Happy of having been of help, Earl
Choosing a good scanner for You involves deciding what You need.
If You don't need to scan medium/large format, in my opinion You don't
need a larger format scanner.
The most Important thing to look for in a Scanner (and the most often
overlooked) is the REAL Dmax of the CCD sensor.
For real, I mean NOT the Dmax declared from the builder.
To make an example, about two Years ago I bought a Minolta Dimage Elite
5400.
The Dmax declared was 4.8 (!)
In fact, this quantity is purely theorical, and is related to the bit
output of the Analog/Digital converter.
The CCD captures the data in an continuous manner, further converted
from the A/D converter to discrete quantities.
A 16 bit A/D converter, working on the three RGB Channels could in
Theory reach 4.8 Dmax.
In fact, is very rare to see a CCD go over about a real 3.2, be it
medium or small format, and this does'nt give indications regarding
noise, that depends from the quality of the CCD itself....
Yes, You could buy a Cezanne or a Creo scanner, but better save the
money for a car....
Drum Scanners are another world, they rely on Photomultiplicators that
are much more efficent than even the best CCD.
To the best of my knowledge, the highest Dmax film, Fuji Velvia 50,
reaches about 3.9 in pure black.
This means, with the overmentioned sensor, and a contrasted slide You
are going to loose detail in the shadows, or to burn the Highlights.
No Way.
OTH If You principally scan color or BW negative, whose Dmax rarely
exceeds 2.8, the scanner will perfectly serve Your purpose.
I will not enter the problem of sharpness, let only say that too most
often the culprit is the poorly flat slide...
After all, this is what photography is: to take the tonal range You see
in the real world the best You can, I mean searching the best
compromise the scene and Your interpretation allow You to afford, and
compress it to suit the tonal range of the print, that normally is
about 2.3 stops.
To the best of my knowledge of course, and I could be wrong, I'm still
learning... 8-)
Regarding resolution, 4000 DPI are more than enough for all the slides
in commerce, this equals an enlargment of little more than 13X on a 300
DPI print.
If You scan fine-grained B/W film, especially the T-grain ones, You may
end wanting for more.
Having had the Minolta 5400, I can say it has a bad tendence to
severely crop the highlights and manifested very, very high noise in
the shadows, the same applies to the new model.
I would end this long (please excuse me!) and hope not so esoteric post
with a consideration.
To the best of my knowledge, all the CCD and CMOS of the current crop
of DSLR, have a 12 bit A/D converter, with the sole exception of the
Kodak sensor of the E-1, that reaches a respectable 14bit.
I believe that is due to this advantage that You often hear high
praises for the Film-like dinamic range of the E-1 images...
I have even heard it described as better than that of the Fuji S2,
that should have the best in class!
Dinamic range of film, even positive film, which should be equal, is
different: the sensor captures light in a linear manner, that is, that
when a photosite is full, it is full, and this gives an explanation for
those pure white highlights You often see on digital images.
Film, is different, if You look at the density curve, You will see how
its steepness will gradually lowen toward the end of the range, this
allow film to compress highlights ( and the same applies to shadows)
this giving a more natural image.
Of course there are ways in post-treatment of digital, better if during
RAW conversion, to get, to some extent, rid of this.
The current trend, is to consider only sharpness, take a look on
DPReview, sharpness, sharpness, blah blah...
They are only now discovering things like Dynamic range, and trying to
establish a measurement.
This reminds me of an old say: when a finger points to the sky, the
stupid looks at the finger.
There are so many variables that make an image really great, that in my
opinion, talking of superiority of digital VS film or vice-versa simply
is a non-sense.
They just are different forms of expression.
Last week having been at small photo-market in Biel, in Switzerland, on
the way back to home I took the chanche to stop in Lausanne to visit
the museum of photography.
There was an exhibition of some new photographers.
Almost all the works, were shoot in digital, and the prints were huge,
I mean 40X60 inches and more.
Colors oversaturated, strong dominants and so on.
After 4 rooms, I reached an exhibition of work, clearly shoot in MF and
printed traditionally to about 12X12 or little more.
Please, believe me, it was like taking a breath of fresh air...
Please excuse both my disgression and the english I used to write it.
Alfredo
On Aug 20, 2005, at 10:23 PM, Earl Dunbar wrote:
>
> Thanks, Alfredo. Looks like the pricing is/was out of whack for the
> functionality. All these reviews of flatbed scanners tell me that (for
> me) the ultimate quality is from a 35mm film scanner, and a
> medium/large
> format scanner for larger sizes.
>
> Earl
>
> alfredo pagliano wrote:
>
>> You may want to check this review, not so enthusiastic, though
>>
>> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Epson_F3200/page
>> -1.htm
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2005, at 1:38 PM, Earl Dunbar wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I like the samples from the Epson F-3200 model, but a google search
>>> (and
>>> the US and CDN Epson websites) indicates it's not available in North
>>> American. Can anyone confirm this? Any of our list members in other
>>> parts of the world have experience with this one? I don't recall it
>>> being discussed here.
>>>
>>> Earl
>>>
>>> Rob Harrison wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Leica Fotographie International has been doing a superb scanner
>>>> comparo over
>>>> the last few issues. Here¹s a link to actual scans from all the
>>>> current
>>>> faves:
>>>> <http://www.lfi-online.com/ceemes/show.php?lfi_scanner_thumbs_en>
>>>>
>>>> Rob in Seattle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
___________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo
http://it.beta.messenger.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|