Looking for film scanner

Talker wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:40:34 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne.TakeThisOut@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>>
>>>Why not a flatbed? Here are a couple flatbeds from Epson that have good and
>>>great resolution, come with Digital Ice, have good Dmax specs and can scan
>>>not only negs and slides but will handle prints and medium and large format
>>>negs if you like.
>>
>>Scan photos: flatbed
>>Scan film: film scanner.
>>
>>Don't top post.
>
>
>
> The best scanner on the market....film or photos, is a flatbed.

The best to worst in the realm of most amateurs (and a good proportion
of pros) are:

drum scanners
film scanners
flatbeds



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for film scanner 

theo wrote:

> If you still wish to consume significant chunks of your life to
> babysitting a piece of machinery, take a look at the BRAUN (not the
> same Co as the shaver people) MULTIMAG 4000, new thru B&H or Adorama,
> used wherever, for doing a lot of 35MM slides. After sifting thru
> several thousands of slides and negatives, I packed the remaining half
> to a service and paid them well for the tedium offset. When your
> audience is generations of family alive today or yet unborn then
> getting the names right for the genealogy branches carries much more
> importance than digging out the minutest detail from the shadows. "The
> Story of Us" needs these pix to stitch the narrative of who /where
> /when. Even the most pixel-persnickety must decide why they must use
> or exclude each image in carrying the story of fomily to current and
> future relations.

You're making assumptions about why people scan that do not match why
everyone scans. Mine have nothing to do with decades old images but
those that I shoot in the here and now. On film.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for film scanner 

Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
"Frank ess" <frank.DeleteThis@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:l72dnZ71poMF4ajbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@giganews.com...
> DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>> Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
>> "Frank ess" <frank.DeleteThis@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
>> news:JKednV23HcfDiajbnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, is it not the local courtesy to leave the above post
>>>> completely in tack when replying? Chunks of my previous are
>>>> missing from your reply, just curious.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll bet you meant "intact", and in a previous post, "citing" rather
>>> than "sighting".
>>>
>>> Technical, certainly, but not typographical errors. Live and learn,
>>> just helpful.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Frank ess
>>
>> Frank, yes indeed that is exactly what I meant and thank you for
>> pointing that out, if your are looking for a fight you won't get one
>> from me on that one. I admit my writing skills are my weakest link
>> and I have no issues with having my mistakes pointed out to me. Live
>> and learn indeed...
>>
>>
>> I do think however, you meant, "Just being helpful" Or at least,
>> that is how I would say it.
>>
>>> Live and learn, just helpful.
>>
>
> And here I thought I had done such a good job of emulating your "just
> curious" thought/speech pattern!
>
> Live and learn, indeed!
>
> Just being snide.
>
> --
> Frank ess

The King of Snide, perhaps.

Anything to say about one scanner Vs. another?

PZ
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for film scanner 

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:31:05 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne.TakeThisOut@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Talker wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:40:34 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne.TakeThisOut@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why not a flatbed? Here are a couple flatbeds from Epson that have good and
>>>>great resolution, come with Digital Ice, have good Dmax specs and can scan
>>>>not only negs and slides but will handle prints and medium and large format
>>>>negs if you like.
>>>
>>>Scan photos: flatbed
>>>Scan film: film scanner.
>>>
>>>Don't top post.
>>
>>
>>
>> The best scanner on the market....film or photos, is a flatbed.
>
>The best to worst in the realm of most amateurs (and a good proportion
>of pros) are:
>
>drum scanners
>film scanners
>flatbeds

That might be true of consumer level scanners, but for the best of
the best, the Kodak EverSmart Supreme II flatbed is the best scanner
you can buy. Heck, if you scan slides or negatives, you just place
them haphazardly on the scanner's glass, close the lid and do the
scan. The software straightens them out and scans each one
separately...no need for an adapter or holder.
Like you say though, in the realm of most amateurs, and the
EverSmart is not in the realm of most amateurs. The last I checked,
they were going for about $54,000.<g>

Talker
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for film scanner 

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
> Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
> "Frank ess" <frank DeleteThis @fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:l72dnZ71poMF4ajbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>>> Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
>>> "Frank ess" <frank DeleteThis @fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
>>> news:JKednV23HcfDiajbnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, is it not the local courtesy to leave the above post
>>>>> completely in tack when replying? Chunks of my previous are
>>>>> missing from your reply, just curious.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll bet you meant "intact", and in a previous post, "citing"
>>>> rather than "sighting".
>>>>
>>>> Technical, certainly, but not typographical errors. Live and
>>>> learn,
>>>> just helpful.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Frank ess
>>>
>>> Frank, yes indeed that is exactly what I meant and thank you for
>>> pointing that out, if your are looking for a fight you won't get
>>> one
>>> from me on that one. I admit my writing skills are my weakest
>>> link
>>> and I have no issues with having my mistakes pointed out to me.
>>> Live
>>> and learn indeed...
>>>
>>>
>>> I do think however, you meant, "Just being helpful" Or at least,
>>> that is how I would say it.
>>>
>>>> Live and learn, just helpful.
>>>
>>
>> And here I thought I had done such a good job of emulating your
>> "just
>> curious" thought/speech pattern!
>>
>> Live and learn, indeed!
>>
>> Just being snide.
>>
>> --
>> Frank ess
>
> The King of Snide, perhaps.
>
> Anything to say about one scanner Vs. another?
>
> PZ

Same as it always was.

--
Frank ess
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for film scanner 

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
> Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne DeleteThis @FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:BE5Zh.2174$pk3.90639@weber.videotron.net...
>> DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>>> Why not a flatbed? Here are a couple flatbeds from Epson that have good
>>> and great resolution, come with Digital Ice, have good Dmax specs and can
>>> scan not only negs and slides but will handle prints and medium and large
>>> format negs if you like.
>> Scan photos: flatbed
>> Scan film: film scanner.

> That's not an explanation of your position but a reiteration and a mule
> headed one at that.
>
>
>
> What makes you think that because one has a film or slide carrier only makes
> it electronically or otherwise better? What is the technical reasoning
> behind your position?

Resolution isn't a reliable scanner specification, since it's mostly
stated in terms of the mechanics of the scanner, rather than as any sort
of measured ability to resolve things. The Epson scanners in particular
are known for using multiple offset lower-resolution sensors, and
claiming 2x the resolution.

The quality of the optics and any mirrors in the light path, and how
well the film holders hold the film flat are key factors in getting high
quality results. The flatbeds generally have extra air-glass interfaces
in the light path, and not even coated glass.

I've scanned 35mm slides and negs on a number of flatbeds and a number
of real film scanners, and the difference is night and day. You can't
make a reasonable choice just from the numbers cited by the manufacturers.
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for film scanner 

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

> Also, is it not the local courtesy to leave the above post completely in
> tack when replying? Chunks of my previous are missing from your reply, just
> curious.

No; you should edit out all the bits you're not responding too.
Otherwise it's hard to read and grows really huge.
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for film scanner 

> Resolution isn't a reliable scanner specification, since it's mostly
> stated in terms of the mechanics of the scanner, rather than as any sort
> of measured ability to resolve things. The Epson scanners in particular
> are known for using multiple offset lower-resolution sensors, and claiming
> 2x the resolution.
>
> The quality of the optics and any mirrors in the light path, and how well
> the film holders hold the film flat are key factors in getting high
> quality results. The flatbeds generally have extra air-glass interfaces
> in the light path, and not even coated glass.
>
> I've scanned 35mm slides and negs on a number of flatbeds and a number of
> real film scanners, and the difference is night and day. You can't make a
> reasonable choice just from the numbers cited by the manufacturers.

Well that makes sense, I don't scan much anymore but I have been thinking
off and on about getting into medium or large format and I would want to
scan those negs.



So, if the resolution spec is not reliable, how do you determine which
scanner will, in the end, give me the largest print?
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for film scanner 

"DBLEXPOSURE" <pzig98.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Bo-dnZuGhJQTD6LbnZ2dnUVZ_o6gnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
>> Resolution isn't a reliable scanner specification, since it's mostly
>> stated in terms of the mechanics of the scanner, rather than as any sort
>> of measured ability to resolve things. The Epson scanners in particular
>> are known for using multiple offset lower-resolution sensors, and
>> claiming 2x the resolution.
>>
>> The quality of the optics and any mirrors in the light path, and how well
>> the film holders hold the film flat are key factors in getting high
>> quality results. The flatbeds generally have extra air-glass interfaces
>> in the light path, and not even coated glass.
>>
>> I've scanned 35mm slides and negs on a number of flatbeds and a number of
>> real film scanners, and the difference is night and day. You can't make
>> a reasonable choice just from the numbers cited by the manufacturers.
>
> Well that makes sense, I don't scan much anymore but I have been thinking
> off and on about getting into medium or large format and I would want to
> scan those negs.
>
>
>
> So, if the resolution spec is not reliable, how do you determine which
> scanner will, in the end, give me the largest print?


The one with the highest optical resolution for the film format you are
scanning.

Print size is determined by the size of the film and the resolution of the
scan and the resolution you print at.

Example:
35 mm film = 24 mm x 36 mm frame size.
Assuming using the maximum image you can get out of the film and the print.
(Not trying to use a standard print size).

Scan at 3200 dpi (the max for some scanners) dpi and ppi are
interchangeable.
(25.4 mm per inch)
Convert mm to inches.
24 mm / 25.4 = 0.945 inches short side
36 mm / 25.4 = 1.417 inches long side
0.945 inches * 3200 dpi = 3024 pixels
1.417 inches * 3200 dpi = 4534 pixels

Scan 35 mm film full frame gives you a 3024 X 4534 Pixel image when scanned
at 3200 dpi.

Say you print that image at 300 DPI (best print)
3024 pixels / 300 dpi = 10.08 inches
4534 pixels / 300 dpi = 15.11 inches

You end up with a 10 x 15 inch print from full frame 35 mm film. If the
scanner is a 3200 dpi scanner.

Fitting the scanned image to standard print sizes is another subject. You
have to crop somewhere!

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for film scanner 

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>> Resolution isn't a reliable scanner specification, since it's mostly
>> stated in terms of the mechanics of the scanner, rather than as any sort
>> of measured ability to resolve things. The Epson scanners in particular
>> are known for using multiple offset lower-resolution sensors, and claiming
>> 2x the resolution.
>>
>> The quality of the optics and any mirrors in the light path, and how well
>> the film holders hold the film flat are key factors in getting high
>> quality results. The flatbeds generally have extra air-glass interfaces
>> in the light path, and not even coated glass.
>>
>> I've scanned 35mm slides and negs on a number of flatbeds and a number of
>> real film scanners, and the difference is night and day. You can't make a
>> reasonable choice just from the numbers cited by the manufacturers.
>
> Well that makes sense, I don't scan much anymore but I have been thinking
> off and on about getting into medium or large format and I would want to
> scan those negs.
>
>
>
> So, if the resolution spec is not reliable, how do you determine which
> scanner will, in the end, give me the largest print?

You can't pick the right one by simple inspection of specification numbers.

If you *really* need the "largest" print, then look into getting a
commercial drum scan done at their top res.

Unfortunately, price is a fairly reliable guide; small price differences
don't mean much, but consumer flatbeds are bottom of the heap,
professional graphics flatbeds (like the Epson V750) rather better,
dedicated film scanners like the Nikon Coolscan 9000ED (for medium
format) are much better, and the commercial-grade scanners like the
Flextight and the real drum scanners are better still.

The difference between a flatbed and a film scanner is much bigger than
the difference between any two film scanners.
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for film scanner