RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-12-07 Thread Hornford, Dave
My wallet is recommending I look at the UMAX 3450 since its only $179 CDN (about $110 USD) I am looking for something to 'proof' my 4x5 - anything I really like I can have enlarged normally, the rest I can print out. regards Dave

RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-12-06 Thread Jim Yount
Frank, I've been getting interested in printing black and white images using the Piezography system (another list), and have recently been in touch with a contributor to that discussion group. This week, I received two of my prints enlarged to 13 x 17 printed by him. The source was scans done

RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-12-06 Thread Tony Sleep
However, the film holder doesn't seem to handle film curl very well (I'm finding this a much bigger problem with 6cm negatives than it is with the 35mm that I'm more familiar with). I had better luck just laying the negative on the glass. Is there a technique to this that I don't know

RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-12-01 Thread Frank Parrotta
his holder or did you make you own? Thanks. Frank -- From: Jim Yount[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 7:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions J

RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-12-01 Thread Jim Yount
Frank, I had some trepidation about the lack of a 120 holder. So, it was with amusement and relief that I discovered Epson considers 120 film to be "brownie" film. Exact fit for 2 1/4 by 3 1/4 (if you've got smaller negs, insert a strip). I guess that means my Hasselblad is a "Swedish

Re: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-11-30 Thread Tony Sleep
You got me on this one. I understand "dust and crud" and "limited Dmax" but what are Newton's rings? Newton's rings are an optical interference artifact, which appear as concentric rings of greater and lesser density. They are caused by intimate contact between the shiny film base and smooth

RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-11-30 Thread Tony Sleep
Perfection 1640 What is the maximum film size this model can accomodate? And is there a limit to the thickness? I've got to find some way of quickly and cheaply scanning 35mm negs a roll at a time for a contact sheet, and want to use the 10x8" glass from an old Paterson contact frame, which

RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-11-30 Thread Tony Sleep
BTW, on these lower end (albeit 48bit 1200dpi scanners) the manufacturers don't even seem to give dmax - which would be useful, but I'll have to double check It's a dubious specification anyhow, since there's no standardised measurement technique. Regards Tony Sleep

Re: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-11-30 Thread Johnny Deadman
on 30/11/00 6:00 am, Tony Sleep at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perfection 1640 What is the maximum film size this model can accomodate? I think this has a 5x7 aperture so it's no good for you. -- Johnny Deadman http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-11-30 Thread Jim Yount
Tony, The Perfection 1640 has a 4x5 inch window for transparency adaptor, and would therefore not work for making a contact sheet from 35mm. The system uses plastic holders, keeping the film roughly 1/16 inch above the glass. Jim Perfection 1640 What is the maximum film size this model

Re: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-11-29 Thread Robert Kehl
- Original Message - From: Johnny Deadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Filmscanners [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 2:42 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions (the biggest problems with my flatbed are (1) Newton's rings, (2) dust and crud

RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-11-29 Thread Jim Yount
Johnny, Tim, The stated DMAX for the Perfection 1640 ($400) is 3.2. I don't have a lot of data yet, but based on experience scanning very dark images on Kodachrome 120, it may be that good (for a cheapie) or close to it. As you indicate, this is really a "dual 800" matrix CCD array, but the

Re: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-11-29 Thread Larry Berman
Newton rings are circular contact marks that appear when using a glass negative carrier to hold your negative under an enlarger. Does anyone remember what an "enlarger" is. what are Newton's rings? ::: Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Fine Art

RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-11-29 Thread Tim Atherton
Tim, I'm looking at the same machines. I can tell you one thing from my experience with the 600 dpi Microtek I'm using right now... 1200 dpi (a true 1200, I mean) is going to be *plenty* for 4x5. Even at 600 dpi I can print 14x11 images which will make most non-conoisseurs go 'wow' and

RE: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

2000-11-29 Thread Tim Atherton
Johnny, You got me on this one. I understand "dust and crud" and "limited Dmax" but what are Newton's rings? Ahhh - you can tell those who are old darkroom workers and those who aren't! (now ask Johnny or Tony why unsharp mask is called that when it makes things sharp...!) Tim A PS,