Michael, I have both the Epson 2450 and the Minolta Scan Dual II Film scanner. I have not found either to be significantly faster than the other. The only real advantage that I see right now is by using Vuescan for speed. It can handle batch scans on the Minolta.
The path Boris is planning on going down will be somewhat time intensive, as you become the lab for yourself. The Epson is good enough. If it were me, and I didn't have any needs beyond 35mm, I would go with a film scanner, however. Bruce Monday, February 3, 2003, 10:03:13 AM, you wrote: MC> Boris, MC> Have you considered ordering from B&H in New York? My own experience MC> and those of friends leads me to believe that they are very honest, MC> efficient, and reliable. MC> I am saying this because I have recently been scanning 35mm negs with a MC> flatbed scanner and it is a VERY time consuming process. I have spent MC> probably 10-12 hours and only have 12 scanned negatives to show for it. MC> I would definitely encourage you to look at a film scanner. MC> Michael Cross MC> Boris Liberman wrote: >>Hi! >> >>Bill, from your response and from other responses I gather that Epson >>2450 is a satisfactory film scanner, even for 35 mm film. It is not >>top quality, but I suppose to expect a top film scanning quality from >>flatbed scanner is at least illogical. >> >>OTOH, at the moment I am struggling with local labs. Obviously they >>wouldn't babysit and fine tune their machine for my films. So, quite >>often scans come out with very lousy quality. >> >>Another problem would be that for sure in Israel to find a dedicated >>film scanner would cost me at least 1.5 times more than its actual >>price. So I suppose I am left with little choice. >> >>The only thing that would stop me is too steep a price or too old a >>unit. Since none of you reported any aging problems or any mechanical >>glitches with your scanners I must conclude that Epson 2450 is a >>reasonably reliable machine. >> >>As for the scans themselves. I've witnessed a person who is going to >>sell me the scanner getting roughly 12 MP file from 35 mm negative. Of >>course 12 MP exceeds by some 3 MP maximal optical power of the sucker. >>Still the 30x40 cm print was very good. Since at the moment my aim is >>at most! 30x40 cm prints, I'd say it would be acceptable. >> >>My rough estimate would be that if it does not break down within a >>year, it will return the investment... Then it could be replaced or >>augmented with another device. >> >>Am I terribly wrong someplace in my reasoning? >> >>--- >>Boris Liberman >>www.geocities.com/dunno57 >>www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625 >> >> >> >>
