On Wed, 23 May 2001 13:00:23 -0400 Phil (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> For making fast, decent low res scans, the Kodak 3570 Plus seems like a
> dream. From Q&A on the Kodak site:
> This is nice. The problem is that the best price I've found so far in
> US is $8200 <http://www.kalbphotosupply.com/rfs3570.html>. I guess
> this is
> what Tony Sleep meant when he said these scanners cost as much as a
> reasonable car.
> In addition to the fact that the Kodak machine is very expensive, the
> maximum resolution is disappointing, given how much it costs and taking
> account the other less expensive scanners on the market. It seems
> for me to understand why so much money doesn't buy you at least the same
> resolution you can get with the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 or the Nikon
The RFS3570 handles medium format too. There is a 35mm-only model, the
RFS2035, but it's hardly cheaper. Both use a strobe lightsource and matrix
CCD (like a digicam) which is why they are expensive and fast. Scan
quality is not as good as current prosumer units on most parameters, but
they are designed for use in places like newspaper offices. However, bulk
scanning requires aftermarket feeders which AFAIK are not made by Kodak.
There's a review of an RFS3570 at my site.
However I had in mind the sort of kit used by minilabs, proper scanning
stations. These start around $10k. The problem with all prosumer units is
not so much the scanning time, but the lack of a mechanism for feeding the
film. If you use uncut film, the Kodak RFS3600 is well worth looking at
(unrelated to the 3570, and far cheaper) as it can handle an uncut
36ex.length. If you scan mounted slides, you might think about the Nikon
LS2000+add-on SF200 hopper, despite its rep for misfeeds.
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
info & comparisons