Look at the Nikon 8000ed of the Polaroid 120+. Both will scan at 4000dpi and if you output at 16 bit instead of 8, you can make scans that rival those from a drum scanner. Both of these scanners are under $3000 which is certainly more than the Epson scanners you mentioned but they make much better scans. Get what you pay for.
Ed on 1/1/03 10:25 PM, Bill Lawlor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > When I was printing optical/chemical color prints before the last year my > 645 16X20s were strikingly superior ot 35mm at that size. Now I scan 35 on a > Nikon4000 to 67Mb files but I scan 645 on a 1640 SU Epson flatbed. The 27Mb > files I get on the 1640 are inferior to the 67Mb files from 35mm even > accounting for the difference in negative sizes. The only option for getting > back that former "Medium Format Advantage" is drum scans at 80 dollars each. > They are truely stunning, but too expensive for most of my uses. IMO, what > is needed to save 645 and other MF sizes is an affordable MF scanner that > will output files good for 300 dpi at 16X20 and 20X24, at least. Epson is > rumored to have a 3200 flatbed in the wings now. > Bill Lawlor > > Ed Tyler
