Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> <snip>
>
>If you have a large number of slides that don't need to be done at
>maximum possible resolution then you might want to consider one of the
>latest flatbeds from Canon or Epson. See the reviews at
><http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Menus/reviews_frame.htm>
>
>I suspect I'll be doing this myself before too much longer. Perhaps
>Moose will jump in here and tell us which one to buy.
>
I plan to buy the Canon 9950F for bulk scanning of old slides and negs.
Maybe if I get a little ahead of the game this winter, when it's more
appealing to sit around inside. The snap decision today to spend a week
in Puerto Vallerta in Dec. may delay it. :-) Doesn't look to me like
there is a significant difference in scanning results between it and the
Epsons. In favor of the Canon is 5 strips of film at once vs. 4 and 12
slides at once vs. 8, and faster operation of FARE vs. ICE.
The price difference vs. a Nikon with slide and/or strip feeder is huge.
That ship already sailed for my and I now have a good 4000 dpi film
scanner for current stuff and anything old that is so great it needs
special care and the MF and LF capability of the flatbeds will handle
the bits of odd larger format stuff hanging around here.
>I have a number
>of fungus damaged Kodachrome 64 slides that need to be scanned and
>restored. Supposedly, the infra-red channel stuff doesn't work well on
>Kodachrome but Piers has previously shown us some Kodachrome that was
>cleared up wonderfully by the ICE on his Nikon (4000?) scanner. Anyhow,
>I'd like whichever flatbed can do the best job on those damaged Kodachromes.
>
>
Sure don't know the answer to that. I was going through some old slides
at my mom's house and found some fungus damaged Anscochromes, but that's
a different kettle of fungus.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|