Re: Medium format scanners
Re: Medium format scanners
- Subject: Re: Medium format scanners
- From: Kai-Uwe Behrmann <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:33:12 +0200 (CEST)
David,
Ernst pointed out 2400 dpi is an optical value not the physical often used
in advertising. In theory you can expect 4800 dpi but the image is
what interessting to a photographer. Anyway 2400, or ~1800 dpi as I tent
to, is not that bad for such a cheap device.
May I add, the same is expected to Dmax 4.0. I had a quick look at the
predecessor, which seems optical mostly similiar. It was disappointing to
me at slightly deeper shadows. But this is a weak point of most scanners I
have seen. So again, the visual results are not that bad for the price.
regards
Kai-Uwe Behrmann
+ development for color management
+ imaging / panoramas
+ email: email@hidden
+ http://www.behrmann.name
Am 27.10.05, 01:28 -0700 schrieb David Scharf:
> Ernst & Roberto,
>
> The 4990 has a 4800 ppi optical resolution, not 2400. For $599 with SilverFast
> Ai software, its one of the best deals out there (for my purposes anyway). If
> your scanning 35mm, get a dedicated scanner. If its 127, 120, 6x9, 4x5, up to
> 8x10, this is a great little scanner. Talking about negs and transparencies
> here. You may occasionally have a problem with a very dense neg, since the
> Dmax is only 4.0, but it handles all of my S.E.M. images on Plus-X or FP-4 so
> far; and these can have very troublesome highlites. Unfortunately, I'm still
> scanning and doing a lot of my graphics in OS 9. (New G5 some day).
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> DAVID SCHARF
> Scanning Electron Microscopy
>
>
> Ernst Dinkla wrote:
> > Roberto Michelena wrote:
> >
> >
> > > 2) dedicated med-format film scanner: Nikon 9000, Minolta Dimage
> > > Multi
> > > Pro, Microtek Artixscan 120tf (previously Polaroid)... any others
> > > under $2k ? which is people's favorite? Is the Dimage Multi Pro still
> > > around, or discontinued?
> >
> > 6x9 will be 56 x 83 mm on the Nikon 9000 with the normal carriers and a
> > bit larger with the rotatable glass carrier. If that's enough I would
> > recommend that model but get an additional wet mount carrier with it to
> > get the best quality possible. 3800 true optical resolution and enough
> > Dmax + Dynamic range. ICE etc in the software. Hardly any sharpening
> > needed after the scan. With the wet mount carrier it will be a bit above
> > 2000 $.
> >
> > > 3) high-res flatbed scanner: Epson, Canon, Microtek... any of these
> > > is
> > > a worthy contender?
> >
> > The Epson 4990 but also with wet mounting methods on a separate glass
> > sheet. Masking to avoid flare is a must. The optical system has a lot of
> > DOF but the scans need sharpening afterwards so it is important to find
> > the optimal focus within that DOF. It should be on 1 mm above the
> > glassbed but it may not be that precise on the scanner you buy. There are
> > other issues with this scanner so checking the Epson scanner mailing
> > lists on Yahoo is wise. Yes, I know that this advice doesn't sound
> > encouraging. But at a price of 500 $ you get a flatbed that will deliver
> > about 2400 PPI true optical resolution with the right measures taken..
> > Fast, ICE etc aboard + it can scan up to 8x10 inch.
> > >
> > > I'd appreciate opinions... also horror stories, which if constant and
> > > common mark a trend.
> > >
> > > In general, has desktop technology evolved that much so that these
> > > "under $2k" scanners will be as good as (or better?) than a Scitex
> > > Smart?
> >
> > Don't know the Smart quality but much has changed since, especially in
> > the matrix CCDs used today to give higher sampling rates while Dmax +
> > dynamic range will not suffer because the well size isn't decreased.
> >
> > --
> > Ernst Dinkla
> >
> >
> > www.pigment-print.com
> > ( unvollendet )
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden