7250 dpi Scanner Introduced by Pacific Image Electronics

I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical resolution,
ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides.

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php

On Jul 24, 11:04 am, "jeremy" wrote:
I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical resolution,
ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides.

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php



Nice! Thanks for that. I need a dedicated 35mm scanner
rather than wasting my 9000 on that film format...

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:Fecpi.620$zJ4.150@trndny03...
I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical resolution,
ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides.

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php

Yee Gads!! - That's 51.8 megabytes! I don't believe I have even one slide
out of thousands that could justify a scan of that resolution....Even the
ones that were taken from a tripod on a quiet day.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:57:07 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


"jeremy" wrote in message
news:Fecpi.620$zJ4.150@trndny03...
I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical resolution,
ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides.

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php

Yee Gads!! - That's 51.8 megabytes! I don't believe I have even one slide
out of thousands that could justify a scan of that resolution....Even the
ones that were taken from a tripod on a quiet day.

I think that the file size is actually about 395MB! Here is how I
got this number. The Nikon 5000 scanner produces 120 MB files and its
resolution is "only" 4000 dpi. Scale that up to get 395 MB.

Now there are some serious limitations on this scanner. Like no
ability to batch feed slides. Nikon has the SF-210 slide feeder which
will do 50 slides at a time.

Second, and probably more important, the Dmax for this scanner is
quoted as 3.6. The Nikon scanner has a 4.8 Dmax. That is a big
difference and is important for pulling out shadow detail.

Of course, the Nikon scanner is about one thousand dollars, US, plus
more for the batch feeder. I didn't see a price for the Pacific Image
Electronics scanner.

Father Kodak

On Jul 24, 3:31 pm, Father Kodak wrote:

Yee Gads!! - That's 51.8 megabytes! I don't believe I have even one slide
out of thousands that could justify a scan of that resolution....Even the
ones that were taken from a tripod on a quiet day.

tghere are very good reasons for wanting to scan
at a much higher resolution than the slide's max.
They have to do with grain aliasing. Plenty of materials
on that to read. Also a very good scanning resource
in the yahoo groups, used by scanning pros, talks about it
from time to time.


I think that the file size is actually about 395MB! Here is how I
got this number. The Nikon 5000 scanner produces 120 MB files and its
resolution is "only" 4000 dpi. Scale that up to get 395 MB.

Yup, that would b e the case indeed. Of course,
more than likely one would apply post-processing
to all that and only keep a final archive image
in compressed tiff, 8bit colour, around 20MB or so.


Now there are some serious limitations on this scanner. Like no
ability to batch feed slides. Nikon has the SF-210 slide feeder which
will do 50 slides at a time.

I don't think at its price point anyone is makin g
it pass as a serious contender for Nikon scanners?

Second, and probably more important, the Dmax for this scanner is
quoted as 3.6. The Nikon scanner has a 4.8 Dmax. That is a big
difference and is important for pulling out shadow detail.

Quite true.
This thing is a serious contender to Epson
flatbed scanners, not Coolscans.


Of course, the Nikon scanner is about one thousand dollars, US, plus
more for the batch feeder. I didn't see a price for the Pacific Image
Electronics scanner.

It's US$595 RRP, so street prices will be considerably less
than that. Even at that price, I'd take it instead of
an Epson.

On Jul 24, 11:04 am, "jeremy" wrote:
I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical resolution,
ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides.

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php

Just a word or two of caution here.

Pacific Imaging have created some rather natty little scanners, but I
would question their reputation for producing a product that:
- has resolution that matches its claims in reality (that sort of res
would require *very* good optics and a very secure method to hold the
film flat)
- has a decent dynamic range - what is the point of a sharp scan if it
can't dig into the shadows? If you're only scanning print film, maybe
it will be ok, but if you are a chronic underexposer of slide film
like me... be afraid!
- is a long lasting product (I've heard more complaints about PIE
scanners breaking down than for the name brands, but I'll happily
admit the plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'information').

Also, such scans are probably going to take a little while, so...
think carefully about the 'no feeder'... It does say it batch scans
roll film - doesn't show what that means, but slides are one at a time.

jeremy wrote:
I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical resolution,
ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides.

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php


Well 7200 ppi not 7250 ppi, still a crazy high number that would lead
one to believe it is more hype then anything else. I have a flatbed
scanner that goes to 12800 ppi, but its optical resolution is much
closer to 1200ppi, kind of makes the 12800 ppi setting worthless.


Scott

On Jul 24, 9:36 pm, Scott W wrote:

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php

Well 7200 ppi not 7250 ppi, still a crazy high number that would lead
one to believe it is more hype then anything else. I have a flatbed
scanner that goes to 12800 ppi, but its optical resolution is much
closer to 1200ppi, kind of makes the 12800 ppi setting worthless.

Scott

well, they say it's "optical resolution 7200X7200",
that's a bit different from just claiming 7200 ppi rez...
Quite frankly, just because flatbed scanners don't
have this is no confirmation whatsoever these
folks won't be able to get there in a film scanner?
After all, drum scanners go considerably higher
than that.

Father Kodak wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:57:07 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:Fecpi.620$zJ4.150@trndny03...
I just saw this info sheet on their website. 7250 dpi optical resolution,
ICE3, scans both negative strips and entire uncut rolls, plus slides.

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php

Yee Gads!! - That's 51.8 megabytes! I don't believe I have even one slide
out of thousands that could justify a scan of that resolution....Even the
ones that were taken from a tripod on a quiet day.

I think that the file size is actually about 395MB! Here is how I
got this number. The Nikon 5000 scanner produces 120 MB files and its
resolution is "only" 4000 dpi. Scale that up to get 395 MB.

A 4x5 transparency scanned at 4000 ppi gives a 625MB TIFF file.

Noons wrote:
On Jul 24, 9:36 pm, Scott W wrote:

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php
Well 7200 ppi not 7250 ppi, still a crazy high number that would lead
one to believe it is more hype then anything else. I have a flatbed
scanner that goes to 12800 ppi, but its optical resolution is much
closer to 1200ppi, kind of makes the 12800 ppi setting worthless.

Scott

well, they say it's "optical resolution 7200X7200",
that's a bit different from just claiming 7200 ppi rez...
Quite frankly, just because flatbed scanners don't
have this is no confirmation whatsoever these
folks won't be able to get there in a film scanner?
After all, drum scanners go considerably higher
than that.

Drum scanners only have to image one pixel at a time, much easier.
And a drum scanner holds the film very flat, something you need
for very high resolution, the higher the resolution the smaller a
DOF you are going to get.

And the few 6000 ppi scans I have seen from a drum scanner look like
total crap at the pixel level.

Scott