On 12/11/2014 10:20 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Moose, I agree with you about the dust problem, IR removal is great. On the other hand for saving old film archival,
I can live with some dust.
I figure anything I never get around to scanning is archived on film. :-)
You caught me :-)
Another of the reasons I like the much less well known Canon 4000ED, a more diffuse light source, no internal flare
and deep DoF. I kept my eye out for a long time, and got a back-up scanner at at very good price. In very clean
condition, including film holders, and it works!
If I'm going for another scanner it could be Epson V800. My 4870 is ok but I would like one with better resolution
The flatbeds never seem to deliver real resolution up to their stated resolution. Yes, they deliver the number of pixels
advertised, but the actual visible details aren't there. My Canon 9950F is a decent scanner, with spec resolution
considerably greater than the dedicated film scanner, but in fact, it delivers a little less resolution of actual details.
Pretty much what Victor said in his photo-i tests back when all these things
were new.
Scan A Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|