Jan Steinman wrote:
>Few flatbeds will do a decent job of this, unless you are happy with
>screen resolution images for email and website use,
>
Hi Jan, been away lately? There have been some recent changes. Take a
look at the scanner reviews at photo-i. For some reason, the Canon 9950F
is on the welcome page, then also down a couple of pages under
reviews>scanners, while the Epson 4870 is only on the reviews page
<http://www.photo-i.co.uk/>. There are others sources, but nothing else
this good. The results are clearly not up to the best film scanners, but
look to be pretty much on a par with the 27-3200 dpi generation. I'm
looking at the 9950, as it will scan 5 strips of up to six frames each
of 35 mm film, 12 slides at once, 2 strips of 120, other MF, and 4x5
film. I don't have all that much MF, but enough to feel frustrated at
not being able to scan it.
>and don't have a lot of shadow or highlight detail to catch
>
Again, these latest flatbed film scanners have much improved real Dmax
compared to their predecessors. They also both have IR based
dust/scratch removal. The new Epson 4990 looks much like the 4870, but
with higher Dmax (and faster scanning).
>, or are scanning relatively grainy, fast film.
>
A fair amount of the old stuff I want to scan won't challenge the
capabilities of the above scanners. I've test scanned bits and pieces.
Some of that old film, fast or not, is quite grainy.
>Flatbeds that are designed for such use are into five figures, even used.
>
As above, things have changed.
>Beware consumer-grade scanners that claim more than 1200 samples per
>inch. Having enough sensing cells to do high-res is not the same thing
>as actually achieving that resolution!
>
I've done a lot of research and peering at samples. I'm convinced that
the new, high-end, 4800 dpi spec flatbeds with full transparency
capability are effectively somewhere around 3000 dpi. Do I believe Canon
when they say the 9950F is so good that there is no point in continuing
to develop or sell dedicated film scanners? Of course not! Do I believe
they believe it is good enough to serve the practical needs of a very
large number of advanced amateurs for 35mm and many pros for MF and 4x5?
Yes. If I were getting killed by other products in a dead end market,
I'd think about getting out and saying the same thing.
And remember, I have a very fine 35mm film scanner for the good stuff. I
did a LOT of reading, peering at examples, etc. before buying a new to
me Canon FS4000. So far, I'm very pleased with it, but it isn't the
fastest way to get decent scans (i.e. up to the quality of the
originals) of boxes of old film going back to the 40s. A fair amount of
it is of no particular photographic value, with the value being in the
images of people, places and things. There is only one original family
album from my childhood and there are 8 grand children, 7 great
grandchildren, another due in April and more inevitable. And all the
early pictures of me and my brothers are 6x9. And all the negs are still
there! As an example of what a difference that makes, here is a
comparison of a scan of the faded print in the album and the 6x6 neg
hiding under it. Both scanned at 2400 dpi setting on a Canon 5000F. You
can see that whatever 2400 is really, it's enough for this old color neg
film. It is, of course, a photo of a young Moose
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/Comp02.jpg>.
So thanks for the counsel, but I think I know what I'm about here.
An older Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
