I’ve found the V850 Pro to be the equal of the Nikon Coolscans, which I’ve used many times. Some reviewers have as well. YMMV. Paul
> On Apr 7, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Absolutely true, but no flatbed scanner produces the scan quality of a > dedicated film scanner. All of these things are tradeoffs at one level or > another. > > I have had four pro-grade flatbed scanners (including two Epsons, up to the > V750 model, and one with true glassless film carrier capabilities, can't > remember the name now). NONE produce the scan quality of the Nikon Coolscan V > or SuperCoolscan 9000. Film scanners are simply much better at this and > produce better results. That's why I still have the Nikons and all those > flatbeds are long gone. > > Whether the results are good enough for your purposes … That's a different > matter and up to you to judge. > If it is, life is good… and you can still get new ones. They're certainly > good enough for a lot of purposes. :-) > > G > >> On Apr 7, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> With the Epson V850 Pro I can scan a dozen transparencies in about 20 >> minutes, and I can load 24 at a time. It’s a pretty efficient way to go. >> >> Paul >>> On Apr 7, 2017, at 2:48 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 7, 2017, at 8:57 AM, mike wilson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 07 April 2017 at 16:45 Doug Brewer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I've been cleaning out my storage room in the basement, AKA The Camera >>>>> and Computer Museum, and have uncovered boxes and boxes of slides, some >>>>> of which are passable photos, and have become interested in maybe >>>>> scanning some of them. I've looked here and there at digital slide >>>>> scanners. >>>>> >>>>> So my query, if you haven't figured it out by now, is if any of you have >>>>> gone down this path, and whether you have found a decent scanner. I'd >>>>> appreciate any guidance. >>>> >>>> My observation of this phenomenon over the past few years leads me to >>>> believe, >>>> from other folks' scribblings, that the best way to do it is to pay someone >>>> else. >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> I have been scanning film since the early 1990s and have had quite a few >>> scanners, both negative and flatbed, over the years. Since about 2006, I've >>> owned and used the Nikon Coolscan IV and Coolscan V extensively. Either of >>> them with the automated 35mm feeder can scan a 6 frame strip very >>> effectively in batch mode using VueScan. >>> >>> But… >>> >>> The process is *NEVER* fast. A thirty six exposure roll is an hour or two >>> worth of work. A thirty six exposure roll of mounted slides is about four >>> times that because you can only load them one at a time. Add time if you >>> select individually which frames you want to scan, and if you want >>> perfectly scanned, usable, balanced JPEGs to pop out of the scanner with no >>> further editing required—lots of time. >>> >>> It is far more practical if you have several dozens or even hundreds of >>> frames to scan is to wrap them up and send them off to someone like >>> http://www.scancafe.com … They'll do as good a job as you will 90-98% of >>> the time and whatever they charge is a FAR better use of your money and >>> time than buying a scanner. >>> >>> Buy and use a scanner when you have specific things that you want to do >>> with film photography that requires your personal control of the scanning >>> process. Buy a scanning service when you want to convert an archive of >>> older film images to digital in order that you can see them and share them. >>> >>> G >>> -- > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
