Jan, Scanning is certainly an issue for MF. Ideally, you should get a film scanner that handles the bigger negative. For many, myself included, the cost is an issue.
I ended up trying an Epson 2450 flatbed. The concept and design is nice - they have a light source in the lid for when you are scanning negs and slides with a carrier to hold the neg in place. Two issues I found with my unit. 1 - Film flatness can be a problem. I found that a strip in the holder worked better than singles. At least two, preferrably three would help quite a bit with flatness. 2 - Sharpness. I am guessing that the diffused light source in the lid makes for a softer image. With my Minolta Scan Dual II at 2800 dpi scanning and correcting the image in PaintShop Pro, I don't have to apply any sharpening to get a sharp 8X10 out of my Epson 870. When I would scan the MF neg with the Epson unit at 2400 dpi, I would have to apply sharpening to attempt to get a sharp 8X10 out of it. Viewing the image on screen only can be deceiving. My final test is to print an 8X10. So in summary, either my Epson unit (US $400 - gotta love the price) was defective (scans of prints were excellent) or you need to get a film scanner that handles MF. I believe the latter, so I'm saving my pennies, and just using my lab for prints and occasional scans (theirs are good) until I finish buying the 67 glass I want and then on to the scanner. Bruce Saturday, May 04, 2002, 2:26:55 AM, you wrote: JvW> On Sat, 4 May 2002 09:22:57 +1000, John Coyle wrote: >>Taka, don't go that route for 35mm, unless you are certain that the >>flatbed will do in excess of 1800dpi _optical_. My flatbed supposedly >>goes to 1600,but it's actually 400 optical with digital interpolation >>taking it to 1600, and the results for 35mm are rubbish. It's not bad >>for MF, and for documents and prints it's fine, but after 18 months of >>using it I went out and bought a film scanner as well. JvW> Thinking about a Pentax 67 in my future, I was wondering how well JvW> a flatbed scanner would work with those larger negatives/slides ... JvW> I use a Nikon Coolscan III for my 35mm stuff (using 2700 ppi). JvW> I guess you would need at least 1200 ppi optical resolution from JvW> a flatbed to get the same quality ... JvW> And, of course the quality should be even better than 35mm stuff :-) JvW> Am I correct in assuming a flatbed + 6x7 format will not be better ? JvW> The alternative I have in mind is the Minolta scan Dual Pro, but that JvW> is quite expensive ... JvW> Any thoughts ? JvW> Regards, JvW JvW> ------------------------------------------------------------------ JvW> Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery JvW> - JvW> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, JvW> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to JvW> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - 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 .
