USB
Inexpensive
Good (not spectacular) quality
Small size

Infeed is balky now and again
Noisy

Good value for the money. Perfect for use with a laptop. Probably not enough for someone doing high end or commercial work but excellent for the beginner up to the serious amateur.

Customer Service

No experience as yet

Similar Products Used:

My first scanner