Hi folks, This may be interesting to those of you looking at scanners vs format vs quality. It's a Japanese site, but there's enough English to be able to follow it - just:
http://www.myalbum.ne.jp/cgi-bin/a_menu?id=fa268931 My sister's bloke pointed it out to me. He's a website designer and photographer (35mm, 645 and 5X4). Here's what he had to say after I quizzed him about scanners for 120 film (WRT the Japanese site): ------------------------------------------------------ Lots of comparisons at http://www.myalbum.ne.jp/cgi-bin/a_menu?id=fa268931 Its a Japanese site where geek has taken same photo on 35mm, 6x4.5 and 5x4, scanned at different resolutions and put onto web site. For 35mm he uses Nikon SuperCoolscan 4000ED, med & large format Canon D2400UF and Microtek ScanMaker 8700. All images are jpeg (highest quality) from original scans. The 5x4 scanned on Canon opens in photoshop to be a 227MB file !!!!!!!. 6x4.5 opens as 57MB and Nikon on 35mm at 4000 dpi 59MB - hence the Nikon and Canon on 6x4.5 are quite a good comparison - and Canon is shite in comaprison. Another comaprison is between Nikon at 2400 (35mm film) and Canon with both med format at 2400 dpi and 5x4 at 2400 dpi Canon 5x4 is sharpest, then nikon 35mm, then last, by a long way, the med format 6x4.5 on canon or microtek. However, the Dmax of Canon is less than the Nikon and there was, consequently, considereably more noise in the shadows of Canon scans. I am buying this scanner so I can scan my 5x4's but have to accept it is not up to scanning my 6x4.5's. Hence I still have no idea how to scan 6x4.5 and this is a huge problem as I am trying to get my on line photo library up and running. I may have to invest in a med format tranny scanner but I do not know which is any good - still researching. When I need a 6x4.5 scanned i still go to my local printers who have a drum scanner, I've had some awesum 200MB files off him which have been printed well onto large format display inkjet. There are flatbeds that scan trannies OK but they are top of the range microtek, Sintex, Linsoscan etc and all cost mor ethan a Nikon 8000. so why buy one of those - no one needs to scan paper at 2400 dpi - its texture is far too rough ! The ArtixScan 4500t from Microtek wil give adequate quality up to A3+ from 6x4.5 and, for me, would be better than Nikon 8000 as it does 5x4 - but it too is silly price. Nikon 8000ED sounds very good - has a Dmax of 4.2 and scannes at 4000 dpi. Havn't looked into Poloroid or Minolta yet but latter is not well respected and Pol are made by microtek (or visa versa.) ------------------------------------------------------------ HTH Cotty _______________________________________________________ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://www.macads.co.uk - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
