Pentax 6x7 scans, imacon vs. epson 3200
Here's a direct comparison of 6x7 negs scanned on an epson 3200 flatbed and an Imacon professional film scanner. The lens was the 300/4 and the stop was f32, because a lot of depth of field was required here. There was some low lying fog in the vicinity as well. So it's not the sharpest 6x7 neg you'll ever see, but the scan comparison is very revealing. Know too, that I had been scanning 6x7 negs with the 3200 for quite a while at this point, And I was very careful to eliminate negative curl and worked hard to get the best scan possible. The samples here are 100% crops from the digital files. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12180230 Here's the full image from the Imacon scan. It's been seen here before. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5416945&size=lg Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
On 07/01/07, David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 7, 2007, at 5:22 AM, Mark Cassino wrote: > > > but unfortunately my Epson has developed a problem with putting a > > blue line into every color > > scan at exactly the same place. Well, it's getting old. > > My guess would be dust on the sensor, unless it's developed a dead/ > hot pixel. Often the mirror in the scanner head directly below the subject plane gets covered in crap, a clean can remedy duct problems and restore contrast. Though in this case it could be dust on the sensor or worse a stuck pixel. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
On Jan 7, 2007, at 5:22 AM, Mark Cassino wrote: > but unfortunately my Epson has developed a problem with putting a > blue line into every color > scan at exactly the same place. Well, it's getting old. My guess would be dust on the sensor, unless it's developed a dead/ hot pixel. - Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
Yeah, that's where I'm at. I was shooting almost all MF (with a few diversions to my Leica) when digital rolled around. I had been looking for a high level scanner. I'm not looking very hard now. But I am hanging onto my 6x7 lenses in anticipation fo the 645D. Paul On Jan 6, 2007, at 8:02 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > On Jan 6, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Mark Cassino wrote: > >> ... It's really >> hard to sink a lot of money into a technology that's on the wane - >> I can >> see even my MF film days coming to a close. > > My own reluctance as well. My MF film days are pretty much confined > to hobbying now. > > Godfrey > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
On Jan 6, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Mark Cassino wrote: > ... It's really > hard to sink a lot of money into a technology that's on the wane - > I can > see even my MF film days coming to a close. My own reluctance as well. My MF film days are pretty much confined to hobbying now. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
Yes, the cars are very similar, although there's some better detail in the grille and badges on the Imacon scan. The real different seems to be in color gradation. The Imacon distinguished the green of the trees from the blue of the fog much more accurately than the Epson. Paul On Jan 6, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: > I'm somewhat amazed at the difference in the background trees yet the > subject cars don't appear different to me. > I'd really like to see the Imacon compared to the large format > Nikon scanner > > Kenneth Waller > > - Original Message - > From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Imacon vs. Epson 3200 > > >> Here's a pic I rescanned on my friend's Imacon. I treated it somewhat >> differently as well, both in terms of the crop and the rendering, >> but I >> still think there's a distinct difference. Note the detail in the >> background trtees. >> >> The imacon scan: >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5416945&size=lg >> >> The Epson 3200 scan: >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2609820&size=lg >> >> No surprise, but mildly interesting perhaps. >> Paul > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
I'm somewhat amazed at the difference in the background trees yet the subject cars don't appear different to me. I'd really like to see the Imacon compared to the large format Nikon scanner Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Imacon vs. Epson 3200 > Here's a pic I rescanned on my friend's Imacon. I treated it somewhat > differently as well, both in terms of the crop and the rendering, but I > still think there's a distinct difference. Note the detail in the > background trtees. > > The imacon scan: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5416945&size=lg > > The Epson 3200 scan: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2609820&size=lg > > No surprise, but mildly interesting perhaps. > Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
Quite a noticeable difference - beautiful morning light behind the vehicles BTW. I use an Epson 3200 for my medium format scans. I'm not surprised at the difference - I found it to be iffy for high quality scans from slide film, but then slide film is the most demanding for scanning. I think the 3200 does a better job with negative film, especially B&W. I did a head to head comparison of some 35mm B&W frame between my Canoscan FS4000 and the Epson 3200, and found the difference to be negligible. I've also had several large (30 x 24) B&W prints made from scans off the Epson that just scream with detail. Color negative film also scans well on the Epson - better than color transparency - but unfortunately my Epson has developed a problem with putting a blue line into every color scan at exactly the same place. Well, it's getting old. I keep watching for a good deal on a Nikon medium format scanner as a reasonable compromise between the flatbeds and the Imacons. It's really hard to sink a lot of money into a technology that's on the wane - I can see even my MF film days coming to a close. - MCC Paul Stenquist wrote: > Here's a pic I rescanned on my friend's Imacon. I treated it somewhat > differently as well, both in terms of the crop and the rendering, but I > still think there's a distinct difference. Note the detail in the > background trtees. > > The imacon scan: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5416945&size=lg > > The Epson 3200 scan: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2609820&size=lg > > No surprise, but mildly interesting perhaps. > Paul > > -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
Yes, I'd like to see how the new Epson performs on this as well. I notice the Imacon was able to separate the green of the trees from the blue fog while the Epson 3200 was not. Perhaps I can find someone locally who owns the V700 or maybe a store will let me do a test scan. Paul On Jan 6, 2007, at 1:36 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 06/01/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Here's a pic I rescanned on my friend's Imacon. I treated it somewhat >> differently as well, both in terms of the crop and the rendering, but >> I >> still think there's a distinct difference. Note the detail in the >> background trtees. >> >> The imacon scan: >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5416945&size=lg >> >> The Epson 3200 scan: >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2609820&size=lg >> >> No surprise, but mildly interesting perhaps. >> Paul > > A good result and as you say, not surprising, I'd be keen to see where > the Epson V700/750 fits in there. > > -- > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
Thanks Ralf. I'll try that. Paul On Jan 6, 2007, at 5:57 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: > David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Epson Perfection 3200 flatbed > > I see. Had one of those for a few years and it took the introduction of > the V700 to make me part with it. In the menatime I had tried the 4870, > 4990, and the Canon 9900 (?) and the improvement was just too marginal. > > To make the 3200 really shine, use it with Vuescan and set "number of > samples" to 8. You won't believe your eyes. > > Ralf > > -- > Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany > private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de > manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 > Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
It's the Perfection 3200 flatbed, which has served me very well. But perhaps not as well as I once thought :-). Paul On Jan 6, 2007, at 5:11 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: > Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The Epson 3200 scan: > > Which Epson 3200 is this? The Perfection 3200 flatbed or the hapless > F-3200 4x5 film scanner? > > Ralf > > -- > Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany > private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de > manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 > Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
I have a V700 and its quite good with xpan negs and 6x6, better than the 4870 we have at work. If Paul wants to send me a neg and i can scan it. Regards, Paul On 06/01/2007, at 5:36 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 06/01/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Here's a pic I rescanned on my friend's Imacon. I treated it somewhat >> differently as well, both in terms of the crop and the rendering, >> but I >> still think there's a distinct difference. Note the detail in the >> background trtees. >> >> The imacon scan: >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5416945&size=lg >> >> The Epson 3200 scan: >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2609820&size=lg >> >> No surprise, but mildly interesting perhaps. >> Paul > > A good result and as you say, not surprising, I'd be keen to see where > the Epson V700/750 fits in there. > > -- > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Epson Perfection 3200 flatbed I see. Had one of those for a few years and it took the introduction of the V700 to make me part with it. In the menatime I had tried the 4870, 4990, and the Canon 9900 (?) and the improvement was just too marginal. To make the 3200 really shine, use it with Vuescan and set "number of samples" to 8. You won't believe your eyes. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
Epson Perfection 3200 flatbed Cheers, Dave On 1/6/07, Ralf R. Radermacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The Epson 3200 scan: > > Which Epson 3200 is this? The Perfection 3200 flatbed or the hapless > F-3200 4x5 film scanner? > > Ralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Epson 3200 scan: Which Epson 3200 is this? The Perfection 3200 flatbed or the hapless F-3200 4x5 film scanner? Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
On 06/01/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's a pic I rescanned on my friend's Imacon. I treated it somewhat > differently as well, both in terms of the crop and the rendering, but I > still think there's a distinct difference. Note the detail in the > background trtees. > > The imacon scan: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5416945&size=lg > > The Epson 3200 scan: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2609820&size=lg > > No surprise, but mildly interesting perhaps. > Paul A good result and as you say, not surprising, I'd be keen to see where the Epson V700/750 fits in there. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
Yes, you're righjt, David. The 3200 is good enough for many things. I use it to scan pics for stock and magazine articles, and everyone is happy with the results. In only in comparison that it suffers. But don't we all:-). Paul On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:05 PM, David Savage wrote: > The detail & sharpness everywhere is improved :-) > > As you say, not surprising, but the 3200 for what it cost does an OK > job. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > On 1/6/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Here's a pic I rescanned on my friend's Imacon. I treated it somewhat >> differently as well, both in terms of the crop and the rendering, but >> I >> still think there's a distinct difference. Note the detail in the >> background trees. >> >> The imacon scan: >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5416945&size=lg >> >> The Epson 3200 scan: >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2609820&size=lg >> >> No surprise, but mildly interesting perhaps. >> Paul > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Imacon vs. Epson 3200
The detail & sharpness everywhere is improved :-) As you say, not surprising, but the 3200 for what it cost does an OK job. Cheers, Dave On 1/6/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's a pic I rescanned on my friend's Imacon. I treated it somewhat > differently as well, both in terms of the crop and the rendering, but I > still think there's a distinct difference. Note the detail in the > background trees. > > The imacon scan: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5416945&size=lg > > The Epson 3200 scan: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2609820&size=lg > > No surprise, but mildly interesting perhaps. > Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Imacon vs. Epson 3200
Here's a pic I rescanned on my friend's Imacon. I treated it somewhat differently as well, both in terms of the crop and the rendering, but I still think there's a distinct difference. Note the detail in the background trtees. The imacon scan: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5416945&size=lg The Epson 3200 scan: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2609820&size=lg No surprise, but mildly interesting perhaps. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: MF film holder for Epson 3200
No, but after seeing it I'm going to order one. Paul On Feb 14, 2004, at 5:41 PM, Derby Chang wrote: Hiya, Has anyone used this medium format film holder for Epson scanners? http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html I'd love to be able to do a whole strip at a time. D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc
RE: MF film holder for Epson 3200
Good news. I'll consider ordering one... Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Derby Chang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 14. februar 2004 23:41 Til: Pentax Discuss Emne: MF film holder for Epson 3200 Hiya, Has anyone used this medium format film holder for Epson scanners? http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html I'd love to be able to do a whole strip at a time. D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc
RE: Epson 3200 (was: New Scanner)
Update: I tried scanning a 8x10 negative again but this time lying the negative down with a small gap towards the rear of the flatbed like someone suggested earlier. Works fine! I can now do "panoramic" 4"x9" scans from 8x10 negs and trannies no problem. I have no idea why Epson designed the scanner this way but as long as there is a workaround, who cares... JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 10:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Epson 3200 (was: New Scanner) I was using the silverfast plugin. I made a 4x9 "holder" out of cardboard today and tried scanning with that and silverfast. No good. Went back to 4x5 again and it worked fine. Apparently there is something "magic" about the epson holders JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Derby Chang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 11:47 AM To: Pentax Discuss Subject: RE: Epson 3200 (was: New Scanner) > Hey, > > I did find a quirk with the 3200 that I must share with you. > I tried scanning a 8x10 negative assuming I would be able to > get a 4x9 crop of it because that is the size of the overhead > lamp. I did not use any of the film holders, I just laid the > negative on the glass. > > Result? > > I thought the scanner was broken because all I got was an overly > contrasty and badly streaked image. I nearly sent it back for > service. On a whim, I tried going back to 4x5 and the scanner came > back to life! While I haven't confirmed this completely, it seems > that the transparency mode does not work properly without one of > the film holders in place. Of course, Epson makes no claims that > the scanner can do 8X10 or 4X9 for that matter, so I have no beef > with them. I may try to make a holder of my own to hold the 8x10's > with a 4x9 crop and see if that works. I may use cardboard as a prototype. > > JCO JCO, Were you using the Epson driver? I guess that driver must need the holder to calibrate, as it needs to generate thumbnails. Have you tried the Silverfast plugin? That seems to scan the whole lamp area, and you can chose your own scan zone. D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc
Re: Epson 3200 (was: New Scanner)
Like this? http://www.elvum.net/gallery/holga/police_trafalfar_square_bad_scan (hmm, looks like I can't spell... ;-) I deduced that the scanner needs the first centimetre or so of the glass to be left uncovered, as it uses that distance to calibrate the sensor. If you look at the plastic film holder, it has a cutout in that region. (It does on my 1660, at least...) Anyway, when I moved the negative down the glass to leave a similar sized gap, it worked fine. :-) S J. C. O'Connell wrote: I did find a quirk with the 3200 that I must share with you. I tried scanning a 8x10 negative assuming I would be able to get a 4x9 crop of it because that is the size of the overhead lamp. I did not use any of the film holders, I just laid the negative on the glass. Result? I thought the scanner was broken because all I got was an overly contrasty and badly streaked image. I nearly sent it back for service. On a whim, I tried going back to 4x5 and the scanner came back to life! While I haven't confirmed this completely, it seems that the transparency mode does not work properly without one of the film holders in place. Of course, Epson makes no claims that the scanner can do 8X10 or 4X9 for that matter, so I have no beef with them. I may try to make a holder of my own to hold the 8x10's with a 4x9 crop and see if that works. I may use cardboard as a prototype. JCO
RE: Epson 3200 (was: New Scanner)
Hey, I did find a quirk with the 3200 that I must share with you. I tried scanning a 8x10 negative assuming I would be able to get a 4x9 crop of it because that is the size of the overhead lamp. I did not use any of the film holders, I just laid the negative on the glass. Result? I thought the scanner was broken because all I got was an overly contrasty and badly streaked image. I nearly sent it back for service. On a whim, I tried going back to 4x5 and the scanner came back to life! While I haven't confirmed this completely, it seems that the transparency mode does not work properly without one of the film holders in place. Of course, Epson makes no claims that the scanner can do 8X10 or 4X9 for that matter, so I have no beef with them. I may try to make a holder of my own to hold the 8x10's with a 4x9 crop and see if that works. I may use cardboard as a prototype. JCO JCO, Were you using the Epson driver? I guess that driver must need the holder to calibrate, as it needs to generate thumbnails. Have you tried the Silverfast plugin? That seems to scan the whole lamp area, and you can chose your own scan zone. D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc
Re: Epson 3200 (was: New Scanner)
I own the Epson 2400 and when I was having difficulties with the film curling too much I took a piece of glass and laid it on top the the negative which was directly on the scanning glass. If I recall correctly the epson software would not work with this as it was dependant on the holder to calibrate itself, but I was able to do it using vuescan from hamrick software. Vuescan enables you to custom set the cropping area. - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 9:09 AM Subject: RE: Epson 3200 (was: New Scanner) > Hey, > > I did find a quirk with the 3200 that I must share with you. > I tried scanning a 8x10 negative assuming I would be able to > get a 4x9 crop of it because that is the size of the overhead > lamp. I did not use any of the film holders, I just laid the > negative on the glass. > > Result? > > I thought the scanner was broken because all I got was an overly > contrasty and badly streaked image. I nearly sent it back for > service. On a whim, I tried going back to 4x5 and the scanner came > back to life! While I haven't confirmed this completely, it seems > that the transparency mode does not work properly without one of > the film holders in place. Of course, Epson makes no claims that > the scanner can do 8X10 or 4X9 for that matter, so I have no beef > with them. I may try to make a holder of my own to hold the 8x10's > with a 4x9 crop and see if that works. I may use cardboard as a prototype. > > JCO > > -- -- >J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > -- -- > > -Original Message- > From: Derby Chang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 8:42 PM > To: Pentax Discuss > Subject: Epson 3200 (was: New Scanner) > > > > JC, > > Sorry for the late response, but I've only just been catching up on PDML > mails since Nov. > > Love the 3200. No big issues with it, scans beautifully. Only minor > quibbles: > > * Wish the 120 film holder could do strips instead of one frame at a time. > > * The Epson photoshop driver could be better. Can't scan at an arbitrary > resolution - I would like to do 2400dpi for small proof prints from neg > scans, but it only lets you do 1200 or 3200 (I can downsample in > photoshop, but then thats double much more work). On the plus side, the > 12-frames a scan is very useful for proofing. I've downloaded v1.25 of > the driver and there doesn't seem to be that much of a change. The > software dust removal now seems to work sort of, but is more trouble > than it's worth IMHO - some nasty artifacts pop up with detailed areas > like hair and specular highlights. > > *Silverfast LE is pretty handy for serious scans, although it only seems > to do one scan at a time (but moving the marquee each scan is not _that_ > much of a hass). Don't use the dust removal much in this either. The big > plus is that it has profiles for different neg types. Saves mucho time > colour balancing. Wish it could do 48-bit scans' tho. > > * Wish it scanned to the edge of the glass, only because that would make > it easier to align things against the bezel. > > I think I've saved its cost already just from not having to develop all > the "mucking around" rolls I've been shooting lately, as well as the > weekly 8x12s that I print at home instead of handing over to the labs. I > can't compare to a proper 4000dpi film scan, but it looks pretty good to > me compared to the wet prints I used to spend a fortune on. > > > D > > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc > > >
RE: Epson 3200 (was: New Scanner)
Hey, I did find a quirk with the 3200 that I must share with you. I tried scanning a 8x10 negative assuming I would be able to get a 4x9 crop of it because that is the size of the overhead lamp. I did not use any of the film holders, I just laid the negative on the glass. Result? I thought the scanner was broken because all I got was an overly contrasty and badly streaked image. I nearly sent it back for service. On a whim, I tried going back to 4x5 and the scanner came back to life! While I haven't confirmed this completely, it seems that the transparency mode does not work properly without one of the film holders in place. Of course, Epson makes no claims that the scanner can do 8X10 or 4X9 for that matter, so I have no beef with them. I may try to make a holder of my own to hold the 8x10's with a 4x9 crop and see if that works. I may use cardboard as a prototype. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Derby Chang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 8:42 PM To: Pentax Discuss Subject: Epson 3200 (was: New Scanner) JC, Sorry for the late response, but I've only just been catching up on PDML mails since Nov. Love the 3200. No big issues with it, scans beautifully. Only minor quibbles: * Wish the 120 film holder could do strips instead of one frame at a time. * The Epson photoshop driver could be better. Can't scan at an arbitrary resolution - I would like to do 2400dpi for small proof prints from neg scans, but it only lets you do 1200 or 3200 (I can downsample in photoshop, but then thats double much more work). On the plus side, the 12-frames a scan is very useful for proofing. I've downloaded v1.25 of the driver and there doesn't seem to be that much of a change. The software dust removal now seems to work sort of, but is more trouble than it's worth IMHO - some nasty artifacts pop up with detailed areas like hair and specular highlights. *Silverfast LE is pretty handy for serious scans, although it only seems to do one scan at a time (but moving the marquee each scan is not _that_ much of a hass). Don't use the dust removal much in this either. The big plus is that it has profiles for different neg types. Saves mucho time colour balancing. Wish it could do 48-bit scans' tho. * Wish it scanned to the edge of the glass, only because that would make it easier to align things against the bezel. I think I've saved its cost already just from not having to develop all the "mucking around" rolls I've been shooting lately, as well as the weekly 8x12s that I print at home instead of handing over to the labs. I can't compare to a proper 4000dpi film scan, but it looks pretty good to me compared to the wet prints I used to spend a fortune on. D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc
Epson 3200 (was: New Scanner)
JC, Sorry for the late response, but I've only just been catching up on PDML mails since Nov. Love the 3200. No big issues with it, scans beautifully. Only minor quibbles: * Wish the 120 film holder could do strips instead of one frame at a time. * The Epson photoshop driver could be better. Can't scan at an arbitrary resolution - I would like to do 2400dpi for small proof prints from neg scans, but it only lets you do 1200 or 3200 (I can downsample in photoshop, but then thats double much more work). On the plus side, the 12-frames a scan is very useful for proofing. I've downloaded v1.25 of the driver and there doesn't seem to be that much of a change. The software dust removal now seems to work sort of, but is more trouble than it's worth IMHO - some nasty artifacts pop up with detailed areas like hair and specular highlights. *Silverfast LE is pretty handy for serious scans, although it only seems to do one scan at a time (but moving the marquee each scan is not _that_ much of a hass). Don't use the dust removal much in this either. The big plus is that it has profiles for different neg types. Saves mucho time colour balancing. Wish it could do 48-bit scans' tho. * Wish it scanned to the edge of the glass, only because that would make it easier to align things against the bezel. I think I've saved its cost already just from not having to develop all the "mucking around" rolls I've been shooting lately, as well as the weekly 8x12s that I print at home instead of handing over to the labs. I can't compare to a proper 4000dpi film scan, but it looks pretty good to me compared to the wet prints I used to spend a fortune on. D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc
Re: Epson 3200
If you use it with the PhotoShop Plug-In, you can save the files in any format you choose. Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Hi ... > > Does this scanner save files in the PSD and TIFF format, or only JPEG? > > Tks!
Re: Epson 3200 Photo for 35mm negs?
I second that Pat. Its quite good(the 2450)for 6x6 and or 6x7,espesially the trannies.The 35mm is hit and miss. Although the 2 35mm slides i scanned last night are pretty good,just a tad soft. Dave > I have the Epson 2450 it's a very good flatbed and I'm impressed by the 6X7 neg scanning, I can't recommend it for 35mm neg scanning however. The results are too soft, I get a better result from scanning a 7.5 X 5 print than I do from scanning the neg. > > Anton > > __ > Join Freeserve http://www.freeserve.com/time/ > > Winner of the 2003 Internet Service Providers' Association awards for Best Unmetered > ISP and Best Consumer Application. > >
Re: Epson 3200 Photo for 35mm negs?
The 3200 is high enough resolution to make prints of about 10x12 from 35mm negatives. And it does that very well. I would go for the 3200. I have one, and I'm very pleased with it. Paul Pat White wrote: > > I'm planning to buy a flatbed scanner in the near future, for scanning > prints and 6x7 negatives. The two I'm looking at are the Epson 2400 and > 3200. Users of the 2400 seem very happy with it, and it's half the price of > the 3200, here in Canada. > > The 3200 has higher resolution. The question is whether it's high enough to > make it a useful scanner for 35mm negatives. If it is, that could be a good > reason to spend the extra money. Has anyone tried scanning 35mm negs with > either of these scanners? > > Pat White
Re: Epson 3200 Photo for 35mm negs?
I just made a 13x19" print from a scan someone made on a 3200, not bad and I'd put the scans on par with a 2800 pi dedicated scanner. --- Pat White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm planning to buy a flatbed scanner in the near > future, for scanning > prints and 6x7 negatives. The two I'm looking at > are the Epson 2400 and > 3200. Users of the 2400 seem very happy with it, > and it's half the price of > the 3200, here in Canada. > > The 3200 has higher resolution. The question is > whether it's high enough to > make it a useful scanner for 35mm negatives. If it > is, that could be a good > reason to spend the extra money. Has anyone tried > scanning 35mm negs with > either of these scanners? > > Pat White > > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Epson 3200 for 35mm negs?
I'm planning to buy a flatbed scanner in the near future, to scan prints and 6x7 negatives. I'm looking at the Epson 2400 Photo and 3200 Photo. Users of the 2400 Photo seem very happy with it, and it's half the price of the 3200. The 3200 has higher resolution. If it's high enough to be a useful 35mm film scanner, it would be one more reason to spend the extra money. Has anyone scanned 35mm negs with either scanner, and what were their conclusions? Thanks in advance. Pat White
Epson 3200 Photo for 35mm negs?
I'm planning to buy a flatbed scanner in the near future, for scanning prints and 6x7 negatives. The two I'm looking at are the Epson 2400 and 3200. Users of the 2400 seem very happy with it, and it's half the price of the 3200, here in Canada. The 3200 has higher resolution. The question is whether it's high enough to make it a useful scanner for 35mm negatives. If it is, that could be a good reason to spend the extra money. Has anyone tried scanning 35mm negs with either of these scanners? Pat White
