Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,545   Posts: 1,544,447   Online: 1026
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: scanner choices

  1. #11
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    I can't reference it right now, but the Epson 4870 PRO model has had many, many rave reviews. And for the price, I could not recommend a dedicated film scanner to 99% of the film photographers out there.

    Regards, Art.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  2. #12
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by gr82bart
    I can't reference it right now, but the Epson 4870 PRO model has had many, many rave reviews. And for the price, I could not recommend a dedicated film scanner to 99% of the film photographers out there.

    Regards, Art.
    What are 99% of film photographers doing that would preclude your recommendation?

    General differences Flat bed v. Dedicated film scanner:
    1) No glass
    2) better illumination
    3) focus reliability
    4) purpose built

    Quote Originally Posted by ghinson
    Any thoughts on comparing older technology film scanners (such as the Nikon LS-4500) vs the best new flatbeds.

    Thanks,

    Greg
    The LS-4500 may be an exception to what I have said here. It has resolution limits on any image larger than 6x4.5. For 6x4.5 and smaller i have read some very good things about it -- I have not used it. I have used the the 35mm nikon film scanners and they are very good. At a resolution of 2k the old 35mm LS2000 (I think this is the label) was not far from an Imacon Flextight II (15k when new) at the same resolution and far better than a Microtek ArtixScan (1.5k a year ago) and a Cere Scitex Eversmart Pro (32k 4 years ago and still considered the king of the flatbeds). Of the Nikon scanners the LS 8000 would probably fit your needs best (assuming they are the same as Larry1948's and assuming Larry1948 wants to do more than create contact sheets and jpegs for the web). It is one gen out of production, but an excellent scanner.

    Another MF scanner that could be had used for the same price as the Epson is the Minolta Dimagé Dual Multi II (the name is similar I don't have the time to look it up). This is a *very* good scanner.

    Flatbeds at the consumer level generally suffer from focus issues and are not focusable. Glass is a major impediment when scanning transmissive images -- this is true for high end scanners as well as low.

    When compared to a dedicated film scanners good flatbeds do not fair well, consumer flatbeds fail badly (this includes the epson expression "pro" line). Flat beds are designed for reflective scans and modified for transmissive.

    When I read some of the comments written that put on par flatbeds to film scanners or even drum scanners I am simply left speechless.

    There really is a difference a very large difference. I work with these things daily and have been using them since the mid 80's.

    I really don't want to get into a pissing match about the virtues of Flatbed v. film scanners. I would have loved to have given an informed answer to Larry's question, but Larry has decided for whatever reason to abandon his thread.

    *

  3. #13
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcallow
    What are 99% of film photographers doing that would preclude your recommendation?

    Bla, bla, bla, bla...

    The LS-4500 may be an exception to what I have said here. It has resolution limits on any image larger than 6x4.5. For 6x4.5 and smaller i have read some very good things about it --

    More bla, bla, bla, bla...

    I really don't want to get into a pissing match about the virtues of Flatbed v. film scanners. I would have loved to have given an informed answer to Larry's question, but Larry has decided for whatever reason to abandon his thread.
    OK, you win this thread. I think I'll abandon it too.

    Art.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  4. #14
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by gr82bart
    OK, you win this thread. I think I'll abandon it too.

    Art.
    So what is your problem art? Other than the desire to support your purchase, do you have evidence that flatbeds are better than film scanners or are better for a photographers needs?


    In stead of trying to belittle what I have said offer a supportable counterpoint.

    xoxo

    jdc

    *

  5. #15
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    You know Mr. Mcallow (and I belittle people?), eveything you wrote about drum scanners versus flatbeds was 100% correct, but you didn't READ the guy's initial post. I believe, and will stand by my post, that what I suggested to him, an Epson 4870 PRO, is a good recommendation for him.

    Epson 4870 PRO, $599 at B+H:
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Image Sensor [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Epson MatrixCCD line scanner [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Optical Resolution [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]4800 x 9600 dpi maximum with Micro Step Drive technology[/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Interpolated Resolution [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]12800 x 12800 dpi max. [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Color Depth [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]48-Bit internal/48-Bit external [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Dynamic Range [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]3.8 Dmax [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Light Source [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Reflective Scan Area [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]8.5" x 11.7" [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Transparency Scan Area [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]6" x 9" [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Preview Speed [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Not Specified [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Scan Speed [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]27 msec/line (4800 dpi, draft mode, monochrome or full color) [/size][/font]
    Includes Monaco EZ Color calibration software, can scan all sizes of film upto 4x5 and paper upto 8x10.
    Here's a few reviews:
    http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/int...870/page_1.htm
    http://homepage.mac.com/xpan/MindFla...04-04-12a.html
    http://ostg.pricegrabber.com/rating_...483/id_type=M/ <--This is a consumer review site, so you can ignore.
    Plus it's been reviewed in PDN, PhotoLife and others as well.
    Nikon Coolscan VED, $569 at B+H:
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Image Sensor [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]3964-pixel linear CCD image sensor [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Film Types [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]35mm slides and film Advantix (IX240) film with optional adapter
    Medical slides with optional adapter
    [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Optical Resolution [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]4000 dpi [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Interpolated Resolution [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]None [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Color Depth [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]14 bits per color (Output at 8 or 16 bits per channel) [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Dynamic Range [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]4.2 [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Light Source [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]R, G, B and Infrared (IR) LEDs [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Focus System [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Contrast Detect Autofocus [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Preview Speed [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]14 seconds [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Scan Speed [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]38 seconds [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Batch Scanning [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]2 to 6 frames of 35mm film (continuous strip) Up to 40 frames of APS (IX240) film (with the optional IA-20 Film Adapter) [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Interface [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]USB 2.0 [/size][/font]
    No Calibration software, only does 35mm film and slides.
    Microtek AtixScan 120tf, $1500 at B+H:
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Image Sensor [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]10000-element tri-linear array Kodak CCD[/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Film Types [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]35mm strips, 35mm slides, 6x4.5cm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm and 6x9cm medium format film [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Optical Resolution [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]4000 dpi [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Interpolated Resolution [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]None [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Color Depth [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]42-bit RGB [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Dynamic Range [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]4.2 D [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Light Source [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Cold-Cathode Lamp [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Focus System [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Auto-focus (can be switched on or off) [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Preview Speed [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Not Specified [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Scan Speed [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Not Specified [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Batch Scanning [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Up to 6 frames 35mm Film strip Up to 4 35m Slides Up to 5 frames medium format (6x4.5cm) [/size][/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Interface [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]FireWire and SCSI-II [/size][/font]
    No discernable difference to the Epson except for the price. No calibration software, no IT8 targets, no other media types except the scanning of 35mm and 120 size film.
    Aztek Premier Drum Scanner, starts at $20,000: http://www.aztek.com/ ICG drum scanners start at GPB17,000: http://www.icg.ltd.uk/
    and Heidelberg drum scanners start at $100,000: http://www.heidelberg.com/www/pages/startpage.jsp

    You can recommend your $$$ drum scanners all you want, just like I could recommend the Aston Martin Vantage V8 for the guy looking to buy a car.

    Regards, Art. (Hoping to grow up to be like MISTER Mcallow one day. OK now, I outta here!)
    Last edited by gr82bart; 11-15-2004 at 01:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  6. #16
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,284
    Images
    20
    I have an LS-4500AF that I acquired used for around $300 (originally on the order of $12K with all accessories!), and it's developed alignment problems, making it unreliable for color work (requiring 3 passes), and not worth repairing. For B&W it's not bad, but the interface is somewhat limited and old fashioned (I much prefer the interface on my Agfa Duoscan), and it's pretty slow. I would not be surprised if a current flatbed like the Epson 4870 were sharper than the LS-4500.

    One big issue with the Duoscans is that if you do transparencies and negs on the glass tray with another sheet of glass on top, you'll get MUCH sharper results than with the dedicated glassless neg holders. I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true of other flatbeds.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  7. #17
    ghinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nantucket, MA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    30
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcallow
    ...Of the Nikon scanners the LS 8000 would probably fit your needs best...It is one gen out of production, but an excellent scanner...
    Is the LS 8000 the same as the Coolscan 8000? These still sell for over $1,000 on eBay. I did notice a LS-5000 for sale but have not researched it yet.

  8. #18
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by gr82bart
    You know Mr. Mcallow (and I belittle people?), eveything you wrote about drum scanners versus flatbeds was 100% correct, but you didn't READ the guy's initial post. I believe, and will stand by my post, that what I suggested to him, an Epson 4870 PRO, is a good recommendation for him.

    You can recommend your $$$ drum scanners all you want, just like I could recommend the Aston Martin Vantage V8 for the guy looking to buy a car.

    Regards, Art. (Hoping to grow up to be like MISTER Mcallow one day)
    Art,
    I never recommended a drum scanner and still have no idea what larry's requirements are or why for the same cash you'd recommend a flatbed for scanning film over a dedicated film scanner.

    Eat your wheaties and you may yet.


    If I recall correctly the Duoscan is a Microtek design that uses a separate lamp for film. I have used the older design by Microtek and continue to use the newer (Artex)version and have found them to be excellent scanners.

    *

  9. #19
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by ghinson
    Is the LS 8000 the same as the Coolscan 8000? These still sell for over $1,000 on eBay. I did notice a LS-5000 for sale but have not researched it yet.
    The ls 5000 is 35mm only. The LS 8000 may be the same as the Coolscan 8000. I have seen the LS8000 on ebay for around 500.00. You may want to save a search on ebay and have it automatically search for the LS8000/coolscan 8000 daily. You might also do the same for the Minolta it will probably go for less.

    *

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin