Film Scanner: Nikon vs Minolta

Alan Browne wrote:
I have read elsewhere that 4000 is sufficient for most films, and for

these films, 5400 will not gain anything. Now the films I use are
color negative professional such as NPS, and Kodak films including
Portra and Ultra, with speeds of 100-160. I enlarge to 12"x18".

If you print 18x12 at 300dpi, then the Nikon just squeezes in there with
a little crop margin.

But if you print at 360 dpi on an Epson, or at 400 dpi on an Agfa d-Lab.2
or newer Durst Lambda, you need the extra 5400 resolution.

Bill Tuthill wrote:


But if you print at 360 dpi on an Epson, or at 400 dpi on an Agfa d-Lab.2
or newer Durst Lambda, you need the extra 5400 resolution.

That's a point many manage to avoid considering ... scanning is always for the
output. Around here, one is more likely to run into Frontiers, Kodak and
Noritsu's. I don't know if there is even one Agfa in the greater Montreal area.

You can usually set the print density lower for larger prints, and since the
print is viewed at a greater distance, that lower print density won't be
perceptible.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- 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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Bill Tuthill wrote:


But if you print at 360 dpi on an Epson, or at 400 dpi on an Agfa d-Lab.2
or newer Durst Lambda, you need the extra 5400 resolution.

That's a point many manage to avoid considering ... scanning is always for the
output. Around here, one is more likely to run into Frontiers, Kodak and
Noritsu's. I don't know if there is even one Agfa in the greater Montreal area.

You can usually set the print density lower for larger prints, and since the
print is viewed at a greater distance, that lower print density won't be
perceptible.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- 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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

This information is excellent for my purposes. Now my wife has some
Kodachrome slides from her father that she wasts to scan. Today, she
told me that there are about 1000 such slides, a bit more than I
imagined. Is there any automation available for this?

As mentioned elsewhere, you can purchase a feeder for the Nikon that will hold
50 slides and it will go through them while you sleep.

I'd also suggest that many peoples collections of Kodachrome can stand a good
editing before scanning. That is, there may only be 50 images worth scanning in
the whole pile.

Cheers,
Alan

[...]

Good advice, which I will mention to my wife. Unfortunately, we share a
common trait: we are both incurable pack rats.

With regard to the technology, at appears that there is a trade off:
automated operation vs higher resolution. Too bad.

Mike.

Alan Browne wrote:

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

This information is excellent for my purposes. Now my wife has some
Kodachrome slides from her father that she wasts to scan. Today, she
told me that there are about 1000 such slides, a bit more than I
imagined. Is there any automation available for this?

As mentioned elsewhere, you can purchase a feeder for the Nikon that will hold
50 slides and it will go through them while you sleep.

I'd also suggest that many peoples collections of Kodachrome can stand a good
editing before scanning. That is, there may only be 50 images worth scanning in
the whole pile.

Cheers,
Alan

[...]

Good advice, which I will mention to my wife. Unfortunately, we share a
common trait: we are both incurable pack rats.

With regard to the technology, at appears that there is a trade off:
automated operation vs higher resolution. Too bad.

Mike.