, Mar 12, 2009 at 06:31:38PM -0500, Nick Wright wrote:
Okay, one more scanner question.
The Epson v300 says that it scans 35mm film at 4800 dpi. What does
that equate to in terms of megapixels?
Well, a frame of 35mm film is 36 x 24 mm. At 25.4mm per inch, that's
(36/25.4)*4800 * (24/25.4)*4800
it was that much more.
Thanks.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 6:47 PM, John Francis jo...@panix.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 06:31:38PM -0500, Nick Wright wrote:
Okay, one more scanner question.
The Epson v300 says that it scans 35mm film at 4800 dpi. What does
that equate to in terms of megapixels
Okay, one more scanner question.
The Epson v300 says that it scans 35mm film at 4800 dpi. What does
that equate to in terms of megapixels?
--
~Nick David Wright
http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 06:31:38PM -0500, Nick Wright wrote:
Okay, one more scanner question.
The Epson v300 says that it scans 35mm film at 4800 dpi. What does
that equate to in terms of megapixels?
Well, a frame of 35mm film is 36 x 24 mm. At 25.4mm per inch, that's
(36/25.4)*4800 * (24
, 2009 at 06:31:38PM -0500, Nick Wright wrote:
Okay, one more scanner question.
The Epson v300 says that it scans 35mm film at 4800 dpi. What does
that equate to in terms of megapixels?
Well, a frame of 35mm film is 36 x 24 mm. At 25.4mm per inch, that's
(36/25.4)*4800 * (24/25.4)*4800
at 06:31:38PM -0500, Nick Wright wrote:
Okay, one more scanner question.
The Epson v300 says that it scans 35mm film at 4800 dpi. What does
that equate to in terms of megapixels?
Well, a frame of 35mm film is 36 x 24 mm. ?At 25.4mm per inch, that's
?(36/25.4)*4800 * (24/25.4)*4800
resolution than just and 8x10. Didn't realize it was that much
more.
Thanks.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 6:47 PM, John Francis jo...@panix.com
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 06:31:38PM -0500, Nick Wright wrote:
Okay, one more scanner question.
The Epson v300 says that it scans 35mm film
more scanner question.
The Epson v300 says that it scans 35mm film at 4800 dpi. What
does
that equate to in terms of megapixels?
Well, a frame of 35mm film is 36 x 24 mm. ?At 25.4mm per inch,
that's
?(36/25.4)*4800 * (24/25.4)*4800 = near enough 30 megapixels.
That's
Actually, most Epson scanners are capable of being driven directly by
Apple's standard Image Capture application, which will direct the
output of the scanning process directly into iPhoto.
Godfrey
On Mar 6, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Nick Wright wrote:
Well I run on a mac, so I have iPhoto which I
Ah, now there is something I did not know. I've always wondered what
Image Capture was good for.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
Actually, most Epson scanners are capable of being driven directly by
Apple's standard Image Capture application, which will
I'm still looking at scanners. I think I'm going to go with the Epson
V300. It's gotten good reviews from just about everywhere that I've
looked and it appears to be just what I'm looking for. And the price
is right.
But I noticed that the Epson package no longer includes Photoshop
Elements, so
I don't know what software Epson supplies with the V300. I've never
used any of the Epson software for either of the V700 or 2450 scanners.
However, I strongly recommend VueScan for driving the scanner. It's
got amongst the best scanning algorithms I've seen with any software
and is
But is the scanning software a plugin and as such need a program like
photoshop to operate? Or will it scan and save to a file on its own?
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
I don't know what software Epson supplies with the V300. I've never used any
of the
VueScan is a completely standalone application. You can download an
evaluation copy from
http://www.hamrick.com/
A license key is available for $40 for the standard version, with one
year of free updates, or $80 for the pro version with more features
and unlimited free updates. I've been
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 12:50:30PM -0600, Nick Wright scripsit:
But is the scanning software a plugin and as such need a program like
photoshop to operate? Or will it scan and save to a file on its own?
The Epson 300 I used at a previous job came with stand-alone Epson
software to do the
The Epson scanner software can be used as a standalone application.
I've found it to be quite good. However, an image editor would be a
very big plus in terms of optimizing your scans. PS Elements is
probably your best bet in bargain software.
Paul
On Mar 6, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Nick Wright
In a message dated 3/6/2009 6:33:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pnstenqu...@comcast.net writes:
The Epson scanner software can be used as a standalone application.
I've found it to be quite good. However, an image editor would be a
very big plus in terms of optimizing your scans. PS
Well I run on a mac, so I have iPhoto which I find is all that I need
for post-processing. It just does not have any way to run a scanner.
So as long as the Epson software will run by itself I'm good to go.
Thank you for all of your help.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:38 PM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/6/2009 6:33:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pnstenqu...@comcast.net writes:
The Epson scanner software can be used as a standalone application.
I've found it to be quite good. However, an image editor would be a
very big plus in terms of
And you certainly don't want Newtons ring up yournever mind.
Dave
On 10/13/06, John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't do it! You'll get newton rings up the wazzoo.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Thanks John, those are great suggestions, I will retry.
rg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have alot of Kodachrome slides taken with my trusty ME-Super all the
way up to my PZ-1. I have been attempting to scan these with my Epson
4990, which is a pretty decent scanner from what I've read.
I
I have alot of Kodachrome slides taken with my trusty ME-Super all the
way up to my PZ-1. I have been attempting to scan these with my Epson
4990, which is a pretty decent scanner from what I've read. But the
slides always seem to scan very dark, even though I can put them on a
light table
Gonz wrote:
I have alot of Kodachrome slides taken with my trusty ME-Super all the
way up to my PZ-1. I have been attempting to scan these with my Epson
4990, which is a pretty decent scanner from what I've read. But the
slides always seem to scan very dark, even though I can put them on
At 2:25 PM -0500 10/12/06, Gonz wrote:
I have alot of Kodachrome slides taken with my trusty ME-Super all the
way up to my PZ-1. I have been attempting to scan these with my Epson
4990, which is a pretty decent scanner from what I've read. But the
slides always seem to scan very dark, even
Vuescan is allright, but once you dive into the 'getting control',
you've got to know its limitations as well. For example, I had a similar
problem with too dense negatives. Vuescan allows to set exposure in a
range from 2 (nominal) to 16 (in terms of stops: 3 stops extra
exposure), but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 2:25 PM -0500 10/12/06, Gonz wrote:
I have alot of Kodachrome slides taken with my trusty ME-Super all the
way up to my PZ-1. I have been attempting to scan these with my Epson
4990, which is a pretty decent scanner from what I've read. But the
slides always seem
I have alot of Kodachrome slides taken with my trusty ME-Super all the
way up to my PZ-1. I have been attempting to scan these with my Epson
4990, which is a pretty decent scanner from what I've read.
I used that scanner all the time at my last job. I scanned everything from
110 negs to
- Original Message -
From: Gonz
Subject: Scanner question
I have alot of Kodachrome slides taken with my trusty ME-Super all the
way up to my PZ-1. I have been attempting to scan these with my Epson
4990, which is a pretty decent scanner from what I've read. But the
slides always
My wife has decided she wants a DSLR and asked me if I thought she
should get a K100D. I replied that she should take a look at a few
and pick whichever one she likes best. And then she asked the
question, Can't I use your lenses on the Pentax? I'll just get the
Pentax. It'll be a bit more
I have a set of bellows in the basement somewhere -- I'll see if I can
successfully attach them to my DS2, which should be about the same
shape. Of course, I'd have to successfully find them first.
-Aaron
On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
What I haven't come across is
G'day Scott,
I think Bill Robb said he had problems mounting bellows to his *istD
because of the prism overhang, so he had to add an extension tube.
Are you any good at sharing your toys? :-)
Dave
On 8/22/06, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My wife has decided she wants a DSLR and
You'll need an extension tube. Then you may have trouble getting 1-1
reproduction using the slide copier. WW had some posts about it. I
have a bellows but I've never used it on a digital camera. (Maybe I
should dig it out and play with it some day.)
Scott Loveless wrote:
My wife has
I think Wheatfield tried this with an *istD and found that a short extension
tube had to be used between the bellows and the mount.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have a set of bellows in the basement somewhere -- I'll see if
Yes. You need a short tube otherwise the bellows won't fit. The front of
the flash housing interferes.
Don
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Wheatfield tried this with an *istD and found that a short extension
tube had to be used between the bellows and the mount.
Paul
--
You need 1:2 magnification (fitting an ~24x36mm slide onto an
~18x24mm digital format). A Pentax-A 50mm f/2.8 Macro lens does this
very nicely, without extension tubes. I use a flat panel light box
and a copy stand to hold the camera in alignment.
Of course, you don't get results quite the
On 8/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Wheatfield tried this with an *istD and found that a short extension
tube had to be used between the bellows and the mount.
Not insurmountable. I have a set of M42 extension tubes that I got for
all of $5 at a camera show.
Vivitar
Mat Maessen wrote:
On 8/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Wheatfield tried this with an *istD and found that a short extension
tube had to be used between the bellows and the mount.
Not insurmountable. I have a set of M42 extension tubes that I got for
all of
On 8/22/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need 1:2 magnification (fitting an ~24x36mm slide onto an
~18x24mm digital format). A Pentax-A 50mm f/2.8 Macro lens does this
very nicely, without extension tubes. I use a flat panel light box
and a copy stand to hold the camera in
On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Of course, you don't get results quite the equal of a film scanner,
although it's faster. After all, you get about a 6Mpixel image rather
than, say, a 10.2 Mpixel image (2820 ppi) or 21.43 Mpixel (4000 ppi).
Currently, I'm getting hi res
You will need the K adapter, and probably a short extension tube.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Scott Loveless wrote:
My wife has decided she wants a DSLR and asked me if I thought
- Original Message -
From: Scott Loveless
Subject: Screw mount bellows on the K100D (was - scanner question)
What I haven't come across is whether
or not I can attach a screw mount bellows to the K100D. The way the
prism/flash housing protrudes has me a bit worried. Anyone tried
On 8/22/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Of course, you don't get results quite the equal of a film scanner,
although it's faster. After all, you get about a 6Mpixel image rather
than, say, a 10.2 Mpixel image (2820 ppi) or
On Aug 22, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
I've tried just about everything I can think of. I've tried canon's
drivers and vuescan. It's become apparent to me that the scanner just
can't pull the shadow detail out of my slides. This is not picking
nits about minute amounts of
Thanks. I've follow your advice and searched the web for the newest
drivers for XP on my PC. I found the 1.0.3 version which is newer
that 1.0.1 which was istalled so far. I'll see if it cures it.
Best regards,
Matjaz
I have the same scanner but have never had a focusing problem. I did
Hi,
I have Minolta Dual Scan IV as well and am satisfied with it. It is a
good scanner, especially for the price. I can recommend it for all
but one: mine refuses to autofocus or manual focus. The focus on the
scans seems fine, although I'm not sure if it is the best I can get.
I'd use the
At 10:50 PM +0200 8/19/06, Matjaz Osojnik wrote:
Hi,
I have Minolta Dual Scan IV as well and am satisfied with it. It is a
good scanner, especially for the price. I can recommend it for all
but one: mine refuses to autofocus or manual focus. The focus on the
scans seems fine, although I'm not
Howdy, gang!
Would anyone care to share their opinions about film scanners? My
Canon 8400F just won't cut it for color slides. It's not capable of
resolving shadow detail, and high contrast images are a headache. To
be realistic, I'm not looking for drum scan quality. I am looking to
obtain a
I'm having the same difficulties with my Scan Elite 5400 (this isn't the newer
version II). Dark areas in the slide just block out.
Would anyone care to share their opinions about film scanners? My
Canon 8400F just won't cut it for color slides. It's not capable of
resolving shadow
that it's better off unmentioned.
Tom C.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or
numbered.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Reese)
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT - scanner question/request
, indexed, briefed, debriefed or
numbered.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Reese)
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT - scanner question/request for opinions
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:28:18 +
I'm having
On Aug 26, 2005, at 11:28 PM, Graywolf wrote:
Funny thing is it runs nicely on my now ancient 900mhz/512mb AMD
Homebrew computer. I keep seeing people say it is slow on their
modern super computers.
Once it's running it's generally fine for me. The long startup time
is a little
One of the things I'm inspecting carefully is colour depth. I've got a
slide of a red geranium (on Velvia) that I cannot get a decent scan of
with the Craposcan. It looks indescribably dull and if I try to boost the
saturation, the image just goes a sort of wierd fluorescent hue before it
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/08/26 Fri AM 01:06:22 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Re: Film scanner question
the real test is scanning greens. the eye is most sensitive in that color
area.
Herb...
Care to elucidate?
- Original Message
From: Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/08/26 Fri AM 01:27:55 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Film scanner question
I think you run a MAC. PS uses all the memory on MAC'., With PC's it will
only use up to 2 gigabytes. PS2 is nice.
graywolf
http
From: John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/08/26 Fri AM 07:28:42 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Re: Film scanner question
One of the things I'm inspecting carefully is colour depth. I've got a
slide of a red geranium (on Velvia) that I cannot get a decent scan
No I've been trying CS2. There is no way in hell I could afford to by it.
Funny thing is it runs nicely on my now ancient 900mhz/512mb AMD Homebrew
computer. I keep seeing people say it is slow on their modern super computers.
Maybe it is just that I normally only have one or two aps open at
mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the real test is scanning greens. the eye is most sensitive in that color
area.
Care to elucidate?
1: The green channel of a digital image very closely corresponds to the
overall luminance of the image.
2: The human
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/08/26 Fri PM 01:11:21 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Film scanner question
mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the real test is scanning greens. the eye is most sensitive
On 25/8/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
My only excuse is that I am brain damaged, and can not seem to learn from
experience.
Mark!
(FWIW, this sounds like me actually)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
required for
scanning dense slides accurately that give me the most trouble.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Film scanner question
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date
Me too.
Dave
On 8/27/05, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25/8/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
My only excuse is that I am brain damaged, and can not seem to learn from
experience.
Mark!
(FWIW, this sounds like me actually)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O)
Anyone used one of these? Any opinions?
http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/shop/detail.asp?ProductID=2101
At work I use a Nikon CoolScan 8000ED. At home I have a Minolta ScanDual
III. Last winter I got to see a demo of the KonicaMinolta Scan Elite 5400
II, which included making prints and
From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/08/25 Thu AM 05:36:55 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Film scanner question
On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:41 PM, mike wilson wrote:
That's the one I'm aiming for but my wallet keeps crying, wailing
and gnashing its cards
From: John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One question people ask is, why get the Nikon when the KM ScanElite 5400
produces higher resolution scans (5400 ppi vs the Nikon's 4000 ppi) for less
money? Well, as far as I can tell, the higher resolution is primarily
marketing. Yeah, you get more
25, 2005 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: Film scanner question
I upgraded from 1Gb to 3Gb. I've found that any more than about 2Gb may
be pointless anyway. Photoshop CS and CS2 don't behave well when they're
using more than about 1Gb... I tend to leave a lot of apps open in the
background which
the real test is scanning greens. the eye is most sensitive in that color
area.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Film scanner question
One of the things I'm
. the OS uses only
4G, but that is a different issue. some plugins have lots of problem
with too much RAM though.
Herb
- Original Message - From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: Film scanner question
I
Message - From: David Mann
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: Film scanner question
I upgraded from 1Gb to 3Gb. I've found that any more than about
2Gb may be pointless anyway. Photoshop CS and CS2 don't behave
well when
of
problem with too much RAM though.
Herb
- Original Message - From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: Film scanner question
I upgraded from 1Gb to 3Gb. I've found that any more than about
2Gb may
On Aug 25, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Graywolf wrote:
Sorry I commented on one of your posts with some simple information
for those who might not know of it. ...
You did? sorry, I hadn't noticed.
Godfrey
From: Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/08/24 Wed AM 06:48:41 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Are Pentax compact digitals really that bad?
Very interesting. Are there no really independent review sites?
Peter
Youthinks? I wish it were common knowledge that sites
Hi,
Anyone used one of these? Any opinions?
http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/shop/detail.asp?ProductID=2101
mike
-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:21 PM, mike wilson wrote:
Anyone used one of these? Any opinions?
http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/shop/detail.asp?ProductID=2101
A friend of mine has one of these and is very pleased with it. At
the time he purchased it he was able to evaluate both Nikon and
From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/08/24 Wed AM 09:28:26 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Film scanner question
On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:21 PM, mike wilson wrote:
Anyone used one of these? Any opinions?
http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/shop/detail.asp
mike wilson wrote on 24.08.05 9:21:
Anyone used one of these? Any opinions?
http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/shop/detail.asp?ProductID=2101
Mike, I didn't use this model, but I have and use its predecessor - Elite II
and it is great machine, certainly giving much faster and better qquality
On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:21 AM, mike wilson wrote:
Anyone used one of these? Any opinions?
http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/shop/detail.asp?ProductID=2101
Reports on the MInolta 5400 have been good, but reports on the 5400
II have not been. I know at least two people who were disappointed
That's one of the reasons I bought the Nikon.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Reports on the MInolta 5400 have been good, but reports on the 5400
II have not been. I know at least two people who were disappointed
enough in the 5400 II model that they returned it and
Thanks for all the responses. Some excellently useful information in
there that I am going to sift gently for a while.
m
On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:41 PM, mike wilson wrote:
That's the one I'm aiming for but my wallet keeps crying, wailing
and gnashing its cards.
You're living too close to Scotland :) When I bought mine I just
thought about how much they used to cost. I'd been saving for a
while and it did
Thanks Paul.
And I liked your colorful teenager Friday portrait a lot, what did they say
to the preview ;-)
I'm busy scanning negatives from the Mt. Pilatus tour, but my scanner starts
to fail since yesterday :-(.
Does anybody know what error that is: I got strong yellow/brown dirty cast
lines
]
Subject: Scanner question - Minolta Dual Scan III
Hi
Has anyone here used the Minolta Scan Dual III? I have only found a couple
of reviews for it but it seems to be well-received.
Thanks much
Tony
Look for those with true ICE, and SD3 doesn't.
regards,
Alan Chan
Has anyone here used the Minolta Scan Dual III? I have only found a couple
of reviews for it but it seems to be well-received.
_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail
I have a DS III and find that its ICE works quite well. There are those
who say it isn't a real ICE whatever that means, however the end result
is quite good.
-
Bob
[Original Message]
From: Tony Cogan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 3/15/2003 12:02:51 PM
Subject: Scanner
is transparent to infrared.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Bob Zwarick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 17:48
Subject: RE: Scanner question - Minolta Dual Scan III
I have a DS III and find that its ICE works quite well. There are those
who say
I see very little difference between the Nikon and Minolta DS III on
slides. The Nikon does seem to show more dirt though.
-
Bob
[Original Message]
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 3/15/2003 3:06:58 PM
Subject: Re: Scanner question - Minolta Dual Scan III
PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 19:06
Subject: Re: Scanner question - Minolta Dual Scan III
I see very little difference between the Nikon and Minolta DS III on
slides. The Nikon does seem to show more dirt though.
Praised in April Pop Photo as offering a lot for the money, good color,
but criticized for lacking real dust control like Digital ICE.
What's your time worth? You'll spend hours getting rid of dust marks
from your scans.
Joe
Praised in April Pop Photo as offering a lot for the money, good color,
but criticized for lacking real dust control like Digital ICE.
What's your time worth? You'll spend hours getting rid of dust marks
from your scans.
If you are scanning primarily BW and/or Kodachrome the Minolta's software
I've been using the HP ScanJet 5470 for a number of months now, and I really
like the scans. It does a good job on slides and negatives 2400 x 2400, and
for a relatively inexpensive scanner (less than $300), I think it does an
awesome job.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail
Dear All,
I'm trying to decide what scanner I should buy. I would like to be able to
get reasonable scans from 35mm (negative + slide) as well as scan prints and
some other standard media. I've narrowed my choices to:
1. Flatbed: Epson 2450 (2400dpi with an adapter, Dmax=3.3)
2. Film: Canon
I think there was a post here some time back about the Epson flatbed not
giving sharp results.
If you are serious get a film scanner. The Primefilm is also not a
high-quality scanner. The Canon has good resolution, but I think that
model doesn't have any dust/scratch removal capability. And you
HP S20 is a good one too.
From: Pawel Czarnul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Scanner question
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 21:46:55 +
Dear All,
I'm trying to decide what scanner I should buy. I would like to be able to
get reasonable scans from 35mm
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
...
Oh yeah the slide FILM. Whats out there in
200 and 400 speed thats good? I'm used to
shooting K64, but its too slow to often.
...
Personally I never found any slide film over ISO 100 to be really
satisfactory in terms of grain. Besides ISO 400 are quite more
Flavio Minelli wrote:
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Oh yeah the slide FILM. Whats out there in
200 and 400 speed thats good? I'm used to
shooting K64, but its too slow to often.
Personally I never found any slide film over ISO 100 to be really
satisfactory in terms of grain. Besides ISO 400 are
So it's astounding in more ways than one.
At 11:09 AM 2/22/2002 -0500, you wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Flavio Minelli wrote:
Maybe recent Provia 400 (F?) is better as I heard wildlife photographers
are using it more and more.
Provia 400F is astounding. And very
I don't know if prices will fall more sharply in the near future, but I'd
guess that the new crop of 4000 dpi scanners that have come out recently
have had their impact on the prices of the 2400 dpi models. The Scan Elite
I bought for $1,200 two and a half years ago now sells for $650 - I
Yes, film scanner have been falling in price quite a bit. I have a
Polaroid SS4000, and except for Polaroid going out of business, I
recommend it. It can be had for about $500, I think, and it comes with
Silverfast.
Now, since you have a 67, you might want to look into a scanner that
can do
I cant believe it but I found an
even sharper looking image:
Full frame:
http://www.gate.net/~hifisapi/canaltest.jpg
Zoomed in:
http://www.gate.net/~hifisapi/canaltest2.jpg
This is incredible! Now I'm really
tickled pink. Too bad I didnt buy
a better scanner. BTW are inexpensive
flatbed
This is incredible! Now I'm really
tickled pink. Too bad I didnt buy
a better scanner. BTW are inexpensive
flatbed scanners doing better than
600ppi now? I think it's time to upgrade.
JCO
Check out the Epson Store on the Epson website. A month or so ago they were
selling refurbished
I have never heard of a second version of this
scanner. I got my Dual II and it did come with the
film/slide holders. The APS holder though is an extra
accessory. They might have put the price down to
attract buyers and then charge extra on the holders.
I'd call Minolta and check. You can find
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
