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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.)