Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Part of it was that with that last generation of Nikon Scanners it had reached a point where it simply did the job that needed to be done and to come out with a 4th direction was not going to pay them the nikon company R&D back because the scanner sales had long peaked and was going down fast. Other companies who could deal with the Frederic Niche markets would have to do the job. Which they did. some came out with resolutions well over 4000 which would seem to define the edges of not just course but fine particles in film. The Nikon scanners which were fixed in time had prices which were not they went it seems to me way down. So you got more DPI's for your buck who said they were not improved? Looking at the B&H sampling of film scanners I'm fond of the company but fonder of the way their website works: I don't see any Minolta. Could that be because they went to that big camera company cloud in the sky? A 7200 DPI scanner for $486 from Plustek Technology Inc. 48-Bit RGB Also sold at Adorama A 7200dpi, 35mm, Film Scanner from Pacific Image Price:$519.95 So you're getting twice the DPI's for half the USD' s with no trans fat attachments! And with technology from the current Millenium. So its Plustek and Pacific Image both being sold at Adorama and B&H websites I do recall looking dropping off the sleep with the B&H catalog as usual and seeing the high end film scanners from sunny Scandinavia (get it!?!): For some reason in their catalog but not on the website Flextight X1 drum scanner from Hasselblad Imacon Goes to 4x5 film 6300 dpi 4.6 dynamic range 13 thousand big American presidents. You can get 6.5 M8's for that. Or its big brother the X5 Broke the dpi barrier with 8000 dpi and it somehow does reflective scanning up to A4 size. Help Me, Obi-won Kenobi, You're my Only Hope! I think it projects something. Film to 3.9x9.6 inch 20 thousand American big ones. But could repay itself faster than one of those photo button making machines. Mark William Rabiner > From: Geoff Hopkinson <hoppyman@bigpond.net.au> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:45:23 +1000 > To: 'Leica Users Group' <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: RE: [Leica] Film Scanner Suggestion > > Mark I have the Coolscan V which is essentially the 4000. I used it for a > couple of years (maybe a couple of thousand scans at maximum optical > resolution) and just checking around 1000+ of those photos shared with the > LUG. I found it worked very well for me with slide film with the Nikon > software. Despite numerous experiments and techniques I was never > completely > satisfied with scanning my black and white negatives and usually found the > apparent reproduction of the grain clumps to be prominent and > objectionable. > One theory was that it was an anti-aliasing effect. Clearly you have got > yours working to your satisfaction. All of the prints of mine that you have > were from scans with my scanner and I have printed a number of 13x19s from > 400ISO film that pleased me. Ditto numerous from Fuji Pro slide film scans. > In any event the optical resolution is exactly the same as with the 5000 > but > there are no doubt many over factors that come into play, including the > scanning head (and lens). I listed differences (that presumably are in the > specs) because I thoroughly researched all of the options before buying the > scanner I have and Richard asked what the specific differences were. > However > now its mainly a place to stand my coffee cup now on my crowded computer > desk. Even the 5000 is five year old technology now however there are > unlikely to be any higher end replacements emerge anytime soon. Unless you > have the budget for a Flextight! > > > > > Cheers > Geoff Gearhead > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/e > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/ > Pick up your camera and make the best photo you can. > > -----Original Message----- > > Subject: Re: [Leica] Film Scanner Suggestion > > Yes except you're reading the specs and I'm talking about actual hands on > and extensive use corroborated by other people who had the same experience > with it. The 5000 scans the grain and gives you a good idea of the grain > quality. > The 4000 you don't even get the grain at all. > > The scans I'd make would not just be for uploading to a website page. > It would be for printing often up to 13x19. > I have a whole portfolio of 13x19 inkjet prints. > Many from scans. > > Mark William Rabiner > > > >> From: Geoff Hopkinson <hoppyman@bigpond.net.au> >> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:49:35 +1000 >> To: 'Leica Users Group' <lug@leica-users.org> >> Subject: RE: [Leica] Film Scanner Suggestion >> >> Well the maximum optical resolution is actually the same. >> Theoretically the dynamic range is larger. >> The scans are almost twice as fast. >> The A/D convertor is higher bit. >> Batch scan is apparently actually functional. >> Better multi-pass function too, however Vuescan will give you that if >> of interest. >> The 4000 is reincarnated as the V which is essentially the same, minus >> the bulk feed options. >> >> >> Cheers >> Geoff >> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/e >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/ >> Pick up your camera and make the best photo you can. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org >> [mailto:lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org] On Behalf >> Of Mark Rabiner >> Sent: Saturday, 27 December 2008 09:38 >> To: Leica Users Group >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Film Scanner Suggestion >> >> Resolution is the first thing. >> With the 5000 you can get the grain patter of them film and have it >> look a bit like what it really looks like like with a darkroom print. >> With the 4000 you are not getting the grain pattern of the film. >> Even grainy tri x. you are not scanning the grain. >> You get an image. >> But not composed of the grain from the neg like you would with a >> darkroom print. >> >> With the 5000 you can do that. Certainly with not even grainy tri x. >> >> With fine grain stuff not so much. >> >> The 5000 puts the 4000 in the stone age. >> >> I'd not even give my 4000 to someone I didn't like. >> >> Mark William Rabiner >> >> >> >>> From: Richard Man <richard.lists@gmail.com> >>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >>> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:05:57 -0800 >>> To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Film Scanner Suggestion >>> >>> To be honest, I have actually heard about that. Can you enlighten me >>> which areas are better? Dynamic range? Usability? Details? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Well I moved from the 4000 to the 5000 and I found it to be a huge >>>> improvement. As did several other photographers who did so. >>>> >>>> Mark William Rabiner >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> // richard m: richard @imagecraft.com // b: >>> http://rfman.wordpress.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information