flatbeds as film scanners

Get a dedicated film scanner, you won't get any better results with a better
flatbed scanner (or at least not noticably better).
Yes they're expensive but if you have a lot of slides to digitise (and
probably more appearing all the time as you continue using your camera) the
cost per slide is low.

"MTBike1970" wrote in message
...
Hello all...
I have a LOT of medium format transparencies that I'd like to scan and
save
as digital files for later printing... I'm currently using the
transparency
adaptor on an Epson Perfection 3200 flat bed scanner. Although the PSD
files are huge, they look a bit soft and lacking in dynamic range...the
DMax
on the 3200 is 3.3 and the optical resolution is 3200 dpi.
I've been looking at the Epson 4800 and the Microtek i800. Both have a
claimed optical resolution of 4800 dpi and a DMax of 4.0.
Would either of these produce significantly better scans, or are the
scanner
optics the limiting factor? I know that dedicated film scanners are
better,
but at around $2000 for a medium format scanner, I'd like to avoid that
expense.
Any comments apreciated...
TIA... M

Hello all...
I have a LOT of medium format transparencies that I'd like to scan and save
as digital files for later printing... I'm currently using the transparency
adaptor on an Epson Perfection 3200 flat bed scanner. Although the PSD
files are huge, they look a bit soft and lacking in dynamic range...the DMax
on the 3200 is 3.3 and the optical resolution is 3200 dpi.
I've been looking at the Epson 4800 and the Microtek i800. Both have a
claimed optical resolution of 4800 dpi and a DMax of 4.0.
Would either of these produce significantly better scans, or are the scanner
optics the limiting factor? I know that dedicated film scanners are better,
but at around $2000 for a medium format scanner, I'd like to avoid that
expense.
Any comments apreciated...
TIA... M

In article ,
says...
Hello all...
I have a LOT of medium format transparencies that I'd like to scan and save
as digital files for later printing... I'm currently using the transparency
adaptor on an Epson Perfection 3200 flat bed scanner. Although the PSD
files are huge, they look a bit soft and lacking in dynamic range...the DMax
on the 3200 is 3.3 and the optical resolution is 3200 dpi.
I've been looking at the Epson 4800 and the Microtek i800. Both have a
claimed optical resolution of 4800 dpi and a DMax of 4.0.
Would either of these produce significantly better scans, or are the scanner
optics the limiting factor? I know that dedicated film scanners are better,
but at around $2000 for a medium format scanner, I'd like to avoid that
expense.
Any comments apreciated...
TIA... M



I have a few discussions comparing flatbeds to 35mm film scanners on my
web site. Just follow the tips link on the home page and scroll down
to the scanners discussions.

Flat beds are generally over rated as to what their true resolution is.
So the newest Epsons which claim 4800 dpi are more like 2700 dpi while
the film scanners actually do produce what is claimed. My sample scans
illustrate this.
By the way don't underestimate the value of sharpening. I show how this
can help as well.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

"MTBike1970" wrote in message
...
Hello all...
I have a LOT of medium format transparencies that I'd like to scan and
save
as digital files for later printing... I'm currently using the
transparency
adaptor on an Epson Perfection 3200 flat bed scanner. Although the PSD
files are huge, they look a bit soft and lacking in dynamic range...the
DMax
on the 3200 is 3.3 and the optical resolution is 3200 dpi.
I've been looking at the Epson 4800 and the Microtek i800. Both have a
claimed optical resolution of 4800 dpi and a DMax of 4.0.
Would either of these produce significantly better scans, or are the
scanner
optics the limiting factor? I know that dedicated film scanners are
better,
but at around $2000 for a medium format scanner, I'd like to avoid that
expense.
Any comments apreciated...
TIA... M


I've got the Epson perfection 4180. Yes, it isn't quite as good as a
dedicated film scanner but at 500 aussie dollars it sure beats the heck out
of spending $2000! Results from it have been exceptional and I've even sold
prints and published images that were made from scanned 35mm slides using
it. Most images I scanned did need adjusting and yes, they can be a bit
soft at times. Most of the time it is more than acceptable.
Now, the fact you have medium format will make a difference in the final
look of the scan I think. They should look better. The resolution is indeed
4800dpi. If you go the 4800, you'll do even better than I have.
cheers
Jasen

"MTBike1970" wrote in message
...
Hello all...
I have a LOT of medium format transparencies that I'd like to scan and
save
as digital files for later printing... I'm currently using the
transparency
adaptor on an Epson Perfection 3200 flat bed scanner. Although the PSD
files are huge, they look a bit soft and lacking in dynamic range...the
DMax
on the 3200 is 3.3 and the optical resolution is 3200 dpi.
I've been looking at the Epson 4800 and the Microtek i800. Both have a
claimed optical resolution of 4800 dpi and a DMax of 4.0.
Would either of these produce significantly better scans, or are the
scanner
optics the limiting factor? I know that dedicated film scanners are
better,
but at around $2000 for a medium format scanner, I'd like to avoid that
expense.
Any comments apreciated...

In article ,
"Jeroen Wenting" jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl wrote:

Get a dedicated film scanner, you won't get any better results with a better
flatbed scanner (or at least not noticably better).
Yes they're expensive but if you have a lot of slides to digitise (and
probably more appearing all the time as you continue using your camera) the
cost per slide is low.

Well the Nikon Coolscan 8000ED costs a hefty $3000. Most cheaper
scanners seem limited to 35mm (I could be wrong)
So trying a better flatbed first seems prudent - have you thought about
the possibility of renting or leasing a high-end flatbed of dedicated
film scanner? Although 3000 negs for $3000 doesn't seem all that
expensive and a scanning company will probably charge that much (f you
buy, you'll still have something to sell at the end of it) It depends on
how much free time you can cobble together as scanning is both time
consuming and tedious.

Robert Feinman wrote:
In article ,
says...

Hello all...
I have a LOT of medium format transparencies that I'd like to scan and save
as digital files for later printing... I'm currently using the transparency
adaptor on an Epson Perfection 3200 flat bed scanner. Although the PSD
files are huge, they look a bit soft and lacking in dynamic range...the DMax
on the 3200 is 3.3 and the optical resolution is 3200 dpi.
I've been looking at the Epson 4800 and the Microtek i800. Both have a
claimed optical resolution of 4800 dpi and a DMax of 4.0.
Would either of these produce significantly better scans, or are the scanner
optics the limiting factor? I know that dedicated film scanners are better,
but at around $2000 for a medium format scanner, I'd like to avoid that
expense.
Any comments apreciated...
TIA... M




I have a few discussions comparing flatbeds to 35mm film scanners on my
web site. Just follow the tips link on the home page and scroll down
to the scanners discussions.

Flat beds are generally over rated as to what their true resolution is.
So the newest Epsons which claim 4800 dpi are more like 2700 dpi while
the film scanners actually do produce what is claimed. My sample scans
illustrate this.
By the way don't underestimate the value of sharpening. I show how this
can help as well.


I looked at your scanner pages. Are you sure your 4800 tests were in
focus? They do not look it. A common problem with flatbeds is the
focus is not at the film plane, and can be a few mm off.

Here is my comparison of an Epson 4990, an HP 7400 and a drum
scanner:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...atbed-scanners

In my experience, both consumer flatbeds and dedicated film scanners
are overrated in their optical resolution compared to the same
dpi scan from a drum scanner. The factor is about 2/3 in my
experience, meaning 4800 dpi is more like 3200.

The Epson 4990 is the first flatbed I will use for scanning 4x5s.
I've also done medium format. If you have very fine grained film
(to the OP) in medium format and shot very sharp images, I suggest
a dedicated film scanner with 5000 dpi or more to get the detail.
If you shoot iso 100 speed film or faster, the Epson 4990 can do
a good job, if you check focus and adjust the film plane to match
focus.

Here is another page with scanner info:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html

Roger

In article ,
MTBike1970 wrote:
Hello all...
I have a LOT of medium format transparencies that I'd like to scan and save
as digital files for later printing... I'm currently using the transparency
adaptor on an Epson Perfection 3200 flat bed scanner. Although the PSD
files are huge, they look a bit soft and lacking in dynamic range...the DMax
on the 3200 is 3.3 and the optical resolution is 3200 dpi.
I've been looking at the Epson 4800 and the Microtek i800. Both have a
claimed optical resolution of 4800 dpi and a DMax of 4.0.
Would either of these produce significantly better scans, or are the scanner
optics the limiting factor? I know that dedicated film scanners are better,
but at around $2000 for a medium format scanner, I'd like to avoid that
expense.

I have the Epson 4870, on which I mostkly scan medium and large format E6
film. On properly exposed slides, you can get very good results from 6*6
after downsizing to 25 or 36 megapixels - the quality on a per-pixel level
is similar to a DSLR. In deep shadow it can be quite ropey, however.

Here's a 4x5 example from the 4870 (Provia 100F):

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/Snowdon.jpg

That's downsized significantly for the web. This is a 3200 dpi closeup of
the sumit:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/Snowdon_crop.jpg

and thanks to Robert and Roger for the links to their web pages on scanner
comparisons...
regards...M


"MTBike1970" wrote in message
...
Hello all...
I have a LOT of medium format transparencies that I'd like to scan and
save
as digital files for later printing... I'm currently using the
transparency
adaptor on an Epson Perfection 3200 flat bed scanner. Although the PSD
files are huge, they look a bit soft and lacking in dynamic range...the
DMax
on the 3200 is 3.3 and the optical resolution is 3200 dpi.
I've been looking at the Epson 4800 and the Microtek i800. Both have a
claimed optical resolution of 4800 dpi and a DMax of 4.0.
Would either of these produce significantly better scans, or are the
scanner
optics the limiting factor? I know that dedicated film scanners are
better,
but at around $2000 for a medium format scanner, I'd like to avoid that
expense.
Any comments apreciated...
TIA... M

MTBike1970 wrote:

but at around $2000 for a medium format scanner,

I got a used LS8000 on ebay for around $1000 and the results are amazing..

--

Stacey

Hi Roger:

How does one adjust the film plane on the Epson 4990? Is it a built-in
function? There's no mention of this on their website..
thanks...M


"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...
Robert Feinman wrote:
In article ,
says...

Hello all...
I have a LOT of medium format transparencies that I'd like to scan and
save
as digital files for later printing... I'm currently using the
transparency
adaptor on an Epson Perfection 3200 flat bed scanner. Although the PSD
files are huge, they look a bit soft and lacking in dynamic range...the
DMax
on the 3200 is 3.3 and the optical resolution is 3200 dpi.
I've been looking at the Epson 4800 and the Microtek i800. Both have a
claimed optical resolution of 4800 dpi and a DMax of 4.0.
Would either of these produce significantly better scans, or are the
scanner
optics the limiting factor? I know that dedicated film scanners are
better,
but at around $2000 for a medium format scanner, I'd like to avoid that
expense.
Any comments apreciated...
TIA... M




I have a few discussions comparing flatbeds to 35mm film scanners on my
web site. Just follow the tips link on the home page and scroll down
to the scanners discussions.

Flat beds are generally over rated as to what their true resolution is.
So the newest Epsons which claim 4800 dpi are more like 2700 dpi while
the film scanners actually do produce what is claimed. My sample scans
illustrate this.
By the way don't underestimate the value of sharpening. I show how this
can help as well.


I looked at your scanner pages. Are you sure your 4800 tests were in
focus? They do not look it. A common problem with flatbeds is the
focus is not at the film plane, and can be a few mm off.

Here is my comparison of an Epson 4990, an HP 7400 and a drum
scanner:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...atbed-scanners

In my experience, both consumer flatbeds and dedicated film scanners
are overrated in their optical resolution compared to the same
dpi scan from a drum scanner. The factor is about 2/3 in my
experience, meaning 4800 dpi is more like 3200.

The Epson 4990 is the first flatbed I will use for scanning 4x5s.
I've also done medium format. If you have very fine grained film
(to the OP) in medium format and shot very sharp images, I suggest
a dedicated film scanner with 5000 dpi or more to get the detail.
If you shoot iso 100 speed film or faster, the Epson 4990 can do
a good job, if you check focus and adjust the film plane to match
focus.

Here is another page with scanner info:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html

Roger