Dylan, Mike and Zuiks;
I originally asked folks to reply privately because I remember this
discussion not long ago and didn't want to flood the list with [OT]
stuff. But there are others who want to know, as you've said. I've
learned a lot in the past 36 hours. I'll try to summarize.
First, let me state here that a lot of what I learned came from e-mails
from list members and from the site which Tobias pointed me to
yesterday. I don't have the URL here, it's at work. I *think* his msg
was to the list, if not I'll post the URL tomorrow as it is a fantastic
resource.
What to look for: color bit depth; resolution in ppi; DMax (density
dynamic range) and, of course, scan speed, but that is less a concern
for me so I won't address it. Gold standard: drum scanners used by
service bureaus are: 36 bits; 4000 x 4000 ppi; 4.0 DMax
Color depth is the number of bits available to describe a color in RGB
space. The more bits, the more colors in the palette and the closer to
the original will be the scan.
Pixels per inch is like film grain and again the bigger the number the
better. If you want to get a large (16x20 or better?) print from your
slide, you need the highest ppi you can get. To put things in
perspective though, if Kodachrome 25 resolves 100 lpmillimeter and your
lens can too, that's 25,400 ppi. So at 4000, you still aren't seeing
everything the film has to offer.
DMax is the density range the scanner can reproduce, with 0 being white
and 4.0 being black. Obviously you want to get 4.0 or close to it.
Else, the shadows will 'block-up' and lose detail. This is the major
complaint I hear about the Minoltas.
Some scanner comparisons: prices from B&H
Low end:
Canon 2700: This is what was recommended to me at the pro store as the
best low end scanner. But it's almost twice the price of the ES-10. I
think the numbers were 30 bits, 2700 x 2700 and 3.2 $679.00
Minolta Dimage: Anecdotal evidence is divided, some like it a lot, many
don't (including my salesman.) One list member who replied to my query
said he had one for a short time and got rid of it because of very poor
shadow detail. Moved to Minolta Speed Scan and not much improvement. He
settled on one of the high-end ones below. Numbers: 30 bits; 2400 x
2400; 3.0 (which is responsible for the poor shadow detail.) $439.00
Olympus ES-10S: This is the SCSI version of the ES-10. Much faster than
parallel port version. Some say it's to be avoided because it's numbers
aren't as good as others. But a salesman I talked to at a pro camera
shop who sells the Minolta Dimage but does not carry the Olympus,
actually recommended the Olympus!!? And Tobias' site recommends it as
well, saying that it's shadow detail exceeds that of many of the more
expensive scanners and that it's optics are very sharp "as they should
be with the Olympus name on the front'. With the lowest price and
decent performance, this would probably be my choice for a low-end
scanner. But I wouldn't expect any big prints out of it's scans.
Numbers: 30 bits, 1700 x 1700 and 3.2 (as per salesman, haven't seen 3.2
in print.) $379.00
High end:
There seem to be 2 choices here: Nikon and Polaroid.
Nikon Coolscan LS200: Numbers: 36 bits; 2800 x 2800; 3.6 This is a
great scanner by the numbers and the reviews AND experience from the
list nenber who ditched the Minoltas. He loves this one. It's DMax of
3.6 is the highest of any scanner which costs less than a car. And Nikon
claims it can squeeze even more out with multiple scans. The 2800
resolution, while better than most, would still be a problem if you want
to make big prints, as I do. The LS2000 has a great feature that no one
else has: ICE they call it. It's an infrared system which automatically
removes dust and scratches from the scan! And it apparently actually
works quite well. The example I saw was impressive, but the cleaned up
one was definitely less sharp - that's the trade-off. $1459 after
rebate
Polaroid Sprintscan 4000: Numbers: 36 bits; 4000 x 4000; 3.4 This one
comes closest to the gold standard. Same resolution, which means print
size could be the same as from the drum scanner. That's my highest
priority. The DMax is lower than the Nikon and since the scale is
logarithmic, there's a big difference between 3.4 and 3.6 But loss of
some shadow detail is part of the game for a Cibachrome printer ! So, I
can live with this easier than the lower resolution. It lacks the H/W
dust removal system of the Nikon, but it has a S/W version which works
almost as well, according to reviews, which also say the Polaroid is
less susceptible to dust anyway, due to the different light sources
used. For what I want, all the reviews and all the "experts" I spoke to
say this is the way to go. $1500 after rebate.
A PS for those interested in scanning medium format as well as 35mm:
There are a few scanners which do both. An example is the Minolta
Dimage Scan Multi $? But they all have less resolution when scanning
120 film. The Minolta is 2800 for 35mm and 1100 for 120.
A PPS for those looking to scan up to 4x5: Both Nikon and Polaroid sell
scanners that'll do this. Again, resolution down as size up. Nikon ?$
Polaroid $6999.
George
Dylan Sutton wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 10/19/1999 "george" <geanders@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Can folks in-the-know contact me offline with suggestions? Price is
> > definitely a concern, so best bang-for-the-buck is what I'd be looking
> > for. >>
> >
> > Please cc me on any slide/film scanner advice you all may have for
> > George too.
>
> Dare I say, "me too"? Perhaps this should just be had out on the list, as I
> doubt there are only three of us interested in a new scanner...
> Dylan
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|