«

I need opinions/prices on a scanner that will scan negs/slides up to 4 x 5.
As high resolution as possible. What size prints could I get before they
look digital?

I'm curious about any besides a drum scanner, which I figure is out of my
price range.

thanks,
Matt A.

Epson 3200 flatbed.
See the review in www.photo-i.co.uk

Pros:
Produces almost endless resolution, limited by the
film grain,
Easy to use and has Silverfast software,
Has masks for 35mm, MF and 4x5,
Cheap (about 260UK pounds),
Reasonably fast.

Cons:
Struggles with underexposed transparencies as it
cannot dig detail from very dark areas,
Some results posted on this NG and elsewhere
indicate that there may be production problems
leading to variations in quality. The scanner probably
needs to be sited in a vibration free location to get
the best from it - I seem to have a good 'un.

I have produced 24x36 inch prints from 6x9
Provia 100 transparencies. The results are not
acceptable to my eyes but this is due film grain rather
than any nasties introduced digitally. 24x16 is OK.

At 4x5 the limitation is likely to be your computer.
A 2000ppi scan (the resolution limit for Provia 100)
will give a 240 mbyte file which will need some
processing!

Hope this helps,

Graham

"Matt Ashbrook" <> wrote in message
news:OwuEb.592956$Tr4.1564173@attbi_s03...
> I need opinions/prices on a scanner that will scan negs/slides up to 4 x
5.
> As high resolution as possible. What size prints could I get before they
> look digital?
>
> I'm curious about any besides a drum scanner, which I figure is out of my
> price range.
>
> thanks,
> Matt A.
>
>

"gsum" <> wrote:

>Epson 3200 flatbed.
>See the review in www.photo-i.co.uk
>
>Pros:
>Produces almost endless resolution, limited by the
>film grain,

>Snip

I think tests show that it only achieves about 1700 or 1800 dpi in
practice, due to limitations in the optics, lack of focus adjustment
and use of a diffuse light source. Still, this is the most cost
effective scanning solution for MF and LF users.

TH

Yes that might be correct but it is good enough to
clearly show grain in ISO 100 transparencies at
well below the claimed maximum optical resolution.

Graham


"Tony H" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "gsum" <> wrote:
>
> >Epson 3200 flatbed.
> >See the review in www.photo-i.co.uk
> >
> >Pros:
> >Produces almost endless resolution, limited by the
> >film grain,
>
> >Snip
>
> I think tests show that it only achieves about 1700 or 1800 dpi in
> practice, due to limitations in the optics, lack of focus adjustment
> and use of a diffuse light source. Still, this is the most cost
> effective scanning solution for MF and LF users.
>
> TH
>
>

"gsum" <> wrote in
news:3fe2b0e0$:

> Epson 3200 flatbed.
> See the review in www.photo-i.co.uk
>
> Pros:
> Produces almost endless resolution, limited by the
> film grain,
> Easy to use and has Silverfast software,
> Has masks for 35mm, MF and 4x5,
> Cheap (about 260UK pounds),
> Reasonably fast.

I'd be interested in hearing any recommendations for lower priced units.
(US$300 is OK, but under $200 preferred) It would be used primarily for
scanning 35mm slides for posting to websites, so high resolution isn't a
bid concern.

What does concern me is the software that comes with the scanner. It
would be used with a Mac, and many of the reviews I've seen for low end
units complain that the Mac versions of the software are garbage.

Graham

There've been some interesting comments about "grain aliasing" in the
"Film scanner" thread currently on this group which may be relevant to
your comment on ISO 100 grain.

The point is if you do a comparison of scans of the same slide or neg
from the Epson vs a 2700 dpi film scanner the difference is enormous.
There will be lots of detail visible on the 2700 film scanner that
just doesn't show on the Epson. Scans from the Epson will be OK for
small prints (say 7 x 5) or web use, which might be all that many
require. But if you want to extract as much info from your film as
possible for archiving purposes you currently need a film scanner. I'm
using a Canon FS2710 (2700 dpi) which I'm currently happy with, but
many are saying that the new 4000/5400 dpi film scanners give better
results, though I've not yet seen a direct comparison which proves the
point.

I also have an Epson 2450 (which has almost the same optical
performance as the 3200) which I use for MF scanning, and I find it
quite adequate for that. It will be interesting to see whether the
upcoming Epson 4870 gives a significant optical performance imrovement
over either the 2450 or 3200. Unless they've greatly improved the
optics and/or fitted autofocus I doubt that it will.

TonyH


"gsum" <> wrote:

>Yes that might be correct but it is good enough to
>clearly show grain in ISO 100 transparencies at
>well below the claimed maximum optical resolution.
>
>Graham
>
>
>"Tony H" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>> "gsum" <> wrote:
>>
>> >Epson 3200 flatbed.
>> >See the review in www.photo-i.co.uk
>> >
>> >Pros:
>> >Produces almost endless resolution, limited by the
>> >film grain,
>>
>> >Snip
>>
>> I think tests show that it only achieves about 1700 or 1800 dpi in
>> practice, due to limitations in the optics, lack of focus adjustment
>> and use of a diffuse light source. Still, this is the most cost
>> effective scanning solution for MF and LF users.
>>
>> TH
>>
>>
>
>