Re: Flatbed scanner transparency adapter?

Hi Dwayne,

I know everyone has given the Epson 3200 glowing remarks and I generally agree that for the money you get a good bargain. I would caution you though that there are some failings that the scanner has when scanning slides. The dynamic range quoted by Epson is inflated and getting detail out of very dense portions of the slide can be difficult if not impossible. A lot of noise can be generated from the scan in these areas. Also the reported maximum optical resolution is not technically accurate. In reality you are getting about a 1600 dpi scan.

If you know that you need a film scanner for only 35mm film, then using a dedicated film scanner will provide much superior results, but will cost more money. A side by side comparison of scans made on the 3200 and and a capable dedicated scanner will easily reveal the differences. Please keep in mind that my remarks are based on experience rather than hear say and that I'm being very critical in my comparisons. Some folks might say that I'm spliting hairs. Having realistic expectations about the scanner performance will better prepare you for making a purchase and hopefully save you from buyer's remorse.

BTW, I own and use an Epson 2450 and have also used the 3200 as well and I think the scanners are break through products. But they don't set the standard for performance if your scanning needs are very critical when scanning 35mm film. For 120mm and larger the scanners can do a great job, within the limits I mentioned.

Enough of my rambling and good luck,

Don Bryant

-----Original Message-----
From: Dwayne Sandall <sandall@shaw.ca>
Sent: Dec 19, 2003 8:35 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Flatbed scanner transparency adapter?

Thanks everyone for the comments!

Dwayne

>a flatbed vs. a true slide scanner or a drum scan. Am I going to be losing
>anything here?
>> Thanks,
>> Dwayne
>
>Hi Dwayne,
> For the purpose of gum, a flatbed scan is just fine. I am getting
>everything that is on the neg in my gum print, and sometimes it looks so
>sharp that it looks like a normal print. When I have thought that the
>scanner was screwing up, upon taking a loupe to my neg, the screwup was on
>the neg already. I don't know what price the scanner you are talking about
>is, but the Epson 3200 is a charm. However, I had previously scanned stuff
>on an $80 Microtek scanner from Costco and that worked OK enough, too, for
>gum negs.
> I have been scanning stuff to print out on 20x30 inch Fuji Crystal
>Archive prints, and you would not know they are digital negs. That is, from
>an Epson 3200. I output it at 250 dpi to the service bureau, JPEG format,
>because they downsize the print to 250 anyway, even though you'd think that
>300 or 360 would be better.
>Chris
Received on Fri Dec 19 09:28:45 2003