RE: filmscanners: Slide scanners
Buck, I am also very new here and have learned a great deal, and a few new good jokes. I have recently purchased a Nikon LS-30 and that would be my recomendation for about $649 new. You will not be sorry! I only hope that one day I will be able to use it to it's fullest along with Photoshop. But definitely buy Viewscan to use with your new scanner, the multi-pass sampling option alone makes it well worth the very modest price, and just great fun for comparing scans with whatever software you get with what ever model you buy. One thing is for sure, with this forum, you'll never stop learning, as I learn several new things every day. And don't delete your e-mail, if you are like me it may take a while to figure some of it out. Here is a joke: What does Ted Kennedy have that Bill Clinton wishes he had? An ex-wife and a dead girlfriend! > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Buchanan > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 5:53 PM > To: scanners > Subject: filmscanners: Slide scanners > > > I am new to the forum and most of the discussion I find fascinating, > realizing how much I have to learn. At present, I have a > practical question. > I have a Mac G3, Adobe Photoshop, a Epson Stylus Photo 700, and a > Microtek 4 > flat scanner. Most of my photo work are slides, and have found > poor results > in enlarging to 8X10. I am planning on buying a dedicated slide scanner. I > have looked up data in the various catalogues. For my price > range, the ones > listed are the Nikon Super Coolscan 2000, the Polaroid Sprintscan > 4000, the > Microtek 4T and the Kodak RFS-3600. I have no one to ask about which > would be best for an amateur interested in enlarging slides to 8X10. Does > the difference in 2700 to 4000 dpi make any difference with my > equipment? Is > Nikon about to come out with a newer model with an increased dpi? > Thanks for > any advice. Buck Buchanan (no relation to Pat!) >
RE: filmscanners: Slide scanners
Buck wrote: >Microtek 4T and the Kodak RFS-3600. I have no one to ask about which >would be best for an amateur interested in enlarging slides to 8X10. Does >the difference in 2700 to 4000 dpi make any difference with my equipment? Buck, I have a Nikon LS30 but if you can afford the Polaroid SS4000, go for it. I would have bought the Polaroid if I could have afforded one. The Nikon's 2700dpi is fine for 8x10 out of the Stylus 700 (I have the same printer) but 4000dpi from the Polaroid would give you more choices in terms of cropping. At some point you'll probably also want to go to A3 or a newer higher resolution printer, so the more dpi from the film the better. I do NOT think the LS2000 is a good buy given that the SS4000 is about the same price. If you only need 2700dpi then the LS30 is great. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Slide scanners
Robert Buchanan wrote: > > I am new to the forum and most of the discussion I find fascinating, > realizing how much I have to learn. At present, I have a practical question. > I have a Mac G3, Adobe Photoshop, a Epson Stylus Photo 700, and a Microtek 4 > flat scanner. Most of my photo work are slides, and have found poor results > in enlarging to 8X10. I am planning on buying a dedicated slide scanner. I > have looked up data in the various catalogues. For my price range, the ones > listed are the Nikon Super Coolscan 2000, the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000, the > Microtek 4T and the Kodak RFS-3600. I have no one to ask about which > would be best for an amateur interested in enlarging slides to 8X10. Does > the difference in 2700 to 4000 dpi make any difference with my equipment? Is > Nikon about to come out with a newer model with an increased dpi? Thanks for > any advice. Buck Buchanan (no relation to Pat!) Dear Buck, Welcome to the forum. I'm glad to hear Pat and yourself don't have much in common. My job on this forum seems to be to "talk people down" from buying products which are more than they need, and save them a few bucks. Before I attempt this, however, I need to have some sense of if you really mean what you say. Right now, you want a dedicated film scanner which will allow you to produce 8x10" results on an Epson 700 printer. The question is if that will suit your needs for the next couple years. In high tech, computers and peripherals typically become cheaper for better capabilities all the time. I usually suggest to people that they buy computers for what they need or expect to for about 12-18 months in the future. For an expensive peripheral, like a film scanner, in the current marketplace, I would suggest you look forward a little longer than 18 months and consider your needs for the next 24 months or so. So, the questions that come up are: Do you foresee you might decide 8 x 10, or 8.5 x 11 or whatever, will be too small and you'll end up with a larger printer? Do you foresee wanting to sell you images via electronic means as "photostock images"? Do you have a lot of difficulty with dust or old scratched film? How much memory do you have, and hard drive space to work with? The scanners you mention above, are all good scanners. But they are on the high end of the consumer scanner market, and might be more than you need. Reasonable film scanners of about 2700-2800 dpi can be had for between $500-$800 US There has been some disagreement as to the amount of resolution necessary for an Epson printer, but everyone pretty much agrees that anything over 360 dpi is just wasted. Most people find 240 dpi enough, in fact, but some seem to squeeze out more with higher res source materials. A 2700 dpi scanner even at 360 dpi can produce a very fine 8 x 10" print. At 240 dpi, you can get a very nice 11 x 17". The new Minolta Dual Scan II (USB) has a nice 2820 dpi or so, and sells regularly for about $500-600 US. For a bit more the Canon FS-2710 seems to do a good job as well. Many of these benefit from Vuiescan software, an extra $40 US The main reason for considering the Nikon 2000 (and yes, a new version should be hitting the streets soon) is that it has digital ICE, which is a system for reducing scratch marks and dust defects. If you have a lot of dirty or scratched slides or film, this might be worth the extra money to you. I'll let others tell you of the problems encountered with this scanner. The principal advantage of the Polaroid SS4000 or the Microtek equivalent is the extra resolution, and very good shadow detail (dynamic range). The other side of this, however, is you are talking about rather large files, meaning needing a good amount of memory and drive space. Further, there seems to be several recent concerns about units failing. An even less expensive option is the Acer Scanwit, about $450 US with a 2700 dpi resolution, or, if you can find a good one (they have quality control problems and also customer service problems) the HP S-20 can be had for about $400 US, at 2400 dpi. The Kodak RFS-3600 is so new I have only read one report from someone who has used it, so I can't comment at all. I am not trying to talk you out of spending your money. If you are thinking you might need or want to product larger images at some point, then the Kodak 3600 or the Polaroid or Microtek have the advantage with their extra resolution. If you are considering dust problems then the Nikon, or maybe the Minolta Elite, which also has digital ICE, might be the choice for you. If you are an amateur and just wish to produce good quality 8 x 10" prints, you do not need the top end, and the others I have suggested might give you several hundred dollars (as many as $800 extra, in fact) left in your pocket for other toys. Art
Re: filmscanners: Slide scanners
> the choice for you. If you are an amateur and just
> wish to produce good
> quality 8 x 10" prints, you do not need the top end,
> and the others I
> have suggested might give you several hundred
> dollars (as many as $800
> extra, in fact) left in your pocket for other toys.
>
> Art
Art
I'll have to disagree with you. For scanning slide
(which is what the original poster wants) dynamic
range is very important. I don't think anything with
Dmax less than 3.4 can cut it.
For a hobby such as photography, your expectation
goes up very quick. A scan that you were happy with
last year will become a disapointment this year. Your
lenses get better, the film you use gets slower (to
get better grain) and you'll use the tripod more
often. All of those will put more stress in the
scanner.
ICE is important for those who scan a lot of
slides/negatives. But as I get better and better I
scan less and less slides (because not every frame
meets my expectation anymore) thus I can spend the
time cleaning the slides before scanning. For that,
ICE is not important to me. I'll would go for
resolution in this case.
Another point to consider. If you scan at higher
resolution and resize it down, you will get much less
noise in the picture.
I am waiting for a formal review of the new kodak
rfs3600 scanner. This seems like a great scanner for
its price. The SS4000 has a problem with the
negative/slide feeder (hard to use and not feed
everytime) the LS2000 has a a less than perfect
stepper motor etc.
-Khanh
=
..("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ " Calculate, Inovate, Try, Try, Try
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) Integrity, Honesty, Tau Beta Pi"
RR (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' -- H. F. Klos Jr., PA Z'78
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(il),-'' (li),' ((!.-'http://users.ntplx.net/~khanh
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Slide scanners
Art: You forgot to mention the Nikon LS-30. It will provide a somewhat lower cost than the LS-2000, yet has ICE. It can also do multiscanning with Vuescan. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: > Robert Buchanan wrote: > > > I am planning on buying a dedicated slide scanner. I have looked up data in the > various catalogues. > Buck Buchanan (no relation to Pat!) > > Dear Buck, > > Welcome to the forum. > > Art
RE: filmscanners: Slide scanners
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dynax N > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:26 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Slide scanners > > > > > the choice for you. If you are an amateur and just > > wish to produce good > > quality 8 x 10" prints, you do not need the top end, > > and the others I > > have suggested might give you several hundred > > dollars (as many as $800 > > extra, in fact) left in your pocket for other toys. > > > > Art > > > Art > > > For a hobby such as photography, your expectation > goes up very quick. A scan that you were happy with > last year will become a disapointment this year. Your > lenses get better, the film you use gets slower (to > get better grain) and you'll use the tripod more > often. All of those will put more stress in the > scanner. > The story of my life. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Julie, female Galah (3 1/2 years and going strong at the moment) Little Birdie, male Splendid Parakeet (13 years) Snowflake, male cockatiel (12 years) http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
Re: filmscanners: Slide scanners
At 12:05 AM -0800 11/10/00, Arthur Entlich wrote: > >My job on this forum seems to be to "talk people down" from buying >products which are more than they need, and save them a few bucks. Very nice summary of scanner choices, Art. Next time someone asks me a similar question, I'll just hand them your post (with credit, of course ). Cheers, Roger Smith
Re: filmscanners: Slide scanners
Gordon Tassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Art: You forgot to mention the Nikon LS-30. It will provide a somewhat lower > cost than the LS-2000, yet has ICE. It can also do multiscanning with Vuescan. And with Vuescan it is able to output 10bits per channel while Nikonscan limits it to 8. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this increases the LS30's dynamic range. (What to? I have no idea!) Rob
Re: filmscanners: Slide scanners
I have found Vuescan to be very effective and the interface pretty straight forward. For example: I scanned an old Kodachrome I took of the Grand Canyon in the '67 as a 16 ppi and the scan had a very dark segment in the foreground. I played with the levels in Photoshop and was able to pull out all of the detail. Also, Ed Hamrick is forever providing updates in response to this forum's requests (within limits) and is very quick to provide "customer support." I think you will like Vuescan. Gordon Guy Prince wrote: > HOLY COW !!! A thread that doesn't mention Epson ! > > I have a Nikon LS-30 and had NO IDEA that it would work with > Vuescan. I have no idea what vuescan is, but now my interest > is piqued. I will go have a looksee ... > > Friday, November 10, 2000, 2:59:13 PM, you wrote: > > RG> Gordon Tassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Art: You forgot to mention the Nikon LS-30. It will provide a somewhat > RG> lower > >> cost than the LS-2000, yet has ICE. It can also do multiscanning with > RG> Vuescan. > > RG> And with Vuescan it is able to output 10bits per channel while Nikonscan > RG> limits it to 8. > RG> As has been pointed out elsewhere, this increases the LS30's dynamic range. > RG> (What to? I have no idea!) > > RG> Rob
