If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for film scanner
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
Why not a flatbed? Here are a couple flatbeds from Epson that have good and great resolution, come with Digital Ice, have good Dmax specs and can scan not only negs and slides but will handle prints and medium and large format negs if you like. Scan photos: flatbed Scan film: film scanner. Don't top post. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for film scanner
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography "Alan Browne" wrote in message ... DBLEXPOSURE wrote: Why not a flatbed? Here are a couple flatbeds from Epson that have good and great resolution, come with Digital Ice, have good Dmax specs and can scan not only negs and slides but will handle prints and medium and large format negs if you like. Scan photos: flatbed Scan film: film scanner. Don't top post. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. That's not an explanation of your position but a reiteration and a mule headed one at that. What makes you think that because one has a film or slide carrier only makes it electronically or otherwise better? What is the technical reasoning behind your position? My response sighted well-known flatbed scanners with good performance and good technical specifications and they work those specs on film and slides as well as large format mediums. An inch is an inch whether it is a 35mm slide or a 5X7 photograph. Do you have sound reasoning or are you stuck in some sort of scanner paradigm? My original question below, please answer with some sort of technical answer or at least an answer that defends your position in the discussion and not your self appointed role as top-posting police. PZ www.Imagequest.ifp3.com -Why not a flatbed? Here are a couple flatbeds from Epson that have good and great resolution, come with Digital Ice, have good Dmax specs -and can scan not only negs and -slides but will handle prints and medium and large format negs if you like. -4800dpi http://tinyurl.com/27xt9t -6400 dpi http://tinyurl.com/2or38c -PZ -www.Imagequest.ifp3.com |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for film scanner
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography "Alan Browne" wrote in message ... DBLEXPOSURE wrote: Why not a flatbed? Here are a couple flatbeds from Epson that have good and great resolution, come with Digital Ice, have good Dmax specs and can scan not only negs and slides but will handle prints and medium and large format negs if you like. Scan photos: flatbed Scan film: film scanner. That's not an explanation of your position but a reiteration and a mule headed one at that. PLONK -1 and counting. What makes you think that because one has a film or slide carrier only makes it electronically or otherwise better? What is the technical reasoning behind your position? Every time I have seen a side by side of the best flatbed to an ordinary film scanner, the flatbed was, to be kind, soft in comparison. I was tempted to buy the Epson 4990 but Jim (link below) sent me CD's with 4990 scans of my own 120 film. I bought the Nikon 9000 ED based on that comparison and on others people posted online. James held a "bake off" of scanners in 2005. The flatbeds lagged hard regardless of their resolution numbers: http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2005/numbers.html And just to be clear: the declared number of pixels is not a "technical reason" to buy anything. Cheers, Alan. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for film scanner -Correction
Alan Browne wrote:
film scanner, the flatbed was, to be kind, soft in comparison. I was tempted to buy the Epson 4990 but Jim (link below) sent me CD's with 4990 scans of my own 120 film. Was actually Ken Weitzel. Sorry Ken and Jim. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for film scanner
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography "Alan Browne" wrote in message ... DBLEXPOSURE wrote: Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography "Alan Browne" wrote in message ... DBLEXPOSURE wrote: Why not a flatbed? Here are a couple flatbeds from Epson that have good and great resolution, come with Digital Ice, have good Dmax specs and can scan not only negs and slides but will handle prints and medium and large format negs if you like. Scan photos: flatbed Scan film: film scanner. That's not an explanation of your position but a reiteration and a mule headed one at that. PLONK -1 and counting. What makes you think that because one has a film or slide carrier only makes it electronically or otherwise better? What is the technical reasoning behind your position? Every time I have seen a side by side of the best flatbed to an ordinary film scanner, the flatbed was, to be kind, soft in comparison. I was tempted to buy the Epson 4990 but Jim (link below) sent me CD's with 4990 scans of my own 120 film. I bought the Nikon 9000 ED based on that comparison and on others people posted online. James held a "bake off" of scanners in 2005. The flatbeds lagged hard regardless of their resolution numbers: http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2005/numbers.html And just to be clear: the declared number of pixels is not a "technical reason" to buy anything. Cheers, Alan. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Thanks for the reasonable answer. I know what you mean about not judging by the numbers, I have known a few marketing execs in my time. Still, a claim of 6400dpi is worth looking into. Epson has always, to the best of my knowledge, been a reputable company and a leader in the digital imaging world, at least when it comes to scanners and printers BTW, "PLONK -1 and counting" One good plonk deserves another, speak to me respectfully and I will always do in kind, take a shot and expect one in return. Also, is it not the local courtesy to leave the above post completely in tack when replying? Chunks of my previous are missing from your reply, just curious. Patrick Ziegler www.imagequest.ifp3.com |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for film scanner
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
Scan photos: flatbed Scan film: film scanner. That's not an explanation of your position but a reiteration and a mule headed one at that. PLONK -1 and counting. What makes you think that because one has a film or slide carrier only makes it electronically or otherwise better? What is the technical reasoning behind your position? Every time I have seen a side by side of the best flatbed to an ordinary film scanner, the flatbed was, to be kind, soft in comparison. I was tempted to buy the Epson 4990 but Jim (link below) sent me CD's with 4990 scans of my own 120 film. I bought the Nikon 9000 ED based on that comparison and on others people posted online. James held a "bake off" of scanners in 2005. The flatbeds lagged hard regardless of their resolution numbers: http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2005/numbers.html And just to be clear: the declared number of pixels is not a "technical reason" to buy anything. Thanks for the reasonable answer. I know what you mean about not judging by the numbers, I have known a few marketing execs in my time. Still, a claim of 6400dpi is worth looking into. Epson has always, to the best of my Not is it's meaningless numbers. Would you rather an epson flatbed scan at 6400 dpi or a Nikon 9000 scan at 4000 dpi? For that matter, if it were affordable, a drum scan at 5000 dpi? knowledge, been a reputable company and a leader in the digital imaging world, at least when it comes to scanners and printers BTW, "PLONK -1 and counting" One good plonk deserves another, speak to me respectfully and I will always do in kind, take a shot and expect one in return. What "shot" did I take? If you want to plonk me, please go ahead. Also, is it not the local courtesy to leave the above post completely in tack when replying? Chunks of my previous are missing from your reply, just curious. Netiquette: trim replies to the pertinent. Retain context of prev. poster, remove all the rest. Google groups can retain that. Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for film scanner
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
Also, is it not the local courtesy to leave the above post completely in tack when replying? Chunks of my previous are missing from your reply, just curious. I'll bet you meant "intact", and in a previous post, "citing" rather than "sighting". Technical, certainly, but not typographical errors. Live and learn, just helpful. -- Frank ess |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for film scanner
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography "Frank ess" wrote in message ... DBLEXPOSURE wrote: Also, is it not the local courtesy to leave the above post completely in tack when replying? Chunks of my previous are missing from your reply, just curious. I'll bet you meant "intact", and in a previous post, "citing" rather than "sighting". Technical, certainly, but not typographical errors. Live and learn, just helpful. -- Frank ess Frank, yes indeed that is exactly what I meant and thank you for pointing that out, if your are looking for a fight you won't get one from me on that one. I admit my writing skills are my weakest link and I have no issues with having my mistakes pointed out to me. Live and learn indeed... I do think however, you meant, "Just being helpful" Or at least, that is how I would say it. Live and learn, just helpful. :-) Patrick Ziegler www.imagequest.ifp3.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for film scanner
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography "Alan Browne" wrote in message ... DBLEXPOSURE wrote: Scan photos: flatbed Scan film: film scanner. That's not an explanation of your position but a reiteration and a mule headed one at that. PLONK -1 and counting. What makes you think that because one has a film or slide carrier only makes it electronically or otherwise better? What is the technical reasoning behind your position? Every time I have seen a side by side of the best flatbed to an ordinary film scanner, the flatbed was, to be kind, soft in comparison. I was tempted to buy the Epson 4990 but Jim (link below) sent me CD's with 4990 scans of my own 120 film. I bought the Nikon 9000 ED based on that comparison and on others people posted online. James held a "bake off" of scanners in 2005. The flatbeds lagged hard regardless of their resolution numbers: http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2005/numbers.html And just to be clear: the declared number of pixels is not a "technical reason" to buy anything. Thanks for the reasonable answer. I know what you mean about not judging by the numbers, I have known a few marketing execs in my time. Still, a claim of 6400dpi is worth looking into. Epson has always, to the best of my Not is it's meaningless numbers. Would you rather an epson flatbed scan at 6400 dpi or a Nikon 9000 scan at 4000 dpi? For that matter, if it were affordable, a drum scan at 5000 dpi? knowledge, been a reputable company and a leader in the digital imaging world, at least when it comes to scanners and printers BTW, "PLONK -1 and counting" One good plonk deserves another, speak to me respectfully and I will always do in kind, take a shot and expect one in return. What "shot" did I take? If you want to plonk me, please go ahead. Also, is it not the local courtesy to leave the above post completely in tack when replying? Chunks of my previous are missing from your reply, just curious. Netiquette: trim replies to the pertinent. Retain context of prev. poster, remove all the rest. Google groups can retain that. Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Your short answer, "Scan photos: flatbed Scan film: film scanner. Don't top post." Left the impression that it was more important to you to get to the point of not top posting and the real matter of the discussion, Flatbed Vs. Film Scanner was totally irrelevant and my question did not merit an answer, I suppose because I had the audacity to top-post. It was a shot. Not is it's meaningless numbers. Would you rather an epson flatbed scan at 6400 dpi or a Nikon 9000 scan at 4000 dpi? For that matter, if it were affordable, a drum scan at 5000 dpi? For Frank, I think he meant, "Not, it is meaningless." Or perhaps "they are meaningless." What's good for the goose. Anyway, I digress, Alan, to say the specs are meaningless is wrong. I would agree that the one specification standing on it's own is meaningless if all other specs are poor or if the device making the claim is otherwise dysfunctional. To answer your question, I would rather have the flatbed if it performed in all other areas. The ability to make larger prints is important to my clients and me. In this case, all other things being equal, the Epson can produce 60% larger prints, if the claim of 6400dpi is true. I have used Epson printers and scanners plenty in my time and have found their products to be worthy of advertising claims and they produce great results. Many cutting edge photographers, Jay Maisel, Grahm Nash, Vincent Versace and Greg Gorman to name a few, Use Epson scanners and printer exclusively. I am not familiar with the Nikon 9000, but I would shy away from it based on the 4000dpi spec. Now that is not to say that I would not investigate further based on Nikon's claims of superior quality. In the end, I would like to see large prints of images made on both models before I gave up nearly $2K verses roughly $600. Admittedly, the huge price separation has me scratching my head. Patrick Ziegler www.imagequest.ifp3.com |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for film scanner
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:40:34 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: DBLEXPOSURE wrote: Why not a flatbed? Here are a couple flatbeds from Epson that have good and great resolution, come with Digital Ice, have good Dmax specs and can scan not only negs and slides but will handle prints and medium and large format negs if you like. Scan photos: flatbed Scan film: film scanner. Don't top post. The best scanner on the market....film or photos, is a flatbed. I have checked on this line frequently, but they are way out of my league.(maybe in my next lifeg). I just like to see what they are doing from time to time. I'm talking about the old CreoScitex scanner line. They were bought out by Kodak, and you can still check them out under the Kodak EverSmart Supreme line. http://graphics.kodak.com/us/product...ii/default.htm No film scanner can reproduce what these flatbeds will do, and from what I've read, they are also better than drum scanners. Anyway, I just though I'd add my two cents. Talker (ps. Most groups have their own guidelines when it comes to top/bottom posting, and very few groups ask you to top post. The reason they prefer bottom posting is because that's how you read....from top to bottom. If 10 people replied to a post and they all top posted, you would have to scroll down to the bottom of the page to read the initial post, then scroll up to the next post and scroll down it as you read it. That is not how one reads normally. By bottom posting, one can follow each post by scrolling down as you read it.....the same way you would read a book.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scanner for 126 film | Andy Champ | Scanners | 0 | January 2nd 07 09:28 PM |
Film scanner | JohnM | Scanners | 10 | October 5th 06 08:22 PM |
film scanner help | Sligo | Scanners | 2 | May 26th 04 04:42 PM |
Any new film scanner(s)/rumors for the PMA | Roger Halstead | Scanners | 0 | February 2nd 04 04:59 AM |
Best Scanner for Film under $500 US | Robert Meyers | Scanners | 1 | November 22nd 03 02:39 PM |