Hello Moose,
Whew, thanks for your generous answer...I am prompted to do scanning myself
bec i was surprised at the bad quality of a slide to print photo I got from
a local lab that used an IMACON brand scanner...I dont know why the image
that looked great in the slide looked poor ( low contrast, loss of
resolution, muddy tones ) so the prints were just as bad..
The photos were taken with the venerable 35 - 70 F3.6? plastic barreled
zuiko which has given me so many "nice" pics. I had used admittedly consumer
quality Fuji slide film...but still.......
Would you mind if I emailed you copies of the scan file ?
thanks
Titoy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 1:47 PM
Subject: [OM] Re: Scans
> Titoy wrote:
>
>>Sorry, would would be good examples of good 4000 dpi home film scanners?
>>
>>
>
> Discontinued, but still very capable if acquired used:
> Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED
> Canon FS4000US
> Polaroid Sprintscan 4000
>
> Current:
> Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED
>
> Konica Minolta didn't make a 4000 dpi scanner, but makes the:
> Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV - 3200 dpi
> Konica-Minolta 5400-II - 5400, replaces the plain Minolta 5400
>
> The Nikons and the 5400s have digital ICE and the Canon has FARE. These
> are hardware/software dust removal systems and far superior to any
> software alone dust removal. The hardware scans in the IR region, which
> identifies dust, many scratches, etc. for the software to remove. I
> don't remember if the Polaroid had IR dust removal.
>
> None of these scanners is without minor weaknesses, all are very
> capable. Issues I recall off hand are: Nikons have had issues with DOF
> with film that isn't pretty flat and with flare. The Canon is SCSI only,
> not a performance issue, but it requires a SCSI card, which may add to
> the cost. There is no support at all for the Polaroid. The Minolta 5400
> didn't seem to resolve any more detail than the 4000 dpi scanners. I
> don't know about the 5400 II.
>
> After extensive research, I concluded the Canon FS4000 was the best
> overall performer, purchased a used one, and believe I made the right
> choice. Others will have other opinions and experiences.
>
> You might also consider the high end flatbed scanners with film scanning
> capability. The Canon 9950F and Epson 4870 and 4490 come quite close to
> the resolution of a dedicated 4000 dpi film scanner. The reviews on
> photo-i are particularly useful <http://www.photo-i.co.uk/>.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|