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: Flatbeds for 6x6 negs.


thanks for your thorough answer. I admit my question wasn't detailed enough.
What I actually wanted to know is if the flatbeds which have been discussed
in this and other threads (Umax, Epson 2450, Epson 1680 etc.) are good
enough to maintain the advantage that 6x7 film has over 35mm once scanned
and printed at 11x14".
I am sure that a real MF filmscanner would make the difference visible,
although with the sort of problems you mention, but they are definitely not
cheap. On the other hand, I would feel a bit silly if I'd come up with a
combo (MF camera+ flatbed scanner) which gives me just as good results as
those I already get with a 35mm camera + Canon FS4000 (or worse?). Why
bother, then?
As for the s/w, I'd use Vuescan with both, only to scan portra400 bw (which
is a forgiving film and makes scanner life easy), so I don't think that
would matter much.
So, the bottom line question is: can you tell a 11x14" print from a 35mm
scanned with your SS4000, from a 11X14" print from a 6x6 scanned with the
Apart from the fact that one picture is square, I mean :-)
This would help me decide whether to wait for the next MF filmscanner
generation, or the next hi-res flatbeds, or whatever.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lsoderman@wi.rr.com [mailto:scapes@wi.net]
> Sent: luned 27 maggio 2002 16.48
> To: alessandro.pardi@inferentiadnm.com
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Flatbeds for 6x6 negs.
> Allesandro Pardi wrote:
> >By the way, how would you flatbedders rate 6x6 or 6x7 
> scanned this way
> >versus 35mm fed to 4000dpi filmscanners? I moved to 6x7 to get better
> >prints, but haven't decided on a scanner yet, so I'd like to 
> know whether
> >this new breed of flatbeds is enough to give justice to the 
> higher format
> or
> >if I have to start saving my pennies for a true MF 
> filmscanner to see the
> >difference.
> Allesandro,
> First of all, my Umax Powerlook III is far from being a "new 
> breed" of any
> kind.  It's a SCSI unit that's several years old now; an 
> "eternity" in the
> wacky world of digital imaging.  ;-)  I suppose you *could* call it's
> contemporary sibling, (the firewire version), more of a new 
> breed.  Then
> there are the latest Epsons which *are* part of the latest breed of
> flatbeds.
> My experience is limited to my Powerlook III, a Polaroid 
> SS4000, the Nikon
> 8000ED and the Minolta Scan Multi Pro.  Rather than compare 
> the flatbed to a
> 35mm filmscanner, I suggest comparing the flatbed/MF negs...to the MF
> filmscanners/MF negs.  Of course, it really all depends upon 
> what you wish
> to use your MF camera/scanner combo to ultimately make.  
> Outputting small
> prints? Large?  Etc.  Personally, I use my MF camera to make 
> photographic
> prints up to 30x40.  I use my MF camera/flatbed scanner combo 
> to make prints
> up to 11x14.  (I provide an 8x10 file.  My lab prints 
> directly onto photo
> paper with a Kodak L.E.D. or Lightjet printer.)  But that's 
> using a 1200 ppi
> flatbed scanner.  I could go much larger with one of the "new 
> breed" of MF
> filmscanners.
> The downside of using a flatbed scanner for negs is usually 
> the software.
> Also, the resolution is usually lacking.  Sharpening is always needed.
> Plus, much more of a hassle trying to keep two sides of the 
> scanning glass
> clean...and two sides of the tranny adapter glass clean.  
> (the absence of
> ICE can really amplify this malady)  Then there's the 
> occasional encounter
> with the dreaded Newton Rings.
> The upside of using a flatbed scanner for negs is that the 
> scanner's focus
> has never been a problem throughout the frame.  Also, I've 
> found the scans
> to be very fast using VueScan.  (good quality, too).  And because the
> resolution is lower, the problem with dust, scratches, neg 
> imperfections,
> etc. is much lower.  All in all, I'm still quite happy with 
> my Powerlook III
> for what I personally do.
> Then I dabbled in the "new breed" of MF filmscanners.  I 
> tried the Nikon
> 8000ED and the Minolta Scan Multi Pro.  Each one has its 
> strong and weak
> points.  One thing they have in common is that the higher resolution
> generates the need for ICE.  (And even ICE wasn't enough for 
> the Minolta!)
> Another common trait is the much more lengthy scan times.  
> Also, faster
> cpu's and much more memory and storage space is a must.
> To summarize, I would venture to say that the MF filmscanners 
> are *clearly*
> superior in resolution/clarity.  I would go on to say that 
> this superior
> resolution seems to come at the expense of other problems.  
> (banding, poor
> focusing, noise/grain, etc.)  How much of a problem it is can only be
> answered by you.  For me, it was enough to "wash my hands" of 
> the latest
> breed of MF filmscanners altogether.  My humble opinion to 
> you is to wait
> for the next "new wave" of them.  Hopefully many lessons were 
> learned by the
> engineers.  I would keep my eyes peeled for the next MF Nikon scanner.
> Joyfully,  -david soderman- <><
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 
> 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the 
> message title or body

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.