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]

[filmscanners] Re: Scanner & printer

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

> "Op's" <martin@wollongong.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > Have a look at the Minolta Scan Multi Pro
> It looks to me that the Multi Pro is the best 35mm scanner available, but
> that it's behind the 8000 for MF work. (I was particularly disturbed by the
> noise ("grain") in the examples discussed here a while ago.)

That's not my experience of the Minolta.  Yes its only 3200 optical for 120 
film but 6x6
scan is - 145M tiff file which is quite sufficient to work with. You only get 
95M from a
35mm slide at 4800.

My panoramic 6x17 are only scanned at 2400 which make up a to a 200M tif.  
That's about  a 1
metre x 300 mm  at 400 dpi. Just how much information do you want?  How much 
are you to
throw away?

I can also say that I was disturbed by the banding in the Nikon scans and Nikon 
have no
intention of fixing that. Have a look at the scan times for a fine mode scan 
that's a work
around for the banding.

The Minolta size is convenient for my desktop I'm very happy with the results 
just want more
computer power now to handle the unexpected file sizes in Photoshop.

Minolta as well as Nikon have ice cubes to work with.  Now that Polaroid have 
there cleaning
routine up and running the Polaroid SS120 might be a worth while consideration 
- looking at
the cleaner its getting up to the ASF Ice product results.

I'm glad I bought a Minolta it gives me 4800 for 35mm ( which you have to get 
the most
from)  and at 3200 for 120 is more than sufficient for  my purposes.

> > > Which printer should I could consider if I want to print al least A3?
> It seems to be between the Canon 9000 (dye-based inks) and the pigment ink
> Epson 2100, 2200, or 4000 (same printer: the only difference is where you
> buy it). The Canon (as I understand it) doesn't do full-bleed A3. However,
> I'm finding the Epson 950C _very_ slow for full-bleed A4 (20 to 25 minutes),
> and probably should have bought the Canon 900. Sigh. (I whimped out on A3
> this time around since I really don't have space for it (my wife said shut
> up and buy it<g>.)). They're enourmous. Also, since I haven't bitten the
> bullet and purchased the 8000, I don't have A3 quality images yet.)

The reviews of the new Epson printers to tend to sway me towards them in 
preference to the
Canon 9000's series.   Canon do not have the paper range of the Epson.(There 
gloss paper is
very scratched which is quite visible on the prints)  If you read the fine 
print from Canon
then there archival inks are some what iffy - they go into a routine of 
storage, underglass,
paper, etc etc.


Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.