Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:49:14 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Larry Roohr wrote:
> I own both a Polaroid sprintscan plus film scanner and a Linotype Saphire
> plus flatbed. The Linotype (Umax clone) does every bit as well density wise
> as the polaroid, IMO. The only difference is the resolution. If the purpose
> is 4x5 or larger the 1000 dpi you get with these flatbeds may be more than
> enough, at much less cost than large format film scanners. The linotype
> saphire, Umax powerlook 2000, agfa duoscan, and the Microtek model (Microtek
> makes the duoscan for Agfa) all use the same scan array and I've heard are
> pretty equal in performance. Last I looked they were running around $2k if
^^^^^
That's $2000? For flatbed and transparency adapter?
I'm trying to buy a 35 mm slide/negative scanner, for the Mac. (Please, no
wisecracks from envious people.) I'm told about an Olympus something or
other for $369, but haven't yet seen it. (I gather I have to go to the
dread Web...) But while the topic is on, does anyone know it? Or other in
that price range? And why the Polaroid is nearly twice the price? (I have
a flatbed, but gather that's ng for 35 mm to large size, even with
adapter.)
However, one thing I learned about flatbeds: The *nominal* scan size and
actual scan size may not be the same. My Microtek is nominally 8-1/2 by 13
inches. The largest image I can cover is barely more than 8 by 12-1/2
inches (20-1/2 by 32 centimeters).
cheers,
Judy
> you shopped around. The biggest difference in performance may be the
> software they ship with. If I had the choice and only wished to do large
> format negs or transparancies I'd get the flatbed.
>
> good luck,
>
> Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valburg <lkv1@psu.edu>
> To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
> Date: Thursday, January 21, 1999 6:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Scanner selection
>
>
> >At 01:26 PM 1/21/99 -0500, Dave wrote:
> >>In a message dated 1/21/99 5:38:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, nick@mcn.org
> >>writes:
> >>
> >>> The choice of a film scanner seems to have narrowed down to the Nikon
> >LS4500
> >>> which does up to 4X5 film only and the Agfa Duoscan which can do 8X10
> >>> film/reflective.
> >>
> >>Nick, they don't belong to the same category. LS4500 is a film scanner
> while
> >>Duoscan is mainly a flatbed scanner with transparent adapter. For our
> >>practical purposes, within a 4x5 area, you can scan at higher resolution
> with
> >>a film scanner compared to a flatbed scanner. (snip)
> >>
> >>So if you are planning on scanning a lot of negatives, it's best that you
> get
> >>a film scanner. With flatbed scanner, what you can do is enlarge the
> negative
> >>(into prints or positive) then scan the result.
> >>
> >
> >In addition to the resolution consideration, a flatbed scanner will be much
> >more limited in the optical density range it can handle well. The
> >practical result of this will be scans which are considerably noisier than
> >those from a film scanner: noisier shadow areas in scans from
> >transparencies, noisier highlights in scans from negs. In real world
> >terms, it's not a particularly subtle degree of difference.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Mitch Valburg
> >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:43