In message
In a message dated 2/1/03 5:04:36 AM, schewe writes:<< Side by side, exact same lens & crop. Digital processed through an un-named beta of a soon to be announced raw image conversion (in 6 seconds from preview on a 1gig Ti Laptop using OS X) and up-rezed in stages to the same size as the 35mm chrome scanned on an Imacon 848 at 6700ppi. (film was EPP) Result? Film sucks. . .badly! >>
Bob Croxford wrote in reply:
Dear Jeff Does this imply that the Imacon scanner is the very best for scanning film? I have always thought that the drum scanners at ten times the price produced a better scan. Richard Kenward has just sold his Imacon in favour of two unnamed drum scanners. He must be seeing a difference.
Dear Bob
Sorry but I have fallen behind with Prodig these last few days. Imacon scanners are fine but at the end of the day they suffer in the same way that all CCD scanners do.
Yes you can get good results from a well sorted Imacon scanner (ours is a very nicely behaved one BTW) but I like the results far better from our two optimized and matched drum scanners. Yes I have put my money where my mouth is.
Put very simply these drums give a far more authoritative scan, and not great concerns with worn film. BTW just try scanning a 10x8 tranny on an Imacon film scanner<BG> Perhaps one could make the comparison with say a four cylinder car engine trying to compete with the torque and smoothness of the V8, by pushing up compression ratio, adding a turbo and some good old fashioned sales hype to massage the numbers? But it's still a four cylinder trying to do a V8 job!
Cheers
Richard
--
For quality drum scans that are really right... Satisfaction Guaranteed.
New PDF on request. +44 (0)1873 890670 www.rkdi.co.uk
===============================================================
GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
