Looking for film scanner

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by ZalekBloom, Apr 26, 2007.

  1. ZalekBloom

    Alan Browne Guest

    Scan photos: flatbed
    Scan film: film scanner.

    Don't top post.
    Alan Browne, Apr 29, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. ZalekBloom


    Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
    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?

    My response sighted well-known flatbed scanners with good performance and
    good technical specifications and they work those specs on film and slides
    as well as large format mediums. An inch is an inch whether it is a 35mm
    slide or a 5X7 photograph.

    Do you have sound reasoning or are you stuck in some sort of scanner

    My original question below, please answer with some sort of technical answer
    or at least an answer that defends your position in the discussion and not
    your self appointed role as top-posting police.



    -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.

    -4800dpi http://tinyurl.com/27xt9t

    -6400 dpi http://tinyurl.com/2or38c


    DBLEXPOSURE, Apr 29, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. ZalekBloom

    Alan Browne Guest

    PLONK -1 and counting.
    Every time I have seen a side by side of the best flatbed to an ordinary
    film scanner, the flatbed was, to be kind, soft in comparison. I was
    tempted to buy the Epson 4990 but Jim (link below) sent me CD's with
    4990 scans of my own 120 film. I bought the Nikon 9000 ED based on that
    comparison and on others people posted online.

    James held a "bake off" of scanners in 2005. The flatbeds lagged hard
    regardless of their resolution numbers:

    And just to be clear: the declared number of pixels is not a "technical
    reason" to buy anything.

    Alan Browne, Apr 29, 2007
  4. ZalekBloom

    Alan Browne Guest

    Was actually Ken Weitzel. Sorry Ken and Jim.
    Alan Browne, Apr 29, 2007
  5. ZalekBloom


    Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography

    Thanks for the reasonable answer. I know what you mean about not judging by
    the numbers, I have known a few marketing execs in my time. Still, a claim
    of 6400dpi is worth looking into. Epson has always, to the best of my
    knowledge, been a reputable company and a leader in the digital imaging
    world, at least when it comes to scanners and printers

    BTW, "PLONK -1 and counting" One good plonk deserves another, speak to me
    respectfully and I will always do in kind, take a shot and expect one in

    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

    Patrick Ziegler

    DBLEXPOSURE, Apr 29, 2007
  6. ZalekBloom

    Alan Browne Guest

    Not is it's meaningless numbers. Would you rather an epson flatbed scan
    at 6400 dpi or a Nikon 9000 scan at 4000 dpi? For that matter, if it
    were affordable, a drum scan at 5000 dpi?
    What "shot" did I take?

    If you want to plonk me, please go ahead.
    Netiquette: trim replies to the pertinent. Retain context of prev.
    poster, remove all the rest. Google groups can retain that.

    Alan Browne, Apr 29, 2007
  7. ZalekBloom

    Frank ess Guest

    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, Apr 29, 2007
  8. ZalekBloom


    Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
    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.

    Patrick Ziegler
    DBLEXPOSURE, Apr 29, 2007
  9. ZalekBloom


    Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography

    Your short answer,

    "Scan photos: flatbed
    Scan film: film scanner.

    Don't top post."

    Left the impression that it was more important to you to get to the point of
    not top posting and the real matter of the discussion, Flatbed Vs. Film
    Scanner was totally irrelevant and my question did not merit an answer, I
    suppose because I had the audacity to top-post.

    It was a shot.

    For Frank, I think he meant, "Not, it is meaningless." Or perhaps "they are
    meaningless." What's good for the goose.

    Anyway, I digress, Alan, to say the specs are meaningless is wrong. I would
    agree that the one specification standing on it's own is meaningless if all
    other specs are poor or if the device making the claim is otherwise

    To answer your question, I would rather have the flatbed if it performed in
    all other areas. The ability to make larger prints is important to my
    clients and me. In this case, all other things being equal, the Epson can
    produce 60% larger prints, if the claim of 6400dpi is true.

    I have used Epson printers and scanners plenty in my time and have found
    their products to be worthy of advertising claims and they produce great
    results. Many cutting edge photographers, Jay Maisel, Grahm Nash, Vincent
    Versace and Greg Gorman to name a few, Use Epson scanners and printer

    I am not familiar with the Nikon 9000, but I would shy away from it based on
    the 4000dpi spec. Now that is not to say that I would not investigate
    further based on Nikon's claims of superior quality.

    In the end, I would like to see large prints of images made on both models
    before I gave up nearly $2K verses roughly $600. Admittedly, the huge price
    separation has me scratching my head.

    Patrick Ziegler
    DBLEXPOSURE, Apr 30, 2007
  10. ZalekBloom

    Talker Guest

    The best scanner on the market....film or photos, is a flatbed.
    I have checked on this line frequently, but they are way out of my
    league.(maybe in my next life<g>). I just like to see what they are
    doing from time to time.
    I'm talking about the old CreoScitex scanner line. They were
    bought out by Kodak, and you can still check them out under the Kodak
    EverSmart Supreme line.
    No film scanner can reproduce what these flatbeds will do, and
    from what I've read, they are also better than drum scanners.
    Anyway, I just though I'd add my two cents.

    (ps. Most groups have their own guidelines when it comes to top/bottom
    posting, and very few groups ask you to top post. The reason they
    prefer bottom posting is because that's how you read....from top to
    bottom. If 10 people replied to a post and they all top posted, you
    would have to scroll down to the bottom of the page to read the
    initial post, then scroll up to the next post and scroll down it as
    you read it. That is not how one reads normally. By bottom posting,
    one can follow each post by scrolling down as you read it.....the same
    way you would read a book.)
    Talker, Apr 30, 2007
  11. ZalekBloom

    theo Guest

    I can't personally conceive of going to the trouble of scanning a lot of

    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.
    Regards for whichever choice you select,
    theo, Apr 30, 2007
  12. ZalekBloom

    Frank ess Guest

    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, Apr 30, 2007
  13. ZalekBloom

    Alan Browne Guest

    Why scratch your head? A film scanner transport mechanism and optics
    are of a higher standard than those in a flatbed. And the _results_
    show it.
    Alan Browne, Apr 30, 2007
  14. ZalekBloom

    Alan Browne Guest

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

    drum scanners
    film scanners
    Alan Browne, Apr 30, 2007
  15. ZalekBloom

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
    Alan Browne, Apr 30, 2007
  16. ZalekBloom


    Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
    The King of Snide, perhaps.

    Anything to say about one scanner Vs. another?

    DBLEXPOSURE, Apr 30, 2007
  17. ZalekBloom

    Talker Guest

    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, May 1, 2007
  18. ZalekBloom

    Frank ess Guest

    Same as it always was.
    Frank ess, May 1, 2007
  19. 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.
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 7, 2007
  20. No; you should edit out all the bits you're not responding too.
    Otherwise it's hard to read and grows really huge.
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 7, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.