Hi Rob.
Rob Geraghty wrote:
> Oh. I didn't realise you were talking about a system that required a change
> in the signal from the camera onward.
C'mon Rob, you're windin' me up entcha?
I'm sure you know that I meant the HDTV camera, and not our still cameras.
> Are the CCD elements small enough to use in a film scanning arrangement?
> Or are you talking about some sort of lens system to enlarge the image?
> :-7
Film scanners already have a lens system, the repro ratio is just a matter of
adjusting the conjugate focii.
(The distance what the lens is from the film, and what the CCD is from the lens)
> Except that an A3 flatbed scanner doesn't have to scan at 2700+ dpi optically.
No it doesn't, but don't kid yourself that filmscanners get leading-edge,
state-of-the-blessed-art CCDs put in them. Most of the 2700dpi stuff is a throw
off from flatbed scanner development, and stuff that wouldn't sell anywhere else
any more.
I believe the Polaroid 4k uses ex-spy plane 'travelling-image' technology, which
is fairly high-tech, but then Nikon use a monochrome only sensor that probably
started life designed as a component for a fax machine. (Hey, sorry Nikon users,
but someone had to mention it sometime.)
Haven't you ever wondered why they picked the seemingly random figure of 2700dpi
for filmscanners?
Think back to the old 300dpi, A4 flatbeds. Now multiply that 300 dpi by the width
of an A4 flatbed scanner platen, 8.5 inches, and you get 2550 pixels.
Well, stone me! If that ain't the exact same pixel width as what my 2700dpi
filmscanner turns out. Is that a co-incidence or what, Mary Poppins?
It's the mass market that pushes technology, and the way I see things going, the
likes of the Epson perfection Photo series, and Scanmaker whatevernumber will
eventually overtake the current 'prosumer' dedicated filmscanner market, in both
quality and quantity.
> Maybe manufacturers are hoping that they don't need to worry about film
> scanners. It's a transitional market anyway -
150+ years of historical resource on film is a transitional market?
Plus the millions of frames that are being added year on year.
Transitional in quite a time frame, if you ask me.
There are people out there that don't even know that they can get grandad's snaps
onto their computer, let alone how to do it.
If you accept that there's basically not much more technology in a filmscanner
than a flatbed: Joe Public will spend 80 notes on a flatbed to copy the kid's
scribblings without a blink. Offer him the opportunity to scan his fading family
slides as well, and for only twice the price, and he'll consider it.
But treble or quadruple the price, and Joe is more than marginally less
interested.
> Having said that, Acer seems to have taken the bull by the horns in providing
> a reasonably priced film scanner with ICE.
We'll see.
I don't think that ICE alone will sell the 2740 for Acer, the price tag puts it in
direct competition with the Canon 2710, the Scandual II, the old Scanspeed, and
the HP S20.
None of them has ICE, I know, but outside of this list, I don't think that digital
ICE ranks high in most people's list of dinner-party conversation topics.
I've just put a stopwatch to it, and ICE makes scans over 6 times slower on the
2740.
Joe won't sit around twiddling his thumbs for that long, and you need one hell of
a computer to make batch scanning possible with Photoshop.
Unless Acer manage to pull a very big rabbit out of a very small hat, I don't
think the 2740 is going to enhance their reputation overmuch, although it might
knock the price of filmscanners in general down another notch.
Regards, Pete.
