Armando wrote:
> I notice that your posts are all so high leveled that I
> almost feel ashamed for such a beginner's question but
> ... here it goes.
Everyone has to start somewhere. :)
> First of all I was shown the Epson 1640 Photo (which is
> a flatbed and is said to scan 1600x3200dpi)
Only by interpolation. It's certainly *not* a true optical
1600x3200dpi.
> And I need at least 300 dpi final resolution ot the
> scanned image.
At what physical size? What area of page do you want
to cover? The Nikon scanner will give you roughly
8x10 (or A4) at its resolution of 2700dpi.
> And everybody seems to indicate the film scanner
> direction.
That's because film scanners are designed to scan
film. :)
> And I found the Nikon LS2000 (which will cost 6x
> the Epson) with a resolution of 2700dpi .
More important than being 2700dpi, the Nikon has a
much greater ability to read shadow data from a
slide than the Epson scanner. It also has software
to automatically remove dust and scratches (called
ICE). There are new Nikon scanners which are about
to be released which may be better than the existing
range. For the same price range as the LS2000 you
could also look at the 4000dpi Polaroid SS4000.
> There is also another Nikon that is less expensive
> and (of course) has less features.
I have one - it's called the LS30. Thanks to a third
party program called Vuescan, there's very little
difference between the LS30 and LS2000, Vuescan
is only US$40, and the LS30 is a lot cheaper than
the LS2000. Companies may sell their LS30 and LS2000
stock cheaply soon due to the arrival of new models.
> Is it worth it to spend my company's money on a
> filmscanner when Epson seems to have such a great
> solution (price and resolution wise)?
>As anybody tested the Epson 1640 Photo?
I think you would be disappointed with the sharpness
and shadow detail from the flatbed. They are fine for
scanning prints, but for scanning film, a film scanner
does a better job.
Rob
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
