If I were grading it based on film-like qualities, I'd say that the LS-9000 has more acutance, but more grain. The Epson has less acutance, but less graininess. Interesting comparison. Been thinking about getting an Epson 3200, once the toy budget gets a bit more replenished.
-Mat On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:46:38 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Welcome back Mark. > In all of your examples save the oak leaves. the Epson 3200 appears sharper > to my eye. The oak leves are close to a push, although I might give the nod > to the LS-9000 by a hair. > Paul > > > > Greetings all - > > > > Been off the list for a little while, thought I'd touch base to squelch any > > rumors that I'm still lost in the woods... and ask for some input on medium > > format scanners. > > > > While the *ist-D has dominated my shooting in terms of volume (I'm rounding > > the corner on 17,000 exposure in a little over a year) I really enjoy > > shooting with the 6x7 - mostly B&W, but some color print film. > > > > At this point, I have the money set aside to purchase a high end MF film > > scanner (probably an LS 9000). However, I'm frugal, have never been swayed > > by brand identity, and like to test things out for myself (three reasons why > > I'm loyal Pentaxer). > > > > So.... Currently I'm scanning my 6x7 negs on an Epson 3200 flatbed scanner. > > I thought I'd do some head to head comparisons of the Epson3200 scanning > > 35mm film, and my Canoscan 4000 dpi scanner, also scanning 35mm film. I > > figured that the Canoscan FS 4000 is close in quality to the LS 9000 (except > > for not being able to handle medium format), and I could see what I'd be > > getting in terms of additional quality from the Nikon MF scanner. > > > > Here's a comparison page, showing full frame and actual pixel shots of the > > Canon vs the Epson, scanning 35mm B&W film: > > > > http://www.markcassino.com/temp/test/ > > > > I'd appreciate some feedback or observations on the 'actual pixel' > > comparisons. At this time, I'm considering just upgrading the 4800 dpi Epson > > that replaced the 3200, and saving a bundle of money. I strongly suspect > > that the LS-9000 would do much better with slide film, but I don't shoot > > slide film (I hardly shoot any color film.) But at least one person looked > > at this comparison page and told me I needed to get my eyes checked - that > > the images scanned on the Epson were clearly inferior.. > > > > In regards to this comparison, I should note that the second image, shot on > > APX-100, is probably closest to what I would be working with in Medium > > format. I shoot mostly APX-100 these days (since I can;t find Classic Pan > > anymore.) The third image - the Oak Leaves - was taken on Kodak Plus-X and > > stand processed in Dektol - the negative is really really dense (as in > > overdeveloped) so to some extent it is testing the D-Range of the scanners. > > > > I've made some 12 x 18 prints from the full frame comparison scans, and I > > do think that the Epson lacks a little (a tiny little) in detail, but is > > also somewhat less grainy. That all could just be the result of comparing a > > 3200 dpi scan to a 4000 dpi scan. Anyhow, if I mixed the prints up and put > > them away for a few weeks, I doubt that I could pick out one from the > > other.. > > > > I will be picking up four 20 x 24 Chromira prints from scans done on the > > Epson 3200 later this week - so I'll be able to evaluate larger output > > produced on this scanner. > > > > Obviously, I'm poking around in the dark on this - the rational thing would > > be to compare outputs form the two scanners I'm actually considering buying, > > instead of engaging in this proxy comparison. (But I know from experience > > that rationality is not a pre-requisite for posting here..) > > > > On one hand, with the LS 9000 I would know that I'm getting about the best > > desktop MF scanner out there, but then I would have to deal with it's narrow > > DOF and also spend a lot of money. The 4800 dpi Epson flatbed would > > probably be a notch better than the Epson 3200 (which seems pretty good to > > me already) and would cost less. But, I'd loose the prestige factor and > > maybe I really wouldn't get as good of a scan.... > > > > Any comments / thoughts / suggestions would be appreciated. > > > > Cheers - > > > > MCC > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Mark Cassino Photography > > Kalamazoo, MI > > www.markcassino.com > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > >
