Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise?
Tony
the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
quite good enough for most users.
But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
(not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the Epson
has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these, but I was
wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few of these to
tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.
Toni Nikkanen
> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
> the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
> little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
> the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
> quite good enough for most users.
No it's not almost as good, but you'll be able to get very good
results anyway. I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
for a day and I've already blown myself out of my chair a couple times
re-scanning some slides.
(And I still haven't even tried the glass carrier yet, but probably
will in a few hours :))
However if you need to scan reflective or large format transparent
materials it's going to be hard to justify getting TWO huge scanners
on your desk, so the Epson might be the choice to make anyway..
Toni Nikkanen
I'd like to add that I have no experience on the other scanner models
mentioned, except I don't think the Canoscan 9950F will be able to
beat the V700 in any respect, though the difference isn't likely huge.
Kinon O'Cann
"Tony" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:9pWdneJ9D6vJLJba...@comcast.com...
No flatbed I've ever used can touch a Coolscan 8000. I use an Epson V750,
and while it is good, it's only about 60% of the Coolscan, at best.
Barry Watzman
even an old LS-2000 or LS-30 does a better job for 35mm negatives.
Optical resolution is definitely not the issue. An LS-30/2000 is only
2,700 dpi, but that translates into 10 megapixels and, in TIFF format
from the LS-2000, a 50 megabyte file. That's as much resolution or file
size as I would want, even if more were available.
Psygnosis - Silent Running
news:rlp4ph0...@morgoth.tuug.fi...
Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you haven't
used. It makes you look like an ass.
Psygnosis
Psygnosis - Silent Running
news:3YOOi.384$C8....@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
Apparently you don't know how to use it then.
Psygnosis
Psygnosis - Silent Running
news:470bdde0$0$32517$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Ah another brain that has never used the scanner.
Psygnosis
Tony
"Kinon O'Cann" <some...@over.the.rainbow> wrote in message
news:3YOOi.384$C8....@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
>
You may not have seen this, but take a look here
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_5.htm
at the V750 crop after USM. Also read the text.
Toni Nikkanen
> Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you
> haven't used. It makes you look like an ass.
Uh, which part of "I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
for a day" you didn't get? I have both units sitting right here on my
desk now, with the V700 going out as soon as I find a buyer.
David J. Littleboy
I don't know what gives with "i-photo" but they never seem to find much
difference between the flatbeds and the Nikon 8000/9000. Here's what I saw
with one of the first 4800 ppi Epsons that handled medium format, again,
that i-photo found to be close to indistinguishable from the 8000/9000.
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/drum.vs.flatbed-scanners
I plan on getting a V750 at some point, but some reviewers say
it is not much different than an Epson 4990. The largest difference
I see in the better flatbeds versus dedicated film scanners is the
glass adds reflections and reduces contrast. However, scanning
at 16-bits/pixel it is easily corrected. Also, there is a little
more work involved in careful unsharp masking to improve
the scans on the flatbeds. A dedicated film scanner does a better
job with less total user time (I use a sprintscan 4000 for 35mm).
But for large format, the flatbeds are very good and saves a lot of
money.
Roger
Kinon O'Cann
"Psygnosis - Silent Running" <Psyg...@SilentRunning.com> wrote in message
news:470bf5b8$0$84926$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Gee. Maybe you could come by and show me?
God, what a stupid comment.
Toni Nikkanen
> I plan on getting a V750 at some point, but some reviewers say
> it is not much different than an Epson 4990. The largest difference
> I see in the better flatbeds versus dedicated film scanners is the
> glass adds reflections and reduces contrast.
I'd add two other points:
- Flatbeds don't have an autofocus mechanism (not that I know of; height-
adjustable film holders do exist, though)
- Flatbeds don't seem to read RGB and IR channels in the same pass; this
contributes to the factor that Digital ICE doesn't work as well as in
a dedicated film scanner
Also, flatbeds have 2 more glass surfaces to keep clean. Of course,
using the glass carrier of the Nikon or Minolta Multipro means you
have four extra glass surfaces to keep clean!
tomm42
My LS-2000 is sitting on a shelf after I bought the V700, other than
convienience the dynamic range of the V700 beat the LS2000 hands down,
sharpness was about equal on the screen. I had much better shadow
detail with the V700. Against my Minolta Dimage Multi again the V700
has bettter dynamic range but the Minolta is sharper, the Minolta
can't do the res the V700 can either. I would think with the
improvements Nikon made in their scanners from the LS2000 to the
LS5000 or the LS8000/9000 the Nikons should be better. Scans I have
made on the V700 have printed very well to 16x20, it is nice to have
the range of resolution to scan to print size.
Tom
Kinon O'Cann
>
>>
>
> You may not have seen this, but take a look here
I did see that, and it doesn't really apply to me. I've done quite a few
comparisons (not lately) between the V750 and my old Coolscan 9000, and
they're on different planets. However, the Epson was good enough for my
purposes and I sold the Coolscan. I had a Coolscan 8000 before that, but
wore it out.
Anyway, Even that test shows (to me) that the dedicated film scanner is
better.
Kinon O'Cann
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:1tudnWepN_MB95Ha...@giganews.com...
>
> "Toni Nikkanen" <to...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
>> "Psygnosis - Silent Running" <Psyg...@SilentRunning.com> writes:
>>
>>> Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you
>>> haven't used. It makes you look like an ass.
>>
>> Uh, which part of "I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
>> for a day" you didn't get? I have both units sitting right here on my
>> desk now, with the V700 going out as soon as I find a buyer.
>
> I don't know what gives with "i-photo" but they never seem to find much
> difference between the flatbeds and the Nikon 8000/9000. Here's what I saw
> with one of the first 4800 ppi Epsons that handled medium format, again,
> that i-photo found to be close to indistinguishable from the 8000/9000.
You're not the only one who gets radically different results than the guy in
England. I made the same comparison between the Epson and a Coolscan, and
found that they're on different planets for film scanning.
Kinon O'Cann
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:470CBF3...@qwest.net...
For large format, what other choices do you have?
>
> Roger
John
Hi. I have also been looking for something to scan a wide variety of
things but mainly a large quantity of photographs, but also quite a
number of slides and negatives too.
I've come to the conclusion, based on a lot of advise from people in
this group as well as my own research, that as good as the V700/750
is, it is still not going to beat a dedicated film scanner, even one
that is a number of years old and doesn't have the same stats or
resolution, is still going to beat the V700/750/4990 when it comes to
scanning slides and negatives etc.
I believe the best compromise, and one that will also save you money,
would be to buy a Canon Flatbed Photo Scanner with Qare for scanning
all your photographs. Models like the Canoscan 8800F, 8600F, 9950F
etc. These are a lot faster at scanning than the Epsons with Digital
Ice and the quality is no different. For slides and negatives I think
the best thing is to buy one of the Nikon Coolscans. Would be quite
expensive maybe £500 but there would be a noticeable difference in
quality over the flatbeds for doing this sort of stuff.
You don't have to keep it though, you could scan everything you needed
to, all your slides and negatives and then sell it. You would still
get a good price for it because they are in demand, and one that was
really new and had only scanned a small number of things since it had
been bought you would get quite a lot back from what you paid for it
when you then sold it on after you'd scanned everything you needed to.
I am going to get a Canoscan 8800F to scan all my old photos. I
believe it will cost around £150. A lot less than the 4990 £250 and
V700/750 £350+. Plus it scans faster and has LEDs instead of lamps.
V500 also worth mentioning as that would be good for scanning photos
as well. Not sure what the speeds would be like though, if the past is
anything to go by the Canon probably still wins, plus the V500 is a
bit more expensive than the 8800F. Will be keeping the 8800F once I
get it. Once I've scanned all my old photos though I'll be getting a
Coolscan to scan all my slides and negatives with. Once that's done
sell it on ebay or something but I'll keep the flatbed for other
stuff.
Cheers
John
John
The Canon will blow the Epson out of the water in terms of speed and
the results wont be much better as the 9950F as far as
photographs/transparencies go if at all. You'll be three times more
productive with the Canon and get more done whereas with the Epson
you'll be waiting until the cows come home if you need to do a lot of
scanning with dust removal.
The 9950F has been one of the better scanners Canon have made. The
Epson with Ice you will be waiting several minutes whereas the Canon
with Qare only a couple. See here (bottom of page):
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Canon_9950F/page_14.htm
Essentially it is the same thing as the V700, its the same ICE, and
the same cold cathode fluorescent lamp. I wouldn't be able to comment
on the V500 because I don't know how much the speed would improve with
LEDs, but I would guess compared to the 8800F from Canon also with
LEDs, that the Canon would always probably still win in terms of speed
with dust removal turned on.
V700/750 is very good, one of the best flatbeds you can buy. I just
don't think it is good value based on its price premium and only small
gain. I think you'd be better off buying a Canon like the 8800F,
8600F, 9950F etc for a lot less, then the extra £200+ you would have
otherwise spent on the V700/750 put that towards a Nikon Coolscan for
your slides etc. You would already nearly have half the cost of the
Coolscan by not buying the V700/750 and getting a Canon with Qare for
your photographs and transparencies instead.
John
John
included I have always found the ones the Coolscans have produced
better than Epson or Canon flatbeds including their newest and that
just backs up what people in this group have told me when I have asked
similar questions in the past.
Cheers
John
Nick Fotis
> For large format, what other choices do you have?
I second that question, now that my Noblex 6x12 came back from repair.
How do I scan 6x12 cm. slides and negatives?
I think that a good flatbed scanner (e.g. Canon 9950F or Epson V700) is the
only available solution at the moment.
N.F.
Raphael Bustin
to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote:
>I plan on getting a V750 at some point, but some reviewers say
>it is not much different than an Epson 4990. The largest difference
>I see in the better flatbeds versus dedicated film scanners is the
>glass adds reflections and reduces contrast.
No, the worst problem is the highly folded optical path
and the tiny, short-focal-length lenses used on flatbeds,
as compared to dedicated 35mm or MF scanners.
Compare the imaging lens on an LS-9000 to the one
on a 4990, or compare the optical paths on the two
-- it's like comparing Palomar to a Questar.
That layer of glass that your negative sits on is really
only a minor part of the problem.
>However, scanning
>at 16-bits/pixel it is easily corrected.
I've worked enough with CCDs and scanner firmware to
hazard a guess that anything beyond 11-12 bits of real
S/N from a CCD is a pipe dream.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:01:57 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I plan on getting a V750 at some point, but some reviewers say
>> it is not much different than an Epson 4990. The largest difference
>> I see in the better flatbeds versus dedicated film scanners is the
>> glass adds reflections and reduces contrast.
>
> No, the worst problem is the highly folded optical path
> and the tiny, short-focal-length lenses used on flatbeds,
> as compared to dedicated 35mm or MF scanners.
>
> Compare the imaging lens on an LS-9000 to the one
> on a 4990, or compare the optical paths on the two
> -- it's like comparing Palomar to a Questar.
Hmmm 200 inch/3.5 inch = 57 times the aperture.
I have taken apart some flatbeds and in the better ones,
lens aperture is ~3/4 inch or so. I haven't checked
a 4990, of dedicated film scanner. You're saying
a dedicated scanner has lenses much larger than 3/4 inch
(0.75 * 57 = 42-inch aperture lens ;-)?
> That layer of glass that your negative sits on is really
> only a minor part of the problem.
If the aperture, f/ratio and sensor deliver the MTF, then
the optical system is not the issue. There are quite large
linear arrays available at low cost these days, so matching
the linear sensor to a lens system is not that hard.
>> However, scanning
>> at 16-bits/pixel it is easily corrected.
>
> I've worked enough with CCDs and scanner firmware to
> hazard a guess that anything beyond 11-12 bits of real
> S/N from a CCD is a pipe dream.
To get 12-bits of S/N one needs to collect over 16 million
photons (with zero read noise), so I'll agree with you
here. With read noise of 4 electrons, you would need to
collect over 65 million photons/pixel! No CCD or CMOS
sensor can do that, unless the pixel is mm in diameter.
Are you referring to dynamic range?
Then with image stacking (multiple sampling in scanner),
one can beat down the noise and get well above 12-bits dynamic range.
This is done even with 8-bit web cams by amateur astronomers
imaging the planets! Multisampling scanners are no big deal.
Film doesn't have 12-bits of S/N, not even 200 (perhaps if you
average large areas with special controlled development).
I think you mean dynamic range.
Roger
Raphael Bustin
to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote:
>Hmmm 200 inch/3.5 inch = 57 times the aperture.
>I have taken apart some flatbeds and in the better ones,
>lens aperture is ~3/4 inch or so. I haven't checked
>a 4990, of dedicated film scanner. You're saying
>a dedicated scanner has lenses much larger than 3/4 inch
>(0.75 * 57 = 42-inch aperture lens ;-)?
I was exaggerating a bit. But seriously, the lenses are
hugely different. I'm guessing most flatbeds use something
like a 20 mm focal length, f/8 lens. And about four
mirror bounces in the optical path. The Nikon
scanner uses a 75-80 mm 14-element ED lens with
what looks like an f/3.5 aperture. And exactly one
mirror bounce. The Epson lens assembly weighs about
5 grams, the Nikon is probably about 200 grams.
I have requested V750 scan samples on numerous
occasions for the "scan snippets" page. Nobody's
come forward.
Even better would be a direct V750 vs LS-8000
comparison, though that would take a tiny bit more
effort. Suffice to say the Nikon is still comfortably
ahead of the Epson V700.
>I think you mean dynamic range.
I think I mean bits that represent real information
rather than noise. I'm saying that the limited S/N
of CCD (and means of capturing CCD data) means
that the upper 6 or 7 bits (in a 16 bit capture)
are mostly noise.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 08:41:33 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Hmmm 200 inch/3.5 inch = 57 times the aperture.
>> I have taken apart some flatbeds and in the better ones,
>> lens aperture is ~3/4 inch or so. I haven't checked
>> a 4990, of dedicated film scanner. You're saying
>> a dedicated scanner has lenses much larger than 3/4 inch
>> (0.75 * 57 = 42-inch aperture lens ;-)?
>
> I was exaggerating a bit. But seriously, the lenses are
> hugely different. I'm guessing most flatbeds use something
> like a 20 mm focal length, f/8 lens. And about four
> mirror bounces in the optical path. The Nikon
> scanner uses a 75-80 mm 14-element ED lens with
> what looks like an f/3.5 aperture.
Hmmm... I bet the f/8 lens has better performance ;-).
The point is that a 14-element lens working at f/3.5
may not necessarily perform better on a 2d slide than
a simpler lens at f/8 with a larger linear sensor.
And exactly one
> mirror bounce. The Epson lens assembly weighs about
> 5 grams, the Nikon is probably about 200 grams.
The mirrors will not affect image quality in any meaningful
way.
>
> I have requested V750 scan samples on numerous
> occasions for the "scan snippets" page. Nobody's
> come forward.
Yes, it would be nice to see.
>
> Even better would be a direct V750 vs LS-8000
> comparison, though that would take a tiny bit more
> effort. Suffice to say the Nikon is still comfortably
> ahead of the Epson V700.
I don't dispute this. I would like to see examples too.
>> I think you mean dynamic range.
>
> I think I mean bits that represent real information
> rather than noise. I'm saying that the limited S/N
> of CCD (and means of capturing CCD data) means
> that the upper 6 or 7 bits (in a 16 bit capture)
> are mostly noise.
Signals anywhere above the lowest couple of stops are
photon noise limited. And that is directly proportional
the the pixel size, with larger pixels collecting more photons.
What size CCD is in a Nikon LS-8000?
Remember flatbeds are designed to do large film too.
E.g., doesn't the V750 do 6000 ppi over 4x5 inches.
That's 6000*4 = 24,000 pixels wide! Of which,
I would guess 10,000 pixels gives ~50% MTF.
Roger
tin...@isbd.co.uk
>
> I have requested V750 scan samples on numerous
> occasions for the "scan snippets" page. Nobody's
> come forward.
>
> Even better would be a direct V750 vs LS-8000
> comparison, though that would take a tiny bit more
> effort. Suffice to say the Nikon is still comfortably
> ahead of the Epson V700.
>
still comfortably ahead of the Epson V700.". :-)
>
--
Chris Green
Raphael Bustin
Tony
"Raphael Bustin" <ra...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:con6h3pui5rvn2e0s...@4ax.com...
Frankly, these two
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/bridgewater_nikon.jpg
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/v700_4_5mm_usm_2_75.jpg
seem pretty darn close.
Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
obvious there. The differences in the boat are perhaps less visble.
>>>>> "T" == Tony <no...@none.com> writes:
<snip>
T> Frankly, these two
T> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/bridgewater_nikon.jpg
T> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/v700_4_5mm_usm_2_75.jpg
T> seem pretty darn close.
--
C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade.
Toni Nikkanen
> Look at the the water in the upper part. The difference is pretty
> obvious there. The differences in the boat are perhaps less visble.
Also, if the Nikon picture is unsharpened as the file naming would
imply, it could be much improved further by unsharp masking, just as
the Epson picture has been.
Cams
John;332783 Wrote:
> I am going to get a Canoscan 8800F to scan all my old photos. I believe
> it will cost around £150. A lot less than the 4990 £250 and V700/750
> £350+. Plus it scans faster and has LEDs instead of lamps. V500 also
> worth mentioning as that would be good for scanning photos as well. Not
> sure what the speeds would be like though, if the past is anything to go
> by the Canon probably still wins, plus the V500 is a bit more expensive
> than the 8800F. Will be keeping the 8800F once I get it. Once I've
> scanned all my old photos though I'll be getting a Coolscan to scan all
> my slides and negatives with. Once that's done sell it on ebay or
> something but I'll keep the flatbed for other stuff.
That sounds like quite a good plan. I'm pretty much in the same boat,
but it is possible that I would consider offering scanning as a service
when I start running my own Post Office. That makes me think that I
would need both a good dedicated film scanner and a good flatbed. But I
guess for most people, once the work of digitizing the negatives is
done, the film scanner becomes superfluous and, therefore, saleable.
I was just about to pull the trigger on a V-750 to do my photos and
negatives but not I'm no longer so sure.
Obakesan
In article <1tudnWepN_MB95Ha...@giganews.com>, "David J.
Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original
dave, is this a comparison between a V750 and a Nikon?
See Ya
(when bandwidth gets better ;-)
Chris Eastwood
Photographer, Programmer
Motorcyclist and dingbat
please remove undies for reply
Obakesan
>it is not much different than an Epson 4990. The largest difference
>I see in the better flatbeds versus dedicated film scanners is the
>glass adds reflections and reduces contrast. However, scanning
hmm ... I seem to recall reading a www page showing the differences on this,
just recently tried googling for it with no luck.
do you happen to have the link handy? (don't bother ferreting if you don't)
I've been thinkin of doing some home brew modifications to my 4870 and
spending the bucks on a LS-4000 2nd hand for 35mm ... just to get the best of
both worlds.
I've been wondering some major hacking and about making up something
comparable to a flextight curved holder ... but I've been pondering the
ability to have machined parts made up by a mate with the right gear.
problem is that now I've got the time, the scanner is in a different part of
the world to me!
dratt!
Obakesan
>I'd add two other points:
>- Flatbeds don't have an autofocus mechanism (not that I know of; height-
> adjustable film holders do exist, though)
>- Flatbeds don't seem to read RGB and IR channels in the same pass; this
> contributes to the factor that Digital ICE doesn't work as well as in
> a dedicated film scanner
not to mention the different light source (I don't think they're using the
cathode to generate the IR)
certainly my 4870 ICE is hardly worth writing home about.
>
>
>Also, flatbeds have 2 more glass surfaces to keep clean. Of course,
>using the glass carrier of the Nikon or Minolta Multipro means you
>have four extra glass surfaces to keep clean!
wonder if the dust makes itself visible at those distances (out of the focal
range).
on another note, where should I be looking around for second hand scanning
gear here in Finland? Huuto has no automated notifications like eBay, and eBay
leaves me dealing with Germans and Pomms. The Germans seem to want to get
revenge for being ousted in WW2 with the postage rates, and the Pomms seem
reluctant to use anything except Royal Mail (which costs too much too)
David J. Littleboy
"Obakesan" <pellicl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> HiYa
>
> In article <1tudnWepN_MB95Ha...@giganews.com>, "David J.
> Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original
>
> dave, is this a comparison between a V750 and a Nikon?
As the fine print says, it's the 4870...
Obakesan
yeah ... moments after I posted, I scrolled down ... voila!
too late to withdraw the post :-)
I don't know how come I've missed this page before. If I see differences like
that on scans of 35mm negative (and why not?) with a Nikon 4000 then I might
defer buying anything more in the DSLR range and stick with just my 10D and my
film body. Unless you know where I can get a 5D for "go-man-en" ;-)
David J. Littleboy
"Obakesan" <pellicl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original
>
> like
> that on scans of 35mm negative (and why not?) with a Nikon 4000 then I
> might
> defer buying anything more in the DSLR range and stick with just my 10D
> and my
> film body. Unless you know where I can get a 5D for "go-man-en" ;-)
My take on the Nikon 8000 (the same technology as the 4000) is that by noise
reducing and downsampling (and sharpening) I can create files that are
roughly as clean and sharp and noise free as 5D files. (I should put up some
examples...)
The only question is: how far do I have to downsample?
I find that I can reliably get very nice files by NR and downsampling to
2200 ppi. From a 6x7 frame, this is 27 very tasty MP. More than twice the
5D. Killer 16x20 prints. But from 35mm it's barely 6MP. (I should put up
some examples...)
IMHO, it's conceiveably that one could do somewhat better.
But the 5D is essentially a 3000 ppi scan of 24x36mm at 5D quality.
I simply do not believe that one is going to get 3000 ppi 5D quality pixels
from scans of film.
Obakesan
In article <vb6dnVN3uY1YT9fa...@giganews.com>, "David J.
Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>My take on the Nikon 8000 (the same technology as the 4000) is that by noise
>reducing and downsampling (and sharpening) I can create files that are
>roughly as clean and sharp and noise free as 5D files. (I should put up some
>examples...)
really? which format? Surely not 35mm??
>I find that I can reliably get very nice files by NR and downsampling to
>2200 ppi. From a 6x7 frame, this is 27 very tasty MP. More than twice the
>5D.
ohh ... probably you mean from that one...
> But from 35mm it's barely 6MP. (I should put up
>some examples...)
well, if you have time, yes please :-) but don't break into schedules for it
>I simply do not believe that one is going to get 3000 ppi 5D quality pixels
>from scans of film.
me neither (I suspect that the 4000dpi scans downsampled to 2700 and compared
to the 5D might come close to a downsampled 5D image :-) But hey, I often eat
mashed potatoes and mince balls made at home too cos its cheaper
When I can justify spending the bucks on a 5D (or equivalent) I'll do it, but
(as you know) I juggle a few formats and that one ( [35mm|Digital] SLR) just
doesn't get used as much as my compact digital and my 4x5. Besides the
argument that a 1D might get as good a result as my 4x5 (for me) the money
spend isn't worth the gains.
anyway, we're getting into 'personal bias' territory, and that's all different
equations to maths
thanks for the update
Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
primarily geared towards the printing industry. I have seen some
interesting scanners go for fair prices:
http://www.printers2printers.com
Another possibility is this Norwegian site:
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bruktmarked/index.cgi
Obakesan
>Don't know about Finland, but this site is located in Denmark and is
>primarily geared towards the printing industry. I have seen some
>interesting scanners go for fair prices:
>http://www.printers2printers.com
>Another possibility is this Norwegian site:
>http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bruktmarked/index.cgi
>
thanks :-)