Yes, Toralf, we do.
I have the Epson Perfection 3200 Photo.
It's kinda allrigt for 6x6 film. I did fine scans from Fuji Velvia 100:
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side24.html
For 35mm it's usable, but not brilliant. Or maybe it's just the film:
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side22.html
Not bad, but I can definitely see grainlike noise. Whether it's the
actual grain of the film, or extra noise (aliasing?) introduced by the
scanner, is of course hard for me to tell...
My pictures look grainy and unsharp.
I guess I'd still be shooting film had I bought a film scanner in stead.
I would to, if I were serious about image processing. But they cost
more, and if I wanted to do this kind of thing a lot, I might get a DSLR
after all...
But maybe I'll forget about the 120 negs, and get hold of a used 35mm
film scanner.
I have friends who love this scanner for 35mm negs. I can't seem to make it
work right.
Above 2500 ppi I dont'gget more resulution.
I sort of expected that... I suspect that the producers of these things
tend to stick in CCDs with more pixels than the rest of the design can
handle, just to have a "better" spec.
I'd certainly buy a film scanner - for scanning film.
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Toralf Lund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 2. december 2005 22:48
Til: [email protected]
Emne: "Photo scanner" vs real film scanner?
Another scanner question:
Does anyone have any opinions of, or experience with, "photo" scanners
like the Epson 3170 Photo? How do their film scanning capabilities
compare to a "real" film scanner?
- Toralf
