Filmscanners mailing list archive (email@example.com)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[filmscanners] Re: Scanner & printer
"Op's" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Me: (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.
The size and somewhat lower cost of the Minolta (since it includes glass
carriers) make it very attractive. I wish there were more raw scan examples
on the net to download and look at closely (the reviews mostly focus on 35mm
examples). Having been burned on the Epson 2450 (mine may be on the edge of
the defective end of allowable specs), I'm hesitant to spend that kind of
money with any doubts remaining.
> My panoramic 6x17 are only scanned at 2400 which make up a to a 200M tif.
Could you email me (email@example.com) a crop from a 2400 dpi scan from a
panarama: I'd love to see how it compares to my fuzzy Epson 2450 at 2400. I
thought I had figured out how to get a decent 8.25x11.75 from the 2450
(_two_ sharpening passes, one with R=4 and the second with R=2 in Picture
Window Pro) but it only works for certain images. It doesn't work on images
with fine details like cityscapes/landscapes. Sigh.
> The reviews of the new Epson printers to tend to sway me towards
> them in preference to the Canon 9000's series.
That's why I bought the 950C<g>. Or maybe that should be a frown. The speed
is not amuzing. I called Epson Japan and asked "how long should it take" and
the help-desk flunky (actually, a clearly intelligent person: she was very
good at only giving the company line) said "our data data shows that,
depending on printing conditions, an A4 print with margins takes 1 minute 53
seconds". Me: So how long does full-bleed A4 take? Epson: we won't tell
you. Me: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarg. (This is after they told me "anyone
scanning negatives on a flatbed needs their head examined." (Actually, it
was closer to "You should use a film scanner if you need quality scans."))
But the 9000 series and the 2100/2200/4000 aren't comparable printers since
one would presumably decide pigment vs. dye inks a priori. Anyway, my "I
should have bought the Canon" is about A4 dye-based ink printers. The 4000
demo books that Epson has on display here are devastating.
(One problem with the 950C and 2100/2200/4000, though, is that (I think)
they're not available outside Japan yet.)
> Canon do not have the paper range of the Epson.
I don't know what you mean here: any paper ought to be useable on any
printer. FWIW, a review of various papers in a Japanese camera magazine
rated Konica's heavy weight glossy DX photo paper the best.
> (There gloss paper is very scratched which is quite visible on the prints)
My HP 970Cxi did that. But that was because its paper path is too convoluted
to use heavy weight paper. I'm surprised you are seeing that with Canon.
> If you read the fine print from Canon then there archival inks are some
> iffy - they go into a routine of storage, underglass, paper, etc etc.
Isn't that the dye/pigment distinction?
(Don't take the above as argumentative: your point that no one ever says
anything other than ravingly positive about Epson printers is spot on. I'm
even quite happy with the 950C other than speed (and even that saves money:
you can't waste a lot of paper at half an hour a shot). And I'd love to be
persuaded that the Minolta's the right way to go.)
David J. Littleboy
Unsubscribe by mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, with 'unsubscribe
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or