Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted

> Why do you (or Ed) think 2700 dpi is not high enough for slide images?
> What are you planning to do with your scans?

Print up to 13x18's on an Epson 1280.

Ed had written the following about the LS-40:

> It's a good value, and the difference in resolution/D-Max isn't
> significant for what I scan.  If you want to scan things larger
> than 35mm, use a slide feeder or scan mainly slide film or ISO 50
> film (none of which I do myself), then you might make different
> tradeoffs.

Since I do have lots of Velvia (ISO 50) and Provia slide film, I figured it
might be wise to heed Ed and aim higher than the IV (at 2900 dpi).  The
Polaroid SS 4000 seems a good compromise (in price, anyway) between the
Nikon LS 40 and LS 40000.

Realistically, given all I've come to understand so far, I'll probably only
be satisfied with epson prints up to 8x10, and will send out the handful of
exceptional slides/negs to be drum scanned and lightjetted.  That being the
case, I may opt for the LS-40 (IV) after all, since it's the least
expensive, and would likely be fine for 8x10 prints and (certainly) for
proof sheets and web jpegs.

I'd had my mind up toward the LS-4000, but it sounds a bit fiddly, with such
narrow depth of field, film flatness issues, possible banding in dense
areas, yadda yadda yadda.  ICE^3 sounds great, but I don't have any
slides/negatives more than a year old, so I doubt I really need it (I'm
curious, though: why can't folks use ICE on polaroid or other scans?).  I've
heard nary an unkind word about the SS 4000, and it's been out long enough
to (hopefully) have any kinks worked out.



Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.